Twenty-five U.S. Military Officers Challenge Official Account of 9/11

[Shoonra]

So far, the litigation brought by the WTC leasing consortium has not been against the govt but against insurance companies and now airports and airllines. The govt has not attempted to raise a secrecy privilege in thes lawsuits.

Considering that the primary evidence (films and videos of the towers before, during and after their collapse) and the so-called experts are non-governmental, it would be unlikely that the govt could successfully raise the secrecy privilege if they were brought into the litigation. In any case, it hasn't happened.

The insuance companies, even with millions of dollars at stake, did not even attempt to interpose a defense based on an inside-job theory. This is a clear indication that they were aware that, despite the enormous amount of money at issue, such a defense argument would have been totally unsuccessful, not even getting a
compromise in the claims.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

So far, the litigation brought by the WTC leasing consortium has not been against the govt but against insurance companies and now airports and airllines. The govt has not attempted to raise a secrecy privilege in thes lawsuits.

The attorneys and the defendants see which way the wind is blowing.

Considering that the primary evidence (films and videos of the towers before, during and after their collapse) and the so-called experts are non-governmental, it would be unlikely that the govt could successfully raise the secrecy privilege if they were brought into the litigation. In any case, it hasn't happened.

The defendants are denied some of their best witnesses, the people on the inside, with firsthand knowledge.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The insuance companies, even with millions of dollars at stake, did not even attempt to interpose a defense based on an inside-job theory. This is a clear indication that they were aware that, despite the enormous amount of money at issue, such a defense argument would have been totally unsuccessful, not even getting a
compromise in the claims.

As stated previously, they would need to prove the 9-11 Commission Report to be a fraud. They see what happened with the 9-11 Commission Report, they understand that it is not an erroneous Report. The Report it is intentionally misleading, with a great deal of pressure to make it that way. Thus, it is not a reasonable task, when it is clear they will likely be denied witnesses and resources at the government’s discretion. Not to mention that many that try to come forward have had personal threats to their safety, like Sibel Edmonds.

[Shoonra]

Seems to me that the hole purpose of these 9-11 "experts" and theorists is to prove the official explanation wrong. And they failed to impress, or bailed out, when there was an opportunity to stand up in court and so.

[rottweiler]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKyCpCrH3cY

Originally Posted by Shoonra

So far, the litigation brought by the WTC leasing consortium has not been against the govt but against insurance companies and now airports and airllines. The govt has not attempted to raise a secrecy privilege in thes lawsuits.

Considering that the primary evidence (films and videos of the towers before, during and after their collapse) and the so-called experts are non-governmental, it would be unlikely that the govt could successfully raise the secrecy privilege if they were brought into the litigation. In any case, it hasn't happened.

The insuance companies, even with millions of dollars at stake, did not even attempt to interpose a defense based on an inside-job theory. This is a clear indication that they were aware that, despite the enormous amount of money at issue, such a defense argument would have been totally unsuccessful, not even getting a
compromise in the claims.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Seems to me that the hole purpose of these 9-11 "experts" and theorists is to prove the official explanation wrong.

Many are calling for a more complete investigation. Those that have tried to go the court have been gaged. The court supported the gag, even though it is clear that these gags are politically motivated (Corruption?). Can you understand that?

Originally Posted by Shoonra

And they failed to impress, or bailed out, when there was an opportunity to stand up in court and so.

What OPPORTUNITY? Have the insurance companies given an invitation?