1. ray34iyf

    ray34iyf New Member


    mod add:
    Metabunk 2019-03-06 16-42-01.
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 6, 2019
  2. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    here is their submission/proposal (linked as a PDF). Same old same old stuff.

    Attached Files:

  3. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Emphasis mine. All the attorney has to do is inform the grand jury of the allegation, and given them a recommendation (like: "recommend you investigate" or "recommend you take no action")
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I've looked for comparable situations, and the only one I could find was one from Prince fans, wanting a Grand Jury investigation. This was just a few months ago.

    (the Start Tribune link warns of Malware, so I'm linking this secondary source)

    There might be potential confusion here around the word "petition". There's

    1) A list of signatures of a group of people asking for something
    2) A request, which can just come from an individual or organization, without a list of signatures.

    The Prince petition is accompanied by a list of public signatures. The 9/11 Lawyers' petition seems just to be from them as a group.
  5. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    i only super briefly read the amended proposition but based on Halbig's FOIA hearings that i did watch, the word "hearsay" is going to dismiss most of what they are claiming is evidence. The court doesn't accept newspaper accounts or tv shows as evidence/testimony.

    Still I'm glad they finally found lawyers willing to do this for them, they might learn a thing or two about what evidence is.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    The "Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry" also has a signatures-collecting petition on their website: https://lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/grand-jury-petition-supporters/
    This was started on April 09, this year, and now stands at 3098 signatures (half of what the Prince fans accomplished).

    A year ealier, March 12, 2017, they had also started a somewhat less specific petition at change.org: https://www.change.org/p/support-legal-action-on-9-11-at-last
    This stands at 5456 signatures.
    This one also came with a Fundraiser - in 2017, 26 donors donated a total of $1,230 ($4.15 per day), in 2018 so far, the number of donors increased by 7, and donations by $495 ($1.43 per day). That Fundraiser page originally stated a series of goals, beginning with $7,000 short term, but eventually of $800,000! Now, only the "$7,000" target is left :D

    Monthly stats for those two petitions:

    LC_GJP_20181212. LegalActionPetition_20181212.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    As of Oct 1 2017 it said:
    So they had already raised $125,000 - presumably from a single rich individual donor like Ed Asner (They say "In June of this year, the Committee received a generous six-figure donation, ")
  8. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Yesterday, AE911Truth announced their own fundraiser for this "Grand Jury Investigation Project", set up on their own domain:

    Today, on the second day, they already claim 240 donors for a total of $23,167. Almost $100 per donor, that is twice as much as I usually see for such fundraisers (the LC911I itself only got slightly more than $50 per donor thus far). I have for a long time suspected AE pimps their fundraisers with own money (stuffing money from left into right pocket).
  9. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Ah ok thanks, I wrote from memory - I apparently misremembered the 700,000 as 800,000, but forgot (or never knew about) the additional "$325,000 through grassroots events and committed individuals" - for a total of $1 million in the first year!?!

    They are raising money through more than one channel, obviously, and the Fundraiser at change.org may be the least significant.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Paradigm_shift

    Paradigm_shift New Member


    A petition is a good start. If there really is no validity or legitimacy to any of the evidence presented, then might as well support it to 'officially' debunk it after having it reviewed by a federal grand jury.
    The amount of support it currently has is irrelevant and it's useless to criticize or point out how 'popular' it is.
    Popularity is not grounds for how valid or accurate a claim is. There is a large body of evidence and testimony presented that can't just be brushed aside and dismissed without having fully reviewed it.


    If you're honestly looking for it to be settled once and for all then sign up to support:
  11. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    So if I wrote a lot of things about, say, the Flat Earth conspiracy, and petitioned the New York US Attorney to ask a Grand Jury to fully review it, then do you think they should? What about the "no planes" theory? Or the "DEW" theory? Where do you draw the line?

    Of course, you think that 9/11 Controlled Demolition theories are perfectly reasonable and that Flat Earth theory is just nonsense - possible even an attempt to discredit by association.

    But you, and the well-meaning folk at AE911Truth and Lawyers for 9/11, miss the fact that most professional people see the 9/11 controlled demolition theory as being just as nonsensical as the Flat Earth and DEW theories. So it's very likely they will just brush it aside.

    Why is there a large body of evidence? Did you ever stop to think why there's so many different pieces of evidence? Surely all you need is one?

    There are lots of pieces of evidence because NONE of them stand up to scrutiny. This petition is a "Gish gallop". If they want to be taken seriously, they should discard things which are demonstrably wrong (like the iron microspheres, or anything referencing Newton), trim the speculation, address the existing rebuttals, and try to narrow it down into some actual good evidence.

    They don't though. They prefer quantity over quality, and I think it's because there's really no quality evidence to be found.
    • Agree Agree x 6
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  12. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The question raised in this thread is really if the AE911T are correct when they say:

    But according to the DOJ, a US Attorney uses their own discretion, not simply a report compiled by an advocacy group.
    i.e. the prosecutor (the US Attorney) has to think there's a case. No obviously AE911T think there is, and so they think he should present it to a Grand Jury. But that's not how it works. They have to first convince the US Attorney that there is a viable case. Then he has to collate evidence, do his own investigation, and then present that to the Grand Jury.

    There's nothing compelling him to do so.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Paradigm_shift

    Paradigm_shift New Member

    This is a very disingenuous reply. How many criminal cases that led to court were solved by just 'one piece of evidence'? As I'm aware, we rely on witness testimony, forensic evidence - which can take various forms, motive etc. I don't know why you think one piece of evidence is good enough to convict anyone of anything when it's generally not the case.
    A case is not established by neither solely on the quantity or quality of evidence, but by whether it draws a definitive conclusion.
    Furthermore the only 'one piece of evidence' that I actually cited was that explosives were failed to have been tested for. If you follow the NFPA guide I linked, you will find that arson is routinely tested for in fires - yet that section of my comment has been deleted and flagged for being 'off topic' - ironically when it's the only 'one' I cited.
    The official story itself also has a 'large body of evidence' in the form of the 9/11 commission - that failed to mention WTC 7 and the NIST report, why aren't you calling out their multiple pieces of 'evidence' as quantity over quality?
    Please refer cases that required just one piece of evidence to solve - if only investigations were that easy. You're suggesting thinking one-dimension-ally.
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2019
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  14. Paradigm_shift

    Paradigm_shift New Member

    Who exactly and how many are 'most professional people'?
    Because the well-meaning folk at AE911TRUTH are equally as professional and number over 3000 now. How is their assessment invalid?
    Professionals disagree about a large number of topics, saying they disagree is not enough to prove a point wrong.
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  15. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Where in the petition is this issue raised? Please quote it, and give page numbers.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    They are the ones not in AE911Truth. There are millions of people qualified to join. There are 3,000 members.

    But let's focus on the petition.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I just re-read the petition. It does not appear to suggest that the lack of arson investigation was evidence. In fact, it appears to say that there was no need for arson investigation because it was obviously "explosives and/or incendiaries"

    https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/before-the-pdf.35308/ Page 51-52
    So they claim to have irrefutable and obvious evidence.

    And yet they do not.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Paradigm_shift

    Paradigm_shift New Member

    From the full petition report - Updated as of July 30th 2018.
    Section 1: Preliminary Statement. Page 6
    Perhaps you misunderstood my original comment- the petition is in response to NIST failing to test for explosives, in accordance with the NFPA's standards for investigating fire and explosives. Since it's well established that explosives were not tested for, the aforementioned federal authorities are the ones referred to, but I do think they should make that clear.

    In that case, maybe a new thread is required to discuss how these standards were not met in the investigation by NIST.
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  19. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Where does it say that? What exactly does it say?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    • Like Like x 1
  21. Paradigm_shift

    Paradigm_shift New Member

    Flat Earth is a tough one to answer because it's not just pertinent to the USA, so it's difficult as to whether it would be in the Federal Grand Jury's jurisdiction to review it.
    With no planes or DEW (I have no idea what that is), yes they can try. If it's reviewed and dismissed then there's the answer.
  22. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    But the question here is if the US Attorney alone can dismiss it. AE911 are saying he will submit it to the grand jury. But the DOJ (and lawyers I've talked to informally) say the US Attorney makes the call.

    Do you think a Grand Jury should hear the case that no planes hit the World Trade Center? Why? I mean there's loads of "evidence", like the "nose out" and "video glitches" and the lack of black boxes, and the weird way the planes sank into the buildings in violation of some laws of physics. Lots of people have brought this up, including some with advanced degrees.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  23. Paradigm_shift

    Paradigm_shift New Member

    Yes, let them hear it. That's the point of democracy. People make cases in court over their religion for exemptions from the law in certain cases. Not that there is any proof of the validity of their religion, yet it serves as a vital part of civil discourse and freedom of speech.
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  24. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    So you basically say that a Grand Jury should hear any argument, no matter how silly.

    But that's not how it works. And that's the point here, AE911 and the Lawyers are saying that they have got some big victory when all they actually have is an acknowledgment that the UU Attorney got their petition. They still have to wait to see if he thinks it's worth doing anything with.

    I think he'll treat it in a similar way to how he would treat a "no planes" petition.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  25. Paradigm_shift

    Paradigm_shift New Member

    I'm not saying that. They're obligated by law to do so.
    All forms of silly religions are made, people literally exploit it.
    Court has had to even hear from Christians as to why evolution shouldn't be taught in school - that's quite silly yet it's well within their rights to do so.
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  26. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Can you back this up? Because it seems to be a claim in direct contradiction with the DOJ.

    • Agree Agree x 1
  27. Paradigm_shift

    Paradigm_shift New Member

    What you linked is an investigation as presented by a government agency to a US attorney.

    This petition, however:
    So yes, by law they have to at least be aware of the allegation / situation and decide whether or not to formally review it, did I suggest something other than that? The US attorney has to be aware of the full investigation in any case, by law.
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2019
  28. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Yes, but that does not mean the purpose of the US Attorney is simply to rubber stamp every complaint that comes his way and pass it on to the grand jury. You said "They're obligated by law to do so" even in regard to ridiculous "no plane" theories. But the DOJ says:

    • Agree Agree x 1
  29. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    that kind of stuff has to do with their rights being infringed upon. the right to freedom of religion etc. or like with transgenders, their right to equality under the law.

    Otherwise evidence needs to presented.
  30. benthamitemetric

    benthamitemetric Active Member

    Mick--without spending a ton of time and actual money researching the case law in depth, I believe the governing case here is In Re Grand Jury Application, 617 F. Supp. 199 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). This ruling makes clear that, at least as a general matter, the intent of the last sentence of 18 U.S.C. §3332(a) is to effectively eliminate prosecutorial discretion with respect to whether a an alleged offense be presented to a grand jury if a third party requests it be presented. I suspect that a court would find that there are limits to this in some cases, such as in a case where the alleged offense is pure nonsense on its face, but such cases have not been tested in the courts as far as I could find.

    I thus think that the SDNY US Attorneys office would be obligated to present the alleged offenses described by AE911Truth to a grand jury. Note, however, that this does not mean those prosecutors have to do any further investigation or even that they have to support in any way AE911Truth's allegations. In fact, they could even pass the allegations to the grand jury and tell the grand jury that, in their opinion, the allegations are mere crackpottery. This is probably the path of least resistance given that aforementioned case law, actually, and I wouldn't be surprised if it had already been done and the allegations had already been effectively binned.

    Grand jury processes are highly secret for good reason and so we will likely never know exactly what happens. I'd wager good money that the allegations never turn into an indictment, however.
    • Useful Useful x 1
  31. Inti

    Inti Active Member

    I'll admit that as a British citizen I'm not very familiar with US law, but surely such hearings, such as the Dover case, were not criminal prosecutions? So I'd be surprised if they involved a grand jury.

    Surely any system of prosecution screens cases to determine whether there is a prima facie case, to determine whether there would be a credible likelihood of conviction before proceeding? That's why the fact that there is no compelling evidence of demolition in the estimation of most competent observers is both relevant and important.
  32. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    baed on your link they have to present the allegation, they have to present the name of AE Truthers and he needs to tell the jury how he acted on the information. It doesn't say he needs to give them hearsay evidence or "expert testimony" of people who don't qualify as experts.
  33. benthamitemetric

    benthamitemetric Active Member

    It's actually not clear what aspects of the alleged offenses the prosecutor would have to present to the grand jury. The closing paragraph of the ruling states "... [T]he statute does not specify in what way the United States Attorney should present information to the grand jury," and then goes on to note that the court could not specify in what way the United States Attorney general would have to present the information as doing so would violate prosecutorial discretion. The ruling does close by emphasizing, however, that "The statute requires that the information proffered by plaintiffs, and the identity of plaintiffs, be brought to the attention of the grand jury."

    Given this, I think the prosecutors would have some reasonable discretion in how they present the information provided by AE911Truth, and could probably decline to share with the jury information they reasonably deem not related to an alleged offense. It's really a very blurry and untested area of the law, however. The prosecutors could certainly choose to simply provide a grand jury with the AE911Truth filing as a whole if they wanted and, as mentioned above, the prosecutor could comment upon it however the prosecutor saw fit. (I'm guessing the prosecutor will end up doing (or has already done) something along these lines.) It probably just boils down to which is least work -- slicing and dicing the AE911Truth filing to separate the allegations from the extraneous information or preparing comments and recommendations on the AE911Truth filing as a whole. Either way, I'm sure a grand jury will wind up in the same place.

    EDITED TO ADD: It is clear that the prosecutor would have no obligation beyond, at most, simply sharing the AE911Truth filing with a grand jury (i.e., the prosecutor would not have to allow expert witness testimony or presentations by a representative from AE911Truth. Also, note that the SDNY US attorneys could also very easily rebut the AE911Truth claims by pointing out that actual 911 criminals have been successfully prosecuted in federal court (see, e.g., the Moussaoui prosecution, which followed a grand jury indicting Moussaoui on six felony charges related the 911 attackers). Truthers in their myopia ignore such realities and the fact that the FBI's 911 criminal investigation was by far the largest criminal investigation in its history (see, also, the summary of the report of that investigation).
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2019
  34. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    i m thinking of wasting the Grand Jurys time. Are they supposed to spend 2 hours staring at a 30 second video of WTC7 collapsing to try and figure out if it's free falling? (<thats an oversimplification obviously). I would think they'd have more important things to do with their time.. but maybe not.
  35. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Interesting, as that was my initial reading of the law:
    My later reading about attorney discretion seems to be more around the attorney initiating a prosecution.
  36. Kevlar

    Kevlar New Member

    Mick, I'm a fan of what you do, consider myself a critical thinker and not all that gullible, but after reading through the 9/11 threads and seeing the language used by yourself, I can't help but feel disappointed.

    Of all conspiracy theories, the issue of 9/11 has and always has been argued with severe scientific rigor from both sides. The level of debate is the highest I've ever witnessed on an out of academic setting, yet I feel you are perhaps disingenuous to the professionals who provide evidence to a demotion. I absolutely agree with the idea that the simplest explanation is the best, yet when we pile up all the issues and concerns about the NIST version of 9/11, trying to explain each individual aspect of the event through means of acts of nature after initial collapse is starting to look a lot more complicated than a purposeful demolition.

    Your go to statement these days is referring to the "rest" of the scientific community, and why they are not addressing the issue. Does this event need a 51% academic reaction for you to concede that there is a case at all? Do you expect scientists to dive headfirst into this hotbed, where professionals have lost their jobs for supporting ae911 from the onset (including in my own country of Scotland)?

    I fear that being a professional critic may have addled you somewhat, not saying your work isn't useful, it certainly is. I only wonder, if this Grand Jury session moves to real investigation, will you concede, or keep going out of pride for all work you've done to denounce a demolition?
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  37. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It hasn't though, and that's a very significant issue with the lawsuit. In fact, I'd say the lawsuit is not even the best representation of the best 9/11 "Truth" research, which itself isn't very good.

    I generally focus on the details because I think that's the best way of getting through to people, and generalization tend to alienate. But if asked to characterize the topic as a whole, then my experience is that the level of science and technical understanding is generally very bad. Take, for example, the issue of iron microspheres. While a small number of people might approach that with some impressive sounding facts, equations, and conclusions, the bottom line is they are wrong to say it's evidence of thermite, and this lawsuit is dead wrong when it says:

    Now I'm just a gentleman scientist. I know there are lots of working engineers and scientists far better qualified than me. If I can figure it out, then they can too. The ones I've I've talked to have either never heard of the conspiracy, or think it's utterly ridiculous.

    It's worth repeating. The reason that most scientists don't spend time investigating or rebutting 9/11 theories isn't that they are worried about losing their jobs, it's because they think it is frivolous and baseless. If they do look into it they will very quickly come across something like the iron microspheres claim, or Gage's cardboard boxes. Then they will stop.

    I know you think this is just me speaking from my debunker-addled stated. But it's not. I'm quite clear here. This lawsuit is well-meaning, but it's nonsense.
    • Agree Agree x 6
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  38. benthamitemetric

    benthamitemetric Active Member

    What specifically would he or anyone else have to concede in that case? Even if a grand jury issued an indictment based on the AE911Truth filing (and I guaranty you that won't happen), grand juries can be wrong. If that weren't the case, criminal defendants would never be acquitted or otherwise exonerated. If there were an indictment, it would need to be discussed on the merits, not via generalities, which is really the point of this site and why it is such a useful repository of information. Further, it's worth noting that you don't even need any grand jury indictment to make a post on this site about any specific claim in the AE911Truth filing you believe is evidence of your preferred 9-11 theory. You should go ahead do so instead of writing vague criticisms of Mick that are not tethered to any specific claim.
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2019
    • Agree Agree x 3
  39. Todd Cee

    Todd Cee New Member

    The petition to the grand jury is clearly aimed at the controlled demo scenario. I have yet to see any mentions of actual physical evidence of explosives to support this theory. This will border on frivolous if allowed to proceed.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  40. Redwood

    Redwood Active Member

    There's no evidence that the Grand Jury has any interest. Nor the U.S. Attorney