Preface: To those who believe that all 9/11 conspiracy claims are crazy, please listen to what intelligence officers, military leaders, legal experts, and others in the know have to say. On the other hand, to those who believe that 9/11 was an inside job - so that talk of mere "negligence" is a cop-out, please read to the end before making up your mind about strategy. As David Ray Griffin has pointed out, nearly everyone who looks at the evidence regarding 9/11 with an open mind ends up being convinced that it was an inside job. Any prosecution related to 9/11 will force people to look at the evidence.
Gangsters have been jailed for life based on convictions for tax fraud.
Investigations into small misdeeds often turn up evidence of major crimes.
And covering up the crime is itself a crime. Even if the prosecutor isn't sure how you did it, if he can prove you covered up the crime, destroyed evidence, committed perjury, etc., you'll end up in the big house.
So if government agencies are too spineless to prosecute for anything else, prosecuting those complicit in 9/11 for criminal negligence and/or cover-up is worthwhile.
Is there strong evidence of criminal negligence with regard to the 9/11 attacks?
Is there strong evidence for a cover-up and destruction of evidence?
Without doubt. See this and this.
Now is the perfect time to prosecute criminal behavior.
9/11 is no exception.
If the only politically feasible way to do it is to start with a prosecution solely for criminal negligence or cover-up, then start there.--MORE--"
