Why did around 40% of families of passengers not accept compensation?

[John Doe II]

Here is an interesting article:
http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/911passengerlist.html

On April 22, 2002 only
Only three families of AA 11
Only three families of UA 175
Only five families of AA 77
and none of UA 93 had asked for compensation
http://911digitalarchive.org/objects/3.pdf

At the end there were a bit more:
Out of a total of 92 people on Flight 11, only 65
accepted the 9-11 fund (71%)
Out of a total of 65 people on Flight 175, only 46
accepted the 9-11 fund (71%)
Out of a total of 64 people on Flight 77, only 33
accepted the 9-11 fund (52%)
Out of a total of 45 people on Flight 93, only 25
accepted the 9-11 fund (56%)
http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/911passengerlist.html

Unfortunately the Final Report for the Compensation Fund doesn't give the names of people who accepted compensation.

[LARED]

1. The report can be found here

http://www.usdoj.gov/final_report.pdf

Edit to correct link

[spooked911]

2. That's not the report for the victim's compensation fund.

It's the
"REPORT OF THE JOINT INQUIRY INTO THE TERRORIST ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 –
BY THE HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND THE
SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE"

[LARED]

4. Sorry posted wrong link

I have fixed it. Thanks for the heads up

[spooked911]

3. I have been wondering for a while how many of the passengers on the 9/11

planes were real?

Fwiw, www.gallerize.com says Barbara Olson is alive and well in Belgium. Take with a grain of salt but still intriguing.

Although I think the flight 93 passengers WERE real.

[John Doe II]

8. But the interesting question is

why did basically no family ask for copensation prior to April 22, 2002 (you'll find an alphabetical list of people applying) and why only 60% ask for it in the end. And here no alphabetical list. Why did 40% refuse A LOT of money. But they don't sue. Evevybody is only talking about the exception Ellen Mariani.

[dflprincess]

5. If they accepted compensation

didn't that take away their right to sue the airlines or others that may eventually be found to have been responsible?

[Mr Rabble]

6. yes.

There was a fairly lengthy contract involved wherein the US govt was resolved of all complicity.

[John Doe II]

7. Social Security Death Index

Often told by DulceDecorum the article also points out:
Of the passengers and crew of Flight 11, 77, 175 & 93, only 22%, 22%, 28%, 13% respectively are in the SSDI.

[HamdenRice]

9. Maybe because only 22%, 28% and 13% were old geezers ...

In other words, not everyone who dies reports the death to the SSDI. Hence my cheeky subject line. If you are receiving SS checks because you are over 65, your survivors have to report to SS to stop sending checks. Similarly if the decedent was receiving SS disability, the death should be reported. Or if the death triggers some benefit, like survivor benefits survivors will notify SSDI.

But the death of a young person not receiving SS benefits I believe does not have to be reported to SSA. There would be no reason to do so.

[dflprincess]

10. There is the paltry death benefit that may be applied for

supposedly to help with expenses. But, I think it something like $285, once upon a time anyone's estate, regardless of age, may qualify for it (if they had enough quarter credits). Also, SS should be notified regardless of whether the decedent was receiving benefits or has eligible survivors so that the number is inactivated.