What if the defendants were not acquitted, but found to be guilty as charged?

That's why we should bother in the first place.



The fact that the "truthers" in question HAVEN'T been sued for slander and/or libel is a strong indication that their accusations are neither. Otherwise, why WOULDN'T they be sued if the people they are openly accusing of these crimes are not guilty? Are the accused parties so unconcerned about their honour and reputations that they can't be bothered to sue?…Highly doubtful. To any reasonable man, the fact that they haven't sued the truthers accusing them is for all practical purposes, a tacit confession of guilt.



Should people have to pay for justice? Why?

This is the point. If I call Obama a murderer for example, or a traitor, and he wants to sue me for slander and libel, he would have to open up a huge can of worms and go against all my evidence and prove that it is all incorrect.

This is the reason these criminals don't sue for slander or libel, because they are exactly what we say they are.

Thieves, murderers and liars.

You don't know just how powerful the law really is!...Did you know that by merely corresponding with a criminal, you can get his agreement that he committed the crime and then prosecute him with his own "confession"?...YOU CAN!* (and you don't have to pay some cheap shyster for the service of failing to do it either!)

In point of fact ANY American can do this...It's just that they don't knw how and don't believe it can be done. Study the law...In the hands of the people, it can become their greatest "weapon" in the Second American Revolution and can assure their victory without so much as a shot being fired.

*(The clue on how this may be done lies in my prior post when I talked about their "tacit confession of guilt.")

One more time in case you missed it.

In order to understand the improbability of the government’s explanation of 9/11, it is not necessary to know anything about what force or forces brought down the three World Trade Center buildings, what hit the Pentagon or caused the explosion, the flying skills or lack thereof of the alleged hijackers, whether the airliner crashed in Pennsylvania or was shot down, whether cell phone calls made at the altitudes could be received, or any other debated aspect of the controversy.

You only have to know two things.

One is that according to the official story, a handful of Arabs, mainly Saudi Arabians, operating independently of any government and competent intelligence service, men without James Bond and V for Vendetta capabilities, outwitted not only the CIA, FBI, and National Security Agency, but all 16 US intelligence agencies, along with all security agencies of America’s NATO allies and Israel’s Mossad. Not only did the entire intelligence forces of the Western world fail, but on the morning of the attack the entire apparatus of the National Security State simultaneously failed. Airport security failed four times in one hour. NORAD failed. Air Traffic Control failed. The US Air Force failed. The National Security Council failed. Dick Cheney failed. Absolutely nothing worked. The world’s only superpower was helpless at the humiliating mercy of a few undistinguished Arabs.


It is hard to image a more far-fetched story–except for the second thing you need to know: The humiliating failure of US National Security did not result in immediate demands from the President of the United States, from Congress, from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and from the media for an investigation of how such improbable total failure could have occurred. No one was held accountable for the greatest failure of national security in world history. Instead, the White House dragged its feet for a year resisting any investigation until the persistent demands from 9/11 families for accountability forced President George W. Bush to appoint a political commission, devoid of any experts, to hold a pretend investigation.
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/09/11/the-11th-anniversary-911-paul-craig-roberts/

Pauly The Tool!
Really!
Bring some credible People instead of citing a bunch of Tools!
Absurd!
Pauly The CT-Man!
Totally unrealistic and absurd!

His credentials are sound Mr Conrad your opinions are not reality based. Please inform me what yours are to have such a low opinion of this man.

Paul Craig Roberts (born April 3, 1939) is an American economist and a columnist for Creators Syndicate. He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as a co-founder of Reaganomics.[1] He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service who has testified before congressional committees on 30 occasions on issues of economic policy.

Roberts has written extensively that during the 21st century the Bush and Obama administrations have destroyed the US Constitution's protections of Americans' civil liberties, such as habeas corpus and due process in the name of "the war on terror." Roberts has been a critic of both Democratic and Republican administrations. Roberts has compared supporters of George W. Bush to "brownshirts with the same low intelligence and morals as Hitler's enthusiastic supporters." He has opposed the War on Drugs and the War on Terror stating it has "made widows and orphans of millions of Muslims". Roberts is a critic of Israel's policy toward Gaza "the world's largest concentration camp" populated by people who were "driven out of Palestine so that Israel could steal their land."[citation needed]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Craig_Roberts

His logic on this matter is based on reality and not some twisted absurd propagated fantasy.

Conrad,

It is a common and typical tactic to attack the "credibility" of a person who criticizes the current administration or propaganda policies. I don't think he would have held the positions he held and testified so many times before congressional committees if he was not credible.

At what point does a man become not credible? When he voices his opinion?

You may not like like a person's opinion but that does not mean that person lacks credibility.

Its an operating procedure for shrills to attack a persons credibility

But other than the fact they don't agree with the person's politics or opinion, they never say why they think the person is "not credible." It is just a slur.

why is that so hard to believe? didn't 2 undistinguished Americans almost take down a building in Oklahoma, the worst terrorist act before 9-11? i think you people put way to much stock in just how good our government is.... i take it you were never in the military, best, were you? if you were, you would understand a bit more about how inept our government really is about these things...

I was in the military and I know the drills.
Men and woman train every day to defend the restricted air space over Washington and the Pentagon.

yes, they train for certain events, but what if the events were not included in the training? i did my drills every day while i was in the navy, but that didn't mean that we never made mistakes, or that our ship wouldn't sink... i still think your putting to much stock in our government and how they handle things... lack of pride in our nation, people joining the military just for a paycheck, just to name a few things as to why it was handled so poorly... there was a time where people were proud to be an American, but when people start thinking the government wanted to kill 3000 of it's own citizens for whatever reason yall are thinking, it definitely shows a lack of pride. and it rubs off on other people too.

The people who were supposed to be protecting the airspace were on a drill in some other area remember? That was their excuse for not doing the job they are trained to do.

Honest FBI agents were sent on some other mission too, so they would not be there during the attack.

This is typical Elite Mafia M.O. and is according to the NWO book of instructions.

Before an operation, there is always a changing of the guards. They are sent somewhere else. It always happens this way.

So here is a heads up for government officials and politicians. Get acquainted with your body guards. Make sure you trust them (if possible). If they are ever called away and/or replaced with strangers, you better look out... they could be gunning for you.

That is how its done to the letter. Rarely is the M.O. changed.

phttt... your just making stuff up in your own mind... but i'm used to it, so no big deal

What ever, you don't have to believe me. I'm just letting people know how it works. I've read a lot about the details of assassinations in London etc. This is the way they happen.

But you don't need to know this information right? You don't have any body guards. If they want you gone they will just see that you hang yourself.

As far as the drills that were going on during 9-11, that is A MATTER OF RECORD.

heh, i'm sure it all makes sense in your mind... don't let your bodyguards assassinate you...

laughable to think the nerve center of our trillion dollar national security state was unprotected after the twin towers had been hit. Totally absurd this is just for starters. It seems pointless to try to educate some on this matter. One can choose to live in a propagated reality or get real. I know were I live.

The quality of the 9-11 truth youtube videos that I have been seeing lately include full length documentaries and are extremely convincing even for most skeptics.

The hard core skeptics who are standing their ground defending the official story probably refuse to watch them and are holding on to their positions strictly because of their ego. I can't imagine any other reason they would cling to the official story when members of the 9-11 commission themselves are calling it a bunch of B.S.