U.S. & World

Judge to mull if airlines owe WTC owners over 9/11


Return To Article
  • J-TX Allen, TX
    July 15, 2013 7:54 a.m.


  • Ozcow Castro valley, CA
    July 15, 2013 6:13 a.m.

    Lets find out if there was a conspiracy to defraud their insurance. Let the families who suffer get the proceeds.

  • MrTuscadero Houston, TX
    July 14, 2013 11:02 a.m.

    The persons and entities who ought to be sued are public entities. Anyone responsible for approving the visas of these Al-Quaeda operatives to be in the country in the first place should be taken to the cleaners. The U.S. govenment had known that Al Quaeda was a problem since the bombing of the Cole, and also knew form experience that Isalmic terrorists wanted to destroy the WTC. The majority of the 911 hijackers not only had real U.S. driver's licenses, but also voter registration cards. This trail leads right back to the Congress for its lax laws, the Executive Branch for not enforcing them, and the Judiciary for bending the laws to pander to immigrants. But since the government will simply borrow another couple of trillion on the taxpayer's credit to pay any awarded damages, we still lose even if we win, unless these men and women are required to pony up out of their own pockets.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    July 14, 2013 7:14 a.m.

    While I'm generally a critic of the airline industry, my criticism is for things having nothing to do with 9-11. It is plainly unreasonable to hold the airlines responsible for not anticipating something that had never happened before and that no reasonable person would have thought might happen. The only way that the airline industry could protect us completely against any and all forms of terrorism would be to require every passenger to fly naked after undergoing full-body x-rays, locking each passenger in a separate compartment during flight, and to eliminate both carry-on and checked baggage.

    If the owners of the WTC wanted to be able to upgrade and improve their buildings after any sort of disaster, they should have purchased insurance that would include those provisions, rather than expecting their fellow victims to pick up the cost. If someone crashes a car into my house and demolishes it, no court is going to order him to pay the cost of upgrading my middle-class home into a mansion with an anti-car security wall above and beyond what my insurance policy will pay.