A 9-11 truth buddy of mine here in LA came up with the following proposal about a strategic legal pathway to pursue justice for 9-11. I think it is a great idea, in that it limits the severity of the charges being made (negligence), while advancing the most damning evidence of purposeful mass murder and treason, the controlled demolitions. The case should be against those security groups responsible for the WTC (i.e. Port Authority, Kroll, Stratasec). And it should be a civil case put forth by family members of victims with testimony from eyewitnesses and experts. At the same time that I think we must pursue the larger picture of justice (i.e. treason charges for the overall attack and the subsequent cover-up) through cornering the Congress and Media with the overwhelming evidence in David Ray Griffin's newest book, "9-11 Contradictions," that shows the government's story to be internally contradicted in some places with shifting and inconclusive narratives in many others, this very precise angle of proving controlled demolition in a civil case against the groups responsible for WTC security is a powerful possibility.

While this could move forward towards a court case that would have very powerful ramifications, we can continue to civil informationeer, creatively reach out and non-violently confront. I think that delivering David Ray Griffin's book along with the best case and papers that prove controlled demolition (which in one go, proves the official story to be a cover-up) to all members of the Congress and Media, while putting the delivering on public video record, would be a great project to accomplish together and would, potentially once and for all, strip plausible deniability completely from all that continue to hide behind it, as well as being good media material.

Thank you all for all your ongoing work. Please tell us what you think.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Though much progress has been made in the 911 truth movement as far as raising awareness, one area that has seen little to no progress is in the court system. It seems this route has not been overwhelmingly pursued due to the fact that bringing charges against any responsible perpetrators is a daunting task with little chance of success. Indeed, those of us in the 911 truth movement are not in full agreement of who is responsible much less how to bring charges against them in a criminal trial.

So how do we achieve that first successful step of bringing the movement from the streets and internet into the courtroom? I believe we must step back from criminal proceedings and first pursue a case in civil court as a few folks have attempted to do. It is the defendant of the lawsuit and the focus of the case that is crucial to think through strategically. The companies whose job it was to provide security for the World Trade Center complex failed in their duties by allowing unknown persons access to the building to plant the explosives that brought the towers down. They are therefore guilty of negligence.

If the family members of the victims who died in the collapse of the towers and building seven sued the security companies for negligence in civil court, this would be our foot in the door of the legal system and set the stage for criminal proceedings in the future, as well as treason charges. Civil court has the advantage of having to only prove the probability of the defendant being guilty, as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal court. So, if we were able to present a case which showed the collapse of the 3 buildings on 9/11/01 was PROBABLY due to controlled demolition, then the security companies would be liable due to the fact they did not prevent the explosives from being planted.

It is imperative that blame is not assigned at this stage beyond the negligence of the security companies. No accusations should be made as to who actually planted the explosives. The purpose of this case should be compensation to the family members from the security companies. At the same time, it will give new exposure to the masses of controlled demolition as a case such as this will almost have to be covered by the mainstream media. Not to mention, it will set a precedent in the legal system and give the controlled demolition fact new credibility.

By establishing the case for controlled demolition in a legal environment, we would open the door to other avenues that, up until this point, would have seemed impossible just 12 months ago. At the same time, the victims families can finally start down the path to justice and peace of mind.

--Michael Lukas--