Home arrow Articles arrow European Politics arrow The Judicial Cover-Up of 9-11 & the Sinking of Estonia
The Judicial Cover-Up of 9-11 & the Sinking of Estonia Print E-mail
Written by Christopher Bollyn   
Wednesday, 11 February 2009

Bollyn.info really needs your support. 
Donate today so the research can continue --
I simply cannot afford to do it without your contribution.

An important article about the corporate nexus behind 9-11
and the financial crisis is in the works:

The Zionist Corporate Nexus Linking 9-11 & the Financial Crisis
(With a focus on the Israeli Trojan Horse at Credit Suisse)

Ask yourself:
How did Switzerland's 2 biggest banks lose $24 Billion in 2008?
How did Israeli Intelligence "snooker" the Swiss banks?

Contribute via PayPal to:  This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

*   *   *   *   *


"I would like some truth and accountability
-- and I want the public to hear it."
- Mike Low, father of Sara E. Low,
flight attendant on American Airlines Flight 11.

In Memoriam
+ Beverly Eckert +
May 29, 1951 - February 12, 2009

"My Silence Cannot Be Bought"
December 19, 2003
USA Today
I've chosen to go to court rather than accept a payoff from the 9/11 victims' compensation fund. Instead, I want to know what went so wrong with our intelligence and security systems that a band of religious fanatics was able to turn four U.S passenger jets into an enemy force, attack our cities and kill 3,000 civilians with terrifying ease. I want to know why two 110-story skyscrapers collapsed in less than two hours and why escape and rescue options were so limited.

I am suing because unlike other investigative avenues, including congressional hearings and the 9/11 commission, my lawsuit requires all testimony be given under oath and fully uses powers to compel evidence.

The victims' fund was not created in a spirit of compassion. Rather, it was a tacit acknowledgement by Congress that it tampered with our civil justice system in an unprecedented way. Lawmakers capped the liability of the airlines at the behest of lobbyists who descended on Washington while the Sept. 11 fires still smoldered.

And this liability cap protects not just the airlines, but also World Trade Center builders, safety engineers and other defendants.

The caps on liability have consequences for those who want to sue to shed light on the mistakes of 9/11. It means the playing field is tilted steeply in favor of those who need to be held accountable. With the financial consequences other than insurance proceeds removed, there is no incentive for those whose negligence contributed to the death toll to acknowledge their failings or implement reforms. They can afford to deny culpability and play a waiting game.

By suing, I've forfeited the "$1.8 million average award" for a death claim I could have collected under the fund. Nor do I have any illusions about winning money in my suit. What I do know is I owe it to my husband, whose death I believe could have been avoided, to see that all of those responsible are held accountable. If we don't get answers to what went wrong, there will be a next time. And instead of 3,000 dead, it will be 10,000. What will Congress do then?

So I say to Congress, big business and everyone who conspired to divert attention from government and private-sector failures: My husband's life was priceless, and I will not let his death be meaningless. My silence cannot be bought.
Beverly Eckert, founder of Voices of September 11th, a victims' advocacy group, lost her husband, Sean P. Rooney, at the World Trade Center on 9-11. Rooney had made it to the 105th floor of the South Tower in an attempt to be evacuated only to find that the fire escape doors were locked!  One of the key questions about 9-11 is why were no attempts made by helicopers to evacuate people from the roof? 

Beverly was speaking to Sean the moment he died.  Beverly died on 12 February 2009 when a Continental commuter flight from Newark crashed before landing in Buffalo, New York. Eckert was a very active 9-11 widow who had created a website and lobbied Congress to reform U.S. intelligence practices. Eckert had met with President Obama the week before she died to discuss how his administration would be handling terror suspects, like Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who is being held in the U.S. gulag in Guantanamo, Cuba.

According to her Valentine's Day obituary in the New York Times, Beverly Eckert's primary concerns were:
  • transparency in the 9-11 investigations;
  • improvement of building codes and emergency communications;
  • and that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is said to be the mastermind of 9-11 and who is in U.S. custody, be put on trial in the United States in an open trial to find the truth.  Is that asking too much?

The American people must demand what Eckert demanded. 
Beverly is gone, but we must not forget what she stood for.
*   *   *   *   *

The most steadfast fighters in the prolonged struggle for the truth of what really happened on 9-11 are, like the late Beverly Eckert, the relatives of three victims who died at the World Trade Center.  These dedicated families represent the last plaintiffs from the nearly 3,000 victims of 9-11.  While I know of one other unresolved wrongful death lawsuit, all the other families of victims have reached out-of-court settlements.  Although the 9-11 tort litigation is of immense historical importance to all Americans, it remains one of the most under-reported stories of our time.    

About 97 percent of the families of the approximately 3,000 victims of 9-11 accepted money from the U.S. taxpayer-funded Victims Compensation Fund, thereby forfeiting their right to sue for accountability and compensation.  Only 96 families refused to accept the government money doled out by "Special Master" Kenneth Feinberg, holding out for an open trial.  Yet, after more than 7 years, not one victim's lawsuit has gone to trial --- 3,000 victims and not a single trial.  What kind of justice is that?

"Special Master" Kenneth Feinberg doled out $7 billion in taxpayer funds to buy off 9-11 relatives.

Alvin K. Hellerstein, the federal judge managing the tort litigation process in the Manhattan district court has effectively delayed a 9-11 trial for years and used his power to force the grieving families to reach out-of-court settlements with the insurance companies.  In this legal war of attrition nearly all of the 96 families have been forced to give up their struggle for truth and justice and accept cash settlements for the loss of their loved ones.

9-11 Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein has family ties to Israel.

In mid-December, the families of Mark Bavis, a 31-year-old hockey scout, Barbara Keating, 72, and flight attendant Sara Low, 28, asked Hellerstein to schedule an open trial against Massport, the airlines, and the passenger screening and airport security companies in Boston.  Once again, however, Hellerstein delayed saying he must decide first on a defendant motion to have FBI and CIA agents testify about the threats of terrorism in the weeks prior to 9-11.  The next court date for 9-11 relatives is scheduled for March 2, 2009.

Donald A. Migliori, attorney for the families, called the motion a ploy to "politicize" the case.  Migliori said the families blame Massport, American Airlines, United Airlines, and the airport security companies who allowed terrorists, armed with box cutters and pepper spray, onboard Flight 11 and Flight 175 on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001.

The remaining families are demanding two things:  an open trial to determine accountability for the 9-11 attacks and the removal of the court-imposed secrecy of the many thousands of pages of discovery material.  Lawyers for the families have asked Hellerstein to release confidential discovery material obtained from airlines, security firms, and other defendants sued in the attacks.

Lawyers for the victims' families said the defendants had ”abused” the protections of the 2004 court order ”to shield from public view” virtually all materials turned over in the litigation.  Furthermore, the essential 9-11 discovery material has been censored by Andrew E. Colsky, the gatekeeper of information under the Sensitive Security Information (SSI) program.  Colsky, a Florida lawyer, was appointed by and served under the Israeli-American Michael Chertoff, the former secretary of the Dept. of Homeland Security.

Andrew Colsky, Chief Censor of 9-11 Evidence


One of the key defendants in the 9-11 tort litigation is a passenger screening and security firm, Huntleigh USA, which is owned by ICTS, a company closely tied to Israeli intelligence and run by Menachem Atzmon, a convicted criminal and political ally of Ehud Olmert.  Olmert, it should be noted made a secret visit to New York City the day before 9-11.  Judge Hellerstein's son lives on an Israeli settlement on the occupied West Bank and works for the Israeli government, something which should clearly be considered a conflict of interest for the judge managing the 9-11 litigation in which a defendant is an entity of Israeli state intelligence.

Joseph Hellerstein, the son of the federal judge managing the 9-11 tort litigation, lives on an illegal Israeli settlement on the occupied West Bank.

Saying that ”the public interest in the aviation security failures on September 11th is beyond dispute,” lawyers for families of two passengers and a flight attendant who were killed in the 9-11 hijackings asked Hellerstein on 14 January 2009 to release the huge number of secret documents which would reveal how the security failures occurred.  The documents, which lawyers said number in the millions of pages, were obtained from airlines, security firms (such as Huntleigh USA), and other defendants. 

"The public ought to know about the breakdowns in aviation security that allowed four commercial planes to become weapons of mass destruction," the lawyers for the three families wrote.

"We owe them a debt of gratitude, especially for their efforts to create a public archive of information," retired FAA Special Agent Brian F. Sullivan told the Boston Herald.

"I want some light to shine on all that happened leading up to 9-11 and on the day of 9-11," said Mike Low, father of Sara Low, a flight attendant on American Airlines Flight 11, the first jet to hit the twin towers. 

"My clients are adamant it will go to trial," Migliori said.


It is truly a matter of national importance for all Americans that the 9-11 plaintiffs receive an open trial and that all essential discovery material be made public.  After 7 years, the on-going legal battle in federal court is the essence of the struggle to find the truth of what happened on 9-11.  Judge Hellerstein has effectively delayed and obstructed justice for years and it would be highly unlikely for him to set a trial date when the 9-11 litigation is next taken up on March 2.

Hellerstein's history of acting to prevent an open trial for the 9-11 families is certainly not the only reason I am skeptical about the 9-11 relatives getting a trial.  Having seen how the families of the 852 victims of the sinking of Estonia have been denied a trial for more than 14 years has given me some insight into how governments can obstruct justice and accountability in such politically-connected crimes involving mass murder.

Estonia was carrying a secret cargo of stolen Russian military contraband when it sank on 28 September 1994 with at least 852 lives lost.

In both the 9-11 and the Estonia cases we are dealing with huge historic crimes in which governments, intelligence agencies, and the controlled media are the chief culprits behind the cover-ups.  Against such formidable foes, absent a completely independent judiciary, there is virtually no chance that the truth will come out in a court of law.  In such political cases as 9-11 and Estonia the legal process is actually designed to obstruct the relatives' search for truth and justice.  Under such criminal regimes as those we currently suffer under the victims' families are tortured and abused by the denial of justice.

The victims' compensation case from the Estonia catastrophe of September 1994 has languished in a Paris court since September 1996.  After more than 12 years, the Estonia case, officially a "civilian accident," has not moved beyond procedural motions and legal foot-dragging.  The lack of movement in the Paris process led a group of some 100 families to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg.  The families claimed that their human right to a fair trial in a reasonable time had been denied in the French courts and that Sweden had obstructed discovery by denying access to the wreck and destroying crucial evidence.  Documents concerning the contraband military cargo carried on the civilian ferry the night it sank have been classified for 70 years by the government of Sweden.  On 11 December 2008, after 28 months of silence, a tribunal of three judges (from Monaco, Liechtenstein, and the Czech Republic) formally rejected the appeal to the ECHR by the 100 families saying their claims were baseless.

In both 9-11 and the Estonia sinking, the truth has been concealed by government stonewalling and the obstruction of justice by the courts.  In both cases the governments involved concocted an official story which was dutifully spread by the controlled media.  Official commissions were created and "scientific" panels established to create reports to support the official story.  In the face of such massive lies and "pathological science" there have been a few notable and courageous individuals who have carried out independent research to find the truth.  Anders Björkman, a Swedish naval architect and marine engineer, is one of them.

Björkman, chairman of the European Agency for Safety at Sea, is a former Swedish naval officer who has 40 years experience in tanker and ferry design, construction, and operations.  In November 2008 he made a truth tour in Estonia in which he presented the evidence that should require the Estonian government to re-open a formal investigation into the 1994 catastrophe.

The Estonia truth tour began in Pärnu where several families lost loved ones, including those of the ship's Captain Arvo Andresson and the "disappeared" dancers Hannely and Hanka Veide, who evidently survived the sinking only to be kidnapped from their hospital beds.  Andresson's mother and sister, and the parents of the Veide twins were among the first relatives to sign a petition requesting the re-opening of the investigation based on new evidence.

Björkman explained 10 points based on new evidence presented that should legally oblige the state of Estonia to re-open a formal investigation into the sinking.  A formal investigation of this kind is required under the regulations of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), when new evidence "which may alter the determination of the circumstances" is presented.  A formal investigation would involve a maritime judge considering the merits of the new evidence.

The IMO regulation Res. A.849 says:

13. Reopening of investigations: When new evidence relating to any casualty is presented, it should be fully assessed and referred to other substantially interested States for appropriate input. In the case of new evidence which may materially alter the determination of the circumstances under which the marine casualty occurred, and may materially alter the findings in relation to its cause or any consequential recommendations, States should reconsider their findings.
Björkman presented the most significant discrepancies between the old evidence, the final report of the Estonia investigation (JAIC, 1997), and new evidence from 2008.  The new evidence he presented came from a Swedish police report (SKL) of March 3, the Vinnova study of the sinking from May 5, a statement by the Swedish defense minister from October 1, and a televised statement by Captain Thörnroos of M/S Mariella on November 18, in which the captain said that his ferry had received 40 survivors from Estonia, not 27 as previously reported by the final report (JAIC) of 1997.


Shortly after the sinking, the Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt, who was in the final days of his term, put the blame on a faulty bow visor, without any evidence to support his claim.  Supporters of this theory became known as "the visor cult."  This is similar to the preposterous U.S. government claim that fires fuelled by kerosene and office supplies were responsible for the unprecedented collapse of three steel-framed skyscrapers on 9-11.  Why would prime minister Bildt need to concoct a false cover story and treat the Estonia sinking as a super-sensitive military secret?

The reason for the bow visor cover story was the fact that the Swedish government was involved in an on-going super-secret weapons smuggling operation in which the civilian ferry was being used to illegally transport advanced and sensitive Russian military technology that had been acquired through underhanded means and which was being taken through Sweden on to a third party in the Middle East.  As I explained in my 2005 article, "Mysterious Middle Eastern Connection with Weapons Smuggling on Estonia":

On November 30, 2004, a program on Swedish state-supported television (SVT 1) reported that there had been a secret arrangement between Owe Wiktorin, Sweden's highest military commander at the time, and Ulf Larsson, then general director of customs, to clear specific shipments of military technology from Estonia, without inspection, on arrival in Stockholm.

The program, based on the confession of Lennart Henriksson, former chief of customs for Stockholm's harbor, reported that at least two previous shipments of Soviet weapons technology had been transported on the passenger ferry on September 14 and 20, 1994.

This covert weapons smuggling agreement was authorized at the highest level of the Swedish government, according to Henriksson. This was confirmed in an official investigation of the arrangement conducted by a specially appointed judge, Johan Hirschfeldt. Hirschfeldt's report stated that this arrangement was known at the highest levels of Sweden's government and defense department.

The secret transport of Soviet weapons and technology on Estonia, however, turned the civilian passenger ferry, with its passengers, into a military target. This must have crossed the minds of the Swedish authorities involved in the smuggling scheme.

  "What, me worry?" 
Secret shipments of sensitive Russian (former Soviet) military technology were being carried out with the connivance of
Sweden's prime minister Carl Bildt on the Estonia ferry in September 1994.  Bildt is the author of the "visor cult" and has since played key roles in the destruction of Yugoslavia and the Gaza Strip.  As Sweden's current foreign minister and a member of the European Union's team of ministers sent to address the crisis in Gaza, Bildt recently visited Israel and subsequently dismissed the idea that Israel should pay any compensation for the wholesale destruction of lives, homes, and civilian infrastructure in Gaza.  He also dismissed out-of-hand the idea that the European Union should investigate Israeli war crimes in Gaza.  If one understands Bildt's role in the weapons smuggling on Estonia, one can see how he is a perfect example of how the Zionist crimocracy promotes criminals.

George Soros and Carl Bildt try to avoid the questions and camera of Christopher Bollyn at Bilderberg 2000 at Genval, Belgium.  On his first assignment, Bollyn was the first American photo-journalist to attend a Bilderberg meeting.  Shortly after taking this photo Bollyn was threatened by a team of hired thugs.  Bildt served Soros and other Zionist interests in Yugoslavia.

Three years after the sinking the government-sponsored JAIC final report supported the visor cult's claim and concluded that Estonia's bow visor locks had been defective, which had led to the loss of the visor in high seas.  The loss of the visor had, in turn, supposedly led to the opening of the bow car ramp and flooding of the car deck, which is more than two meters above the waterline.  This flooding of the car deck supposedly caused the ship to capsize and sink, which occurred in less than 40 minutes.  While the JAIC report failed to explain how a capsized vessel would sink so quickly, it concluded that no one was to be blamed for the loss of the vessel and 852 lives.

Sweden's defense minister Sten Tolgfors defended the contradictory reports in a response to a written question on 1 October 2008, saying:

[Member of Swedish Parliament] Kjell Eldensjö has asked me what action I will take about the clarifications of the sinking of the M/S Estonia and when I judge that the result can be announced.

The studies done by the two consortia SSPA Sweden AB and HSVA (Hamburgische Schiffbau-Versuchsanstalt GmbH) on 5 May 2008 show that the sequence of sinking in all essential parts follows the scenario presented in the final report by the Joint Accident International Commission (JAIC Final Report, 1997).

However, as Björkman makes clear, there are a number of serious discrepancies between the JAIC report of 1997 and the Vinnova report of 2008 which simply cannot be dismissed.  Before addressing the problems in the government-sponsored reports (like the 9-11 reports done by NIST and FEMA/ASCE), he presented a statement from the captain of one of the three ferries that sailed within eyesight of each other that night.


Captain Jan-Tore Thörnroos of the ferry M/S Mariella said on Swedish TV on 18 November 2008 that his ferry had recovered 40 persons from Estonia, while according to the JAIC report, M/S Mariella had only picked up 15-18 survivors from the sea and received another 9-11 persons from a helicopter -- a difference of 11-13 persons. 

Björkman pointed out that 11-13 Estonian crew members were recorded as having been saved -- but disappeared while being treated in a Swedish hospital.  The log of Mariella from 27-28 September 1994, which would give the names of the people rescued from the sinking, has been kept classified, in violation of laws regarding civilian "accidents" as the sinking of Estonia is described in official government reports.


The Swedish Police Laboratory, SKL, analyzed five films made of the sunken wreck of Estonia wreck made by JAIC in October 1994.  The police lab report of 3 March 2008 concluded that one film had been edited and two important films had been cut when the camera had photographed the bow of the ship.  This indicates that the film censors did not want the bow of the ship to be seen, suggesting that the visor was still attached.


In May 2008, the final report of the Swedish government's Vinnova study of the sinking was presented.  The Vinnova study was carried out by a consortium consisting of SSPA Sweden and Chalmers University of Technology in Göteborg, Safety at Sea from Glasgow (UK), and the Maritime Research Institute of Wageningen, Netherlands.  The Vinnova report is very similar to the NIST studies that were done about the collapsed towers of the World Trade Center.  They are very lengthy and contain a great deal of information, much of which is in the form of computer simulations.  The Vinnova study used a model of the ship that was 1:40 scale of the real vessel.

Björkman analyzed the Vinnova study and compared it to the original study done by JAIC.  He presents 10 fundamental contradictions between the two studies, which he says warrant examination by a maritime judge in a formal investigation of the sinking.  Björkman's 10 points are:

1.    Time of accident and Mayday:  While the JAIC report of 1997 says Estonia began listing at 01.15, the Vinnova study says the listing began 15 minutes earlier, at 01.00.  The Mayday signal sent at 01.24.51, said the list was about 20-30 degrees, when, according to the Vinnova study, the vessel would have been listing 90 degrees.

2.    Position of visor:  Vinnova does not plot the movements of the ferry from the time it supposedly lost the visor, turned, drifted, capsized, and sank.  There is no evidence that the vessel could have moved between the positions where the visor was supposedly found and the wreck in the Vinnova scenario.  This supports the suspicion that the visor was filmed on the wreck in October 1994, which is why the films analyzed by SKL had been edited.
3.    Development of list:  According to the JAIC final report (1997), the vessel list was less than 15 degrees for five minutes, which allowed some 300 people to evacuate.  According to Vinnova, however, the ship listed to more than 45 degrees in only two minutes, which would not allow any evacuation.  How could people escape according to Vinnova?  Why does Vinnova say the ship is listing at 90 degrees when according to the Mayday it is between 20-30 degrees at 01.22 hrs?  Generally, evacuation is not possible when a vessel is listing more than 18 degrees.

4.    Survivors' testimonies:  According to Estonia's engineers Margus Treu and Henrik Sillaste, who were interviewed on Swedish TV the day of the sinking, ”the water was up to their knees in the engine room."  According to JAIC and Vinnova, however, there was no water in the engine room.  Was there water in the engine room?

"The water was up to our knees in the machine room."

5.    Wave impacts on bow:  According to JAIC there were very heavy wave impacts of more than 200 tons (Z-force) on the ferry visor every 2 minutes. One impact was supposedly more than 700 tons, yet nobody reported hearing these impacts.  The JAIC report was based on model tests done by SSPA in 1995.  These SSPA model tests are false; there is no way to scale up model impact forces to full scale.  Such wave impacts are not possible.

6.    Was the bow ramp open?  According to JAIC, the bow ramp was completely open at 01.15 hrs allowing 300 tons/min of water to enter the car deck.  According to Vinnova, 3 crew members observed a closed but leaking ramp 3-4 minutes after the ship began listing, when the degree of the list was more than 45 degrees.  They reported that very little water was entering the car deck.

7.    Water inflow on car deck:  According to JAIC, the initial water inflow on the car deck was 320 tons/min, so the ship's list increased slowly. According to Vinnova, however, the initial water inflow was more than 1800 tons/min, so the vessel listed 45 degrees in only a few minutes.  If 2,000-2,500 tons/min of water is flooding onto the car deck that it would make a lot of noise, yet nobody reported hearing anything.

8.    Floating on the deck house windows:  According to JAIC, the deck house was immediately flooded, when it became submerged at about 01.25.  All 150 windows were broken.  According to Vinnova, however, the deck house is submerged 6 meters (nearly 20 feet) after only a few minutes and the ship floats on the deck house for 20 minutes as only two windows per deck are broken.  It is not possible for a ship to float on the windows of the deck house.  The model test is a fabrication using an incorrect model deck house.

9.    Floating after capsizing:  According to JAIC, the ferry floated upside down after capsizing.   According to Vinnova, the model floated upside down after capsizing.   There is no doubt that Estonia should have floated after capsizing -- the ship would not sink.  The vessel would float buoyed with about 14,000 cubic meters of compressed air.  How could this air escape from the hull in reality?

10.    Sinking after capsize:  The Vinnova model was sunk by artificially releasing air from the model via two valves in the bottom, but this is not a scientific way to model a sinking of a capsized ship. In reality, 14,000 cubic meters of compressed air would not escape (absent a hole in the hull) and the vessel would remain floating.
In all, Björkman presented 19 points about the sinking, the details of which can be read on his website at:  http://heiwaco.tripod.com/news.htm

Anders Björkman in Tallinn, November 2008

His presentation in Tallinn, the capital of Estonia, attracted the state prosecutor and maritime experts who were involved in the JAIC report of 1997.  The Estonian state had promised to produce a government report on the 1994 catastrophe by the end of 2008, but the release of the Estonian state's report has been delayed. 

Björkman, who lives in France, has an insider's insight into the thinking of those involved in such cover-ups.  As a Swede involved in the shipping business, Björkman knows the insiders who view the Estonia cover-up in a more pragmatic way and make no secret of it.  One Swedish ship-owner once told him:  "Anders, didn't we do a great cover-up with that Estonia?"

Björkman, who has also written about 9-11, says he does his Estonia research to improve safety at sea and to aid the relatives who have been denied justice by the courts.  He has always held the opinion that the truth would not emerge from litigation.


Sources and recommended reading:

Bollyn, Christopher, "Mysterious Middle Eastern Connection with Weapons Smuggling on Estonia," February 12, 2005

Bollyn, Christopher, "Who Kidnapped Captain Avo Piht? Were Key Survivors from Estonia Catastrophe Kidnapped?" January 22, 2005

Bollyn, Christopher, "The Zionist Obstruction of Justice for 9-11 Victims," September 1, 2008

Bollyn, Christopher, "Herman Simm's Insights on Estonia Catastrophe," December 9, 2008

Bollyn, Christopher, "When Terror Drills Turned Real:  9-11, the London Bombings & the Sinking of Estonia," March 11, 2008

Bollyn, Christopher, "Bollyn Discovery:  Ehud Olmert Was in New York on 9-11," December 2, 2007

Bollyn, Christopher, "Exposed:  Weapons Smuggling & Explosions on M/V Estonia," October 4, 2005

Bollyn, Christopher, "Open Letter to Carl Bildt, Former Prime Minister of Sweden," February 6, 2005

Bollyn, Christopher, "9-11 -- 7 Years After," September 12, 2008

Bollyn, Christopher, "9-11 Litigation: Andrew Colsky, SSI & the Exclusion of Evidence," September 11, 2007
also at wakeupfromyourslumber.com

Dwinell, Joe, "9/11 kin holding out for trial won't have an answer until March," Boston Herald, December 16, 2008

Dwinell, Joe, "3 9/11 victims' kin demand justice Seek 'truth and accountability' in suit," Boston Herald, December 15, 2008

Rasmusson, Kenneth, "Mariella rescued 40 persons!" November 29, 2008

Weiser, Benjamin, "3 Victims’ Families Ask Judge to Release Trove of Documents on 9/11 Attack," New York Times, January 14, 2009

Last Updated ( Tuesday, 17 February 2009 )
< Prev   Next >