# 9/11 Suits **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 9, 2003, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-suits/200611 "2003-09-09T21:29:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-suits/200611/21 "2003-09-10T13:59:16Z")
From [this](http://biz.yahoo.com/law/030910/bf2d869dfdae085a713a1740c507a430_1.html) article: > [@](#): > > The plaintiffs had claimed negligent design and construction of the World Trade Center, a failure to inspect and repair unsafe conditions, inadequate evacuation and emergency management plans, and failure to enforce existing safety codes. I’m wondering if the PA could then counter for a person who was on a floor that was actually hit by the first plane and say “There’s no amount of planning, making safe conditions, etc. that would have prevented your loved one’s death. He was hit by an airplane!” Could that exempt them from liability in at least those cases? Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-suits/200611/22 "2003-09-10T17:29:42Z")
> [@](#): > > The hijackings were not an unforeseeable act Yeah? How many people predicted that terrorists would hijack the planes and crash 'em into buildings? Until that point, the airline industry had every reason to instruct their flight crews to acquiesce to terrorist demands. > [@](#): > > Second, the Federal Aviation Regulations make it very clear that the pilot(s) (and, in legal cases, the owner of an airline) is entirely fiscally liable for damage caused by an accident, even if the accident is out of his/her/their control. There was nothing accidental about the 9/11 hijacks. The people that ARE liable are dead. Sue THEIR estate. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-suits/200611/23 "2003-09-10T17:34:34Z")
Can we sue the Bin Ladeen family? After all, they supported this crazed idiot, and failed to turn him in to the authorities! I say, place liens on all Bin-Ladeen-owned properies…there that oughta serve em! ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-suits/200611/24 "2003-09-10T17:46:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ralph124c \* > \*\*Can we sue the Bin Ladeen family? \*\* As a matter of fact, anyone who takes money from the Federal Compensation Boards waives their rights to sue anyone – except the terrorists. They’re still legitimate targets (assuming you can find their assets in the US). Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-suits/200611/25 "2003-09-10T17:49:10Z")
I wonder what is truly going on in the minds of the potential plaintiffs? They lost loved ones due to no fault of their own. Their worlds were permanently changed for the worse _(assuming the deceased was not an alcoholic, wife beating pederast…)_ They are offered what - approx $1.5 million by the fed gov’t. How much more do they think they should receive? Exactly who do they think should pay? Do they think they DESERVE more. or do they simply think they can GET more? Do they think a lawsuit will result in any beneficial improvements in airline/building safety? I cannot predict how I would act if my spouse were a 9/11 casualty. But I hope that I would accept the federal settlement and move on with my life. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-suits/200611/26 "2003-09-10T18:05:12Z")
I thought someone was suing the Bin Laden family. ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-suits/200611/27 "2003-09-10T18:24:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SPOOFE \* > **They’re suing the Port Authority because… what, they didn’t make their buildings utterly invincible? Find a code violation, and then we’ll talk.** According to my sources (a History Channel documentary) The WTC was plane proof. The biggest plane flying when the WTC was designed was a 707. Suing someone for not having the physchic powers to forsee future planes designs looks to be the only option here :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-suits/200611/28 "2003-09-10T18:43:48Z")
I’ll also add that the 707 was one of the biggest commercial planes at the time. The designers were assuming that it would be a plane lost in fog or something, and since it would be on final approach, fly at a much slower speed. (175 mph IIRC) The 9/11 planes hit at 400 mph and 500 mph. ---
**Author:** ![av8rmike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/edb3f5/32.png) [@av8rmike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/av8rmike)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-suits/200611/29 "2003-09-10T19:33:20Z")
Also, as I recall from either the same documentary or a similar one, the buildings were only designed not to completely topple over from just the impact of the planes. This the buildings did, and withstood the tremendous heat of tons of burning jet fuel, for an hour or so, anyway. That the buildings didn’t fall over immediately after the crashes indicates to me that there is no code violation, and the structure performed better than design. To put a finer point on it: If I light your house on fire and the roof collapses because everything under it has turned to ash, does that mean the roof wasn’t up to code? ---
**Author:** ![5-HT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/5/f19dbf/32.png) [@5-HT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/5-HT)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-suits/200611/30 "2003-09-10T20:01:00Z")
I have to admit I was a little disappointed that this thread wasn’t decrying the tackiness of some horrible red, white and blue suit coat with the words NEVAR FORGITT!!!11 airbrushed on the back. This is much more depressing. ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Beaker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/46a35a/32.png) [@Grim\_Beaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Beaker)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-suits/200611/31 "2003-09-10T23:07:55Z")
I’m just shocked that no one is in here defending this lunacy. Lunatics I can accept. Defense of lunatics is intolerable. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-suits/200611/32 "2003-09-10T23:19:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SPOOFE \* > \*\*Yeah? How many people predicted that terrorists would hijack the planes and crash 'em into buildings? Until that point, the airline industry had every reason to instruct their flight crews to acquiesce to terrorist demands. > \*\* Yeah. Regardless of the subsequent actions of the hijackers, people were arguing for better cockpit security long before 9/11. [Here’s a guy](http://cf.alpa.org/internet/tm/tm072502.html) who claims his organization was lobbying for strengthened cockpit doors _40 years ago_. I agree with you that the airlines and the aircraft manufacturers almost certainly ought to be held not liable in this instance. But it still sounds like a factual question for a jury to me. Or at the very least an issue for summary judgement at trial (a judge might reasonably conclude that the NTSB’s “recommendation” that keys be available in the cabin carried the force of law necessary to eliminate liability in this instance). But I don’t see where stopping a suit before it ever starts furthers the interest of justice here. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-suits/200611/33 "2003-09-10T23:21:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by av8rmike \* > **That the buildings didn’t fall over immediately after the crashes indicates to me that there is no code violation, and the structure performed better than design.** Again, a perfectly reasonable and correct conclusion of fact for a jury to make. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 9:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-suits/200611/34 "2003-09-11T09:39:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mhendo \* > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by World Eater_ > > The pilot’s estate is sued? Wow. > > Can you imagine being the family? > > Your loved one has just died, possibly (nay, probably) due to a situation entirely beyond his or her control, and suddenly you find yourself fighting bankruptcy because the estate is being sued. > > That’s some seriously fucked-up shit. Yes and no. With supposedly 70% of airplane accidents due either partly or entirely to pilot error there is _some_ basis for this position in ordinary life. A pilot does, in fact, have a great deal of control over what happens during a flight. On the other hand, “pilot error” is defined much more broadly than people would think. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mhendo \* > Broomstick, do you have any links where we can read about this happening, or the rules governing pilot liability? I will try. However, due to storm damage my curent Internet connection is not only slow but very unreliable so for the next week or so my appearance at these boards will be very hit-or-miss. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zev Steinhardt \* > Are the pilots’ estates actually being sued in _these_ cases? Not to my knowledge. The airlines are being sued, but not the _legitimate_ pilots. I haven’t heard that the familes of the _hijacking_ pilots are being sued, either. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 10:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-suits/200611/35 "2003-09-11T10:07:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Broomstick \* > **Yes and no. With supposedly 70% of airplane accidents due either partly or entirely to pilot error there is _some_ basis for this position in ordinary life. A pilot does, in fact, have a great deal of control over what happens during a flight. On the other hand, “pilot error” is defined much more broadly than people would think.** Does this 70% figure include all accidents, including light aircraft? Are there different figures for light aircraft and large commercial jets? I never really doubted that the pilot could be at fault; i was more dismayed at the trauma this would put the pilot’s surving family though. And really, in the case of commercial flights, it seems to me that the only real outsome of such a suit would be to ruin the pilot’s family. I mean, say you have 100 people on a flight; even if the pilot’s estate is worth a million bucks, that’s only 10 grand per family–hardly enough to compensate for the loss in any real way. I’m not saying the suits are without legal merit–i would just feel really sorry for the family. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-suits/200611/36 "2003-09-11T10:26:03Z")
The regulation that is the basis for at least some lawsuits is FAR 91.3(a), which states: > [@](#): > > The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft This is usually the basis for saying that whatever happens is the pilot’s fault. As mentioned, I’m having some difficulty (it’s taking me 3-4 tries to get anything to post and I’m getting dropped off my connection a lot) but let’s see about examples: First of all, the time I made an emergency landing in a field due to weather part of the clean up was making sure the landowner didn’t want compensation for damage to his field. As he had harvested the crop two days before this wasn’t much of an issue, more a formality. I’m having trouble with a Google search, however, I’ll try to give you enough information to do your own search. In 1996 a Gulfstream business jet rolled over on take-off. It became an everybody-sue-everybody-else situation [http://www.ainonline.com/issues/05\_01/may\_2001\_21millionpg52.html](http://www.ainonline.com/issues/05_01/may_2001_21millionpg52.html) [http://www.lpba.org/regfeat.htm](http://www.lpba.org/regfeat.htm) Although the families of the pilots received some compensation, it was reduced because of their responsibility in the accident. (Personally, I think the pilots were wholly responsible, and not the airport. Although I was not present the day of the accident, at the time I was based at that airport. The wind was strong enough that the weather instruments were blown off the top of the control tower - which indicates, to my mind, it may be too brisk for flying. But, despite the tower repeatedly advising against take off the pilots kept insisting they could handle it. They couldn’t.) This was a slightly more recent accident, involving a mid-air between a local radio personality Bob Collins and a student pilot Sharon Hock [http://www.thetracon.com/news/times050601.htm](http://www.thetracon.com/news/times050601.htm) This one explicitly states Collin’s widow filed a lawsuit against the estate of Hock, as well as Hock’s father filing a lawsuit against the estate of Collins: [http://www.thetracon.com/news/trib061300b.htm](http://www.thetracon.com/news/trib061300b.htm) As for the 70% I quoted - that’s generally given for ALL accidents. In the famous (in aviation circles, at least) “Gimli Glider” case the error in fueling that lead to a jet running out of gas at cruising altitude was made by Air Canada line personnel, but the pilots were still held responsible - to the point of having their licenses suspended and discussion of criminal charges against them. Nevermind that their actions lead to a safe landing with no one hurt and only very minor damage to the jet. And pilot error may be blamed even in a case of mechanical failure. Flight 587 that crashed in New York City after the rudder fell off has been blamed, in part or in whole (depending on who you listen to) on the _pilots_ - the rationale being that they applied the rudder controls too forcefully after being caught in another plane’s wake turbulence. You are correct that such verdicts can financially ruin a pilot’s family. That’s true even of small airplanes and their crashes. Even if the pilot IS wholly at fault (and that does happen) I’m not sure how deprieving their relatives of an inheritance is supposed to help the situation - the _relatives_ certainly didn’t cause the crash. I think it really does stem from the “well, _somebody_ has to be punished/pay for this” attitude of our society. ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-suits/200611/37 "2003-09-11T14:55:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SPOOFE \* > \*\* What possible blame could Boeing have? Because they didn’t install anti-hijack devices in their planes? > > \*\* Hmmm. Pilots know they can instantly press in a code that lets control know they are being hijacked. 4 of them didn’;t. Coincidence. Also, Control on the ground can take control of aircraft that have obviously been hijacked. They didn’t. Planes could have instantly been sent up to intercept them. They weren’t. More coincidences. Methinks the filers of the lawsuits forget the airplanes, go after the government, who are the ones responsible for allowing this to happen. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-suits/200611/38 "2003-09-11T15:47:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by vanilla \* > \*\*Also, Control on the ground can take control of aircraft that have obviously been hijacked. They didn’t. > \*\* I wasn’t aware this could be done, and if so, that’s an even better way to hijack a plane. A huge remote control flying bomb. ---
**Author:** ![av8rmike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/edb3f5/32.png) [@av8rmike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/av8rmike)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-suits/200611/39 "2003-09-11T15:52:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by vanilla \* > **Hmmm. Pilots know they can instantly press in a code that lets control know they are being hijacked.** Hmm… to quote **NurseCarmen** in a GQ thread, conspiracy theory much? What you’re referring to here is a pilot changing the transponder code from the ATC-assigned number to 7500. There is no indication that the pilots had any time to do that; the terrorists simply entered the cockpit and killed them, none of this “take this plane to Cuba” stuff. > [@](#): > > **Also, Control on the ground can take control of aircraft that have obviously been hijacked. They didn’t.** To my knowledge, there is no such system installed on all commercial airliners. Please provide a cite. > [@](#): > > **Planes could have instantly been sent up to intercept them. > They weren’t.** Umm… they _were_ sent to intercept Flight 93 before it crashed in PA. Prior to 9/11, F-16s weren’t kept fueled on the runway waiting to go, and they still can’t get anywhere “instantly.” And prior to that day, rules of engagement prohibited shooting down civilian planes. > [@](#): > > \*\*Methinks the filers of the lawsuits forget the airplanes, go after the government, who are the ones responsible for allowing this to happen. \*\* And since this is The Pit, methinks you should get a fucking clue and stop spreading this conspiracy horseshit here. Everything has been brought up before and thoroughly debunked, you’re not contributing anything new. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-suits/200611/40 "2003-09-11T18:48:33Z")
Thanks for the links, **Broomstick**. There’s some great info there. I managed to find a couple of articles about the Gimli Glider–what a fascinating story. I’d never heard of it before, but then again in 1983 i was 14 and living in Australia. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-suits/200611.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-suits/200611.md?page=3)