All But Three September 11th Lawsuits Have Been Settled

From Yahoo News:

NEW YORK – A mediator says all but three of nearly 100 lawsuits brought on behalf of those killed or injured in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks have been settled for half a billion dollars.

news.yahoo.com...

Seems that all but three took the "blood money."

In addition to the above mentioned lawsuits, the victims compensation fund awarded over 7 BILLION dollars.

Originally posted by CameronFox


In addition to the above mentioned lawsuits, the victims compensation fund awarded over 7 BILLION dollars.

Why did the fund award 7 billion dollars? If 911 Was as some said " we had no idea something like this could happen" why did "we" pay out so much to settle these lawsuits?

IMO it was to prevent the "truth" from coming out in a court of law there by opening up a Pandoras Box.

Apparently in America, the TRUTH can be bought and people will keep their mouths shut for a share of the pie.

Well it's the least our government-of-scoundrels could do. This is pocket change compared to what they have made off of this orchestrated event.

Makes you wonder who the final three are. Three of the four remaining Jersey Widows?

Originally posted by infinityoreilly


Why did the fund award 7 billion dollars? If 911 Was as some said " we had no idea something like this could happen" why did "we" pay out so much to settle these lawsuits?

IMO it was to prevent the "truth" from coming out in a court of law there by opening up a Pandoras Box.

Actually, if everyone were to sue the airlines, airports, security agencies, etc. You would have seen at least two airlines go bankrupt. This was to prevent something of that magnitude from happening.

The Victims Compensation fund however, was not mandatory. Many chose to turn the governments compensation down and start their own lawsuits.... This did not result in any Pandoras Boxes opening.

I wonder was Stanley Hilton apart of this or not...
google video Stanley Hilton interviewed by Alex Jones....

reply to post by CameronFox

Actually, if everyone were to sue the airlines, airports, security agencies, etc. You would have seen at least two airlines go bankrupt. This was to prevent something of that magnitude from happening.

How do you know, it was to prevent the Airlines from taken a beating?
The Victims Compensation fund was probably used to keep the victims from suing the Airlines Company’s. The reason I say this, is the Airline Companies would have to answers some tough questions as of when, why, and how and the media would have a field day exposing the truth from these trials. This in return would have proved the government was lying to, as of what had happened on 911.

One of the deals I have read about the Victims Compensation fund once you accept the compensation, you have to sign an agreement that you will not sue. So, what do you call the Victims Compensation fund, I call it hush money, don’t rock the boat money.

I have to ask where did this money for the Victims Compensation fund came from.
Why the taxpayers of course, from you, and me. So, there is no way to hold United, and American airlines to be held accountable for allowing those airplanes to get highjacked. Preventive measures should have already been in place years before 911, to stop highjackers from taken over our airliners. The FBI talked about such scenarios that could have taken place in the late 1980’s, however, the Airlines chose to do nothing.

The Victims Compensation fund however, was not mandatory. Many chose to turn the governments compensation down and start their own lawsuits.... This did not result in any Pandoras Boxes opening.

Very true indeed, however, most people that chose to do their own lawsuits ended up settling out. Preventive measures in those court cases, where made to keep the Pandora box from being opened. This is why we do not have any real answers today of what really happened on 911.




[edit on 6-3-2009 by WonderwomanUSA]

I think it's interesting that the government and airlines bothered to settle. After all, if there was no forewarning, no way to prevent it, blah blah blah, ad nauseum, then legally, they had no guilt, and the cases would have been thrown out of court. It's been done in the past with other lawsuits against the government. Hell, alot of times the government just ignored it.

What I'm waiting for is a massive class action lawsuit against the EPA and FEMA over ground zero sickness.

Originally posted by WonderwomanUSA
How do you know, it was to prevent the Airlines from taken a beating?

The Senate and House of Representatives named it the "Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act"

Please go to the following link for some detailed info.

source

The Victims Compensation fund was probably used to keep the victims from suing the Airlines Company’s.

Yes. If you remember correctly. the airlines had been taking a beating prior to 911 and then post 911. Stocks did not get back to pre 911 levels until around Nov. 2006. United and American Airlines would have for certain gone belly up. How much money do you think the victims families would have received from a company that claims bankruptcy?

source

In addition, $3,000,000,000 was added on for airline safety and security in conjunction with this Act in order to restore public confidence in the airline industry.

The reason I say this, is the Airline Companies would have to answers some tough questions as of when, why, and how and the media would have a field day exposing the truth from these trials. This in return would have proved the government was lying to, as of what had happened on 911.

What tough questions? The Airlines were sued. There were many lawsuits against AA and UA. They were all settled. None of the victims families (but 3) felt the need to take their claims to a jury. None of them think there was anything sinister regarding the airlines.

One of the deals I have read about the Victims Compensation fund once you accept the compensation, you have to sign an agreement that you will not sue. So, what do you call the Victims Compensation fund, I call it hush money, don’t rock the boat money.

See above.

I have to ask where did this money for the Victims Compensation fund came from.
Why the taxpayers of course, from you, and me.

I am not sure, I will have to look into it. I believe the airlines were required to payback the funds... please do not quote me...I am not certain. I will get back to you.

EDIT... please see post below for more info

So, there is no way to hold United, and American airlines to be held accountable for allowing those airplanes to get highjacked.

I will have to disagree with your statement. AA & UA did not "allow" them to get hijacked. Try to think Pre-911.

Preventive measures should have already been in place years before 911, to stop highjackers from taken over our airliners. The FBI talked about such scenarios that could have taken place in the late 1980’s, however, the Airlines chose to do nothing.

Can you please source your statement regarding this? I never heard that the airlines chose to "do nothing." I never heard the FBI gave this information to any of the airlines.

Very true indeed, however, most people that chose to do their own lawsuits ended up settling out. Preventive measures in those court cases, where made to keep the Pandora box from being opened. This is why we do not have any real answers today of what really happened on 911.

Settling was the smart thing to do. Trying to sue a massive company takes years and years. 911 was no exception as you know it's been over 7 years.


Bottom line, none of the victims families that are suing, believe the government or the airlines were "in on it."

[edit on 7-3-2009 by CameronFox]

Here is some information regarding the funding for the Victims Compensation Funds:

Air Transportation Stabilization Board
Loan Guarantees

The purpose of the guarantees issued by the Board is to compensate air carriers for losses incurred as a result of the terrorist attacks on the United States that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Before entering into an agreement to issue a guarantee, the Board must determine that:

* The obligor is an air carrier for which credit is not reasonably available at the time of the transaction;
* the intended obligation is prudently incurred; and
* such agreement is a necessary part of maintaining a safe, efficient and viable commercial aviation system in the United States.

source

Thank you.

A question that I wrote down in 2005, still has no Answer,
"Ruddy G" right after 911 Bloomberg took over for Ruddy,
Ruddy started a Terrorism Consulting Firm, If my memory serves me correctly Ruddy made a few haundred million off of a Start Up company -- how much of the Victims Money do you think ended up in this start up company....?

There was a huge lawsuit filed against Saudi Arabian charities and members of the Saudi royal family, but US courts ruled that the institutions and people named were immune from being sued. The grounds for immunity are interesting.

www.truthout.org...

New York - The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, four princes and other Saudi entities are immune from a lawsuit filed by victims of the September 11 attacks and their families alleging they gave material support to al Qaeda, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday. . . .

The appeals court found that the defendants are protected under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

The court also noted that exceptions to the immunity rule do not apply because Saudi Arabia has not been designated a state sponsor of terrorism by the U.S. State Department.

The suit was filed in 2002 and was for $116 Trillion dollars!!

archives.cnn.com...

Acknowledging the odds are against them, relatives of the September 11 attacks filed a 15-count, $116 trillion lawsuit Thursday against the company run by Osama bin Laden's family, Saudi Arabian princes and Sudan.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by more than 600 family members, plus some firefighters and rescue workers.

Calling themselves Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism, the plaintiffs are suing seven international banks; eight Islamic foundations, charities and their subsidiaries; individual terrorist financiers; the Saudi bin Laden Group; three Saudi princes; and the government of Sudan for allegedly bankrolling the terrorist al Qaeda network, Osama bin Laden and the Taliban.

Is it possible that the US government has "erred" in not designating some Saudi people and institutions, sponsors of terrorism? Or maybe the US government should broaden the conditions which would allow victims to recover damages from wealthy sponsors of terrorism. Does that make sense to you? I wonder if any of you would consider contacting your representatives about it. Just a thought.

Among the allegations in the complaint, said attorney Ron Motley, are that certain members of the Saudi royal family have been active supporters of and helped fund al Qaeda and bin Laden.

The attorneys and investigators were able to obtain, through French intelligence, the translation of a secretly recorded meeting between representatives of bin Laden and three Saudi princes in which they sought to pay him hush money to keep him from attacking their enterprises in Saudi Arabia, Motley said.

[edit on 14-3-2009 by ipsedixit]

[edit on 14-3-2009 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by ipsedixit


We might also consider that according to the FBI;

Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI

“The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

www.teamliberty.net...

The US Justice system cannot allow the punishment of innocent persons for crimes they did not commit, can they? If they allow lawsuits against Saudi sponsors of terrorism, then they might also have to allow lawsuits against Israeli sponsors of terrorism.

posted by ipsedixit

New York - The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, four princes and other Saudi entities are immune from a lawsuit filed by victims of the September 11 attacks and their families alleging they gave material support to al Qaeda, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday. . . .

The appeals court found that the defendants are protected under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

The court also noted that exceptions to the immunity rule do not apply because Saudi Arabia has not been designated a state sponsor of terrorism by the U.S. State Department.

The suit was filed in 2002 and was for $116 Trillion dollars!!

[edit on 3/15/09 by SPreston]