Home » Blogs » 9-11 Family Guy's blog

Boston Herald Supports the Families

9-11 Family Guy's picture
Submitted by 9-11 Family Guy on Mon, 2008-07-07 17:32.

9/11 families: Don’t let airlines off the hook

Joe Dwinell By Joe Dwinell
Monday, July 7, 2008 - Updated 9h ago

Families suing Massport and airlines over the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks say blaming the hijackings on a collapse of national intelligence and not a failure of airport security is a legal slap in the face to victims.

A federal judge must rule this month whether airline companies can grill FBI and CIA agents over the 19 al-Qaeda hijackers, pushing the blame away from duped airport screeners.

Family members who lost loved ones argue the fault has always been on airport security, including at Logan International Airport, from where two of the hijacked jets took off. “I can’t imagine the court allowing the blame to be shifted,” said Mike Low, whose 28-year-old daughter, Sara Elizabeth Low of Boston, was a flight attendant on American Airlines [AMR] Flight 11 out of Logan.

Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of Federal District Court in Manhattan must decide if national security will now take a front seat in the last lawsuits remaining in the attacks.

Lawyers for five remaining families yet to settle argue the case has always been about letting Saudi men with box cutters, pepper spray and all-in-one knives on board. “It doesn’t take any information on terrorist activities to keep those weapons off planes,” said attorney Don Migliori.

Migliori, whose firm Motley-Rice represents five families who lost loved ones on 9/11 and World Trade Center property owners who lost $20 billion in holdings, said the case is heading to court in the spring.

A Massport spokesman declined comment, saying the agency does not comment on pending litigation.

Migliori said allowing the airlines to focus on al-Qaeda is a “smokescreen” to avoid millions in liability.

»

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
gretavo's picture

Family Guy...

Submitted by gretavo on Mon, 2008-07-07 17:37.

What does this mean: "A federal judge must rule this month whether airline companies can grill FBI and CIA agents over the 19 al-Qaeda hijackers" What does this have to do with the companies who provided security that day? And why, again, is Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruling on every single 9/11 related case? How much you wanna bet we end up with an airport surcharge to "compensate the victims' families" for "Massport's failure"?

»
9-11 Family Guy's picture

all I know is...

Submitted by 9-11 Family Guy on Mon, 2008-07-07 17:42.

the writer says it's a slap in the face to the victims' families, and that is bad. and until you have a signed confession from Hellerstein that he inappropriately accepted the heart-wrenching job of ruling on every single 9/11 related case I will just have to assume you hate him because he is a prominent Zionist connected with some of the same charitable organizations as Larry Silverstein, which just proves that you are a horrible racist demolition-obsessed jew-hater!!

»
gretavo's picture

oh yeah...

Submitted by gretavo on Mon, 2008-07-07 17:47.

I'd almost forgotten about this:

UJA? U Don't Say! Identifying the Unspoken Nexus of New York Zionism and 9/11...

»
Annoymouse's picture

gretavo

Submitted by Annoymouse on Mon, 2008-07-07 18:48.

instead of being Family Guy's gadfly, why don't you make a positive contribution?
such as agreeing with Family Guy!

[edited]

»
gretavo's picture

I've ALWAYS agreed with Family Guy

Submitted by gretavo on Mon, 2008-07-07 19:28.

when he isn't wrong.

»
casseia's picture

Scrubby?

Submitted by casseia on Tue, 2008-07-08 03:43.

Hey, if that was you not logged in, I regret deleting the "dumbrehensor" with which you signed your snarkery. (I thought maybe it was just an attempt to stir up more inter-blog rancor.) In fact, it was an allusion to the following exchange over there:

...

You make it sound as if the bbc solved anything.
They made another hit piece. in their 'conspiracy files' series. The title really sais it all.
Looks like there was a need to sprinkle some deception due to the increase of awareness about wtc7. Maybe thats cause wtc7 is a dangerous topic for the official Big Lie. Unlike forewarnings about al-quaida hijackings, which serve it pretty well.
Submitted by em7 on Sun, 07/06/2008 - 12:45pm.
» reply | 2 points

Unless...
You're of the mindset that think knowing what type of attack is coming, where it's coming from, and when it's coming might be invaluable information for those that wish to make sure the attacks are a success. Unless you're of the mindset that using foreknowledge to show that they were lying helps our cause. Since we don't know exactly what happened on 9/11, I think it's foolish to brush aside information simply because it doesn't coincide with what people THINK happened that day.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think people shouldn't talk about?
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?
Submitted by Jon Gold on Sun, 07/06/2008 - 1:16pm.
» reply | 2 points

em7
Instead of being Jon Gold's gadfly, why don't you try making a positive contribution? Some original research, maybe let us know how 9/11 activism is doing in Switzerland?
Submitted by Reprehensor on Sun, 07/06/2008 - 1:53pm.

Why not just put that in the site policy? "There is zero tolerance for persistent disagreement with Jon Gold." He keeps saying the SAME THINGS, but continuing to disagree is "being a gadfly."

»