"Breakthrough": U.S. Attorney Agrees to Present Evidence of WTC Demolition to Federal Grand Jury.

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Being a member means nothing. Understanding the issues is all that matters. There is nothing to show that AE911T members are informed... or any more informed on the issues than non members.

AE911T has been trying to "petition" for "redress" for more than 10 years and none of those petitions go anywhere.
 

Paradigm_shift

New Member
Where does it say that? What exactly does it say?
Page 31

"The data provide strong evidence that chemical reactions which were both violent and highly-exothermic contributed to the destruction of the WTC buildings. NIST neglected the high-temperature and fragmentation evidence presented here: it appears nowhere in their final report [reference omitted].6869"

All the quotes from eye-witnesses are listed clearly in the petition. As well as NISTs findings, their omissions and what other independent researchers have found that contradict their narrative.
 
Last edited:

Paradigm_shift

New Member
Being a member means nothing. Understanding the issues is all that matters. There is nothing to show that AE911T members are informed... or any more informed on the issues than non members.

AE911T has been trying to "petition" for "redress" for more than 10 years and none of those petitions go anywhere.
That's besides the point. Mick claims their point is invalid because there are are only 3000 members. By that logic, it invalidates NISTs findings as well.

Do not claim something like millions of engineers support NISTs investigation without providing evidence to back it up, just like Mick has done.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
So everyone not in AE9/11 does not agree with what they say simply because they have not joined them.
Following that same logic, only 2800 work at NIST, does that mean everyone who is not at NIST despite being qualified to do so i.e. the millions of architects and engineers who all have studied the collapse of 9/11 from both sides, despite you claiming most people would automatically dismiss it anyway. Paradoxical, irrelevant points.
AE9/11 is a group anyone is free to join. NIST is a workplace. If architects and engineers wanted to make a statement in support of AE9/11 theories the best and easiest thing to do is join. The vast majority have chosen not to.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
So everyone not in AE9/11 does not agree with what they say simply because they have not joined them.
Following that same logic, only 2800 work at NIST, does that mean everyone who is not at NIST despite being qualified to do so i.e. the millions of architects and engineers who all have studied the collapse of 9/11 from both sides, despite you claiming most people would automatically dismiss it anyway. Paradoxical, irrelevant points.
This comparison might be valid if NIST ran a petition and had spent 12 years promoting that petition through ads, speaking tours etc.

They have not.

AE911Truth often claims to be reaching out to very substantial proportions of the entire professional communities of architects and engineers, and all it takes to "join" them is to fill out an online form that purports to support a rather weak claim and demand.

Nothing at NIST is comparable to that situation. They are not actively reaching out to engineers, nor asking for anyone's explicit endorsement.

I agree that counting everybody, or the majority of those, who have not agreed explicitly with AE911Truth yet as disagreeing is invalid and reaching. But fact is that only a tiny minorities of these professionals have at one point in the last 12 years saw it fit to undersign a weak demand. That does not speak for much support among the professions.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
Page 31
"It is interesting that the FEMA report discussed the “evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation” and called for further investigation, [13] – but the subsequent NIST report [15] failed to address this evidence."
But that (hot-corroded steel examined by metallurgists for FEMA report) is not the issue that Mick was asking about (NFPA guide allegedly demanding that explosives and arson be tested for):
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.
Where in the petition is this issue raised? Please quote it, and give page numbers.
https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/before-the-pdf.35308/
 

Paradigm_shift

New Member
AE9/11 is a group anyone is free to join. NIST is a workplace. If architects and engineers wanted to make a statement in support of AE9/11 theories the best and easiest thing to do is join. The vast majority have chosen not to.
Free to join? I believe you still have to be qualified as someone in the relevant field of building collapses such as architecture, engineering etc. And also have reviewed the official study by NIST and came to find inconsistencies. I doubt they accept signatories without a background check and credential verification.
Your comment is another attempt to invalidate their position without actually addressing any of their arguments.
Also 'the vast majority have chosen not to' is a complete lie. The vast majority simply just haven't looked at it. Can't make a choice you don't know exists.
 
Last edited:

Paradigm_shift

New Member
But that (hot-corroded steel examined by metallurgists for FEMA report) is not the issue that Mick was asking about (NFPA guide allegedly demanding that explosives and arson be tested for):
I'm afraid that the oxidation and corrosion is one of the evidence of explosive residues as highlighted by the NFPA 921 fire and explosive investigations and pointed out by this petition that are not being addressed by NIST.
How have you missed that?
 

Oystein

Senior Member
I'm afraid that the oxidation and corrosion is one of the evidence of explosive residues as highlighted by the NFPA 921 fire and explosive investigations...
How so?
The result of that study was that these pieces of steel suffered corrosion. Explosives do not corrode the steel they attack, or do they?
 

Oystein

Senior Member
Free to join? I believe you still have to be qualified as someone in the relevant field of building collapses such as architecture, engineering etc.
No. You merely need to have a degree in architecture or some branch of engineering, including many that would not in any way make you "qualified as someone in the relevant field of building collapses such". Landru listed the architects and engineers, and indeed that is the criterion: "If architects and engineers wanted to make a statement in support of AE9/11 theories the best and easiest thing to do is join. "

And also have reviewed the official study by NIST and came to find inconsistencies. I doubt they accept signatories without a background check and credential verification.
AE911Truth has a Verification Team that checks with their signatories whether they have at least a Bachelor's degree, or international equivalent, in architecture or some branch of engineering (that would, for example, include software engineers, landscape engineers, electrical engineers...).
That is all.
There is no requirement whatsoever to even know about the NIST report. You can bet that practically none of their signatories actually ever read as much as the executive summaries of the NIST reports, let alone "reviewed"review the studies.

Your comment is another attempt to invalidate their position without actually addressing any of their arguments.
I have read the personal statements by hundreds of the A&E signatories. By and large, they reveal absolutely NO own arguments, only repetitions of the (usually invalid, often outright FALSE, talking points presented to them by AE911Truth).

Also 'the vast majority have chosen not to' is a complete lie. The vast majority simply just haven't looked at it. Can't make a choice you don't know exists.
This ("vast majority simply just haven't looked at it") is true both for the signatories and the non-signatories. The signatories generally have only looked at Truther YouTubes and similar unscientific nonsense and propaganda.
 

Paradigm_shift

New Member
No. You merely need to have a degree in architecture or some branch of engineering, including many that would not in any way make you "qualified as someone in the relevant field of building collapses such". Landru listed the architects and engineers, and indeed that is the criterion: "If architects and engineers wanted to make a statement in support of AE9/11 theories the best and easiest thing to do is join. "

AE911Truth has a Verification Team that checks with their signatories whether they have at least a Bachelor's degree, or international equivalent, in architecture or some branch of engineering (that would, for example, include software engineers, landscape engineers, electrical engineers...).
That is all.
This is literally just repeating what I said. You have to have a background in architecture or engineering, but they also have demolition experts, electrical engineers etc. so this is mostly irrelevant. I don't get how this contradicts at all what I said. I said just that - they don't just let anyone in, except for people in the related field.

There is no requirement whatsoever to even know about the NIST report. You can bet that practically none of their signatories actually ever read as much as the executive summaries of the NIST reports, let alone "reviewed"review the studies.
Really? It's kind of hard to critique and point out specific instances in the report that were inconsistent. It's rather childish to assume they haven't looked at NISTs report. You can't claim they haven't studied the thing they're contradicting.. let's just say they hadn't read anything by NIST, how would they deny their claims? You have no valid point here other than speculation and your own personal incredulity fallacy.

I have read the personal statements by hundreds of the A&E signatories. By and large, they reveal absolutely NO own arguments, only repetitions of the (usually invalid, often outright FALSE, talking points presented to them by AE911Truth).
Really? That seems like an exaggeration "Hundreds" I've only gotten through a few dozen myself. I mostly look at the evidence anyway rather than a bunch of testimonials in any case. They reveal absolutely NO own arguments? That's a bit of a stretch and complete denial.
Guess these two people have nothing unique to say:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5IgqJXyLbg&t=1s

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZNQq7XBLwc

One a chemical engineer and another a demolitions loader. Neither is a mechnical engineer nor architect, yet they already break your false belief of 'only architect or engineer with a bacherlors. If you can still me they have nothing original or different to say after watching this, for everyone to see, I hope you can hang on to your dishonesty.

[off-topic material removed]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So everyone not in AE9/11 does not agree with what they say simply because they have not joined them.
Following that same logic, only 2800 work at NIST, does that mean everyone who is not at NIST despite being qualified to do so i.e. the millions of architects and engineers who all have studied the collapse of 9/11 from both sides, despite you claiming most people would automatically dismiss it anyway. Paradoxical, irrelevant points.
That's a non-sequitur. NIST has a limited budget, they can only hire so many people, people who join get paid tens of thousands of dollars. To join NIST you have to committ to working there many hours a week. If you stop working, they stop paying you.

AE911Truth, on the other hand, gets more money as more people join, there's no limit. It's free to join, but giving money is encouraged, all you have to do is fill in a web form. Once you've joined you don't have to do anything, and you're a member forever.

So it's not the same logic at all.

A fundamental problem underlying many conspiracy theories, this one included, is that believers in the theory think it's a serious issue. Non-believers think it's a frivolous issue. So believers are likely to join organizations, non-believers are not.

Kind of like why Christians join churches, but non-religious people (mostly) do not.

Bringing it back to the lawsuit, this asymmetry in perception is evident in Truthers being excited that legal progress is being made, but the U.S. Attorney in NY is probably just thinking it's all a waste of time, bordering on vexatious litigation.
 

DannyBoy2k

New Member
Very, VERY briefly, I'm going to note that, A&E911Truth does not have the commonly reported number of members.

They have petition signers. Essentially, someone stuck a paper under peoples nose that said, "I think there's something hinky about 9/11, if you do to, sign your name here."


If you go to, for example, change.org, you can find similar petitions by the dozens, including one from the Lawyers Committee.
 

econ41

Senior Member
Thanks DannyBoy2k. I think you wil find that many of us are aware of the realities that you identify.. tho we may get less than rigorous referring to "AE911 members" when we mean "petition signers".

And, as you correctly identify, the petition was - still is - easy to sign - with a very low threshold. "believe there is sufficient doubt". Even that was probably a more plausible assertion when first formulated that it is now.

Certainly AE911 make mendacious mileage by reference to petition signers as being "members" and persistent implications that they strongly support the AE911 firm commitment to CD based explanations.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Thanks DannyBoy2k. I think you wil find that many of us are aware of the realities that you identify.. tho we may get less than rigorous referring to "AE911 members" when we mean "petition signers".

And, as you correctly identify, the petition was - still is - easy to sign - with a very low threshold. "believe there is sufficient doubt". Even that was probably a more plausible assertion when first formulated that it is now.

Certainly AE911 make mendacious mileage by reference to petition signers as being "members" and persistent implications that they strongly support the AE911 firm commitment to CD based explanations.
It should be emphasized and noted that AE911T does no research and only markets it's petition for the purposes of obtaining signatures. It cobbled together a few presentations which are intended to convince people to doubt the so called "official narrative".... and motivate them to sign the petition. The petition itself is then part of the marketing pitch underpinning what they believe is legitimacy... See how many people don't believe NIST and are willing to sign on the dotted line.

Back in 2009 I had close contact with Gage who wanted me as an NY architect to be on board. I asked him why he didn't have some of the professionals who signed the petition conduct building performance studies, FEA etc. He flat out rejected the idea. I believe because he probably thought their research would demolish his CD theories and with it his organization.

AE911T is a marketing operation to raise money to sustain itself and pay Gage to make presentations and be the face of trutherism. Periodically some "independent" person or group attempts to produce "content" in support of CD. All have failed to make the case. None have been repudiated by Gage. The old dog will not learn any new tricks.
 

cptn_fantastic

New 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.
Perhaps not, though eye-witness accounts supported with physical and graphic evidence probably would.
Not to mention Dr. Husley's building 7 study which forms part of the petitions body of evidence.
 

cptn_fantastic

New 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.
One imagines "frivolous" would not make it to a Grand Jury.
Put it to the test- petition them on a flat earth investigation- see how you go?
 

cptn_fantastic

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.
Well, Dr. Husley's building 7 study plainly demonstrates fire could not have induced the collapse of building 7.
Granted, we await peer review.
If not fire- then what? It's enough to require a re- investigation into building 7 at least, and certainly an investigation into NIST.
 

cptn_fantastic

New 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.
And yet here we have Dr. Husley's rigorous study into building 7.
A study opened up to peer review.
How rigorous were NIST? We don't know- we're not allowed to rigorously review.
Rigor in secret is no rigor at all.
 

econ41

Senior Member
Hulsey's study is NOT rigorous and will not withstand professional scrutiny. It has been written to meet AE911 requirements and certainly will serve as a basis for continuing truth movement hoopla and rejoicing.

Hulsey's main claim is that he has shown that fire could not cause the collapse. That is a global negative claim which CANNOT be proved in the context of this study. So his claim is falsified even before we examine his errant engineering assesments.

The study is not being peer reviewed which is not proof of accuracy even if it happend. AE911 has announced that it will take public comments which support the findings.

NIST was rigorous and your reference to "not allowed" is false based on a common truther misinterpretation of one issue of fact. So your concluding bit of innuendo is irrelevant.
 

cptn_fantastic

New Member
Does anyone have any examples of "frivolous" being brought before a Grand Jury?
Have Grand Juries convened to address unsupported claims? Any examples?
I know naught of the US legal system, or any country's system for that matter, however I find it hard to imagine the US Attorney creating a Grand Jury without careful consideration and a jolly good reason for doing so.

I could be wrong. Examples demonstrating my error?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Does anyone have any examples of "frivolous" being brought before a Grand Jury?
Have Grand Juries convened to address unsupported claims? Any examples?
I know naught of the US legal system, or any country's system for that matter, however I find it hard to imagine the US Attorney creating a Grand Jury without careful consideration and a jolly good reason for doing so.

I could be wrong. Examples demonstrating my error?
Why is your question relevant? Has this case made it to a grand jury?
 

cptn_fantastic

New Member
Why is your question relevant? Has this case made it to a grand jury?
I don't know if it has made it or not- not sure anyone does. However;
"We have received and reviewed The Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, Inc.'s submissions of April 10 and July 30, 2018. We will comply with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3332 as they relate to your submissions. Very truly yours, GEOFFREY S. BERMAN United States Attorney"

You have suggested many folks view controlled demolition as being in the same vein as flat earth- nonsensical.
Would GEOFFREY S. BERMAN United States Attorney likely present to a Grand Jury frivolous, unsubstantiated claims?
I don't know- do you? If you think Grand Jury's deal in frivolous, unsubstantiated claims perhaps you could provide an example?

Seems to me that if you cannot present examples of frivolous, unsubstantiated claims investigated by a Grand Jury, one could perhaps assume that Grand Jury's do not investigate frivolous, unsubstantiated claims and therefore the AE and LC petition should then ought not be considered frivolous and containing unsubstantiated claims?
 

Oystein

Senior Member
I don't know if it has made it or not [to a grand jury]
...
Would GEOFFREY S. BERMAN United States Attorney likely present to a Grand Jury frivolous, unsubstantiated claims?
...
Why is your question relevant? You said you don't know whether Berman presented the mail package to a Grand Jury.
 

cptn_fantastic

New Member
Why is your question relevant? You said you don't know whether Berman presented the mail package to a Grand Jury.
Mail package- I though it was a petition?

"We have received and reviewed The Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, Inc.'s submissions of April 10 and July 30, 2018. We will comply with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3332 as they relate to your submissions. Very truly yours, GEOFFREY S. BERMAN United States Attorney"
This strongly suggests that the petition will be presented to a Grand Jury.
Do Grand Jury's deal in frivolous matters as a matter of routine?

So;
Seems to me that if one cannot present examples of frivolous, unsubstantiated claims investigated by a Grand Jury, one could perhaps assume that Grand Jury's do not investigate frivolous, unsubstantiated claims and therefore the AE and LC petition should then ought not be considered frivolous and containing unsubstantiated claims.

Grand Jury's may indeed deal in frivolous matters, I don't know- do you?
 

cptn_fantastic

New Member
Hulsey's study is NOT rigorous and will not withstand professional scrutiny. It has been written to meet AE911 requirements and certainly will serve as a basis for continuing truth movement hoopla and rejoicing.

Hulsey's main claim is that he has shown that fire could not cause the collapse. That is a global negative claim which CANNOT be proved in the context of this study. So his claim is falsified even before we examine his errant engineering assesments.

The study is not being peer reviewed which is not proof of accuracy even if it happend. AE911 has announced that it will take public comments which support the findings.

NIST was rigorous and your reference to "not allowed" is false based on a common truther misinterpretation of one issue of fact. So your concluding bit of innuendo is irrelevant.
"Hulsey's main claim is that he has shown that fire could not cause the collapse. That is a global negative claim which CANNOT be proved in the context of this study. So his claim is falsified even before we examine his errant engineering assesments."

Just a small correction- Hulsey's main claim is that he has shown that fire could not cause the collapse as described by NIST.
Such a claim is very specific, testable and in no way "global"
 

deirdre

Senior Member
Hulsey's main claim is that he has shown that fire could not cause the collapse as described by NIST.
that is not true.

quote from the page immediately following the title page of the Sept 3, 2019 draft report.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
Mail package- I though it was a petition?

"We have received and reviewed The Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, Inc.'s submissions of April 10 and July 30, 2018. We will comply with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3332 as they relate to your submissions. Very truly yours, GEOFFREY S. BERMAN United States Attorney"
This strongly suggests that the petition will be presented to a Grand Jury.
Do Grand Jury's deal in frivolous matters as a matter of routine?

So;
Seems to me that if one cannot present examples of frivolous, unsubstantiated claims investigated by a Grand Jury, one could perhaps assume that Grand Jury's do not investigate frivolous, unsubstantiated claims and therefore the AE and LC petition should then ought not be considered frivolous and containing unsubstantiated claims.

Grand Jury's may indeed deal in frivolous matters, I don't know- do you?
A petition submitted as a stack of printed paper in a mail package.

What makes you think "This strongly suggests that the petition will be presented to a Grand Jury."? You said said earlier you don't whether it was, and that's true: we don't know. So why are your questions relevant? Please present a reasoned argument to support your assumption the mail package was forwarded to a GJ, and don't simply repeat your loaded question!
 

econ41

Senior Member
Just a small correction- Hulsey's main claim is that he has shown that fire could not cause the collapse as described by NIST.
Such a claim is very specific, testable and in no way "global"
Thanks for responding to that one point out of my post. And also for your implicit agreement that a "global negative" claim cannot be supported. You are the first person to respond to my many comments on that issue.

Now as dierdre has already quoted from the draft report:
The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse.
....which does NOT support your interpretation.

And the history of this project is clear. Hulsey has many times stated two separate and distinct objectives which have been - in my words - Hulsey's terminology has varied:
1) He has asserted "Fire could not cause collapse of WTC7".
2) He would prove that NIST was wrong.
NOTE: The first is a "global negative" claim. And the second has been a separate objective NOT a limit on the first.

So if - as you say - he is now conflating the two so that his previously global assertions are NOW limited to only proving NIST wrong can you reference the statements by Hulsey where:
- He explicitly withdraws his many earlier claims;
- Proves that he has distanced himself from his previous false claims; AND
- (presumably) He has admitted he was wrong.
 
Last edited:

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
The claim that all columns failed simultaneously is false. The form of the collapse betrays this statement. Yes! this would lead to the building dropping straight down in a crush up. For sure he intended to say that all the columns were destroyed.... or "taken out" at the same level. No evidence to support that.

Any explanation has to account for the FORM of the collapse which reveals what parts or the structure were failing (from whatever cause) and when (sequence). Something caused the EPH to descend before the rest of the building. Something caused the screen wall to then collapse and then the WPH. Some caused the tower's north facade to kink as it descended. Something cause the distortion of the north facade and breaking / distortion of the glass. Something accounts for the multistory vertical kink in the north face.

When investigators attempt to model the sequence of failures they need to figure out what was happening to the structure... beams, girders, columns, transfers, connections, slabs and so forth... all interconnected. Further fires DO cause steel to warp, bend, twist, expand and then contract when cooled... loose strength. They have to account for so many variables that lead to many global collapse failure sequences. Finding THE one from 911 is like finding a needle in a haystack.
 

Mendel

Active Member
Short version. The called the New York U.S. Attorney's office to ask how the Grand Jury thing was going. They we told it's secret. So they are filing a petition in federal court to try to move things along.
There's an interview and transcript posted on February 21st on ae911truth.org where Mick Harrison of the Lawyers' Committee For 9/11 Inquiry describes the then state of proceedings, after the failed phone call:
In short, as of last month, they had a pending filing that asked whether a Grand Jury had been convened on their petition, and asked the court to make it happen if not. I wasn't able to find more recent information on either the ae911 or the lawyers' committee websites, so it's still uncertain whether that "breakthrough" did happen, is about to happen, or won't happen at all.
 

econ41

Senior Member
It is still a procedural layer or two away from any court considering the merit of the actual 9/11 claims. Read this bit:
Note the reference to "respond to the merits" is the merits of the procedural argument as to whether the suite of 9/11 claim issues should go to a grand jury. NOT the merits of those actual multiple claims.

So the "it" which will "get very intersting pretty quickly" is still only the procedural preliminaries. They are challenging the secrecy of Grand Jury procedings. And - archaic tho the GJ system may be - it is strongly embedded in US constitutional law and legal tradition. No way will the "system" want to weaken, water down or fundamentally modify the GJ system at the whim of a bunch of conspiracy theorists - no matter how much they try to dress the proceedings up as legitimate.
 
Last edited:
Top