Congress created the Victim Compensation Fund within days of the attacks, to protect the airlines from financial ruin by discouraging lawsuits. People who filed by Dec. 22, 2003, had to relinquish their right to sue.
The fund paid $6 billion to survivors of 2,880 of those killed in the attacks, representing 97 percent of the families of the dead, according to its final report.
Now, in a concrete sign of movement in the other families’ cases, the judge, Alvin K. Hellerstein of Federal District Court in Manhattan, has set a trial date of Sept. 24 — 2,205 days since 19 hijackers brought four planes out of the sky into the twin towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania.
By the plaintiffs’ own accounts, they have sued with mixed motives, which sometimes even they cannot untangle. They present themselves as heroes fighting for the truth and as families honoring the memory of their loved ones, but they are not apologetic about seeking money. They seem to be an angry, stubborn, sorrowful and stalwart group, who have been little known by most Americans, or perhaps forgotten with the passage of time. More here...
34 comments:
This story was actually on the front page of the NY Times today. Very impressive. Way to go again, Shoes.
It is my hope that the heat is really heaped onto Boeing and the airlines during this trial for "apparently" not having any anti-hijacking mechanisms in place on 9/11/01. Maybe then they will crack and finally come clean with the fact that, yes, indeed, the planes did have anti-hijacking mechanisms in place, and nobody has any idea where that fairy tale of a story about Arab hijackers with box cutters came from since it certainly is a highly unlikely scenario, given what they know -- yet were never officially asked -- about their 757's and 767's.
This is yet another 9/11-related trial where I wish I had a front row seat!
BTW, perusing the front pages of the major newspapers from across the country today at the local newstand, I noticed that most newspapers featured the frontpage headline of, "Bush considers bringing some troops home."
USA Today was one that did not feature this, but at least it had a small article at the bottom of the front page saying Bush had a surprise visit in Iraq.
The worst newspaper by far, however, was the San Francisco Chronicle, whose big feature front page article was that the Oakland Bay Bridge, after being closed all of Labor Day Weekend for repairs, was open and ready for business by this morning as expected.
Unfortunately, this no longer surprises me, given the non-progressive vibes I keep getting out of San Francisco, where many people seem more racist and elitist to me than progressive and compassionate, and pulling in at least a six figure salary seems barely passable if you want to be considered a socially acceptable human being.
Anyway, I obviously have my biases here for personal reasons, but then again, what else can you say about the home of former city mayor Diane Feinstein, the fifth richest member of Congress?
"Bush does tears," while I try to hold down my breakfast on this one...
http://tinyurl.com/2wqhs5
http://tinyurl.com/2t66r8
You'll love this lunatic hnic
Ohio congressman found dead:
http://tinyurl.com/3c3dlq
Thanks, Life... just read him and left him a comment. Boy is he ticked off, as is the reaction I expect from anybody who was at first taken in despite the nagging little question mark deep inside, then later as the question mark grew was afraid to question and speak up, then finally got a clear view of the truth and is now shouting it from the mountain tops and demanding the heads of the murderous thugs who were really responsible!
Just my guess that this is what happened with this guy since it is also what happened with me.
In memory of Paul Gillmore, whom I suspect may have been on the verge of blowing the whistle on corruption (in his case possibly voter fraud), here is an article published last year in Rolling Stone by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. about voter fraud in the 2004 election. It has over 200 references:
http://tinyurl.com/qrvrv
In a follow up to the Feinstein money-making scandal that Money (appropriately named) alerted me to a while ago, it didn't take much digging to find information on it:
http://tinyurl.com/22ksks
It would be nice to hear the other side of the story on this, if anybody has a link to such a thing.
It's been known for years that Feinstein is/was a shady double dealing witch.
Feinstein, Pelosi, Boxer, McKinney, Moseley-Braun, Jackson-Lee, and their ilk are some of the most corrupted members of Congress. Between gerrymandering, illegal donations, and spousal connections, they make Republicans look like choir boys.
Well, not sure about the rest on that list, but you better damn well stay away from my girl Barbara Lee or you will certainly get a ten page post from me on that one -- that's a promise and a threat!
http://tinyurl.com/5zey7
I was actually talking about Sheila Jackson-Lee, but, Babs Lee ain't much better.
Okay, well, being the open-minded beast that I am, provide the links and evidence to back up your claims (yes, including anything you've got on my Babs -- *sigh*), and I will gladly sort through it all to try to get to the bottom of it.
For instance, I distinctly remember somebody accusing McKinney (who is divorced from her husband, BTW) of receiving campaign contributions from "extremist" Islamic groups (is there any other kind of Islamic group according to most people in this country?), but I never even bothered to check it out since I am fairly confident, last I checked, that this is not illegal or even unethical.
Mind you, it is always of interest to know where campaign contributions are coming from, too, but none of this stuff is in the league of what I am reading about Diane Feinstein.
http://tinyurl.com/3ddunq
click on the Visual Maps button and then start the Java Applet....fascinating...
h nic, I'm not sure there is another side to the Feinstein story. Even a fairly liberal site, alternet, ran a piece on her "conflict of interest" --
http://tinyurl.com/22tj6a.
Some people who are following the Sibel Edmonds case (from an earlier post here) say that the reason Waxman won't investigate is that there are too many members of Congress involved in that scandal. I thought Waxman was one of the last good guys, but maybe not. Very discouraging.
Waxman is an even bigger fraud than the above mentioned Dimocrats. And I'm surprised that this is "new" to you all. This has been going on for years.
The groups link is interesting, but what's the point? Are they saying special interest groups realize there is strength in numbers and come together for common causes or related causes (and therefore must also compromise at a certain level for sure)?
Also, are they implying that conservative special interest groups aren't the same?
I suppose all this may seem frightening to some who strongly oppose some of these causes, but to me it just looks like democracy in action.
There is a big difference, by the way, for groups coming together to try to flex political clout and pressure for their causes versus groups coming together to murder innocent citizens and try to turn the country into a police state!
I have spent hours going over every single live broadcast of 9/11 events from the web site:
http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive
The two areas I am most concerned about leading up the anniversary of 9/11 are: 1) evidence of dustification phenomena such as lathering or fuming and 2) evidence for or against the idea that TV fakery was used to convince us that planes flew into the towers when they really didn't, as is proposed in a popular Truth Movement series called September Clues:
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/108.html
I'll talk about dustification later, but as for September Clues...
Although the September Clues people may be earnest when they claim that no planes flew into the towers on 9/11 (and that it was all TV fakery to cover up missiles or bombs or some such thing), there is almost nothing to what they are claiming when you go through it piece by piece, especially in context of where they are getting their information and how they are presenting it. I found much of the evidence presented in September Clues to be slanted, inaccurate, and misleading in several places. I eventually gave up trying to keep an open mind about there possibly being no planes, even before I had a chance to finish the entire series.
For instance, contrary to the September Clues claims that only friends and relatives of TV-people gave testimony of seeing planes fly into the towers on 9/11, there was reliable testimony of probably dozens of non-TV-related eyewitnesses (though even the TV-related people, as it turns out, were pretty reliable once you uncovered the slants presented by September Clues).
These eyewitnesses all gave first and last names (an apparent requirement for all the networks) and there were several each on ABC, CBS, NBC, BBC, FOX, and CNN. Of course, not all of them saw "Boeing 767's." In fact, I don't think a single person said "767." Many said 737 and some of them even claimed they could have seen a missile or a small propeller plane, etc. However, most seemed pretty reliable to me and most claimed they saw passenger-sized planes flying into the buildings. I fully believe them and fully believe it.
I can see the writing on the wall, though, with this "no planes" mess that September Clues seems to be leading certain parts of the Truth Movement into.
Oprah Winfrey is apparently going to have a 9/11 show next Monday on 9/10/07 with secret guests, and I am beginning to think (since this is probably going to be a major hit-piece on the Truth Movement) the secret guests may end up being an audience-full of reliable eyewitnesses to the planes flying into the towers. It will be shown these witnesses were interviewed on 9/11/01 by all the major networks and all the newspapers, so their testimonies and first and last names are all well documented.
Bottom line: at this point the "no planes" argument seems like yet another Truth Movement distraction and false lead, like possibly WTC7, one that keeps us away from the real truth, which might be remote controlled planes.
For those of you who remember part III of Zeitgeist, there was a section there about how the International Bankers had a pattern of destroying the little, local banks every so often, starting with large numbers of foreclosures, as we are beginning to see now.
I was thinking that this may have had something to do with Congressman Paul Gillmore being knocked off recently by the regime, since he was the son of a small town banker and was always a strong supporter of the small, local banks:
http://tinyurl.com/2w9h4e
However, here is another interesting excerpt from the above article about Paul Gillmore:
"A supporter of the war in Iraq, Gillmor had turned increasingly critical of its aftermath, and just last week suggested it was time to begin withdrawing troops from the region."
This can probably be added to the growing list of possibilities for foul play in his death. The regime seems to be very good at symbolic deaths and disasters that are meant to be clear messages to other members of congress.
I also found it interesting that Gillmore's district was hit pretty hard by floods recently, and he even flew around his district just last week to assess all the damage with the head of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff.
There have not been very many comments on the judiciary lately. It's always good to get some welcoming news about potential heroes from that branch of the government...
"Judge Strikes Down Part of Patriot Act"
http://tinyurl.com/2jvym3
Just found this site off another blog. Another blog of idiots. What planet do you nut balls live on? Remote controlled airplanes, lathering, fuming, laser beams, what's next? Aliens? Get a life.
Well, you're here too.
Actually, Anon, I think I am changing my mind about lathering (what I am defining as a preparation for dustification involving spewing out clouds of some kind of chemical on the target material).
I am beginning to think it may all just be either fuming (what I am defining as a continuation of the initial explosive chemical reaction responsible for dustification) or digesting (my own new word, subject to change, that I am defining as a possible side reaction of dustification that involves metal-eating or other material-selective dust clouds). Digestion may end up being just a "fuming dust cloud."
There is ample evidence presented at drjudywood.com of the "fuming" of larger dustified particles into smaller particles, as heavier dust that had settled on the ground relatively quickly after the towers were destroyed broke down into even smaller dust particles and eventually lifted off the ground as "fume" for days if not weeks after 9/11. In fact fuming, which apparently does not involve high temperatures at all, is what everybody seems to mistake as evidence of "underground molten metal" and "the ground still 'steaming' for weeks after 9/11."
In the "toasty cars" section of Judy's web site, there is also ample evidence of the "digesting" of car engine blocks, which are usually made of cast iron and are usually bolted on an aluminium cylinder head.
In addition, there is plenty of other evidence of material-selective digestion phenomena -- like the dust clouds eating away whatever the heck certain car door handles are made out of, perhaps chrome or a metal/plastic mixture -- yet the clouds never seeming to harm people, at least not on the outside and at least not in the short term.
Anyway, I finally found what I believe may be evidence of digestion in action, as a greyish dust cloud from the destruction of WTC2 (to be distinguished from the white dust clouds at the base of the tower and the black smoke clouds at the top) slowly creeps up the side of WTC1, and the entire side of WTC1 then seems to undergo digestion and starts fuming itself:
(See the twenty second video clip from 4:45 to 5:05 in the following live broadcast from NBC at about 10am on 9/11/01)
http://www.archive.org/details/nbc200109110954-1036
Note that I was previously calling this phenomenon "lathering" (as per Judy's creative new dustification language) because I had missed the origin of the phenomenon as shown above and thought, from the only evidence I had at the time (namely, the six-second video clip from 7:14 to 7:20 in the same above live footage from NBC) that maybe chemicals were purposely being spewed from the ventilation system of WTC1 in preparation for dustification.
I am now thinking there maybe wasn't any "lathering," and the chemicals needed to destroy the towers perhaps had been applied to the steel for months ahead of time, if not years, in the form of "fire protective coatings" on all the internal steel supports.
More on this later...
Videos critical of Giuliani's role on 9/11:
http://tinyurl.com/2vjd2b
Bin Laden campaigning for his friend Bush again?
http://tinyurl.com/23ozp6
Yes, h nic, isn't it convenient that Osama's back just in time to help Bush whip up the chickenhawks so he can go after Iran? Timing is everything...
You would think the appearance of Bin Laden would be a reminder of how ineffective Bush has been in the "war on terror," at least to those supporters of his who are still buying into everything, or at least pretending to buy into everything because they don't know what else to do with President Merkin Muffley at the helm.
Yep...it's a crying shame we don't have a few more General Turgidsons' and Major Kongs' around when we need them. Too many Wesley Clarks' and John Murthas' and the rest of the chickenhawks around for the good of the country.
I can't find an article I read a while ago about how the WTC towers were plagued with problems with the fire protective coatings falling off all the time, and the recoating job being a never ending process.
Anyway, I'm sure it's all well documented somewhere, but it seems it would be a pretty easy task to coat any part of the infrastructure with whatever dustification chemicals you wanted, with not that many people (2 or 3?) having to be in on what was actually being sprayed on the steel.
It wouldn't surprise me if the entire 9/11 treachery could have been pulled off by less than a small handful who were directly involved and actually knew all that was going down. I'd venture to say even Bush may not have been 100% in the loop until it was too late. It would explain his somewhat odd reaction at the news. He can't be that good of an actor!
Doesn't take away from the fact that he should hang with the rest of them anyway, for continuing to try to follow through on the grand plan.
No bigger "chicken hawks" than Bush and Cheney, (and we assume yourself of course.)
So you served in the military Shoes? I'd go in a heartbeat if I wasn't too old and had some fancy ass piece of paper with letters behind my name. Why isn't your behind over there if you're so brave? You're pretty good at dishing out the insults, but I see nothing but bluster and true chicken on your part.
and...ya' know what happens when you assume something don't ya'?
We aren't the ones beating the war drums here, LB. Big difference.
Post a Comment