You apparently didn't read what I wrote. Your regular body guards are pulled off the detail of protecting you, and you are either left with no protection or else they are replaced with new people.

This is what happened in many cases of assassination in London, including Princess Diana.

That warning is for politicians or public officials. It does not apply to the average person on the street who can simply disappear or hang himself without much press.

Assuming there is a case to answer, produce the evidence and set it in train. Ranting about it on a dating site is not going to accomplish anything.





Of course they haven't sued and for nothing more than political reasons. Why should they bother what a bunch of poorly educated individuals in a fringe movement think? Does NASA sue those who think the Apollo Program was a hoax?





Well, that assumes guilt. Why should the taxpayer have to shell out for what many would consider to be a useless inquiry? If truthers have the evidence (which they don't, of course), why don't they initiate a civil action instead of iterating baseless libel on 'da internetz'?

The answer is as simple as the members.

London, eh?

We agree.



An erroneous assumption on your part…You can't know the minds of other people, so you shouldn't be making assumptions regarding their motives for action/inaction.



It makes no such assumption. It is my position that their not saying anything is a tacit confession of guilt, Which should be made more tangible by getting their agreement that they are guilty (if they are) before any action is taken in the courts.

I do agree that there should also be a civil litigation, in fact a class action suit by as many Americans want to sign on to it. The truthers don't need evidence…all they need is the "confession" of the guilty parties and that (as I pointed out earlier ) should be fairly easy to get. Any American could do it. In fact, it has largely been done already. Their silence speaks volumes.

Hmmm...it dawns on me now that some Canadians died in 9/11...maybe we don't have to wait for the Americans to sue after all. Members of the Canadian families who suffered a loss on 9/11 could do it.

I believe some wrongful death lawsuits have been filed involving 9-11 but I think it was against the United Airlines.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/nyregion/last-911-wrongful-death-suit-is-settled.html

There have been many others I'm sure

http://911review.com/disinfo/lawsuits.html

Not at all. I thought you knew some political science? A politician must show the constituents that he, or she is above such pettiness and present a thicker skin than the average, otherwise they are perceived as not being strong enough for office. Again, why doesn't NASA sue those who publish libel regarding the so-called 'Apollo Hoax'?







In itself, an assumption. If you held office, would you dignify such petty accusations emanating from fringe groups with a response, at the risk of presenting yourself as precious, or thin-skinned? Furthermore, so, by implying that justice hasn't been served doesn't necessarily assume the existence of guilty parties that haven't yet been brought before a court of law? Ok.



And how do you propose to do that without evidence, assuming, of course, there is a case to answer and someone would be prepared to take it on? Even Lawyers for 9/11 truth can't build an adequate case that would establish guilt on the part of the administration. Incompetence or negligence perhaps, but not direct responsibility for the event.



I think the lack of evidence speaks louder. And as for confessions, the truther movement hasn't managed to get one in 12 years...not one, despite the fact that the so-called conspiracy logistically required the co-operation of thousands spread across many government agencies and sections of the private sector. Moreover, civil actions against airlines, or the failed actions of Judy Woods aren't really the kinds of actions I was referring to (i.e. against the 'gubbmint' being culpable as the truthers claim).



So, whom do they sue? Have you considered the glaring reality that this would have been initiated already by an ambitious Law Firm but for the poor quality of the case and the lack of a directly accountable party?

Oh I am quite sure there are tons of people who could be sued for their actions and inaction in connection with 9-11. But finding a lawyer - ?(lawyers are sworn to protect the crown, hence they serve the crown)
--finding a lawyer to handle the case (honestly) might be very difficult.





That is not why a law firm would be hard to hire. If they heard the names of the directly accountable parties, they would turn white as a sheet.

Beats me. maybe they are avoiding libel by not making a claim, but only venturing an opinion? Alternatively, NASA is not a living being and cannot be libeled as it has no feelings or reputation to protect?




Correct, but it is a reasonable presumption to make which can be verified by making allegations under oath for them to deny under oath. If they fail to do so, then they have tacitly confessed their guilt based on the maxim that "He who does not deny admits." They don't have to be brought into a court building for that; all you have to do is serve them a sworn affidavit containing the allegations.



See above.



The party in charge…If I were them I'd start with Dubya, Cheney & Rumsfeld if I managed to get their "agreement."



Most lawyers and law firms are limited (by their oath or by political considerations) in what they can or will do. I would NEVER hire an attorney to do my job for me.

The organisation is able to sue under recent changes in legislation.





So, why hasn't one lawyer possessed the initiative to instigate such a hearing? The scenario is somewhat fantastic and smacks of scapegoating with that maxim as the justification.





That assumes they were responsible. You do realise that this scenario you propose is built entirely on hearsay and resembles a witch hunt more than it does justice? Any lawyer proposing such an idea would be accused of wasting resources and funds.

William Veale is an example, he was the legal counsel for April Gallup. He ended up being fined ($15,000, if I remember correctly) because he could not explain to the court why his case was NOT abusive of the court system.

Jerry Leaphart, legal counsel for Judy Wood, went all the way to the Supreme Court with a qui tam case, where, naturally, owing to the stupidity of her contention, they lost.

Do you know of any other lawyers in the truth movement who at least pretend to have any case at all (with regard to "inside job" allegations, of course; we are not talking about civil liabilities in connection with, say, airport security or health hazards from dust exposure)?





Well, that is not consistent with the reality of the judicial system. There would be plenty of lawyers to 'champion the cause of the victims' if there was even a vague sniff of winning a case, but the fact of the matter is, that those who've tried have 'abused the court system' and their cases have been thrown out. Not because the judiciary is being controlled by the government, but because the cases have lacked evidence and in Leaphart's example, were utterly moronic.

Strange how most of the evidence in regards to 911 is classified good luck with any lawsuit.

If you believe anything from any goverment, especialy ours, you are a sucker. Americans and most of the west are dumb as rocks.

If you believe anything from any goverment, especialy ours, you are a sucker. Americans and most of the west are dumb as rocks.

I blame the media and particularly Fox news

For Libel?…Relatively few corporations (like cities, states & banks) have the rights of a natural person. What legislation gave NASA natural person rights? Even with natural person rights, I doubt that an artificial person can sue for libel, as an artificial person is incapable of being injured in any way except financially, and hence cannot claim to being an otherwise injured party in a suit.

If you are aware of legislation that would allow NASA (or any other corporation) to sue for Libel, please cite the legislation. I would very much like to read it.



What scapegoating?…Please explain.



That's why their agreement that they are responsible is required.



As I said before, lawyers are limited in what they can do and are therefore not a desirable thing to have except perhaps as one's private advisors (never as one's representative).



It is perfectly consistent with the judicial system. One is under no obligation to engage the services of an attorney as either a defendent/respondent or plaintiff. The advantages of handling one's own case are many.

I thought the Old Testament presumption within the maxim was a dead giveaway. How many witch hunts have been based on such an illogical presumption?





I see, so you're just positing an unlikely hypothetical. Ok.










I wasn't referring to individuals representing themselves, but your claim of law firms are limited by oath and political considerations. THAT is not entirely consistent with the reality of the judiciary. Moreover, no matter if one has representation, or not, one has to function within the constraints of the law. Who represents or not is immaterial, as one still needs to have a valid case in order to gain a day in court without being shown to abuse the court system. Whether an individual, or a law firm initiates proceedings doesn't matter.

These points do not really address my initial contention, that is, the truther movement has not been able to bring an action against the government, despite the claims of large amounts of so-called evidence.

Good luck prying the classified evidence from our "government".

"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information."

-- US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring and its connections to 9-11.

"Classified information" is for covering up State crimes.

But since they play that game, the next time a policeman asks you any kind of personal "none of his business" questions, tell him it is "classified."



That's my policy anyway.

You couldn't possibly know any of that.

And as the man said, most real evidence in the manner of the attack, the physical evidence or any other investigation is "classified."

Submitted for consideration; a film with a new perspective on Syria and with ties to 9/11:



http://undergrounddocumentaries.com/syria-the-true-story-full-version/

the truthers smoking gun is the word "classified." that one word alone starts all of their fantasies...