Open Question: Lawyers and 911

[LatinAmericanview]

Everyone her is familiar with the official fiction also known as the pancake theory! Everyone also knows that if the official story is correct then essentially the great loss of life on 911 is a direct result of poor design and faulty construction (the towers were designed speffically to withstand a direct hit from a 747). So why are the family members of the survivors not suing Larry Silverstein and everyone remotely associated with the World Trade Center? Think about it! Use their system to expose them. What do you guys think?

[Anonymous]

Hellerstein, Mukasey, and Chertoff

That's why...

[TeslaandLyne]

Defective building or defective people running the government.

Tesla must have invented a mind altering ray because the CIA must be using it big time.
The government has all the Tesla cards.
The taser we know about, how could the CIA tase the entire government.
It boggles.

[Anonymous]

The towers were designed to withstand the impact from a 707, the largest plane at the time according to what I've read and heard.  

I agree with the other comments about why the victims' families aren't suing the hell out of the real perps.  But another reason, is that they've been brainwashed as well into believing the official story.  Apparently, they don't know any better and if they do they aren't pursuing the obvious course of action.

[LatinAmericanview]

Hellerstein, Mukasey, and Chertoff

That's why...

It is doubtful that they could block all  avenues of legal redress. Consider that a building like the WTC's has countless tenants which are required by the leasing agreement to insure certain aspects of real property.  Anyone of those tenants can be sued. I have personally insured buildings that are similar in nature to the world trade center. No where near the scope but the same legal insuring requirements.

[Free Truth]

They were actually bribed out of their ability to sue...  All but 5% of the families took the bait, the root of all evil.  :roll:

Families Sue U.S., Reject 9/11 'Bribe'
Ignore Deadline for Compensation
by Tim Harper
 

WASHINGTON—For some, it's blood money, a repugnant payoff they feel they have no choice but to accept.

For a handful of others, the process of claiming compensation is too painful: they find themselves paralyzed by grief and unable to reopen emotional wounds barely healed from the deaths of their loved ones in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

But as many as 73 families see the process of U.S. government compensation as an attempt to protect those who should be held accountable for what they believe was mass murder.

They ignored a midnight deadline last night, their last chance to apply for government cash.


It's almost like it's a payoff to save the airlines and not hold any of those people responsible for what happened.

Irene Golinski, 53, whose husband died in the Pentagon attack
And today, they begin a new stage in an arduous odyssey and will sue their government, airlines and state and local authorities.

"This may be uncharted waters, but I was thrown in a pool on Sept. 11, 2001 and had to learn to swim," said Monica Gabrielle, who lost her husband Richard in the World Trade Center attack.

"I am doing this for my husband. He was a gentle man, and he was alive, trying to get out of that building that day. The dead. The dying. The smoke. The terror. No one should have suffered like that. I want accountability. I need answers."

The compensation fund has been controversial since President George W. Bush signed it into law 13 days after the attacks. For those who lost family members, it was always about protecting airlines, federal, state and local authorities from billions of dollars of lawsuits.

To receive the federal money, recipients must sign a waiver giving up their right to sue anyone involved in the worst terrorist attacks in U.S. history.

A late surge of claims on deadline yesterday meant close to 95 per cent of the 2,976 families who lost loved ones in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania were expected to finally take the money.

To get there, they had to accept a monetary value on the lives of those closest to them, after making a case based on birth and marriage licences, diplomas and degrees, even videos. They will, on average, receive $1.8 million (all figures U.S.) each.

Families of 24 Canadian victims are eligible for compensation and most have applied.

Brian Alexander, a New York lawyer representing a portion of the victims who have launched the lawsuit, said he knew of no Canadians involved.

He said those who have chosen to sue have put no dollar figure on awards and each claim will be individually tailored.

"A widow who is 80 years old is not in the same category as a widow who lost her husband at age 30 and has four kids at home," he said.

Some $1.5 billion had been paid from the government fund by the weekend. Compensation for individual deaths has ranged from $250,000 to $6.9 million. Those physically injured as a result of the attacks have received compensation ranging from $500 to $7.9 million.

"Only in America could there be a program like this," fund administrator Kenneth Feinberg told CNN yesterday.

"You wouldn't find a program paying an average $1.8 million tax-free to eligible families. This is an unprecedented, unique program and exhibits I think the best in the American people."

Yet Gabrielle says it is a bribe by the government so victims can be coerced into washing their hands of the affair.

She is also resentful that the government is determining the worth of loved ones.

"This is about mass murder," she said. "I want to know who was responsible.

"No one has been fired. No one has been demoted. The same people who are guarding us today on an elevated security alert are the same people who were working that day."

Gabrielle said she is looking at a special 9/11 commission headed by former New Jersey governor Thomas Kean to answer the question of responsibility.

Kean has battled the White House, New York and aviation authorities for access to documents. He has a May deadline.

"There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly not be in the position they were in at that time because they failed. They simply failed," Kean told CBS last week.

He said later he was talking of lower level officials, but Gabrielle and others want to know more about the safety of the buildings and airport security.

Even those who have accepted the money see it only as the lesser of two evils.

Irene Golinski, 53, whose husband died in the Pentagon attack, was still grappling with the decision to put 9/11 behind her or continue with a lawsuit.

"It's almost like it's a payoff to save the airlines and not hold any of those people responsible for what happened," she said.

Feinberg's office detailed some awards. The beneficiary of a 36-year-old project manager earning $231,000 and with one dependent was paid $3.48 million, while the beneficiary of a 26-year-old military officer with no dependents and a $44,000 salary got $1.84 million.  

Where are the 5% of families that held out for lawsuits?!  :evil:

[LatinAmericanview]

This actually dos not really apply to the business and their respective insurers. Let give you a very simple example. You are driving and you get in an accident. The insurance company replaces or fixes your car before the details of the accident are sorted out. The insurance company reserves the right to pursue their interests via assignment to get their money back if you are not at fault. WTC is similiar to this. Acts of War are excluded from insurance coverage. Acts of Terrorism were not and therefore covered under the insurance contract. However, steel building falling would still be covered buty the Ins. co. but Ins co. would reserve the right to sue the builders of the WTC if faulty design lead to the loss.  I never saw those law suits in the professional literature.

[jai_mann]

This actually dos not really apply to the business and their respective insurers. Let give you a very simple example. You are driving and you get in an accident. The insurance company replaces or fixes your car before the details of the accident are sorted out. The insurance company reserves the right to pursue their interests via assignment to get their money back if you are not at fault. WTC is similiar to this. Acts of War are excluded from insurance coverage. Acts of Terrorism were not and therefore covered under the insurance contract. However, steel building falling would still be covered buty the Ins. co. but Ins co. would reserve the right to sue the builders of the WTC if faulty design lead to the loss.  I never saw those law suits in the professional literature.

The insurance co.'s are run by people who are in on the scam. Look at Silverstein's award for EACH of the buildings dropped. Most insurance co's would investigate an owner of property especially someone who JUST insured property but it wasn't done in this case or at least done in an honest manner.

[LatinAmericanview]

Actually Jaiman it is not that simple. Insurance is just a contract. Thats all it is. Silverman got awarded the money based on the type of insurance form used. The policy was written on a per occurance form hence the two planes constitute two insurable events. The lack of investigation can be explained several different ways. Imagine if an investigator discovered foul play which implicated the government? On a more interesting note I have never heard what happen from an insurance stand point to WTC7.

[GordZilla]

Everyone her is familiar with the official fiction also known as the pancake theory! Everyone also knows that if the official story is correct then essentially the great loss of life on 911 is a direct result of poor design and faulty construction (the towers were designed speffically to withstand a direct hit from a 747). So why are the family members of the survivors not suing Larry Silverstein and everyone remotely associated with the World Trade Center? Think about it! Use their system to expose them. What do you guys think?

It is a good question indeed, but unfortunately even if some of the sheep did wake and realize this avenue is viable; it would not reach the light of day for the rest of the public. They could, in theory, even win such a case but apart from themselves and their lawyers no one else would know. Just as we see with the current situation; no one knows the official story is bull crap. For the same reasons it's not exposed to the public, this trial also would be kept from them.

Note; The use of 'no one' here is referring to the mass public, not our still comparatively small minority.

[sullivan]

The insurance company reserves the right to pursue their interests via assignment to get their money back if you are not at fault. WTC is similiar to this. Acts of War are excluded from insurance coverage. Acts of Terrorism were not and therefore covered under the insurance contract. However, steel building falling would still be covered buty the Ins. co. but Ins co. would reserve the right to sue the builders of the WTC if faulty design lead to the loss.  I never saw those law suits in the professional literature.

In this case I doubt if the insurance companies involved will be pursuing anyone for the loss they inherited through subrogation. First of all, there is the matter of identifying a suitable patsty to sue. Even then there is too much that can go wrong (for the real perps) if such cases were ever to result in legal action. No doubt they received a payoff to ensure they waived their right to equitable remedy.

[LatinAmericanview]

I believe the pay off came in the form of a mandatory terrorism tax. I can't remember how much it was. I think it was a justified premium increase of 3.5 percent to 15 percent depending on the area.