If AE911Truth's claims were provable, the obvious path forward for the Lawyers' Committee would be a lawsuit that uses them as the basis to claim significant damages against one of the principal actors whom they allege caused so much harm (e.g., whatever random three letter agency they want to pick out of the hat); they already have sympathetic potential plaintiffs they could enlist in such a suit. But they won't go there because none of their "work" is about actually proving their claims and they know it.
Yes. After following this thread for a while that seems to be the obvious question. I'm not a lawyer, but I do know that the burden of proof is lower in civil court than in a criminal one. In civil court it's been "proving" that RoundUp causes cancer and O.J. Simpson did in fact kill his ex-wife.
Even as a non-lawyer, I would find a plaintiff and sue the Port Authority, who ran the WTC, for negligence. All of my evidence for CD could be presented in open court including Husley's paper, cut columns, nan-thermites, high speed ejections and so on. All I would need to show is that if CD is a likely possibility and the Port Authority failed to notice all the conspirators planting all those explosives, they were negligent. I don't even think the idea of someone winning a case like that in civil court is all that farfetched, depending on the jury that gets selected.
Instead, they spent 5+ years trying to create a criminal case out of it. To no end.