Home | Index & Archives | Contributing Writers | Writers Wanted | Whistleblowers | Subscriptions | Muckraker Report T-Shirts | News Sources / Links | Contacts | Legal Disclaimer | Search
Muckraker Report
Straight Talk on Moussaoui Verdict

Straight Talk on Moussaoui Verdict

 

May 5, 2006 – As the mainstream media pundits commiserate with their filtered guests regarding the Moussaoui jury reaching a verdict of life in prison instead of the death penalty, the opportunity for logic and truth to enter into the commentary has once again been squelched by exploiting the persistent pain and suffering of the victims of 9/11. 

 

By parading one 9/11 victim family member after another before the camera to weigh in on how they feel about the government’s deranged poodle, Moussaoui, receiving life in prison instead of the death penalty, the real co-conspirators of a cover-up, the members of government and the censored mainstream media, have proved by what they have left unsaid that they are content to once again attempt to manipulate the message that the American public will receive regarding 9/11. 

 

However, there is reason for hope.  A month ago, I was convinced that the government had tampered with the jury pool so extensively that there was no chance whatsoever that Moussaoui would escape the death penalty.  Obviously, some Americans, in the case of the Moussaoui jury, three Americans sitting on his jury, disregarded what the government wanted them to do and instead did what they thought was correct.  In this instance, I am grateful I was dead wrong.  Moussaoui is no doubt a deranged wannabe, but he was no 20th hijacker, and had he not plead guilty under the duress of the U.S. government, the jury would have been hung as to whether or not he actually had anything to do with 9/11 whatsoever.

 

The media spectacle on verdict day, Wednesday, May 03, 2006 was predictable, yet with millions of Americans now in serious doubt about the government’s 9/11 tales, it was inevitable that some truth would penetrate the government facade.  One of those truth seekers, Carie Lemack from Boston, Massachusetts, whose mother died on 9/11, stepped up to a C-SPAN microphone to offer her perception of the Moussaoui verdict.  Instead of following the government script, Carie Lemack said, “Moussaoui was an al-Qaeda wannabe at best.”  She asked why the government has not brought to trial the “real” 9/11 co-conspirators and why the FAA and other government agencies are withholding documents from the 9/11 victims’ families; documents that Lemack suggested could reveal unknown truths about the events of September 11, 2001. 

 

Chris Matthews, host of Hardball on MSNBC, aired the Lemack clip as well as clips of other 9/11 family members responding to the Moussaoui verdict.  To his credit, Matthews did ask the rhetorical question – “Why haven’t there been more public trials of so-called 9/11 co-conspirators that the U.S. government currently holds in custody?” 

 

The answer to that question is simple.  If the defendants once held, or still in custody of the U.S. government, approximately 1200 Arabs and 60 Israelis, refuse to plead guilty to the charges brought against them, the government’s account of 9/11 will be required to go on trial.  And if the government’s account of 9/11 had to endure the rigors of a vibrant defense of the defendants during public trials, the American people would quickly discover that the government’s version of 9/11 simply would not hold up in a court of law.  This fact explains why those family members, the 3 percent out of 5 thousand applicants who opted out of the federally funded Victims’ Compensation Fund, who refused a slice of the U.S. government’s $7 billion in hush money and instead decided to sue to recover tort damages for monetary loss and pain and suffering, have after four years, yet to see their trials begin.  Victims like Ellen Mariani, who lost her husband Neil on United Air Lines Flight 175 and has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against UAL on December 20, 200l, have yet to have their trials begin.  Why? 

 

While a list identifying the150 family members who are seeking trials to recover tort damages for monetary loss and pain remains obscure, it is safe to assume that at least some of the family members that opted for trials instead of payoffs had loved ones that died in the collapses of World Trade Center Buildings 1 & 2.  It is also safe to assume that the airlines, originating airports, and companies responsible for security related to the two aircraft that flew into WTC-1 and WTC-2, are each and all co-defendants in these lawsuits.

 

Obviously, the defense attorneys for American Airlines, United Airlines, and Boston’s Logan International Airport are most likely some of the best and brightest attorneys in the United States.  They are professionals who know exactly how to rebut a plaintiff’s claims.  They know how to weaken a preponderance of evidence to the extent required to shift liability away from their clients.  This is what they get paid the big bucks to do, and absolutely will do, if any of these 9/11 civil lawsuits ever get a trial date. 

 

Here’s how the trials will have to unfold, if they ever are allowed to take place.  Plaintiff A is seeking tort damages for monetary loss and pain and suffering.  His or her spouse died in the collapse of the North Tower of World Trade Center (WTC-1).  Plaintiff A will contend that his or her spouse worked on, say, the 65th floor of WTC-1.  Perhaps the Plaintiff received a phone message from their spouse before the collapse, letting the Plaintiff know that he or she was safe; was not injured during the initial impact of American Airlines Flight 11, and was in the process of evacuating the building.  Plaintiff A will testify that that was the last time he or she heard his or her spouse’s voice.  The plaintiff’s legal team will replay the footage of the American Airlines Flight 11 plunging into WTC-1 over and over again for the jury.  They’ll also replay, over and over and over and over, the collapse of WTC-1 at 10:28EST on September 11, 2001.  The Plaintiff’s legal team will tell the jury that American Airlines, Logan International Airport, and security contractors are all liable. 

 

Imagine if you are an attorney defending American Airlines.  What is your defense?  There are few options if you want to vigorously defend your client.  Actually, there is really only one defense in this case – that the collapse of the North Tower was not, and could not have been caused by American Airlines Flight 11 – that only pre-planted explosives – a controlled demolition, could have possibly caused all load bearing steel joints to simultaneously fail in WTC-1, allowing the tower to fall at freefall speed onto its footprint in less than 8 seconds.

 

Imagine now that you’re the Plaintiff’s attorney.  Who do you call to the stand to testify on your client’s behalf?  You have few options, don’t you?  You need the government’s fabulous “pancake theory” of collapse to withstand the defenses’ argument.  You call Dr. Shyam Sunder, Lead Investigator assigned by the National Institute of Standards and Technology to investigate the collapses of WTC-1 and WTC-2, and pancake theory advocate.  No doubt, the government will do everything in its power to prohibit Sunder from testifying.  However, the courts have proved that they still are willing to overrule the federal government, particularly when the government appears to be hiding something from the American people. 

 

Once forced to testify, it can be expected that Dr. Sunder will bring to court, a supporting cast and a fine presentation, with all the anticipated bells and whistles.  It will be quite a show, all right!  Once finished presenting the government’s “pancake theory”, the judge will turn Dr. Sunder over to the defense for cross-examination. If you’re lucky enough to be in that courtroom at that moment, hold onto your seat because all hell will surely break loose.  A vigorous defense will make Dr. Sunder’s testimony look like a third grader’s science fair project!  Sunder will not be able to support his “pancake theory” when fiercely and rightfully challenged by an aggressive defense.  He will not be able to suspend the laws of physics in court like he has at NIST.  He will not be able to explain the fact that the speed of the collapse of WTC-1 alone, actually completely disproves the pancake theory – with no other testimony required. 

 

After Sunder and any other pancake theory supporter is dissected and dismissed, the defense would call to the stand an expert like Jim Hoffman, a professional scientist who, according to Physics 911, has calculated that even if the structure itself offered no resistance, that is to say, even if the 110 floors of the north tower were hovering in mid-air, the "pancake" theory would still have taken a minimum of 15.5 seconds to reach the ground. So, even if the building essentially didn't exist, if it provided no resistance at all to the collapse, just the floors hitting each other and causing each other to decelerate would have taken 15.5 seconds to reach the ground.  In the real world, WTC-1 actually collapsed in less than 8 seconds – with some scientists putting the collapse time at 6.6 seconds.  Other scientists, playing devil’s advocate with the government’s “pancake theory”, have concluded that if true, WTC-1 would have required at least 40 seconds to collapse in the pancake theory scenario. 

 

The other fact that the government must contend with is that there are now thousands of equally qualified scientists and engineers coming from organizations such as Scholars for 9/11 Truth who would in fact offer testimony in court that would absolutely rebut the testimony of any scientist supporting the “pancake theory”.  Not only would these experts embarrass the government’s scientists – they would in fact prove by a preponderance of evidence that the work of the 9/11 Commission and the National Institute for Standards and Technology has no merit whatsoever in an unbiased, scientific environment, nor in an American courtroom. 

 

It should be noted that some of these scientists that dispute the government’s “pancake theory” and many other elements of the government’s 9/11 account, have agreed to publicly debate the NIST scientists on September 22, 2006 in Charleston, SC.  The Muckraker Report will be making formal invitations to scientists such as Dr. Sunder in the next few weeks, and hopes that these scientists responsible for the “pancake theory” are confident enough about their work that they will agree to participate in public debate.  Responses to invitations for the National 9/11 Debate will be posted on the Muckraker Report as they are received.   

 

When honestly considering the potential consequences of what the government has told us about 9/11 being on trial in a public U.S. Court, it is clear that the stakes could not be higher for those who need to government’s account of 9/11 to prevail.  The implications are so grave, the consequences so severe, the expected backlash so violent, that full exposure of the actual events of 9/11 will not come without public disobedience, perseverance, and a furious fight.  Just remember, when the real dots of 9/11 are connected in public view, the truth will be unfathomable.  The covert operations, intelligence and counterintelligence, the spying and lying - the black ops (black or secret operations) that have been deceiving the misinformed and detached since 9/11, will stop at nothing to hide the truth.  Their very existence depends on it. 

 

The truth about 9/11 will soon prove to be a complex matrix of real life espionage and criminal conspiracy – pure and simple, with the actual criminals still on the loose and therefore, able to kill again.  Exposing those culprits and co-conspirators responsible for perhaps the greatest fraud ever perpetrated upon the American people is now to be considered no less than a final stand and defense of this once great Constitutional Republic.  It is now a matter of life and death.  

 

To comment or request reprint permission, please contact Ed Haas via e-mail at efhaas@comcast.net.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider donating $1 or more to the MUCKRAKER REPORT.
Your donations keep the Muckraker Report subscription free!

 Subscribe to Muckraker Report RSS Feed


Copyright 2002-2007 by MUCKRAKER REPORT.
All rights reserved.
For re-print permission, contact Ed Haas: (843) 817-9962.