This is a surprising bit of news, but I seriously doubt if WND reported the entire story. There's a reason why the FAA totally discounts this report, and the reason can't be classified or even sensitive. But now that WND has printed half the story, it's incumbent for the FAA and AA to respond to it, perhaps in another publication.
Why would it even matter if it were true? If I'm not mistaken, Congress has already passed legislation awarding compensation to the victims and precluding their families from suing the airlines anyway.
It's a further indictment of Logan Airport's horrendously lax security.
If this information is true, currently pilots are basing their defense of the cockpit on inaccurate information. Currently, each cockpit door is equipped with a locking mechanism that is supposed to prevent a cockpit intrusion. If the hijackers are armed, this device will be of little consequence. If this new information is true it may motivate more pilots to take a more proactive role in profiling. If a pilot stands in the door and monitors the boarding of the passengers and spots four male Middle Eastern types between the ages 20-35, he may take a closer look at the passenger list if he has reason to believe they may be armed, based on this new information.
Unfortunately, the WND has been so willing to present itself as the newspaper of record for conspiracy theorists over the last couple of years that they have lost much of their credibility amongst the (far far larger) community of more skeptical readers. The FAA and AA will completely ignore the WND story until and unless some more "legitimate" publication also publishes it.
Why would it even matter if it were true? If I'm not mistaken, Congress has already passed legislation awarding compensation to the victims and precluding their families from suing the airlines anyway.Well, there is a very simple answer to that one: If it is true there was a gun on board, the deal to immunize the airlines from liability could be challenged on grounds of bad faith. Similarly, you cannot "trick" someone into signing a contract without risking having the contract being challenged later. It is the difference between tough negotiation and trickery.