bandbsull's blog

Evidence That 9/11 Terrorists Cased Logan's Poor Security

As another anniversary of 9/11 passes, we would be well served to examine information which has come to light since the 9/11 Commission Report was first published. That report erroneously assumed that, despite security problems at Boston's Logan Airport, no evidence suggests that such issues entered into the terrorists targeting. We now know that to be a false assumption and that such evidence does exist.

The Motley Rice law firm, in court documents supporting wrongful death claims, stated that lax security caused or contributed to the hijackers' selection of Boston's Logan Airport. As evidence they cited the following:

Was aviation security given the short shrift in the 9/11 Commission report?

On October 6th, 2014, the New York Post ran a story about Mohamed Atta conducting surveillance at Boston's Logan airport on May 11, 2001. Although the 9/11 Commission had this information when they were developing their report, they conveniently gave it no mention.

Immediately after the 9/11 Commission report was published, I wrote a letter to Commissioner Kean which highlighted several items which were provided to the commission's staffers, but inexplicably left out of their final report.

The following are examples:

* The Massachusetts Governor’s Special Advisory Task Force on the Massachusetts Port Authority (Carter Commission report), with its findings relative to FAA, airline and Massport security shortcomings in the lead up to 9/11.

* The April ‘01 memorandum from the Massachusetts Port Authority’s Director of Security, Joe Lawless, to his leadership, which cited terrorist ties to Logan Airport and the need to address known vulnerabilities there.

Where's the 9/11 Public Archive?

As the last of the litigation resulting from the September 11, 2001 attacks comes to a close, now is the time to capture the tremendous amount of information about aviation insecurity in the lead up to 9/11 which has been revealed as a result of legal discovery.

The Motley Rice law firm, which represented the majority of the wrongful death plaintiffs, spoke about creating a 9/11 Public Archive which would incorporate pertinent discovery information. It has been over two years since the last wrongful death case settled and we have yet to see that archive come to fruition. It is still a good idea.

9/11: Accountability in the Skies

I am a retired Federal Aviation Administration Special Agent from the Boston

I was heartsick for my home town on Monday, April 15th when terrorists exploded
two bombs killing 3 people and injuring 264. It was the same feeling I had on
September 11, 2001 when ten terrorists bypassed Logan Airport airline
security, boarded American Airlines flight 11 and United Airlines flight 175 and
crashed two large Boeing passenger jets into the World Trade Center.

On Friday May 10, 2013 in New York City, hundreds of construction workers – along with
politicians from both sides of the aisle – protested that nearly 12 years
after 9/11, American Airlines and United Airlines still have not been held
accountable for letting terrorists onto their planes with prohibited
weapons and allowing them to turn the planes into weapons of mass
destruction. These workers voiced their anger that more than a decade has
come and gone without the airlines or their insurers being held accountable for
failed security in the lead up to and on 9/11. The airlines have not owned
up to their responsibility and have never paid what they owe. What does that

9/11 Trial

The following letter submitted by Larry Silverstein's attorneys, FZWZ, to Judge Hellerstein this month contains information which the general public should be aware of, especially as pertains to airline liability, the 9/11 wrongful death case of Mark Bavis and holding Judge Hellerstein's feet to the fire to provide for the trial the 9/11 plaintiffs have long awaited so as to allow for information pertinent to the 9/11 attacks to be dealt with in open court.

September 17, 2010
By E-Mail
Hon. Alvin K. Hellerstein
United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street, Room 1050 New York, New York 10007-1312
Re: In Re September 11 Litigation, 21 MC 101 (AKH)
World Trade Center Properties LLC, et at.
v. United Airlines, et aL 08 CIV 3719
World Trade Center Properties LLC, et al.
v. American Airlines, et al.. 08 CIV 3722

Dear Judge Hellerstein:

9/11 How Soon We Forget

Last September UAL Corporation, the holding company whose primary subsidiary is United Airlines, proudly announced that Jane F. Garvey, former Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, was joining the UAL Board of Directors.

This is the same Jane Garvey who was responsible for aviation security in the lead up to 9/11. The same Jane Garvey who embarrassed herself in testimony before the 9/11 Commission with her lack of knowledge of her own security operations within the FAA.

United Airlines lost two planes and a number of employees on September 11, 2001, not to mention the passengers who lost their lives and those killed on the ground. Do you remember airline personnel wearing buttons on their uniforms with flight numbers saying, “We won’t forget?” I do, but apparently United’s management does not.

9/11 Justice Delayed is Justice Denied

On July 23, 2010 Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein published an order terminating motions in the 9/11 wrongful death cases of Barbara Keating and Sara Low.

After languishing in his court for years and being told by their attorneys that they had almost no chance of getting a trial on liability, a proposed settlement was proffered in Keating v. American Airlines, Inc. and Low v. U.S. Airways, Inc. Unfortunately the good judge essentially sat on the motions for several months, neither ruling for or against them.

Can you imagine how the Keating and Low families felt? After all this time a settlement is finally agreed upon by both the plaintiffs and the defendants and what does Hellerstein do? Nothing! He simply refuses to rule either way.

It was not a case of the plaintiffs withdrawing before approval could be granted. Rather, it was that approval, nor for that matter disapproval, was simply not forthcoming. After twisting in the wind for so long and having all their efforts to establish a public archive squashed, the Low family, in particular, was devastated.

9/11 Transparency Muzzled

Bruce Golding of the New York Post has done a good job of reporting on the 9/11 property damage litigation, with the exception of addressing the issue of transparency, or more correctly, the lack thereof.

On July 1, 2010 Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein issued an order granting a joint motion approving property damage settlements in 18 of 21 cases asserting property damage claims from the September 11, 2001 attack. The proposed amount , $1.2 billion, represents a 72% discount from the settling plaintiffs' total claimed damages of $4.4 billion.

The payouts are on hold pending a legal challenge by developer Larry Silverstein who's seeking $12 billion for his WTC losses. He didn't join in the settlement, which he said was "shrouded in secrecy" and involved "collusive" deals struck by insurers with interests on both sides of the table.

In a separate order, signed by Judge Hellerstein on the same day, he resolved the intervenor's motion to unseal documents. The New York Times had moved to unseal, and thereby make public, the motion filed to approve the property settlement.

9/11's False Elvis

The New York Times recently published a profile of Alvin K. Hellerstein, the judge charged with overseeing the litigation stemming from the 9/11 World Trade Center attack. In it the judge was cited for his empathy towards the victims’ families and his commitment to transparency, when in fact just the opposite has been true in the wrongful death cases. One WTC responder has even gone so far as to glowingly refer to Hellerstein as the “Elvis of the 9/11 community.”

Legal experts believe that the judge may see his handling of the 9/11 litigation as his legacy. There is evidence to support that when you see how often he has been cited in the press, saying that he has a very strong policy in favor of public records and accountability. He’s also said, with reference to the property cases, that he would prefer more open records and that he might even consider unsealing them.

It would appear that the good judge certainly talks the talk, but does he walk the walk or do his rulings reveal that his comments are more specious rhetoric than a true commitment to transparency?