In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001., 2012 WL 257568 (2012) The district court also dismissed many other non-Federal plaintiffs’ intentional tort claims for assault and battery, trespass, and wrongful death and survival on the ground that plaintiffs failed to allege that the defendants had “supported, aided and abetted, or conspired with the September 11 terrorists” in a manner that warranted liability. SPA101-02 (SAMBA J); SPA87-88 (Terrorist Attacks IT); SPA53-54 (Terrorist Attacks I). The court dismissed corresponding wrongful death and survival claims, as well as the Federal Ins. plaintiffs’ trespass claims, on the same grounds. SPA231-32, 252-53 & n.12 (Terrorist Attacks V); SPA101-02 (SAMBA J); SPA88, 98 (Terrorist Attacks IT); SPA53-54, 61-62 (Terrorist Attacks I). As the court recognized, however, because the ATA incorporates state tort law causes of action, liability under the plaintiffs’ intentional tort claims, wrongful death and survival claims, and trespass claims is necessarily coextensive with liability under the ATA. SPA88 (Terrorist Attacks IT) (“If Plaintiffs state a claim for relief under the ATA, they will have also stated a claim for wrongful death and survival, the Federal Plaintiffs will have stated a claim for trespass, and the Aston and Burnett Plaintiffs will have stated claims for intentional infliction of emotional *149 distress.”). Because the complaints state claims under the ATA for knowingly providing material support to al-Qaeda, see supra Pomt LA & LB, the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ intentional tort claims -- like its dismissal of the ATA claims -- should be vacated. 2. Defendants Who Supported al-Qaeda Through Its Network Are Liable. Finally, in its most recent opinion, the district court held that the intentional tort claims against some defendants (precisely which ones, the court does not say) fail because plaintiffs “broaden the scope of liability to include those who allegedly aided, abetted, conspired