We need to get off our asses and do something about it. They lied to us. 1000x over. There's nothing to debate. We need a new investigation.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Jon, you are right, but I think WisdumbWatch has a point: 9/11 Truth lacks a coherent statement of beliefs. I realize many Truthers find this a good thing, because it embodies free speech and truly democratic politics. But it also means that the media can oppose whatever version of 9/11 Truth they want to, often choosing the obviously dubious.

Ruppert's version does not address physical evidence, and many libertarians object to Peak Oil as a motive. Tarpley's version is too aggressively MIHOP for mainstream America, and his connection to Lyndon LaRouche makes him an easy target for personal attacks. Griffin's version is still the most popular moderate expression of 9/11 Truth, but even he treads into a wedge issue like the Pentagon (the first thing every corporate anchor asks Dylan Avery, "Then where are the passengers?" Credibility lost, in the eyes of mainstream America). And Griffin uses questionable personalities such as Eric Hufschmid as primary sources at length.

And Loose Change, the most popular Truther film, is a seriously compromised document of 9/11 Truth. It is an excellent film, but has far too many errors and instances of cherrypicking evidence. At its core, LC is right; but its presentation needs to be tighter. I know I will get shouted down for that comment, but I think it's accurate. Maybe Griffin's involvement will correct some of these problems for the final cut? I hope it does.

I think your movie, Jon, Press for Truth, is probably the most accessible to moderates, but of course the hardliners in the movement cry foul at the first sign of LIHOP. Paul Thompson has been one of the best proponents for 9/11 Truth, but moderate voices are rarely heard in a shouting match such as this one. And anytime one of us criticizes one of the louder voices, such as Alex Jones, we are certain to be shouted down.

This is a factious movement, and that probably won't change. In the meantime, having No Planers talking to people at Ground Zero every weekend does irreparable damage to 9/11 Truth.

9/11 Truth needs a legal framework to proceed. It cannot achieve what it needs to achieve in the time frame it needs to achieve it with an Internet-based movement of disparate voices. 9/11 Truth needs something like what Robert Kennedy did with the e-voting issue. In two years, the opportunity for 9/11 Truth will have passed. This legal strategy needs to happen now.

And willing to write up a statement?
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

I'm not sure. I know other legal challenges to certain aspects of the 9/11 story have failed (re: Saudi financing, for example). And of course the government will probably respond with "state secrets" to every piece of evidence that would really be valuable to us. Like, if Sibel Edmonds ever gets ungagged, I'm sure there will be an outcry of horror at what she knows; but that won't happen for decades, if at all.

So what is the one thing that you think a lawyer could take to a judge and say, "See, the government did something illegal on 9/11"?

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm surprised that the removal and destruction of evidence was never challenged. That seems to be something even OCTs see as dubious. I know that sounds like a weak entry point, but I think something along those lines sounds more reasonable than simply saying, "Let's try the government for treason! Y'know, on all counts of everything!"

Personally, I think Watergate should be our model. There must be a money trail somewhere that leads to 9/11. Guns, oil, drugs. The Dems seem to be interested in Haliburton's war contracts, but that won't get close to 9/11.

"We're asking for a new investigation into the events of September 11th, and this time, a truly bipartisan, global, with families invested from the beginning, middle, and throughout the end."
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Obstruction of justice? How many times did this Administration block attempts to investigate 9/11, and make it difficult for the Commission to do its' job? Not that they would have, but you see what I'm saying...
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

And I don't mean to correct DMO... but I think it should be a non-partisan investigation.

I don't think anyone under their respective party should be there as a representative of their party.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

It's difficult to imagine what a truly independent investigation would look like, or who among the current political operatives would want it. The main reason the Dems don't pursue really significant forms of corruption is because they themselves undoubtedly have skeletons in the closet. Personally, I believe the Dems made a deal with Bush: flip the Diebold machines slightly in our favor, and we won't impeach you.

In terms of partisan representatives, consider the MSM talk about Henry Waxman:

"His targets have ranged from why the Taekwondo Union was allowing 12- and 13-year-olds to kick opponents in the head, to Medicare drug costs and baseball steroid use, to abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib and government contracts given to Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, Halliburton."

The problem is, of course, talk like this:

""We want to return to civility and bipartisanship," Waxman said. "Legislation ought to be based on evidence, not ideology.""

Anyway, I think he's our best chance in government. Here's his contact info:

In Washington, D.C.
2204 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-3976 (phone)
(202) 225-4099 (fax)

In Los Angeles
8436 West Third Street, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90048
(323) 651-1040 (phone)
(818) 878-7400 (phone)
(310) 652-3095 (phone)
(323) 655-0502 (fax)

Ask his office if what happened at Ground Zero was "obstruction of justice."

What this post was about. I know that Barrie Zwicker, Ian Woods, and someone else wrote a letter to Rep. Waxman.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Sorry. Must have missed that one. That is indeed the idea.

The model for prosecution I imagine resembles what Robert Kennedy is doing against Diebold:

"On July 13, the Pensacola, Fla.-based law firm of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. filed a “qui tam” lawsuit in U.S. District Court, alleging that Diebold and other electronic voting machine (EVM) companies fraudulently represented to state election boards and the federal government that their products were “unhackable.”

Kennedy claims to have witnesses “centrally located, deep within the corporations,” who will confirm that company officials withheld their knowledge of problems with accuracy, reliability and security of EVMs in order to procure government contracts. Since going into service, many of these machines have been linked to allegations of election fraud."

At the very least, his lawsuit accomplishes two things: (1) it warns would-be election criminals that someone is watching; (2) it attacks Diebold directly, which is at least a symbolic victory.

What are the 9/11 parallels? I'm not sure, exactly. If pre-war intelligence and impeachment are off the table, as the Dems say, then the thread we need is less visible but potentially as dangerous.

I think the fact that NORAD lied to the Commission should be taken up by the DoJ. I mean, even Kean and Hamilton admit that much. I realize NORAD wasn't under oath, but surely telling publicly acknowledged lies about 9/11 must mean something?

Jon Gold: In regards to "Obstruction Of Justice"... why can't that be applied to the Administration in regards to 9/11?

Phil Berg: I'll check it out
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Sounds about right.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Kevin Barrett is talking about the illness and cause of it right now on his RBN radio show....couldn't a lawsuit over that be a foothold for the rest of 9/11 Truth?

There is so much evidence for government malfeasance with regard to sending the FRs back in to Ground Zero that it seems impossible to keep that out of the courts, even for these fascists. It's a small step after that to 9/11 Truth being revealed, IMO. ("How did that microscopic dust form anyway? Gravity?"...to paraphrase Col. Sparks: "not bloody likely".....)

His show just started, but will be archived here:
http://www.rbnlive.com/archiveindex.html

Certainly possible. I'm not a lawyer. I don't know what our best case is.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

...there must be many who have caring, outraged relatives who are lawyers and would be interested in filing a class action suit....

I highly urge everyone to listen to Barrett's show with Les Jameson, who, I didn't realize, has done so much work supporting the First Responders...a lawyer from Missouri just called in suggesting a class action suit in an interesting way...

Les revealed something that just infuriates me...that the FRs believe that the criminals behind 9/11 are just trying stall tactics in an effort to wait them out; that is, hoping everyone dies off before they have to both pay everyone off and also to avoid FRs testifying in court about molten metal, etc....that the 9/11 Criminals want to avoid a court case that could unravel everything, at all costs....

And Les is my friend.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

http://www.rbnlive.com/listen.html

I posted the archive site above as well...to get it all when they put it there...

I'm assuming it's today's show?
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

.

...about 30 minutes left....

....I believe, to concentrate the suit on the controlled demolition of Building 7....we have Silverstein admitting it...but, they obviously didn't have permits, etc. to do it....so, laws must've been broken...you can't "pull" a building without having gone through the legal machinations to do so, right? And, he would be responsible for health hazards resulting from that illegal controlled demolition also, right?

There was much more to what he had to say, but it went by pretty fast and I missed most of it....I will re-listen....

available online? Thanks.

There's certainly a major crime there, but I don't think it leads to any bigger lies or injustices. They could crucify Whitman, and leave it at that.

However, is there any way to get a group of firefighters, particularly the dying ones, to demand investigation of the secondary explosions they witnessed in the towers? I realize the chances are extremely slim, but surely some of the firefighters who were condemned to death by the EPA, and earlier by whomever planted the explosives, would find it worthwhile to make some noise before they die? Payback and justice?

I actually don't believe in magical smoking guns, but FR illness leads directly to the fact of ultra-fine pulverization. I caught something on the MSM last week that went into the size of the particles and specifically the fact that so much concrete was pulverized into such small particles (and affected the pH of the dust in general.) I was surprised at the level of detail it discussed in this regard because many, many people are eventually going to look at the dust and ask themselves, would a gravity-driven collapse do this? Or would it take some kind of explosive event?

It's also the people who lived in the vicinity.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

I thought a class action had already been filed. No?

A lawsuit like this would be about getting compensation for the plaintiffs. Good information might emerge from the lawsuit, but It seems like 9/11 as an inside job would make it harder to win, so I can't see this as a strategy. The issue is disregarding or lying about the risks of the air and sending people in. Not how the air got that way. For purposes of such a lawsuit, micro fine particles would be a reason not to send people in, not evidence of controlled demolition. Any lawyer who went in with the purpose of using the lawsuit to reveal "9/11 truth" would be acting unethically.

I could be wrong about 9/11 truth being a strategy in such a lawsuit, but the point is that 9/11 truth would only be proper as a means to the end of compensation for the harm done to the plaintiffs.