A Proposal for Proving Controlled Demolition in a Civil Negligence Suit Against the Security Groups Responsible for the WTC

A 9-11 truth buddy of mine here in LA came up with the following proposal about a strategic legal pathway to pursue justice for 9-11. I think it is a great idea, in that it limits the severity of the charges being made (negligence), while advancing the most damning evidence of purposeful mass murder and treason, the controlled demolitions. The case should be against those security groups responsible for the WTC (i.e. Port Authority, Kroll, Stratasec). And it should be a civil case put forth by family members of victims with testimony from eyewitnesses and experts. At the same time that I think we must pursue the larger picture of justice (i.e. treason charges for the overall attack and the subsequent cover-up) through cornering the Congress and Media with the overwhelming evidence in David Ray Griffin's newest book, "9-11 Contradictions," that shows the government's story to be internally contradicted in some places with shifting and inconclusive narratives in many others, this very precise angle of proving controlled demolition in a civil case against the groups responsible for WTC security is a powerful possibility.

While this could move forward towards a court case that would have very powerful ramifications, we can continue to civil informationeer, creatively reach out and non-violently confront. I think that delivering David Ray Griffin's book along with the best case and papers that prove controlled demolition (which in one go, proves the official story to be a cover-up) to all members of the Congress and Media, while putting the delivering on public video record, would be a great project to accomplish together and would, potentially once and for all, strip plausible deniability completely from all that continue to hide behind it, as well as being good media material.

Thank you all for all your ongoing work. Please tell us what you think.

Though much progress has been made in the 911 truth movement as far as raising awareness, one area that has seen little to no progress is in the court system. It seems this route has not been overwhelmingly pursued due to the fact that bringing charges against any responsible perpetrators is a daunting task with little chance of success. Indeed, those of us in the 911 truth movement are not in full agreement of who is responsible much less how to bring charges against them in a criminal trial.

So how do we achieve that first successful step of bringing the movement from the streets and internet into the courtroom? I believe we must step back from criminal proceedings and first pursue a case in civil court as a few folks have attempted to do. It is the defendant of the lawsuit and the focus of the case that is crucial to think through strategically. The companies whose job it was to provide security for the World Trade Center complex failed in their duties by allowing unknown persons access to the building to plant the explosives that brought the towers down. They are therefore guilty of negligence.

If the family members of the victims who died in the collapse of the towers and building seven sued the security companies for negligence in civil court, this would be our foot in the door of the legal system and set the stage for criminal proceedings in the future, as well as treason charges. Civil court has the advantage of having to only prove the probability of the defendant being guilty, as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal court. So, if we were able to present a case which showed the collapse of the 3 buildings on 9/11/01 was PROBABLY due to controlled demolition, then the security companies would be liable due to the fact they did not prevent the explosives from being planted.

It is imperative that blame is not assigned at this stage beyond the negligence of the security companies. No accusations should be made as to who actually planted the explosives. The purpose of this case should be compensation to the family members from the security companies. At the same time, it will give new exposure to the masses of controlled demolition as a case such as this will almost have to be covered by the mainstream media. Not to mention, it will set a precedent in the legal system and give the controlled demolition fact new credibility.

By establishing the case for controlled demolition in a legal environment, we would open the door to other avenues that, up until this point, would have seemed impossible just 12 months ago. At the same time, the victims families can finally start down the path to justice and peace of mind.

--Michael Lukas--


Is Michael a lawyer?


No. I wish we both were. I don't know the entire legal ramifications around this as a possibility. I just think it sounds like a strategy I haven't heard or seen yet.

“Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught in falsehoods school. And the one man that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool.” –Plato

"We must speak the truth about terror." --George W. Bush

Laying a foundation

This proposal is one of the best strategies to come to my attention in four years of personal 9/11 truth study. In complex legal cases, such as Enron, it is usually customary to build a case from the bottom up by taking sworn testimony from the lowest relevant echelons first. In my opinion, too much energy has been dissipated by focusing on the top brass. We needn't try to keep the pyramid upside down and balanced on its apex. The above proposal has matters in absolutely correct perspective and deserves solid support from the movement. Thank you, Michael Lukas, Shumonik, and your coworkers. This idea is splendid, sensible, workable, practical and effective.

thanks from both of us

We'll see whose hands we can put this into.

The judge is also key

Thanks for posting this. Remember, one of the most important factors in any effort like this is that it is extremely critical to find a judge that will actually hear the case. Most judges would probably throw it out. It takes a lot of work to find a judge like this. Maybe someone should start looking.

It is a great idea, but if

It is a great idea, but if Im not mistaken this
would have to be litigated in NYC . NYC is
not known for its liberal judges. Boston, and
maybe Vermont would probably be the best
shot at a sympathetic judge.

If the operation were obvious

turning a blind eye was probably intentional. If not obvious, you have to show the security companies violated a standard of care. Depends on the mechanism used, which I don't consider proven.

I'm not even going to get into analyzing this, but if you are really interested, you might consider international torts as well.




and "assault . . . the tort of acting intentionally and voluntarily causing the reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact." A lot more people were made to fear for their lives than were actually killed or injured.


or maybe this


I'm just saying that negligence is not the only option to get the lower burden of proof of a civil case. Intent is proven by the preponderance of the evidence, just like negligence.

This is in no way legal advice or a suggestion that such a suit would or would not have a chance of success. I will say that whoever brought it would need one helluva a war chest, and a heavy hitter class action law firm, to have any chance of prevailing even if a valid legal theory exists.

I'd like to see someone like Mike Papantonio look at this.


great expansion of possibilities to consider

Yeah, this is a tough egg to crack this legal route to justice. This is very good advice about other possibilities of civil guilt to consider.