1. Todd Cee

    Todd Cee New Member

    the tailing end of the truth movement is clinging to this proceeding and yes, I cannot see a grand jury taking any serious interest ... Geoffrey Berman is just playing his role as an AG ...

    edit: Berman is not the AG ...
     
  2. Rob7

    Rob7 New Member

    Hello, I am new to your forums - this particular forum thread is what attracted my attention enough to register and post.

    In reading this thread, I've noticed little discussion of the physical data - which is the central point in trying to understand the collapse of the 3 WTC buildings. In reading the literature (for/ against demolition), I haven't found any verifiable explanations for the physical evidence - such as the prescense of iron microspherules, sulfidization of iron, (claimed) nanothermite, pyroclastic effects on surrounding property, cars, etc. Only various SWAG's that generally fail examination. Good science on these questions could answer them conclusively.

    I am hoping that this potential court process continues, so that we can get far more lab analysis of samples using various scientific tools that were of very limited availablility or not existent in 2001.

    As one example, analysis to determine a detailed isotopic fractionation of spherules, sulfur compounds, and various other chemicals, etc. would be very helpful in determining validity (or lack thereof) of some of the explanations proposed.
    Further, this might help minimize the stigma that has been attached to simply analyzing the actual data - wherever it may lead - and thus spur more study. And perhaps more actual answers... as opposed to the constructs, opinions, misrepresentations and so forth that frequently dominate the polar extremes of the viewpoints on most fronts.

    If the largest such terrorist attack in American history isn't worth spending the time and money necessary for a truly thorough, detailed examination of the data.... then what is?
    Rob
     
  3. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    Moderation Note: deirdre
    hello. i have approved your post ONLY so that other members can link you to the appropriate threads on the topic(s) you bring up.

    This thread is to discuss the evolution of the lawsuit itself.

    ALL MEMBERS: Lets not get into a total rehash of the analysis points brought up in Rob's comment. But you can help him out by directing him to the proper threads on this topic, since the 911 forum is a bit of a bear to search through as a new member.



    Thanks!


     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. jonnyH

    jonnyH Active Member

    • Useful Useful x 1
  5. Rob7

    Rob7 New Member

    Thank You -
    My apologies for posting in the wrong locale, will read up on the links kindly provided as I get time to do so.
    Rob
     
  6. Niz Loc

    Niz Loc New Member

    New here, this is my first post. (Sorry if I break any rules).

    Heres the problem. (And aside from any other experience I have, for the purposes here Ill point out that im at almost 15 years as a cop, in a large metro area of the US).

    As far as what is used in court to convict, none of this exists in terms of 9/11 conspiracies. People (who are mere outsiders, not experts, and overwhelmingly weren't even there on scene to witness it) say "it looks funny".

    You couldn't even use these people in court.

    To make it to court, to get a DA filing, you need probable cause. You can't arrest someone on gut instinct. You have to be able to articulate what crime you believe was committed.

    In the case of 9/11, regular joes who have never worked with explosives (I have, several times) "feel" that it looked like a controlled demo. This is akin to the old lady who calls the police to say "those black kids hanging out on the corner must be selling drugs, because I've seen the movies." When the police check, and find no drugs, it becomes a conspiracy...because the cops want drugs to be sold, for job security.

    I can spot a drug dealer. But I can't arrest one because of the circumstantial evidence I can provide based on my decade plus of experience (versus people who have never worked with explosives, but feel they had to have been used). The DA would never come close to filing that case.
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
  7. Cantonear1968

    Cantonear1968 New Member

    Would that not end their claim right there? If they cannot even define what was used (Could have been bombs. Could have been thermite. Could have been both.) then how can they definitively claim anything was used.

    As you stated: just a gish gallop.
     
  8. cptn_fantastic

    cptn_fantastic New Member


    Do you think a flat earth petition would get the go ahead from the US Attorney? Why not?
    The Lawyers Committee's petition has been accepted. Why do you think that is?

    Oh really? Evidence has been presented. It's now for the Grand Jury to decide upon it's validity.
    Now we wait....
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 6, 2019
  9. cptn_fantastic

    cptn_fantastic New Member

    Oh yes there is;
    https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/exhibits-index-grand-jury-petition/
    Exhibits listed.
    Go through them at your leisure...
     
  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    "Accepted?" All that has happened is Michael Ferrara signed a letter saying they got the complain, and would comply with the law.

    Ferrara was involved with prosecuting the actual terrorists. He's a joint chief of the Terrorism and International Narcotics Unit. He's dealt with the actual 9/11 terrorist for years.

    Not really. The prosecutor will decide if there's evidence of a crime. See:

    You (cptn_fantastic) can wait. But nothing is going to happen. I'd also put money on it.
     
  11. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I have actually gone through it, in quite some detail. Over the last few years, I've looked at many of those claims in great depth, and even debunked some of them conclusively (like the iron microspheres claims).

    So I've looked at it far more than the prosecutor will likely do, and far more than a grand jury would do. i stand by my opinion that they don't really have any good evidence.

    But nothing visible will happen for a while, so why don't you come back here in one year, and we can discuss what happened. We can put money on it if you'd like.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. cptn_fantastic

    cptn_fantastic New Member

    At the end of the day "wait" is all any of us can do.

    Quoted from the Petition;
    "The facts and evidence presented here [the petition] and in the accompanying exhibits concern FEDERAL CRIMES committed within the Southern District of New York on September 11, 2001 (9/11), and in the months leading up to 9/11, related to the attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC)." [emphasis mine]

    One imagines, given the petition concerns Federal Crimes, the US Attorney would take a long hard look at the material before submitting.
    It is after all no small allegation.
    Also, one imagines the whole point of the Grand Jury IS to take a good long hard look at the evidence. I cannot imagine they would not.

    Though of course naught is guaranteed in this world.

    Frame a bet text and I may take you up on it- just to add a little spice!




     
  13. Mendel

    Mendel Member

    https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/frequently-asked-questions/
    They select this question themselves for the FAQ, and then don't answer it properly, because the links lead to collections of evidence. What I expect as a proper answer would be
    1. one testimony of a first responder about an explosion
    2. one lab report of "high-tech explosive" residue
    3. one building demolition expert / civil engineer testifying that this looks like a controlled collapse
    Ideally, all of these testimonies would concern the same building.
    I'm interested in seeing this kind of answer, ideally quoted from the exhibits.

    ( And why do they hedge their answer with "from a layperson's perspective"? Are they aware that their evidence is not legally compelling, or not compelling at all? Are they conspiring to perpuate a deception on the general public and the many people who support them with money donations? Is this telegraphing their legal colleages, "we know this is bunk, but we do it anyway because our clients believe it"? )

    Yes. I'm not very familiar with US law either, but the Grand Jury is exactly the part of the criminal justice system that determines this. The jury is going to have to decide on whether there is valid evidence of a crime (and presumably also, if it's new evidence, or a new crime), and whom to accuse of it, and if they return a "true bill", then a trial jury will try the crime.

    Obviously, the crime of flying planes into the WTC has already been investigated, so that's off the table. This time, the Grand Jury must decide if a controlled demolition occurred. If they investigate, and find there is insufficient evidence for that, they'll issue an "ignoramus" verdict, and the thing dies right there.

    I'm uncertain about what happens when they decide that there is evidence of a crime. I think they then have to find someone to accuse. It's like a dead body turning up on the street with a knife in its back, it looks like a crime, but if you don't have a suspect, you can't start a trial. Or do they just say "that's a crime" and then leave the investigation of who committed it up the DA?

    If the Grand Jury has to also find a suspect, the case might die on that, as the filings show no evidence of who could have done it (as far as I can see). The closest I could find to that is Exhibit 40 (Dr Graeme McQueen on Foreknowledge of WTC7 collapse), and that's probably going to come down to the building getting hit by debris, and then someone qualified looking at it and going, "she ain't gonna make it":
    (Is there a trick to quoting from closed topics, besides constructing the quote tag manually?)
     
  14. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    This will be dismissed for lack of merit and nothing will come of the petition to the AG to have this investigated by a grand jury.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    Be aware that is the distinctive issue of legal ethics. A lawyers professional ethical duty is to present his client's case. Not his own opinion about the client's case. Which is fundamentally different to the ethical basis of most professions. e.g. I am a (retired) professional engineer. If a client wanted me to design a bridge that was unsafe so that he could save money my ethical responsibility is to the community at large - those who could be at risk if the unsafe bridge collapsed...my clients wishes are ethically subordinate. Whilst the lawyer has to put clients case as best he can. Whether or not he personally supports or shares the clients beliefs. Yes with some fancy spin on issues of "truth" or "guilt" but generally it is client comes first.

    I'm not trained in US legal procedure - my legal quals are in AU law and "we" in AU and most Common Law jurisdictions have abandoned the archaic Grand Jury system in favour of more rigorous processes.

    So I am also "uncertain about what happens.." in terms of legal procedure. I have zero doubt as to what would happen if the Grand Jury system recommended action by indictment leading to a petit jury trial. They would loose. The issues they list have all been shown to be false in the informal processes of on-line debate...where there is no cross examination nor sanctions for perjury. I doubt if any one of their so called "experts' could withstand professional cross examination...they would not have access to the various debating tricks they utilise in these on line debates. Specifically the tricks of evasion, goalpost moving and such which allow on-line "truthers" to not answer the questions put to them.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    I suspect the Truthers believe that the case they have would *work* on lay persons... the types who would be on a typical GJ panel. Consider that the truth movement followers are almost completely lay persons with no technical expertise in maters such as engineering. Those sorts can be *swayed* but the non rigorous arguments truthers advance. Arguments such as "it looks like a CD... ergo is must be a CD" does not wash with scientists or engineers who demand more rigor.

    If this were to get past the GJ, defendants would have to be named of course and there would be expert testimony on technical matters. They would pull the rig out from the truthers as it would be established that the collapses were not conclusively CDs and most likely were explained by engineering and scientific causes without imposition of man made demolition devices. Truthers will have their beliefs crushed by engineers and scientists if it ever came to trial. But it will never get that far.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 7, 2019
  17. Mendel

    Mendel Member

    The issue is, does a lawyer have an ethical obligation to tell their client that their case has little chance of success? Which would, in this case, include the public contributing their money to the cause? Is it ok for them to present their evidence as "compelling" when they know it isn't? Can they weasel out of it by making a distinction between "compelling for the layman" and "legally compelling"?

    It comes down to
    a) how do they (privately) see their chances of success,
    b) have they communicated this evaluation to their financial suppporters (who are not legally their clients, apparently)?
    I don't know the answer to either, but if the answers are a) bad, b) no, then that's a "conspiracy" right there.

    The temptation to do a little reverse conspiracy theorizing based on that turn of phrase was just too strong... it isn't really intended to be serious, more as an example of how quickly a conspiracy theory can be manufactured. But there is no evidence to it except an intent inferred from a single turn of phrase. It's bunk.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    This petition was drafted by Lawyers for 911 Truth, who are already signed on to the truther conspiracy POV. It's not a case where a bunch of disparate truthers got together and found a competent lawyer to represent them and submit a petition to the NYAG. These lawyers have no ethical quandary because they are truthers. I doubt many non truther lawyers would take this on... but who knows?
     
  19. Mendel

    Mendel Member

    @Jeffrey Orling Someone needs to fix your quote tags, your 1:23 reply appears as part of the quoted text.

    I would hope that the DA presents expert testimony to the grand jury that puts the submitted evidence into perspective.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2019
  20. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    all juries are laymen. i think they are just hoping this leads to an investigation being opened.
     
  21. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    Do you think this is the real motive? The DA will rather than give this to a GJ... he will establish some sort of investigation? I don't think the truthers have been successful in getting NYC or DC to undertake and a criminal investigation because they believe the planes were hijacked by suicide fanatics working with Bin Laden. All dead now.
     
  22. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    i'm just saying it doesnt have to be legally compelling. it sounds to me like they are hoping the laymen Grand Jury will ask for an investigation and the DA can make the evidence legally compelling since they, 911 truth, obviously dont know how to.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  23. cptn_fantastic

    cptn_fantastic New Member

    If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, duck seems a reasonable place to start. Applies to both scientists and laypersons.
    NIST, Govt and the believers describe that which waddles, quacks and ruffles its feathers as an octopus!

    [off topic text removed]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 7, 2019
  24. cptn_fantastic

    cptn_fantastic New Member

    Conforming to legality and conforming to physics are not necessarily the same conformation.
    The Law I'm told can be an ass.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  25. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    ... provided the observer can identify duckiness. If the observer is looking at an orange and claiming it is ducky the appropriate conclusion is that the observer is incompetent. NOT that a sphere like object orange in colour with a dimpled skin is in reality a duck.


    [additional response to comment that was removed by moderator as off topic, removed]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 7, 2019
  26. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    :) i could see someone saying "pip pip governor, this orange is rather ducky".
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  27. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Whoa - I had not looked at the FAQ so far, and thus this had escaped me!

    This is actually pretty close to what my prefered strategy to debate Truthers would have been for many years - if only even just one had ever bitten: "Give me your best, strongest, most solid, most convincing bit of evidence that, in your opinion, most definitely shifts the conclusion away from the commonly accepted history and toward some alternative 9/11 Truth theory. Let's look into that one 'best' bit of evidence, and if it turns out it is not evidence for '9/11' Truth, then all your other evidence must be dubious at best"

    Well well, then! the "Lawyers" offer three (3) bits of "best" evidence.

    I submit that if one of these three (1/3) turns out to be not evidence for explosive demolition at all, then all 57 bits of evidence become dubious immediately; and if all three (3/3) turn out to be not evidence for demolition, then we should be compelled to dismiss the entire package.

    So here we go:

    1. "the testimony of numerous First Responders who reported the sights and sounds of explosions at the WTC on 9/11"
    This one is easy to shoot down. Just two questions to ask of the Lawyers:
    i.) Q: "Do you believe that ALL reported "sights and sounds of explosions" actually describe explosive demolition charges going of? Or do you allow that at least one, or some, or many, or most such reports describe events unrelated to the going-off of explosive demolition charges?"
    -> The obviously true answer ought to be that no, not all such reports describe demo charges. This then raises immediatelyl the second question. If the Lawyers answer this with a "yes, all such reports describe demo charges", then the work of the DA boils down to showing that at least one such report is non-explosive in nature.

    ii.) Q: "Please point out specific reports of 'sights and sounds of explosions' that you deem to descibe actual explosive demo charges, and explain why you think they are consistent with explosive demo charges!"
    -> It has been my experience for quite a while now that no truther ever answers this question.

    After these two questions, I am perfectly certain, there is no report left that qualifies as evidence for explosive charges.


    2. "the finding of high-tech explosives and incendiaries residue in the WTC dust via chemical laboratory testing and analysis"
    This of course refers to the obscure paper by Harrit et al (2009) in a now defunct pay-to-publish journal of exactly zero impact, that suffered from an improper peer review process, which has not been upheld by any follow-up study, which has been refuted by a follow-up study, and which is internally terribly inconsistent (the paper's data refutes its conclusions!). Worst of all: Neither the paper, nor any of its authors, ever described the material that they actually found and studied (the "red-gray chips")as "explosive"! Harrit et al do not claim to have found an explosive!
    This bit of evidence is dead on arrival. Juxtapose it with James Millette's study, and it's dubious beyond repair.


    3. "to the naked eye the collapses of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 all exhibit the characteristics of a controlled demolition, as explained by the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth in testimony presented to the Lawyers’ Committee in New York in a public event in September of 2016"
    Now this is actually a bundle of claims - and, following the links provided, I cannot find an easy to navigate list of specific claims. I am asked to review a number of videos, without even a hint as to which videos are relevant, let alone which claims within each video. But each of the claims has the following structure - they are triples of claims:
    i.) The collapse of building WTCx exhibited the property Y
    ii.) Property Y is characteristic/typical/common when buildings are demolished with explosives
    iii.) Property Y is NOT characteristic/typical/common when buildings collapse due to reasons other than explosive or otherwise intentional demolition.
    It will be difficult for the "Lawyers" to prove i.) for any or all of their "characteristics". They will fail to show ii.) for many of them (i.e. "molten steel" is not at all typical for explosive demolition, neither is the "ejecttion of multi-ton pieces of steel", nor an extended period of high temperatures in the rubble. And finally, they'd fail to show iii.) is true for all of their "characteristics". For example: Dust clouds develop when buildings containing concrete and gypsum collapse, regardless what the cause of collapse was; parts of a structure may descend at "freefall acceleration" regardless of collapse initiation mechanism.


    I am sure all three points have already been thoroughly debunked here in this forum, and elsewhere.

    The "Lawyers" would have been smarter to just not include these points in their package at all. However, elevating them as the Top 3 bits of evidence, they ensured they will not be taken serious.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  28. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    no. it doesnt work like that.

    the only one of the three that is actual evidence, is the dust microspheres. Just because the state brings in an army of other scientists to explain to the jury that the microspheres do not indicate thermite, does not mean somewhere in the other 57 bits* they might not have got something right.



    *assuming the 3 best bits aren't included in your number of 57.
     
  29. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Please keep posts on topic. The topic is the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry petition.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  30. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    The 3 are included in the 57, and may more than 3 of the 57.

    57 is a serious Gish Gallop.
    Let's say, in the DA's or GJ's investigation, 56 of the 57 items have been checked, and all 56 found wanting - would they have to look at #57, because, logically, #57 could still throw the whole case wide open?

    I think THAT's what it doesn't work like. The DA or GJ are not obliged to sift through every last item the accusers throw at them.

    If the three best best pieces of evidence, as chosen by the accusers, do not support allegations of a crime at all, we shall have learned that the accusers are either terribly inept, or total frauds. There is no prima facie case then, and no secunda or tertia facie case, either.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  31. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    i'm totally guessing but i imagine if the Grand Jury (provided they even look at it) asks for an investigation, some criteria would be established. My point is it doesnt matter what the 911 guys SAY is the best evidence. The court doesnt care what they think is the "best" evidence. The court has to look at the whole document that was presented.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  32. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    I'm guessing also from the disadvantage of a half trained AU lawyer with no experience of US legal procedure. BUT I don't think that asking for an investigation is within the role of the GJ. As I understand it the GJ has to decide if the case as presented merits an indictment for trial before a petit jury - i.e. in effect finding thast there is "a case to answer" AKA a "prima facie" case to put to a criminal trial.
    YES - for two distinct stages (1) Before the GJ "Is there enough to put it to trial?" and (2) Before the trial curt "Does the prosecution prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the offence(s) was (were) committed.
    And as far as I can see so far ONLY at what is presented to the GJ. IF it gets to trial court then it still requires the prosecution to present the best argument with validated supporting evidence. And that is the stage where there can be little doubt the cases (57??? of them) will be lost. I don't see US politics permitting/allowing a weak defence.
     
  33. Mendel

    Mendel Member

    The court has to, but we don't. If we see that their "best evidence" doesn't hold up, we can see that either their evidence as a whole doesn't hold up, or that the lawyers are inept.

    @econ41 "stage (1) before the GJ" I would expect that a corpus delicti needs to be proven here. Kinda like the inquest after a suspicious death, we want to know if there was a crime committed or not. If there is no evidence of a crime, there can be no trial. Grand Juries investigate, they can even subpoena the president.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_States
     
  34. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    This thread is about the court.

    I'm going to have to disagree with this, personally, for the same reasons the court would. I wouldnt trust 911 Truth to determine what the best evidence is. They think non-experts saying "it LOOKS like controlled demolition" is their best evidence (for laymen) or explosions down the elevator shafts? (hearsay not withstanding)... I'm a layman, they'd be better off trying for the molten metal or trying to confuse me by telling me the towers were built to withstand plane impact. But that's me.
     
  35. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    don't change my quotes. if i wanted to say the Grand Jury i would have. "the court" includes the DA/U.S attorney.. he has to tell the Grand Jury his recommendations. which means he has to read the whole thing. The judge also has to read the whole thing. Not just the "best bits".
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  36. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    I clearly indicated the changes by the protocol of "square brackets" [***]... I know what you said - that was the point of my post to break the conflation of "Grand jury" and "petit jury" processes.

    I note that you choose to ignore that point which was the purpose of my post. No problem I'll retreat to my corner.
     
  37. Mendel

    Mendel Member


    https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_1
    The prosecutor and the jury are not the court.


    Can you support this allegation? Who is the judge in this case?

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3332
    It doesn't say the attorney has to pass the submitted information on. It doesn't say the jury has to read it. It does say that the jury has to "inquire into offenses ... alleged to have been committed". The have to inquire into the offense, not into the allegations. How they do that, and how they reach an indictment or not, appears to be up to them. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure treat Grand Juries in Title III, they talk a lot about what can be revealed to whom, and how concise an indictment must be, but they don't say they have to read or hear everything that anyone wants them to.

    In a criminal case, the defendant has the right to be heard. In a civil case, the plaintiff has the right to be heard. Does this right extend in the same way to a person invoking section 3332?

    This is the alleged offense:
    https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11...Report-Crime-to-Special-Grand-Jury-073018.pdf
    As I understand it, this is what the US attorney has to tell the Grand Jury, and the Grand Jury then has to inquire into it. What else the US Attorney tells the jury, and how the jury decides to inquire, seems up to them.
     
  38. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    you need to just say your point. You can't change people's words if you quote them. Brackets usually indicate an edit a moderator or the poster made.


    I agree that if an ivestigation is done and the US attorney chooses to press charges against someone, he will decide what evidence he will us in his case.
     
  39. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    I did not say either of those things.

    I'm willing to call it whatever you wish. What do you wish for me to call the judge, the jury, the defendant and the prosecutor?
     
  40. Mendel

    Mendel Member

    These words work.
    However, I don't expect a judge or a defendant to be part of Grand Jury proceedings.
    The Grand Jury is about the prosecutor and the jury investigating, and the jury determining probable cause.