Okay, CTers, here's the best offer you're ever going to get.

LashL

Goddess of Legaltainment™
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
36,711
The offer is to take your evidence, conduct interviews of all of your witnesses, provide tapes and transcripts pf same, package everything up professionally and within all of the relevant rules of procedure, and present it all to a D.A. on your behalf.

You don't have to lift a finger except to provide contact information and links or docs that you wish to add to the package for the D.A.



This thread originates from a post by Russell Pickering and my response to it on another thread. In a nutshell, Russell put forward a scenario about presenting evidence to a D.A. and I offered to take all of the evidence he purports to have, assess it, interview all of the witnesses and present it all to a D.A.

Russell posted:

Russell Pickering said:
Imagine that I am the District Attorney and prove to me explosives were not used.

I have:

1) 40 some firefighter witnesses.

2) Video of squibs similar to CD.

3) 3 steel frame buildings that collapsed straight down all on the same day in the same place for the first time in history. At least one not hit by a plane.

4) Civilian eyewitnesses who reported explosions.

5) A non explanation of WTC 7 from FEMA.

P.S. Don't bring your NIST reports because they are not admissible as evidence in a court. They also failed to test for explosives even if they were.

Russell


I responded to his post, offering to take his evidence, interview all of the potential witnesses, and take all of the results to a D.A.

The following is a slightly edited version of my original post in response to Russell's, edited only to remove anything that could be viewed as provisional because I want it to be clear that I make this offer without what might have been perceived as reservations by anyone looking for an out, and because I don't know the code that makes the text appear with letters and words struck out to make it obvious on its face.

Here's a better idea, Russell.

I will take it to a D.A. for you.

Here's all you have to do. Present your evidence to me in good faith (privately, if you wish) and I will, in good faith, assess it, interview all of those you identify as potential witnesses and present all of the evidence and verbatim transcripts of all of the interviews in their entirety to the D.A. on your behalf.

To facilitate this, and following your numbering scheme above, all you have to do is:

1) Provide me with the statements or willsays or contact information of your 40 witnesses and I will interview each and every one of them and pass all of the details on to the D.A.

2) Provide the video, and a willsay or contact information of the expert witness who will back up the assertion that the video shows "squibs similar to CD" and I'll interview the expert you suggest, and pass all of the details on to the D.A.

3) Well, aside from the obvious fact that they didn't collapse "straight down", I will pass on the videos or other evidence that you submit and will pass on the information that the unprecedented events of September 11, 2001 were indeed unprecedented. Of course, the D.A. will also consider all of the unprecedented events of that day and not only the ones that you think point to a conspiracy, but I will still gladly pass this all on.

4) Provide me with the statements or contact information of the civilians you refer to and I will interview each and every one of them and pass the information on to the D.A.

5) I will provide the D.A. with the early FEMA report and the later NIST report and the numerous statements of others at the scene, in the interests of full disclosure. Please pass along the names and contact information of anyone else whose evidence you wish to add to this point and I will interview each and every one of them personally, and pass that along too.

6) *this was your P.S., not numbered, but I numbered it for consistency*. You're wrong about this. The NIST reports are most assuredly admissible as evidence in a criminal trial. So don't fret over that. I'll pass those on the D.A. too.

See? Very, very little work on your part. A huge amount of work on my part. But I'm willing to put your evidence to the test. Are you?



There was no response to my offer on the original thread by Russell of any other CTer but, to be fair, Russell may well have been offline and may not have seen the original posts by the time I started this new thread.

But since I have to go out of town on Wednesday and won't be able to get back to the forum until Thursday evening at earliest, I thought it best to start a new thread so that his original post and my offer do not get lost among the hundreds of posts on the thread in which they first appeared.

So, there you have it, Russell and other CTers. I am offering to do all of the work, free of charge, and I will also provide you with tapes and transcripts of each and every interview for your review before presenting the entire package to a D.A., and the package will be in full compliance with all of the relevant rules of procedure.

I can't imagine that you would turn down such an offer, but do let me know. We can work out any other necessary terms, of course.


So, to reiterate: I'm willing to put your evidence to the test. Are you?











P.S. Again, since I haven't figured out the code for striking out letters and just so that it's all clear and above board, the original is here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2058529&postcount=373
 
Last edited:
Bumping for Russell, who appears to be ignoring both the original post and this thread.


Come on, Russell. You know what they say... put up or shut up.

See you Thursday.
 
I apologize for misunderstanding the nature of our private communications.

There are many others including 9/11 families and victims working these issues.

The only survivor of Naval Intelligence at the Pentagon is one example.

I am not pursuing legal action as I believe it is useless.

Bolding mine.
 
Having evidence of a crime and not taking it direct to the authorities?

Isn't that a crime? Somehow I don't think a defence of "I thought they'd buy a ticket and watch the film" would be sufficient.
 
Maybe he'd feel more comfortable taking it to court when the current admin is out of office....maybe?

[/devilsadvocate]

[anti-devil's advocate]
Then take it to the UN. It was an international incident.
[/anti-devil's advocate]
 
[anti-devil's advocate]
Then take it to the UN. It was an international incident.
[/anti-devil's advocate]

[anti-anti-devil's advocate]
The UN is a USG sock puppet. Their headquarters are in NY for peets sake!
[/anti-anti-devil's advocate]
 
[anti-anti-devil's advocate]
The UN is a USG sock puppet. Their headquarters are in NY for peets sake!
[/anti-anti-devil's advocate]

The UN doesnt pay their parking fines, therefore 9/11 was an inside job
[/troofsekker1+2=4]
 
Maybe he'd feel more comfortable taking it to court when the current admin is out of office....maybe?

"The Hilton-9/11 case was summarily dismissed by a federal court in late 2004 on grounds that a sitting president and his cabinet officers are immune from any civil lawsuits for any acts done in office."

-> Stanley HiltonWP
 
"The Hilton-9/11 case was summarily dismissed by a federal court in late 2004 on grounds that a sitting president and his cabinet officers are immune from any civil lawsuits for any acts done in office."

-> Stanley HiltonWP

What about criminal liability?

Edit: Quixote beat me.
 
Last edited:
"The Hilton-9/11 case was summarily dismissed by a federal court in late 2004 on grounds that a sitting president and his cabinet officers are immune from any civil lawsuits for any acts done in office."

-> Stanley HiltonWP

That link said he filed a civil suit representing the victims. Why not have a DA file a criminal suit?
 
I disagree about this criminal suit. The best way for CTs to get their word out is to convince experts with relative expertise to back them.

Submit an legitimately peer-reviewed paper from a structural engineer who is acknowledged expert in his field.

If indeed the science was so compelling, and it was so obvious the official story is a farce scientifically, that should be easy, right?

That said, the FIRST step would be to disband groups like LC and the 'scholars for truth' and get serious with serious investigators instead of petulant kids and dubious experts. IMHO of course.
 
Which DA do you intend to present the evidence to?

Is it just the Manhattan DA or do you think others might consider themselves to have jurisdiction?
 

Back
Top Bottom