reply to post by TheBobert
It would be interesting to know if any of the lawyers in the various cases being brought forward have approached 911 truthers, such as Craig Ranke or
David Ray Griffin for a briefing or with queries that might bear on the evidence they were trying to present or dispute.
It seems like a possible vehicle for the presentation of Craig's findings, for example, to the authorities. As a matter of fact it seems unlikely
that they would be receptive to people like him in any other venue but the courts. I imagine that any sort of presentation of 911/truth related
evidence will have to come in an adversarial setting.
I know at one of the 911/truth conferences three or four years ago, that there were lawyers developing a wide ranging strategic plan for possible 911
related litigations. I haven't kept up on this so I don't know how far these plans have progressed.
Personally, as an outsider, removed from the nitty gritty of real world, day to day 911 truth activism, I have been disappointed by the seeming lack
of forward momentum which would bring us closer to important court cases. It begs the question: "Does the 911 truth movement need to regroup at this
point and set priorities?"
I know that I would like to see a lawyer's forum or repository of legal research that could be made available to anyone trying to make a 911/truth
related legal case. Of course this, like everything else, costs money, but unlike
everything else, this should actually be done.
The sort of assertions that Craig Ranke and CIT are making would seem to be particularly relevant to court cases involving insurance claims at the
Pentagon. The sooner Craig's work gets into court, the sooner we get a tough real world test of it's truth or falsity.
[edit on 20-4-2008 by ipsedixit]