• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

WTC Owner Larry Silverstein Suing Airlines for 9/11

Graffias

Rogue
Joined
Apr 29, 2011
Messages
924
Reaction score
309
Location
Midwest U.S
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Larry Silverstein: World Trade Center owner trying to sue airlines for billions over 9/11 attacks | Mail Online

Larry Silverstein, the owner of the World Trade Center, is seeking $3.5billion from United Airlines, US Airways and American Airlines

Silverstein argues that the 9-11 attacks cost his property group more than $7billion

The new One World Trade Center alone cost $3.9billion

What a disgusting, vile human being Silverstein is. Cashing in on misery and suffering. That's all these people know how to do. The U.S tort system encourages this kind of thing, too.
 
It's the “deep pockets” effect, a common abuse of the court system that usually isn't seen on this scale.

A more realistic example would be someone in a phone booth that is hit by a drunk driver, and suffers serious injury. The drunk driver is the one who is responsible for the injury, but here's little likelihood of ever being able to successfully sue the driver and collect nearly enough to pay the resulting medical costs and other compensation that the victim is rightfully due. So instead, he sues the phone company that owns the phone booth. His lawyer might argue that the phone company was negligent in putting the booth so close to the street, where it might be in the path of a drunk driver, and that because the phone company is therefore at least partly responsible for the mishap, and the phone company can effort to pay what the victim is due, that the phone company ends up bearing that liability.

I have a distant memory of a ballot initiative here in California, that passed overwhelmingly, and was supposed to put a stop to this, but I am of the impression that it has failed to do so.


Anyway, from that point of view, this case seems pretty clear. Mr. Silverstein owned this very expensive complex of buildings that was destroyed in the 9/11 attacks. The suit claims that his losses, as a result of that attack, amount to more than seven billion dollars; and if so, he is rightfully entitled to be compensated in that amount. But who is going to pay for it? The actual terrorists who hijacked the planes and carried out this attack are all dead; and even if they were alive, they certainly wouldn't have anything close to several billion dollars among them. Al Qaida is in disarray, probably well outside of any jurisdiction that is vulnerable to prosecution by our nation's courts, and they probably don't have anywhere near that much in assets either. So he's going for the “deep pockets” that are within reach. His lawyers will surely argue that the airlines were in some way negligent in allowing their planes to be hijacked, and that this makes them at least partially responsible for Mr. Silverstein's losses that occurred when those planes hit his buildings.

The claim isn't nearly as outrageous as the OP makes it out to be, though if I were on the jury, it would not be easy to convince me that the airlines should be held at all liable; or to move me from the view that the airlines are victims of the attack as much as Mr. Silverstein is.

It seems somewhat worth noting, I think, that if these planes had crashed into Mr. Silverstein's buildings due to pilot error, mechanical malfunction, or other issues not related to a third party causing the planes to crash; that there would be no question that the airlines were liable for Mr. Silverstein's losses.

That Mr. Silverstein is not the only victim, or the most tragic victim, doesn't diminish his losses or the compensation to which he should be entitled.

It also now occurs to me tho think that I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Mr. Silverstein himself hasn't been the target of many similar “deep pocket” lawsuits from the families of people who were killed and injured in his buildings when the 9/11 attacks occurred. In fact, I think I would be surprised if he has not been so targeted.
 
I'd be interested to know how he is maintaining cases against 3 airlines when his buildings were only hit by two planes.
 
I doubt this will ever make it to trial. The discovery phase would reveal far too much information that would contradict the Official Conspiracy Theory. This is simply a ploy to give the talking heads something else to pontificate about.
 
Larry Silverstein: World Trade Center owner trying to sue airlines for billions over 9/11 attacks | Mail Online



What a disgusting, vile human being Silverstein is. Cashing in on misery and suffering. That's all these people know how to do. The U.S tort system encourages this kind of thing, too.

That construction has continued for more than a decade--something that should have taken approximately 6 years given the 1966-72 timeframe for the construction of the Twin Towers--led to Silverstein's incurring higher costs than would otherwise have been the case. Those excess costs are not in any way, shape, or form the fault of the airlines whose planes were hijacked. That the two doomed planes were following the federal safety standards at the time also makes it difficult to fault the airlines for the terrorist attacks.
 
That construction has continued for more than a decade--something that should have taken approximately 6 years given the 1966-72 timeframe for the construction of the Twin Towers--led to Silverstein's incurring higher costs than would otherwise have been the case. Those excess costs are not in any way, shape, or form the fault of the airlines whose planes were hijacked. That the two doomed planes were following the federal safety standards at the time also makes it difficult to fault the airlines for the terrorist attacks.

I think a close examination of the historical record shows that Congress granted immunity from any liability to the companies that provided security screening of passengers at Boston, Newark and Dulles.
 
I think a close examination of the historical record shows that Congress granted immunity from any liability to the companies that provided security screening of passengers at Boston, Newark and Dulles.

I'm not sure that Silverstein's claims are limited to screening. His lawsuit may well argue that the airlines were negligent in having unlocked cabins.

In any case, I believe his lawsuit will be dismissed by the courts. Prior to 9/11, it was reasonable to assume that airport screening minimized (not eliminated) the risk of hijackings and that the airlines could rely on the screening. What a reasonable person would have concluded prior to those attacks, not what one knows in hindsight, will be crucial. In other words, should an airline have reasonably relied on the ability of the screening to limit risks. Almost certainly, especially as the incidence of hijackings in the U.S. was extremely low, the courts will rule that such reliance was reasonable. In that context, the unlocked cabins were not an act of negligence or, worse, recklessness.

IMO, Silverstein is trying to get the airlines to cover additional costs, some of which he incurred, on account of his own exceptionally deliberate approach to rebuilding. Had he proceeded on a timely basis (by that, I mean along the timeframe during which the Twin Towers were constructed), his insurance might well have covered most or all of his rebuilding costs. Barring some new and significant information, it is difficult to envision the courts holding the airlines liable for much or all of the claims Silverstein is pursuing.
 
I doubt this will ever make it to trial. The discovery phase would reveal far too much information that would contradict the Official Conspiracy Theory. This is simply a ploy to give the talking heads something else to pontificate about.

Seems if the trial goes forward its a great opportunity for those who support controlled demolition to make their case. Maybe the airline companies will use it as a defense.

Wouldn't some who say the planes did not take the towers down want to see the case go forward?
 
Seems if the trial goes forward its a great opportunity for those who support controlled demolition to make their case. Maybe the airline companies will use it as a defense.

Wouldn't some who say the planes did not take the towers down want to see the case go forward?

As I mentioned in my first post, my bet is that because of the potential for the discovery phase to reveal all sorts of information contradicting the OCT, this will never make it to court. Larry is just going through the motions.
 
Back
Top Bottom