American and United Airlines and others sued alleging their negligence allowed the deadly hijackings

[Larry Dighera]

This ought to be interesting:


On the day before the third anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks
on the U.S., insurers for some World Trade Center buildings
sued American and United Airlines and others, alleging their
negligence allowed the deadly hijackings. The suit, which was
filed by London's QBE International Insurance and certain
underwriters at Lloyd's of London, seeks over $300 million from
each of the two airlines and various amounts from other
defendants. The insurers want to recover monies they paid out
for property damage and other losses caused to World Trade
Center buildings 1, 2, 4 and 5 as well as nearby structures.
The case is among a number of Sept. 11 related suits filed
recently to meet the three-year statute of limitations deadline
on Saturday. Among defendants in the case are the airlines'
parents AMR CORP. and UAL CORP. United said it does not comment
on pending litigation. American did not have an immediate
comment. For a list of other defendants, click the "More..."
link.
(Reuters 03:57 PM ET 09/10/2004)

More:

http://q1.schwab.com/s/r?l=248&a=1000942&m=1006241422e1805012655a&s=rb040910

----------------------------------------------------------------

[Michelle P]

What a crock of SH**! The airlines are not responsible for security, the
US Government is, Sue them. The airlines have never made the rules
either. Blame the government.
Michelle

Larry Dighera wrote:

>This ought to be interesting:
>
>
> On the day before the third anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks
> on the U.S., insurers for some World Trade Center buildings
> sued American and United Airlines and others, alleging their
> negligence allowed the deadly hijackings. The suit, which was
> filed by London's QBE International Insurance and certain
> underwriters at Lloyd's of London, seeks over $300 million from
> each of the two airlines and various amounts from other
> defendants. The insurers want to recover monies they paid out
> for property damage and other losses caused to World Trade
> Center buildings 1, 2, 4 and 5 as well as nearby structures.
> The case is among a number of Sept. 11 related suits filed
> recently to meet the three-year statute of limitations deadline
> on Saturday. Among defendants in the case are the airlines'
> parents AMR CORP. and UAL CORP. United said it does not comment
> on pending litigation. American did not have an immediate
> comment. For a list of other defendants, click the "More..."
> link.
> (Reuters 03:57 PM ET 09/10/2004)
>
> More:
>
>http://q1.schwab.com/s/r?l=248&a=1000942&m=1006241422e1805012655a&s=rb040910
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>

--

Michelle P ATP-ASEL, CP-AMEL, and AMT-A&P

"Elisabeth" a Maule M-7-235B (no two are alike)

Volunteer Pilot, Angel Flight Mid-Atlantic

Volunteer Builder, Habitat for Humanity

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 14:53:47 GMT, Michelle P
> wrote in
>::

>The airlines are not responsible for security, the
>US Government is, Sue them.

Well, the government (you and I) has already given the airlines a
substantial subsidy for their revenue losses subsequent to 9/11. Now
the insurance companies are looking for a scapegoat.

Look for suits against aircraft manufacturer Boeing as well:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&th=56872be3d92e3608&rnum=52

[john smith]

Not exactly.
The airlines hired the companies that provided the bodies that manned
the security checkpoints.
Also, the airlines had some discression (as they still do now) as to how
strictly to follow the federal guidelines. (Now, they add their own
items to the feds list.)

Michelle P wrote:
> What a crock of SH**! The airlines are not responsible for security, the
> US Government is, Sue them. The airlines have never made the rules
> either. Blame the government.
> Michelle

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 14:53:47 GMT, Michelle P
> > wrote in
> >::
>
> >The airlines are not responsible for security, the
> >US Government is, Sue them.
>
> Well, the government (you and I) has already given the airlines a
> substantial subsidy for their revenue losses subsequent to 9/11. Now
> the insurance companies are looking for a scapegoat.


The airlines also had policies of acquiesense to hijackers, as opposed
to policies of resistance. They still oppose arming of cockpit crews. I
would think that these policies are the chink in their armor against
these lawsuits.

[Michael]

Michelle P > wrote
> What a crock of SH**! The airlines are not responsible for security, the
> US Government is, Sue them. The airlines have never made the rules
> either. Blame the government.

This is about the ONLY credible argument I have heard in favor of not
holding the airlines liable for the 9/11 incidents - they were
micromanaged by the FAA to the point where they could no longer
develop effective security procedures. Nevertheless, I still don't
buy it.

Airplanes are commercial equipment but are also potentially dangerous,
and they are dangerous in direct proportion to weight and useful load,
and in quadratic proportion to speed. They can cause damage by
impact, where energy of impact is half the mass multiplied by the
square of the velocity. They can also deliver explosive or incendiary
payloads, thus the useful load hazard.

It it well accepted in civil law that those who own and operate
commercial equipment that is potentially dangerous have an obligation
to take reasonable steps to secure that equipment in proportion to the
hazard posed. Drawing on my own professional experience, consider a
chemical plant. Chemical plants are dangerous, primarily to those who
work in them but also to those who just happen to be in the
neighborhood. A knowledgeable terrorist in posession of just a few
pounds of dynamite and a few blasting caps could cause explosions and
toxic chemical releases that would kill hundreds or thousands. These
things have happened before by accident.

So why are chemical plants not seen as potential terrorist targets?
Well, they certainly are. Why don't we shut them down? We need them
- they produce everything from mouthwash to gasoline, and shutting
them down would cripple the economy. So how do we handle the risk?
Well, in two ways - direct regulation and market forces (via the tort
process).

Direct regulation is OSHA (to which airliners are not subject - IMO a
bad mistake) and other regulatory bodies that set safety
standards. However, if an accident occurs and all you show is that
you did the minimum required to comply with regulation, that doesn't
protect you from civil liability. You must also show that you did
everything reasonable to prevent the accidents. I find it highly
unlikely that widespread terrorist attacks against chemical plants are
in the cards. The operators of these plant are already taking most
reasonable measures to prevent accidents, and that includes adequate
security to keep people who don't belong out of the plants. The
larger and more hazardous the plants, the greater the care taken.

Security at a chemical plant is NOT a joke - it's serious. Getting in
without proper identification and a reason for being there most likely
won't happen, and you won't be bringing much of anything with you.
These are hardened targets, and thus not at all attractive to a
terrorist.

The driving force is risk management - insurance. Some plants carry
insurance, others (generally owned by the very largest conglomerates)
are self-insured, but in either case there are professional risk
managers reviewing the operation, including security, with an eye
towards reducing the probability of an accident.

The FAA and the Airlines maintained the "play-along" posture with
regard
to our procedural response to high-jackers far beyond the time when it
was appropriate relative to the known threat. There never was
justification for a cockpit crew member of a two-person crew to leave
a
duty station to go back to the cabin, in-flight, to help sort out a
problem.

No passenger should ever have gained access to the cabin of an
airliner
while in possession of anything which could reasonably be used as a
deadly weapon. We had adequate warning of the disastrous potential
from
previous fatal incidents.

There is no doubt in my mind that reasonable steps
were NOT being taken to protect the general public. The only question
is WHY? You seem to want to pin the blame on the FAA, and if it's
really true that the airlines tried to do it the right way and the FAA
would simply not allow it (I don't dispute that this could be, but
that's not how it looks) then the liability rests strictly with the
FAA. However, to the extent the airline management was complicit with
this non-security, the blame rests there as well.

Prohibited weapons were almost routinely
carried through our so-called security screening points prior to, and
even after, 9/11, according to the Government's own tests.

Airline security was always a bad joke. That
shows bad faith - it shows that the airlines knew their commercial
equipment was NOT being secured, and were ignoring it. Who ran the
security process? Hint - the security was not made a government
function until AFTER 9/11.

Perhaps the
Insurance companies will ultimately help solve comparable future
problems and protect their investors by helping to establish realistic
standards of security for those industries in which they have
considerable exposure.

Given that this is what has happened in every other industry I can
think of, I am at a loss to explain why this has not happened in the
airline industry. That's about the only reason I am willing to
believe that government (FAA) interference might preclude effective
security.

Michael

[Jim Carter]

Well, duh!! If Boeing hadn't built those things so well, they would've
broken up on impact and not hurt the buildings, and the falling debris would
have been so small as to no injure any ground-pounder, and if they were
slower we could have knocked them down with rocks, and if....

As someone else wrote.. what a load of crap.

--
Jim Carter
"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> >
> Look for suits against aircraft manufacturer Boeing as well:
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&th=56872be3d92e3608&rnum=52

[Dan Luke]

"Michael" wrote:
> I find it highly
> unlikely that widespread terrorist attacks against chemical plants are
> in the cards. The operators of these plant are already taking most
> reasonable measures to prevent accidents, and that includes adequate
> security to keep people who don't belong out of the plants. The
> larger and more hazardous the plants, the greater the care taken.

Man, you and I hve *definitely* been frequenting different chemical
plants. Two of our industrial customers keep scads of truly nasty
chemicals on their sites. Their security consists of rent-a-cops
checking id's, handing out passes and raising gates you could knock down
with a Honda Civic. A terrorist driving a bomb truck could roar through
the gates of one of these places and detonate it next to a tank of
enough evil stuff to create another Bhopal in south Alabama. I'll bet
many more such circumstances exist along the Houston ship channel. Why
Al Qaeda hasn't taken advantage of this is a mystery to me, but then why
they haven't attempted any attack at all in three years is mysterious.

> Security at a chemical plant is NOT a joke - it's serious. Getting in
> without proper identification and a reason for being there most likely
> won't happen, and you won't be bringing much of anything with you.

That's assuming you're polite enough to stop and get your cute badge and
wait for your escort, not just bust in driving a 2 1/2 ton truck full of
a fertilizer bomb. At a plant in Mississippi which I shall not name,
there is a narrow maze of concrete barriers at each entrance road,
built, one assumes, on the theory that terrorists would never simply
break through the adjacent chain link fences and drive in off-road.

> The driving force is risk management - insurance. Some plants carry
> insurance, others (generally owned by the very largest conglomerates)
> are self-insured, but in either case there are professional risk
> managers reviewing the operation, including security, with an eye
> towards reducing the probability of an accident.

They're worried about their employees screwing up or a visitor wandering
around and getting hurt. They know they have no hope of stopping a
determined terrorist attack without turning their plants into nuke
plant-like fortresses, which I've seen no sign they are willing to do.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Darkwing Duck \(Infidel\)]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> This ought to be interesting:
>
<SNIP>


Suing is always the answer to all of life's problems.

---------------------------------------------------------
The Duck

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:52:40 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

I'm assuming that Michael been having a bad week. He's been bickering
with Honeck about how a nice paint job means that an airplane is a
piece of crap, now it appears that he feels that there is some merit
in the suit discussed in this thread.

It's his opinion, and he is entitled to it.

My opinion is slightly different.

Despite what any practicing attorney will tell you, suits of this type
serve one basic purpose-they generate income for attorneys. If you
(collective you, nothing personal) think ANY "legal team" gives a
flying pock about anyone's pain-and-suffering, there is a fundamental
difference in our opinions that will never be bridged.

I've been hanging around airports most of my life. It sounds like you
(personal you this time) have been around a couple chemical plants.

If we could be somehow transformed into the mindset that the 9-11
terrorists were in, I doubt if any private company or government
agency could stop us from causing chaos, terror, and death.

Israel has been trying to do so for years. I'm sure they've had some
successes, but reading the newspaper, it seems like they've had some
failures also.

I'm curious-in Israel, if a bus gets blown up by a suicide bomber,
does the bus line and the manufacturer of the bus get sued?

Anyone, I repeat anyone, who thinks that "liability" in the 9-11
scenario can be placed on anyone except the poor misguided sick and
twisted motherpockers that convinced themselves that they were doing
"the right thing", is someone that I will always have a fundamental
disagreement with.

It doesn't mean I'm "wrong", nor that they are "wrong".

Just means that I've been having a bad week too.

Regards;

TC

snip

>Man, you and I hve *definitely* been frequenting different chemical
>plants. Two of our industrial customers keep scads of truly nasty
>chemicals on their sites. Their security consists of rent-a-cops
>checking id's, handing out passes and raising gates you could knock down
>with a Honda Civic. A terrorist driving a bomb truck could roar through
>the gates of one of these places and detonate it next to a tank of
>enough evil stuff to create another Bhopal in south Alabama. I'll bet
>many more such circumstances exist along the Houston ship channel. Why
>Al Qaeda hasn't taken advantage of this is a mystery to me, but then why
>they haven't attempted any attack at all in three years is mysterious.

snip

[Judah]

I must tell you that I completely and totally disagree with your entire
philosophy on the insurance industry. I specifically blame the insurance
carriers who insured the World Trade Center structures for the extent of
the catastrophe that occurred.

Basically, a building that was built only 30 years ago was being insured,
but the insurance company felt no need to investigate the structural
integrity of the building. Even after a bomb was exploded in the building,
the insurance company felt no need to investigate the possibility that a
fire on an upper floor would cause the entire building to collapse.

The planes that were used on 9/11 were vehicles of destruction, no doubt.
But they did not cause the building to collapse. They just started the fire
that did. By your own analogy, just as the operators of Nuclear Power
Plants should be responsible for the security of their own buildings and
equipment, so should the operators of the World Trade Center have had
responsibility to ensure its security and safety.

But instead of investing their money in ensuring that the building was
properly secure from catastrophic damage, the insurance companies invested
in actuaries who "should have been" able to predict the likelihood of a
catastrophic terrorist event, and lawyers who could come and sue everyone
within arm's reach to protect the insurance company financially. No
investment in the client, the buildings, or the 2500 people who died. Their
job is to protect their own business...

On the other hand, you make no mention of all of the other hazardous
vehicles, for example commuter trains. Trains, like airplanes, carry an
excessive weight and useful load, travel at high speeds (albeit not quite
as high as planes). And while prior to 9/11, no commercial jet was ever
used as a missile in an attack on a civilian structure, we have already
seen multiple terrorist attacks on trains - recently in Spain using
explosives, and the nerve-gas attacks back in the 90's in Japan (I think it
was Japan).
And yet it seems that one can get on an Amtrak train that travels at 150MPH
from Boston to Washington with any number of knives, guns, and whatever
else they can carry without having to stand in line behind any XRay
machines at all..

I also disagree with your comments regarding airline approaches to
hijackers. They are self-contradictory. First you say that the pilot has no
business going into the back to solve problems. Then you inidicate that
security would be improved if the pilot could carry a gun. What would he do
with it if he was not allowed to leave the cockpit?

You claim that the "play along" approach that was used to subdue hijackers
was innappropriate based on some prior fatal accident. I'm not sure what
you are referring to, but I suspect that you are a sad victim of our media
who believes that the information they report to you is the standard, not
the exception. What you don't realize is that the events that transpire
every day are normal, not news, so they are not reported. In the meantime,
you should note that there are more hijackings every year that end in
peaceful resolution (notwithstanding dictators who execute them) than the
one that ended in the destruction of an International Landmark and murder
of 2500 people. And as seen below, many of these have happened even after
9/11...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2866595.stm

http://www.themilitant.com/2003/6716/671603.html


You claim that prohibited items are routinely carried through the security
screens, but you fail to realize that it is irrelevant because the
boxcutters that they used to take over the planes were not long enough to
be prohibited at the time. In other words, the ridiculous security systems
that have been put into place to attempt to divert the "casual" hijacker or
airplane bomber will never actually stop the organized terrorist, who will
always find a way to accomplish their goal by either bypassing or using the
system to his/her advantage. It is quite naive to believe that the X-Ray
machine at the airport is truly going to protect you from the motivated,
organized terrorist who will just bribe a $10/hr security guard or find a
technology that otherwise bypasses the X-Ray machine...

Assault rifles - now THAT'S national security! I think they should allow
assault rifles on airplanes - in fact I think they should pass them out to
anyone who wants one. Imagine what kind of terrorist would get up with a
boxcutter on a plane full of well-armed civilians!




(Michael) wrote in
m:

> Michelle P > wrote
>> What a crock of SH**! The airlines are not responsible for security,
>> the US Government is, Sue them. The airlines have never made the rules
>> either. Blame the government.
>
> This is about the ONLY credible argument I have heard in favor of not
> holding the airlines liable for the 9/11 incidents - they were
> micromanaged by the FAA to the point where they could no longer
> develop effective security procedures. Nevertheless, I still don't
> buy it.
>
> Airplanes are commercial equipment but are also potentially dangerous,
> and they are dangerous in direct proportion to weight and useful load,
> and in quadratic proportion to speed. They can cause damage by
> impact, where energy of impact is half the mass multiplied by the
> square of the velocity. They can also deliver explosive or incendiary
> payloads, thus the useful load hazard.
>
> It it well accepted in civil law that those who own and operate
> commercial equipment that is potentially dangerous have an obligation
> to take reasonable steps to secure that equipment in proportion to the
> hazard posed. Drawing on my own professional experience, consider a
> chemical plant. Chemical plants are dangerous, primarily to those who
> work in them but also to those who just happen to be in the
> neighborhood. A knowledgeable terrorist in posession of just a few
> pounds of dynamite and a few blasting caps could cause explosions and
> toxic chemical releases that would kill hundreds or thousands. These
> things have happened before by accident.
>
> So why are chemical plants not seen as potential terrorist targets?

> Well, they certainly are. Why don't we shut them down? We need them
> - they produce everything from mouthwash to gasoline, and shutting
> them down would cripple the economy. So how do we handle the risk?
> Well, in two ways - direct regulation and market forces (via the tort
> process).
>
> Direct regulation is OSHA (to which airliners are not subject - IMO a
> bad mistake) and other regulatory bodies that set safety
> standards. However, if an accident occurs and all you show is that
> you did the minimum required to comply with regulation, that doesn't
> protect you from civil liability. You must also show that you did
> everything reasonable to prevent the accidents. I find it highly
> unlikely that widespread terrorist attacks against chemical plants are
> in the cards. The operators of these plant are already taking most
> reasonable measures to prevent accidents, and that includes adequate
> security to keep people who don't belong out of the plants. The
> larger and more hazardous the plants, the greater the care taken.
>
> Security at a chemical plant is NOT a joke - it's serious. Getting in
> without proper identification and a reason for being there most likely
> won't happen, and you won't be bringing much of anything with you.
> These are hardened targets, and thus not at all attractive to a
> terrorist.
>
> The driving force is risk management - insurance. Some plants carry
> insurance, others (generally owned by the very largest conglomerates)
> are self-insured, but in either case there are professional risk
> managers reviewing the operation, including security, with an eye
> towards reducing the probability of an accident.
>
> The FAA and the Airlines maintained the "play-along" posture with
> regard
> to our procedural response to high-jackers far beyond the time when it
> was appropriate relative to the known threat. There never was
> justification for a cockpit crew member of a two-person crew to leave
> a
> duty station to go back to the cabin, in-flight, to help sort out a
> problem.
>
> No passenger should ever have gained access to the cabin of an
> airliner
> while in possession of anything which could reasonably be used as a
> deadly weapon. We had adequate warning of the disastrous potential
> from
> previous fatal incidents.
>
> There is no doubt in my mind that reasonable steps
> were NOT being taken to protect the general public. The only question
> is WHY? You seem to want to pin the blame on the FAA, and if it's
> really true that the airlines tried to do it the right way and the FAA
> would simply not allow it (I don't dispute that this could be, but
> that's not how it looks) then the liability rests strictly with the
> FAA. However, to the extent the airline management was complicit with
> this non-security, the blame rests there as well.
>
> Prohibited weapons were almost routinely
> carried through our so-called security screening points prior to, and
> even after, 9/11, according to the Government's own tests.
>
> Airline security was always a bad joke. That
> shows bad faith - it shows that the airlines knew their commercial
> equipment was NOT being secured, and were ignoring it. Who ran the
> security process? Hint - the security was not made a government
> function until AFTER 9/11.
>
> Perhaps the
> Insurance companies will ultimately help solve comparable future
> problems and protect their investors by helping to establish realistic
> standards of security for those industries in which they have
> considerable exposure.
>
> Given that this is what has happened in every other industry I can
> think of, I am at a loss to explain why this has not happened in the
> airline industry. That's about the only reason I am willing to
> believe that government (FAA) interference might preclude effective
> security.
>
> Michael

[Jim Carter]

We must be sharing the same week -- your comments all makes sense to me too.

--
Jim Carter
> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:52:40 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> > wrote:
>
> I'm assuming that Michael been having a bad week. He's been bickering
> with Honeck about how a nice paint job means that an airplane is a
> piece of crap, now it appears that he feels that there is some merit
> in the suit discussed in this thread.
>
> It's his opinion, and he is entitled to it.
>
> My opinion is slightly different.
>
> Despite what any practicing attorney will tell you, suits of this type
> serve one basic purpose-they generate income for attorneys. If you
> (collective you, nothing personal) think ANY "legal team" gives a
> flying pock about anyone's pain-and-suffering, there is a fundamental
> difference in our opinions that will never be bridged.
>
> I've been hanging around airports most of my life. It sounds like you
> (personal you this time) have been around a couple chemical plants.
>
> If we could be somehow transformed into the mindset that the 9-11
> terrorists were in, I doubt if any private company or government
> agency could stop us from causing chaos, terror, and death.
>
> Israel has been trying to do so for years. I'm sure they've had some
> successes, but reading the newspaper, it seems like they've had some
> failures also.
>
> I'm curious-in Israel, if a bus gets blown up by a suicide bomber,
> does the bus line and the manufacturer of the bus get sued?
>
> Anyone, I repeat anyone, who thinks that "liability" in the 9-11
> scenario can be placed on anyone except the poor misguided sick and
> twisted motherpockers that convinced themselves that they were doing
> "the right thing", is someone that I will always have a fundamental
> disagreement with.
>
> It doesn't mean I'm "wrong", nor that they are "wrong".
>
> Just means that I've been having a bad week too.
>
> Regards;
>
> TC
>
> snip
>
> >Man, you and I hve *definitely* been frequenting different chemical
> >plants. Two of our industrial customers keep scads of truly nasty
> >chemicals on their sites. Their security consists of rent-a-cops
> >checking id's, handing out passes and raising gates you could knock down
> >with a Honda Civic. A terrorist driving a bomb truck could roar through
> >the gates of one of these places and detonate it next to a tank of
> >enough evil stuff to create another Bhopal in south Alabama. I'll bet
> >many more such circumstances exist along the Houston ship channel. Why
> >Al Qaeda hasn't taken advantage of this is a mystery to me, but then why
> >they haven't attempted any attack at all in three years is mysterious.
>
> snip
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

wrote:
>
> Anyone, I repeat anyone, who thinks that "liability" in the 9-11
> scenario can be placed on anyone except the poor misguided sick and
> twisted motherpockers that convinced themselves that they were doing
> "the right thing", is someone that I will always have a fundamental
> disagreement with.

Makes sense to me.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Paul Sengupta]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
> You claim that the "play along" approach that was used to subdue
hijackers
> was innappropriate :
> In the meantime,
> you should note that there are more hijackings every year that end in
> peaceful resolution (notwithstanding dictators who execute them) than the
> one that ended in the destruction of an International Landmark and murder
> of 2500 people. And as seen below, many of these have happened even after
> 9/11...
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2866595.stm
>
> http://www.themilitant.com/2003/6716/671603.html

Some more I posted a while back:

http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?q=paul+sengupta+http+hijack&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=btk63p%243f8%241%40newstree.wise.edt.ericsson .se&rnum=2

or

http://makeashorterlink.com/?M27511A49

Paul

[Gig Giacona]

I don't see any option but to sue the families of the Wright Brothers. Those
damn bicycle builders should have seen what thier invention would be capable
of less than 100 years later.


"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
om...
> Well, duh!! If Boeing hadn't built those things so well, they would've
> broken up on impact and not hurt the buildings, and the falling debris
> would
> have been so small as to no injure any ground-pounder, and if they were
> slower we could have knocked them down with rocks, and if....
>
> As someone else wrote.. what a load of crap.
>
> --
> Jim Carter
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>> >
>> Look for suits against aircraft manufacturer Boeing as well:
>>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&th=56872be3d92e3608&rnum=52
>
>

[Michael]

Judah > wrote
> Basically, a building that was built only 30 years ago was being insured,
> but the insurance company felt no need to investigate the structural
> integrity of the building. Even after a bomb was exploded in the building,
> the insurance company felt no need to investigate the possibility that a
> fire on an upper floor would cause the entire building to collapse.

And how much damage did that bomb do again?

> The planes that were used on 9/11 were vehicles of destruction, no doubt.
> But they did not cause the building to collapse. They just started the fire
> that did.

Was there a way to cause the fire without using large airplanes to
deliver thousands of pounds of combustible fuel to the top stories?

Nuclear plants are designed to withstand the impact of an airliner
precisely because breaching the containment vessel endangers lots of
people outside the plant. How many people outside the WTC buildings
were killed?

> By your own analogy, just as the operators of Nuclear Power
> Plants should be responsible for the security of their own buildings and
> equipment, so should the operators of the World Trade Center have had
> responsibility to ensure its security and safety.

Yes - with respect to innocent bystanders. I'm not saying that those
passengers that died in the airplanes (or their insurers) have a
reasonable case against the airlines. They got on the planes
themselves. The people in the buildings also went into the buildings
of their own volition.

Residential and office buildings are not made tough enough to
withstand the impact of a kiloton-range cruise missile. That's simply
not reasonable. What is reasonable is that if you own a kiloton-range
cruise missile (and airliners qualify) you are responsible for keeping
it out of the hands of unauthorized people.

Had the terrorists fielded an army of thousands to storm the airport
and take the planes, I would not claim that the airlines were
negligent. Nobody can reasonably protect against that kind of threat.
Couple dozen guys with boxcutters? That's another story.

> On the other hand, you make no mention of all of the other hazardous
> vehicles, for example commuter trains.

You're right, I didn't mention them. It wasn't part of the
discussion. I concur that the security procedures followed by their
operators are inadequate.

> I also disagree with your comments regarding airline approaches to
> hijackers. They are self-contradictory. First you say that the pilot has no
> business going into the back to solve problems. Then you inidicate that
> security would be improved if the pilot could carry a gun. What would he do
> with it if he was not allowed to leave the cockpit?

Defend the cockpit. Once again - the people I am trying to protect
are NOT the ones who boarded the plane. They accepted the risk. It's
the innocent bystanders on the ground who are deserving of protection.
If the terrorists kill the passengers on board, or even blow up the
plane, that's one thing. When those planes are used as weapons
against people on the ground, that's another matter entirely.

> You claim that prohibited items are routinely carried through the security
> screens, but you fail to realize that it is irrelevant because the
> boxcutters that they used to take over the planes were not long enough to
> be prohibited at the time. In other words, the ridiculous security systems
> that have been put into place to attempt to divert the "casual" hijacker or
> airplane bomber will never actually stop the organized terrorist, who will
> always find a way to accomplish their goal by either bypassing or using the
> system to his/her advantage.

I concur. You can't protect the plane or the passengers with anything
short of the ElAl system. That's not the point. The passengers can
decide if they are willing to pay the cost (in time and money) to fly
in the ElAl style, or if the lower cost and lower hassle is worth the
extra risk to them. But the cockpit MUST be protected, because not
protecting it puts people on the ground at risk, and they did not
consent to the risk.

> Assault rifles - now THAT'S national security! I think they should allow
> assault rifles on airplanes - in fact I think they should pass them out to
> anyone who wants one. Imagine what kind of terrorist would get up with a
> boxcutter on a plane full of well-armed civilians!

That's the Archie Bunker solution. I agree with it. Make the cockpit
door bulletproof (already done) and pass out guns to the passengers.
Works for me.

Michael

[Michael]

"Dan Luke" > wrote taken.
> Man, you and I hve *definitely* been frequenting different chemical
> plants.

Quite possible. I've mostly dealt with major plants operated by the
major refiners.

> A terrorist driving a bomb truck could roar through
> the gates of one of these places and detonate it next to a tank of
> enough evil stuff to create another Bhopal in south Alabama.

The only question is - how many people live there? Is that Bhopal
going to claim thousands (the way the real Bhopal did)?

If that's the case, then I see a lawsuit in their future as well.

> > Security at a chemical plant is NOT a joke - it's serious. Getting in
> > without proper identification and a reason for being there most likely
> > won't happen, and you won't be bringing much of anything with you.
>
> That's assuming you're polite enough to stop and get your cute badge and
> wait for your escort, not just bust in driving a 2 1/2 ton truck full of
> a fertilizer bomb. At a plant in Mississippi which I shall not name,
> there is a narrow maze of concrete barriers at each entrance road,
> built, one assumes, on the theory that terrorists would never simply
> break through the adjacent chain link fences and drive in off-road.

Also assuming, of course, that the truck won't get stuck in the bog
that is 'off-road' in Mississippi. I've been to more than a couple of
chemical plants in Mississippi (including the hell that is
Chevron-Pascagoula) and I must say that off-roading in a truck full of
explosives would not be practical anywhere I've been. That's the norm
all along the Gulf Coast.

> > The driving force is risk management - insurance. Some plants carry
> > insurance, others (generally owned by the very largest conglomerates)
> > are self-insured, but in either case there are professional risk
> > managers reviewing the operation, including security, with an eye
> > towards reducing the probability of an accident.
>
> They're worried about their employees screwing up or a visitor wandering
> around and getting hurt.

Actually, they're more worried about the surrounding population.

> They know they have no hope of stopping a
> determined terrorist attack without turning their plants into nuke
> plant-like fortresses, which I've seen no sign they are willing to do.

Well, I've visited a couple of nuke plants. Yes, I must say their
security is better. I expect that this will become the norm for the
real dangerous chemical plants located in populated areas.

Michael

[Judah]

(Michael) wrote in
om:

> Judah > wrote
>> Basically, a building that was built only 30 years ago was being
>> insured, but the insurance company felt no need to investigate the
>> structural integrity of the building. Even after a bomb was exploded
>> in the building, the insurance company felt no need to investigate the
>> possibility that a fire on an upper floor would cause the entire
>> building to collapse.
>
> And how much damage did that bomb do again?

It killed 6 people and wounded just over 1000. It also was documented that
the goal of the bombers was to topple the towers. So in other words, the
insurance companies even had warning of the intent of an enemy to destroy
the buildings. And yet they still failed to verify the structural integrity
and capacity of the building. After all, if the airlines were supposed to
have been able to predict the 9/11 attacks, why shouldn't the insurance
companies have been able to as well?

>
>> The planes that were used on 9/11 were vehicles of destruction, no
>> doubt. But they did not cause the building to collapse. They just
>> started the fire that did.
>
> Was there a way to cause the fire without using large airplanes to
> deliver thousands of pounds of combustible fuel to the top stories?

I can think of numerous ways that an equivalent or even more damage could
have been inflicted. It's irrelevant - was there a premise to assume that
an airplane would be used as a missile prior to 9/11? Notwithstanding, of
course, the expressed dreams of a pair of psychotic teenagers from
Columbine...

> Nuclear plants are designed to withstand the impact of an airliner
> precisely because breaching the containment vessel endangers lots of
> people outside the plant. How many people outside the WTC buildings
> were killed?

I'm not certain. Are you?

>> By your own analogy, just as the operators of Nuclear Power
>> Plants should be responsible for the security of their own buildings
>> and equipment, so should the operators of the World Trade Center have
>> had responsibility to ensure its security and safety.
>
> Yes - with respect to innocent bystanders. I'm not saying that those
> passengers that died in the airplanes (or their insurers) have a
> reasonable case against the airlines. They got on the planes
> themselves. The people in the buildings also went into the buildings
> of their own volition.
>
> Residential and office buildings are not made tough enough to
> withstand the impact of a kiloton-range cruise missile. That's simply
> not reasonable. What is reasonable is that if you own a kiloton-range
> cruise missile (and airliners qualify) you are responsible for keeping
> it out of the hands of unauthorized people.

Please document a premise wherein a jet airline qualifies as a kiloton-
range cruise missile, prior to 9/11.

> Had the terrorists fielded an army of thousands to storm the airport
> and take the planes, I would not claim that the airlines were
> negligent. Nobody can reasonably protect against that kind of threat.
> Couple dozen guys with boxcutters? That's another story.

Again, by what premise was the SOP negligent? The SOP was defined becuase
prior to 9/11, the safety of the passengers, crew, and surrounding
civilians was best kept intact by appeasing the hijackers until the plane
was on the ground. It is not negligence, it is abuse of the SOP by the
terrorists in a manner that was previously humanly inconceivable, and
reserved only for Hollywood scripts.

>> On the other hand, you make no mention of all of the other hazardous
>> vehicles, for example commuter trains.
>
> You're right, I didn't mention them. It wasn't part of the
> discussion. I concur that the security procedures followed by their
> operators are inadequate.

Neither was your example of Nuclear Power Plants. But I believe my example
to be more accurately representative of your case. And it falls short.
Either the security procedures are inadequate, or your case is.

>> I also disagree with your comments regarding airline approaches to
>> hijackers. They are self-contradictory. First you say that the pilot
>> has no business going into the back to solve problems. Then you
>> inidicate that security would be improved if the pilot could carry a
>> gun. What would he do with it if he was not allowed to leave the
>> cockpit?
>
> Defend the cockpit. Once again - the people I am trying to protect
> are NOT the ones who boarded the plane. They accepted the risk. It's
> the innocent bystanders on the ground who are deserving of protection.
> If the terrorists kill the passengers on board, or even blow up the
> plane, that's one thing. When those planes are used as weapons
> against people on the ground, that's another matter entirely.

I guarantee you that you have no idea what happened in the cockpit on that
day. And I guarantee you also that you have no way of knowing what the
results would have been if the pilots were armed, which, incidentally,
prior to 9/11 would have been criticized also as being "the Archie Bunker
method"...

>> You claim that prohibited items are routinely carried through the
>> security screens, but you fail to realize that it is irrelevant
>> because the boxcutters that they used to take over the planes were not
>> long enough to be prohibited at the time. In other words, the
>> ridiculous security systems that have been put into place to attempt
>> to divert the "casual" hijacker or airplane bomber will never actually
>> stop the organized terrorist, who will always find a way to accomplish
>> their goal by either bypassing or using the system to his/her
>> advantage.
>
> I concur. You can't protect the plane or the passengers with anything
> short of the ElAl system. That's not the point. The passengers can
> decide if they are willing to pay the cost (in time and money) to fly
> in the ElAl style, or if the lower cost and lower hassle is worth the
> extra risk to them. But the cockpit MUST be protected, because not
> protecting it puts people on the ground at risk, and they did not
> consent to the risk.

This point I agree with. But life is full of tragic, unfortunate accidents
that happen to people who did not consent to the risk. That doesn't justify
a handful of attorneys and insurance companies making boatloads of money at
the expense of people who were not responsible for the tragedy. Especially
considering the fact that the responsibility of the beneficiaries could
just as easily be represented.

>> Assault rifles - now THAT'S national security! I think they should
>> allow assault rifles on airplanes - in fact I think they should pass
>> them out to anyone who wants one. Imagine what kind of terrorist would
>> get up with a boxcutter on a plane full of well-armed civilians!
>
> That's the Archie Bunker solution. I agree with it. Make the cockpit
> door bulletproof (already done) and pass out guns to the passengers.
> Works for me.
>
> Michael

[Judah]

(Michael) wrote in
om:

<snip>
> I concur. You can't protect the plane or the passengers with anything
> short of the ElAl system. That's not the point. The passengers can
> decide if they are willing to pay the cost (in time and money) to fly
> in the ElAl style, or if the lower cost and lower hassle is worth the
> extra risk to them. But the cockpit MUST be protected, because not
> protecting it puts people on the ground at risk, and they did not
> consent to the risk.
<snip>

I've flown El Al. The terrorists only steer clear of El Al flights because
the Flight Attendants are so rude...

[Paul Sengupta]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
> (Michael) wrote in
> om:
>
> > Judah > wrote
> >> The planes that were used on 9/11 were vehicles of destruction, no
> >> doubt. But they did not cause the building to collapse. They just
> >> started the fire that did.
> >
> > Was there a way to cause the fire without using large airplanes to
> > deliver thousands of pounds of combustible fuel to the top stories?
:
> > Residential and office buildings are not made tough enough to
> > withstand the impact of a kiloton-range cruise missile. That's simply
> > not reasonable. What is reasonable is that if you own a kiloton-range
> > cruise missile (and airliners qualify) you are responsible for keeping
> > it out of the hands of unauthorized people.
>
> Please document a premise wherein a jet airline qualifies as a kiloton-
> range cruise missile, prior to 9/11.

Watching a programme about the plane that hit the Pentagon, they said
that the explosion was equivalent to around 500kg of high explosive. So
about half a ton. Not really close to the "kiloton-range".

As was pointed out above, it wasn't the explosion that caused the towers
to collapse, it was the combination of the explosion/erosion of the
fire-proof material and the subsequent fire.

Paul

[Robert M. Gary]

Michelle P > wrote in message >...
> What a crock of SH**! The airlines are not responsible for security, the
> US Government is, Sue them. The airlines have never made the rules
> either. Blame the government.
> Michelle

I agree with you but technically in pre-9/11 days, the airlines were
in charge of security. The airport screeners, etc were contracted by
the airlines. The Feds had little say in airport security before 9/11.

-Robert

[Dan Luke]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "Dan Luke" > wrote taken.
> > Man, you and I hve *definitely* been frequenting different chemical
> > plants.
>
> Quite possible. I've mostly dealt with major plants operated by the
> major refiners.

I ain't naming names! Anyway, there are enough low rent, half assed plants
around to make the U.S. a target rich environment.

> > A terrorist driving a bomb truck could roar through
> > the gates of one of these places and detonate it next to a tank of
> > enough evil stuff to create another Bhopal in south Alabama.
>
> The only question is - how many people live there? Is that Bhopal
> going to claim thousands (the way the real Bhopal did)?
>
> If that's the case, then I see a lawsuit in their future as well.

That's what bankruptcy and reorganization are for - just ask Monsanto.
>
> > > Security at a chemical plant is NOT a joke - it's serious. Getting in
> > > without proper identification and a reason for being there most likely
> > > won't happen, and you won't be bringing much of anything with you.
> >
> > That's assuming you're polite enough to stop and get your cute badge and
> > wait for your escort, not just bust in driving a 2 1/2 ton truck full of
> > a fertilizer bomb. At a plant in Mississippi which I shall not name,
> > there is a narrow maze of concrete barriers at each entrance road,
> > built, one assumes, on the theory that terrorists would never simply
> > break through the adjacent chain link fences and drive in off-road.
>
> Also assuming, of course, that the truck won't get stuck in the bog
> that is 'off-road' in Mississippi

Depends on how the weather's been lately.

> I've been to more than a couple of
> chemical plants in Mississippi (including the hell that is
> Chevron-Pascagoula)

Now, that's a hell of a coincidence, but I said I wasn't naming names...

> and I must say that off-roading in a truck full of
> explosives would not be practical anywhere I've been. That's the norm
> all along the Gulf Coast.

A little careful reconnoitering is all it would take, with maybe a sapper
squad to blow the fence.

> > > The driving force is risk management - insurance. Some plants carry
> > > insurance, others (generally owned by the very largest conglomerates)
> > > are self-insured, but in either case there are professional risk
> > > managers reviewing the operation, including security, with an eye
> > > towards reducing the probability of an accident.
> >
> > They're worried about their employees screwing up or a visitor wandering
> > around and getting hurt.
>
> Actually, they're more worried about the surrounding population.

That's the "employees screwing up" part. It's something they're pretty good
at controlling.

> > They know they have no hope of stopping a
> > determined terrorist attack without turning their plants into nuke
> > plant-like fortresses, which I've seen no sign they are willing to do.
>
> Well, I've visited a couple of nuke plants. Yes, I must say their
> security is better. I expect that this will become the norm for the
> real dangerous chemical plants located in populated areas.

I guess I hope so, but at what cost? Sounds like another good reason to move
plants and jobs overseas.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Michael]

Judah > wrote
> > And how much damage did that bomb do again?
>
> It killed 6 people and wounded just over 1000.

I meant to the building. And I believe the answer is "minor damage."

Those building were tough and well-designed. They stood up to a truck
bomb that wounded hundreds just fine. A small plane crashing into
them, regardless of how it was loaded, would barely make a dent.
Nothing short of a large, heavy aircraft could possibly deliver the
payload necessary to take it down. Hell, the buildings withstood the
impact. It was the tons of combustible fuel that did them in.

The military complexes of all the advanced sector nations in the world
can't be wrong - there is no substitute for large heavy aircraft for
delivering death and destruction to a city. When you own and operate
an aircraft that carries as much and goes as fast as a heavy bomber,
you have a certain responsibility over and above the usual.

> > Was there a way to cause the fire without using large airplanes to
> > deliver thousands of pounds of combustible fuel to the top stories?
>
> I can think of numerous ways that an equivalent or even more damage could
> have been inflicted. It's irrelevant

Bull****. It's relevant. Name ONE that does not involve use of
military equipment.

> was there a premise to assume that
> an airplane would be used as a missile prior to 9/11?

There was a novel on just this.

> > How many people outside the WTC buildings
> > were killed?
>
> I'm not certain. Are you?

A small handful - the ones who stayed to gawk, and the ones who risked
their lives rushing in to help.

> > You're right, I didn't mention them. It wasn't part of the
> > discussion. I concur that the security procedures followed by their
> > operators are inadequate.
>
> Neither was your example of Nuclear Power Plants. But I believe my example
> to be more accurately representative of your case. And it falls short.
> Either the security procedures are inadequate, or your case is.

I just told you - I concur that the security procedures are
inadequate.

> I guarantee you that you have no idea what happened in the cockpit on that
> day.

I guarantee that I know enough - hijackers gained access to the
cockpit. Should never have happened.

> And I guarantee you also that you have no way of knowing what the
> results would have been if the pilots were armed

No, I don't. Armed people have been overpowered before. But the
question is - do you have a better chance of defending yourself with a
gun or without? I suppose being a Texan, I consider the question
rhetorical.

> which, incidentally,
> prior to 9/11 would have been criticized also as being "the Archie Bunker
> method"...

And as I've told you before, I'm not opposed to it in principle.

Michael

[Michael]

"Dan Luke" > wrote
> > Quite possible. I've mostly dealt with major plants operated by the
> > major refiners.
>
> I ain't naming names! Anyway, there are enough low rent, half assed plants
> around to make the U.S. a target rich environment.

And after the first of them becomes a target, the insurers will clean
house. At least assuming the lawsuit happens, and we don't have
people arguing that half-ass security is reasonable and should not
imply liability.

> > If that's the case, then I see a lawsuit in their future as well.
>
> That's what bankruptcy and reorganization are for - just ask Monsanto.

And that's a problem. But that's a problem of not enough liability
rather than too much.

> > I've been to more than a couple of
> > chemical plants in Mississippi (including the hell that is
> > Chevron-Pascagoula)
>
> Now, that's a hell of a coincidence, but I said I wasn't naming names...

No, it's not. We work in an incestuous little industry. Everyone
winds up spending time at Chevron-Pascagoula eventually.

> > and I must say that off-roading in a truck full of
> > explosives would not be practical anywhere I've been. That's the norm
> > all along the Gulf Coast.
>
> A little careful reconnoitering is all it would take, with maybe a sapper
> squad to blow the fence.

Reconnoisance teams? Sapper squads? Come on - now we're in the range
of a military operation, not a few guys with boxcutters. It's not
reasonable for a civilian installation to be hardened like a military
target. But if it falls to a handful of guys with hand tools, we have
a problem.

> > Well, I've visited a couple of nuke plants. Yes, I must say their
> > security is better. I expect that this will become the norm for the
> > real dangerous chemical plants located in populated areas.
>
> I guess I hope so, but at what cost? Sounds like another good reason to move
> plants and jobs overseas.

Like they need another reason? If you have a system where capital is
free to move anywhere but labor is stopped at the border, you are
guaranteeing an inequitable system. Foreign trade and foreign
investment are not the same thing.

Michael