Add it to the growing list of evidence against the official version of 9/11. This court case is going to get real interesting.

All Lawyers wanted.

See if you can find something here:

http://conspiracycentral.net:6969/index.html?search=CNN&top_submit_searc...

"""1. MSNBC presented an elaborately detailed story about the lifestyle and anti-US philosophy of Osama bin Laden - while both towers were still burning and long before Bin Laden had been accused by anyone.

2. Fox News featured a "man in the street" eye witness who explained in strangely formal language the science behind why the towers collapsed when most engineers and firemen were utterly baffled and in shock by what had just taken place.

3. CBS featured a Bush administration insider (and not identified as such) as a guest who actively worked to dissuade Dan Rather (and viewers) from speculating that there must have been explosive charges placed in the buildings for them to have collapsed the way they did.

How was it that these stories - based on no fact, no research and no inquirry - appeared in full blown form so quickly on US news networks and then became part of the core myths of what happened on 9/11?

Were these stories prepared in advance?

There's an old intelligence saying that "once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, but three times is enemy action."

Because most of these clips ran only once and were not repeated after they'd done their job, it made it difficult, if not impossible, for viewers to analyze them critically."""

http://www.brasschecktv.com/index.php