from: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/09/20/the-pros-and-cons-of-the-toronto-hearings/
by: Joshua Blakeney
I spent September 8th to 12th in Toronto, Ontario, Canada attending The International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001, an event sponsored primarily by James Gourley’s International Centre for 9/11 Studies, which appears to be a mostly virtual entity based in the United States with a web site at International Center for 9/11 Studies
The International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001, also referred to as the “Toronto Hearings”, set the following objectives for the hearings:
(1) To present evidence that the U.S. government’s official investigation into the events of September 11, 2001, as pursued by various government and government-appointed agencies, is seriously flawed and has failed to describe and account for the 9/11 events.
(2) To single out the most weighty evidence of the inadequacy of the U.S. government’s investigation; to organize and classify that evidence; to preserve that evidence; to make that evidence widely known to the public and to governmental, non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations.
(3) To submit a record and a summary of the Hearings, together with signed Statutory Declarations by witnesses, to relevant governments, groups and international agencies with the request that a full and impartial investigation be launched into the events of September 11, 2001, which have been used to initiate military invasions and to restrict the rights of citizens.
(4) To engage the attention of the public, the international community and the media through witness testimony as well as through media events broadcasted via the Internet during the four day event.
No sincere 9/11 truth-seeker could dispute the spirit of these objectives, which every member of the 9/11 truth movement ought to employ as a rough guideline for future research and activism.
I was thus observing the Toronto Hearings as someone who has a decent awareness of what is strong evidence, what is inconclusive evidence and what is irrelevant when it comes to what did and did not happen on 9/11.
To prepare myself for what I anticipated would be a rather technical discussion of nanothermite, I had read three articles by T. Mark Hightower and Professor Jim Fetzer, “Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth Community?”, “Is ’9/11 Truth’ based upon a false theory?“, and “Nanothermite: If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit!”. Professor Fetzer and I discussed the nanothermite subject prior to my going to Toronto and since my return.
While I am grateful for his assistance, the suggestion that he or Kevin Barrett or T. Mike Hightower ought to have been invited to participate was mine, not his, in case there should be any doubt.
I think their presence would have contributed an element that was largely missing from the Hearings, which is the presentation of conflicting arguments on crucial issues, such as those that have arisen over nanothermite, as I explain below.
[Joshua Blakeney explains his run-ins with the National Post’s Jonathan Kay: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdLf0KTCcTs ]
There were many commendable achievements of the Toronto Hearings.
Firstly, they brought together a wide array of researchers, politicians, physicists, journalist, engineers, architects, teachers, academics and citizens who purport to share an interest in what did and did not transpire on 9/11.
Secondly, the steering committee which included Graeme MacQueen, Laurie Manwell, James Gourley, Adnan Zuberi and Kevin Ryan introduced a quazi-judicial format which should be employed by subsequent 9/11 Hearings and which has helped pave the way for future jurisprudence on the subject of 9/11.
Rather than merely having audience members posit questions to presenters, who were referred to as “witnesses”, the organizers commissioned four distinguished panelists to hear the evidence.
These panelists will submit their evaluations of the testimony for the forthcoming Final Report of the International Hearings on September 11, 2001. The structure of the Toronto Hearings was thus exemplary.
By allowing for cross-examination presenters were compelled to be on their toes, which probably made the testimony they gave appear more legitimate and reliable.
Moreover, the allegation that presenters were totally “preaching to the converted” could not be sustained. One panelist, Judge Imposimato, Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy, heretofore has never been known to actively promote skepticism towards the official story of 9/11.
Whilst I endorse the structure of the Toronto Hearings and whilst I think about 75% of the content did provide a selection of the “most weighty evidence of the inadequacy of the U.S. government’s investigation”, I think perhaps 25% of the content did not meet this standard and was less relevant than evidence which could have been included in the hearings.
The allegation could be sustained that the organizers squandered about ¼ of the Hearings’ time on what might be called inconclusive evidence or abstract theoretical discussions when more “weighty” and relevant evidence exists, which brings us closer towards the truth of 9/11.
Learning from Experience
The fact that especially Graeme MacQueen, Adnan Zuberi and Laurie Manwell are pleasant, well-intentioned individuals who worked extremely hard to organize the Toronto Hearings should not preclude us from offering constructive criticism of
1) their decision to emphasize certain pieces of “evidence” over others;
2) the statements of individual speakers who spoke at the Hearings;
3) the inclusion of certain presenters over others.
Cognizant of the truism that “nice people can make bad judgments”, I will proceed with constructive criticism of the Hearings in this article whilst also stating what I thought were some of the positive elements of the four day event.
If poor decisions by the steering committee are not criticized by bona fide 9/11 skeptics, then future 9/11-related hearings might replicate the handful of mistakes, which I elucidate in this article.
I therefore believe that we should learn from the achievements of the Toronto Hearings and reject the mistakes. That seems to be the best way for us to progress as the 9/11 Truth Movement develops its juridical personality.
We all hope for future investigations into the events of 9/11. It is integral that when we finally achieve authentic and objective criminal investigations into 9/11 that we’ve been employing a processes of elimination to eliminate irrelevant evidence from our case against individuals, such as Dick Cheney and Larry Silverstein, who stand accused of complicity in the events of 9/11.
My main argument in this essay is that, while much good was done during the Toronto Hearings, a significant amount of time was squandered on topics that if raised in a court of law would be deemed irrelevant to what did and did not happen on 9/11.
On the Issue of Relevancy
After my comrade Splitting the Sky bravely attempted a citizen’s arrest on George W. Bush on March 17, 2009 in Calgary and was arrested for “obstructing a police officer” (who was protecting a credibly accused war criminal), I was able to participate in the March 2010 trial at the Calgary Courts Centre, which many dubbed “The Trial of Splitting the Sky versus George W. Bush.”
As one of a handful of individuals who sat through all of the proceedings, I noted in particular how the issue of relevancy was repeatedly invoked by both the Crown and judge when it came to whether or not evidence of Bush’s crimes was to be included in the record.
If we’re attempting to solve the crime of 9/11, we have to be as specific and relevant as possible with regard to the evidence we adduce. The steering committee, in my view, failed to properly consider relevancy in its inclusion of certain pieces of “evidence” and by their extension of invitations to certain speakers (which in some cases may have involved favouritism trumping reason).
Whilst the steering committee insisted that the Hearings were to be different than conventional academic conferences, many of the presentations were more suited to an academic conference as they were more abstract and theoretical than empirical or evidentiary.
Four Criticisms of the Toronto Hearings
I will argue that the failure to explicitly rule out Let-It-Happen-On-Purpose theory (LIHOP) consistently throughout the proceedings allowed precious time to be wasted with several speakers providing analyses of 9/11 which implied that the U.S. government had allowed bin Laden and al-Qaeda to attack them on 9/11, a theory that had been dispelled by David Ray Griffin on the first day of the proceedings.
I will further attempt to prove that the time dedicated to the discovery of thermetic materials in the dust from the WTC towers was not only highly inconclusive in terms of explaining how the towers were destroyed but that this inconclusiveness was in fact noted by one of the panelists, namely, Professor Richard B. Lee.
[Toronto Hearings’ panelist Professor Richard B. Lee realizes that nano-thermite-as-explosive-theory is being oversold by Kevin Ryan. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kJTigupiJc ]
I will bring into question the relevance of the discussion of SCADs (State Crimes Against Democracy) absent a prior determination of whether the “war on terrorism” was primarily contrived by agents of the U.S. state or of the Israeli state.
Documents going back to the 1980s, emanating from Tel Aviv rather than Washington, such as the book Terrorism: How the West Can Win (1986) edited by Benjamin Netanyahu, suggest that the “war on terrorism” was an Israeli inspired initiative.
Many scholars such as Walt, Mearshimer, Petras, Sneigoski and others have demonstrated that the lead protagonists for the “war on terrorism” were “Israel firsters” such as Wolfowitz and Feith, both of whom lost their security clearances in the 1980s for passing classified documents for Israel.
Redundant Cold Warriors such as Cheney and Rumsfeld were just “hangers on” to this Israelocentric initiative, such scholars argue.
The psychological and epistemological discussions included in the Hearings, I will argue, whilst academically interesting, otherwise tell us little about what transpired on 9/11.
Such presentations as the one provided by Laurie Manwell lack direct relevance to 9/11 and hinder attempts to “single out the most weighty evidence of the inadequacy of the U.S. government’s [9/11] investigation.”
A Flawed Definition of Evidence
While I generally endorse the organizational structure of the Toronto Hearings and, in particular, the attempt to create a court-like structure for the proceedings, one departure from anything resembling jurisprudence was the decision that the admissibility of “evidence” was contingent on certain unconventional criteria which seemed to run contrary to the stated goal of bringing forth the most weighty evidence.
The Toronto Hearings website, it should be noted, has now removed these criteria, perhaps to conceal their odd methodology. But we can assume that the following key paragraph, heretofore available on their website, provides a good indication of how the purported evidence was “sifted”:
“Evidence presented at the Hearings will be chosen according to the following criteria: high degree of certainty; importance; and consensus. High degree of certainty means that the Hearings will concentrate not on speculation but on facts that can firmly be established.”
“Importance means that the Hearings will concentrate on elements of the governmental explanation that are crucial to that explanation. Consensus means that evidence chosen will be that which is least controversial within the movement of dissent that is critical of the official explanation” (my emphases).
LIHOP versus MIHOP
On the first day of the Toronto Hearings David Ray Griffin established that there is no evidence that al-Qaeda or Osama bin-Laden did 9/11.
Although the video of Griffin’s testimony from September 8th is not posted in its entirety on the internet, I explicitly recall someone asking a question of Griffin during the Q&A about bin Laden and him replying that he didn’t feel any need to discuss bin Laden or al-Qaeda as they relate to the events of 9/11, because there is no evidence that they were involved in the events of 9/11.
This, like the vast majority of Griffin’s utterances, is accurate. Griffin’s assertions were supported by the excellent presentation of Jay Kolar on the morning of September 9th.
Firstly, bin Laden denied involvement in the events of 9/11; most, if not all of the alleged hijackers were not Islamists; it is unclear whether or not al-Qaeda even exists as an autonomous and coherent non-state actor; there is no evidence that the alleged hijackers boarded any of the flights on 9/11; and, as Wayne Madsen has revealed, British intelligence documents suggest that the alleged hijacker cells were run and operated by the Mossad.
In a proper court of law, were it established on the first day of the trial that entity X (in this case al-Qaeda) was not involved in the crimes, any subsequent references to it would be omitted so as not to waste the court’s time. Subsequent 9/11 hearings should employ such a process of elimination.
A process of elimination was not displayed during the Hearings; come the afternoon of Day 2 of the Toronto Hearings Professor Michel Chossudovsky, who came through the door at the last minute having arrived from Montreal and who spoke extemporaneously, made repeated references to al-Qaeda, bin Laden, and the complicity of intelligence agencies with Islamists, thereby implying that this was relevant to what transpired on 9/11.
Either al-Qaeda and bin Laden were involved in 9/11 or they weren’t.
It cannot be both. Perhaps Chossudovsky was chosen to speak not because of what he says about 9/11, which reinforces the myth of al-Qaeda involvement in 9/11 leading an investigation into 9/11 on a wild goose chase, but rather because of his credentials.
This may have also been the case with Professor Peter Dale Scott, who spoke of the alleged al-Qaeda hijackers boarding Flight 77, even though the speaker immediately before him, David Ray Griffin, had explained at length that it was simply impossible that “al-Qaeda hijackers” had taken control of Fight 77 on 9/11.
Michel Chossudovsky entitled his book “America’s War on Terrorism”. “Israel’s War on Terrorism” would have better encapsulated the historical genesis of the “war on terrorism”
Either al-Qaeda hijackers hijacked Flight 77 or they did not. Either Griffin is right and Scott is wrong or vice versa. The organizers–by failing to critically analyze the prior statements of Chossudovsky and of Scott–both of whom seem to be stuck in an “al-Qaeda were involved in 9/11″ analysis–allowed the Toronto Hearings to hear testimony whose relevance to the events of 9/11 is highly tenuous.
Indeed one cannot help but wonder if these individuals were chosen not because they bring forth evidence about which there is “[a] high degree of certainty; importance; and consensus”, but rather because they are big names whose credentials would make the hearings look credible–even if their testimony would regress the quest for truth and justice by taking the Hearings off course.
In other words, despite all the stated rigid criteria aimed at sorting strong from weak evidence, the organizers possibly committed the fallacy of appealing to the authority of the names of two famous researchers who are perhaps famous and less persecuted because, unlike more rigorous 9/11 researchers (for example, Barrett and Fetzer), they parrot the al-Qaeda myth thus indirectly aiding and abetting those culpable for 9/11.
Appeals to Authority
Could it be that Peter Dale Scott’s Road to 9/11 (2007) was published by a major print house because it wasn’t subversive to those in power? After all in his works Scott has mainly emphasized the historic role played by “al-Qaeda” in the imperialism of the United States.
Whilst this history is interesting it tells us little about 9/11, which appears neither to have been done by Islamists nor to have primarily advanced Big Oil’s desired policies.
Rather, it seemingly involved the Mossad-controlled, mostly secular patsies and represented a coup d’état by a Zionist faction of the ruling class in order to implement policies which departed markedly from the traditional U.S. Middle East imperial policy of fostering stability for oil markets through the propping up of Arab strongmen like Saddam Hussein.
And could Michel Chossudovsky be so highly successful because he draws attention away (perhaps for emotional or ideological reasons) from the fact that the whole “war on terrorism” was concocted by Likudnik Zionists to shift U.S. imperial policy in a direction desired by them?
The invitation extended to individuals who wrongly testified that al-Qaeda were involved in 9/11, such as Scott and Chossudovsky, appears to have been at least in part intended by the organizers to promote a favorable public reception of the Toronto Hearings.
That very objective was implied toward the end of the Toronto Hearings by steering committee member Laurie Manwell, who explained that they had gone to great length to project the Hearings in a way that would appeal to the mainstream media as a public relations strategy.
Holding up the two mediocre news reports by The Globe and Mail and The National Post on the Hearings, she candidly stated that the steering committee had “deliberately” framed the Hearings to curry favour with those whom many of us regard as 9/11-cover-up artists in the mainstream media.
Unfortunately, this provides insight into the steering committee’s methodology, which departs from recognized means of discerning truth as a court of law would do and places politics before science.
Either the Toronto Hearings were intended to prioritize the most compelling evidence (even if it was politically incorrect) as a court of law would do or the steering committee tried to fashion the Hearings relative to the bigoted, 9/11-cover up artists in the corporate media.
The controversial decision of the Toronto Hearings to include the least controversial evidence within the Truth Movement represented an abandonment of the traditional approach to truth-seeking, which should be divorced from political correctness, since “controversial” evidence can be true and non-controversial “evidence” can be false or redundant.
The Deeper Problem
It can be argued therefore that of the nineteen or so “testimonies” given over the four day period of the Toronto Hearings at least two, those of Scott and Chossudovsky, were mostly superfluous due to the fact that they endorsed the myth that Osama bin-Laden and al-Qaeda were involved in 9/11, even though, as was established on Day 1 by David Ray Griffin, Day 2 by Jay Kolar and again on Day 4 by Griffin, neither were actually involved.
To have a discussion of the political motives for 9/11 without including a discussion of Israeli geopolitics, whilst perhaps gratifying to the pro-Israel National Post, is highly displeasing to those of us who’ve worked hard to expose the multiple Israeli connections to 9/11.
The vagaries about al-Qaeda in relation to 9/11 offered by Chossudovsky and by Scott could have been replaced by more apposite testimony coming from scholars, such as Professor James Petras, a distinguished sociologist who has demonstrated that the “war on terrorism” has a lot more to do with Israel than Big Oil and who, unlike the Hearings, includes the evidence of Mossad involvement in 9/11, such as “the Dancing Israelis”, in his analysis of 9/11 and of “the war on terrorism”.
Furthermore, whilst the testimony provided by Senator Mike Gravel was politically inspiring, it too had little to do with what did or did not happen on 9/11, which brings into question its relevance in the Hearings, the ostensible goal of which was to refute the official account of 9/11.
One can imagine defenders of the official story of 9/11, say for example Dick Cheney’s legal team, hearing this “weighty evidence” and opining “Is that all you’ve got?” when in fact there is a great deal of more compelling evidence, which unfortunately is indeed “controversial” and was thus omitted from the Toronto Hearings.
The best way of course to avoid controversy during International Hearings on The Events of September 11, 2001, is to simply not talk directly about what transpired on 9/11.
This was the case with the presentations of Laurie Manwell and Mike Gravel who gave compelling and insightful presentations but whose testimony seems to have deviated from the stated goal of the steering committee to “single out the most weighty evidence of the inadequacy of the U.S. government’s investigation.”
Manwell’s presentation barely touched on the events of 9/11, instead offering an abstract discussion more suited for an academic conference on the subject of the psychology of beliefs.
Manwell even acknowledged in her presentation that some of the presentations at the Hearings departed from what she called the “direct approach” of presenting direct evidence of a false belief and employed an “indirect approach” by focusing more on the form of false beliefs rather than the content of the them.
Since she suggests that the presentation of evidence can strengthen false beliefs, had her “indirect approach” been rigorously followed during the Hearings, evidence that strongly refutes the official account would have probably been excluded–which would have contradicted the avowed objectives and criteria upon which they were based and would appear to be the most extreme form of putting 9/11 politics ahead of science.
Red/Grey Chips: The Vancouver Hearings will leave fewer grey-areas and will include no red herrings.
The Nanothermite Challenge
What was ostensibly the greatest strength of the Toronto Hearings—that they were meant to highlight the relatively recent scientific findings of the Steve Jones/Kevin Ryan/Neils Harrit group, especially in relation to the co-authored Bentham Science Chemical Physics Journal article that has been received with such approval by the 9/11 Truth community—may have been its Achilles heel.
Having studied articles by T. Mark Hightower and Professor Fetzer about the exaggeration by the Steve Jones/Kevin Ryan/Neils Harrit group of the capabilities of nanothermite, including “Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?” and “Is ‘9/11 Truth’ based upon a false theory?”, which suggest that nanothermite cannot possibly have been responsible for the explosive destruction of the Twin Towers, I was especially concerned as to how this “nanothermite challenge” would be met.
I wish I could report that Ryan and Harrit, who were present, were able to sustain the scientific integrity of a research program initiated by Steven Jones, who was not, but I am afraid the results were decidedly mixed.
Even though Hightower has been explicit about his discovery—based upon an extended search of the literature—that nanothermite lacks the explosive properties that have been widely attributed to it, his findings were neither reported nor discussed during the Toronto Hearings.
Since virtually all sides agree that the Twin Towers were destroyed by being exploded from the top down (where explosions exert forces in every direction, while gravity does so only in one), that nanothermite cannot have performed that feat suggests that the 9/11 Truth Movement and the Toronto Hearings have succumbed to a red herring.
This was twigged by one of the distinguished panelists Professor Richard B. Lee who questioned the relevancy of nanothermite to the destruction of the towers during one of Kevin Ryan’s lectures.
I was hoping that these representatives of the “hard science” group would graciously concede that the properties of nanothermite have indeed been “oversold”, which would open investigation as to how the destruction of the Twin Towers was actually done—possibly including unconventional mechanisms such as mini-nukes or the censored directed-energy alternative—but my hopes were not fulfilled when Niels Harrit, in particular, suggested that, in the age of nano-technology, perhaps the distinction between incendiaries and explosives no longer matters!
Such speculation, I am sorry to say, does not provide a solution to the problem and most certainly does not meet “the nanothermite challenge”.
Weighing the Pros and Cons
The avowed objectives of the Toronto Hearings were admirable and the organizational structure of the meeting was highly appropriate.
There can be no doubt that the evidence brought forth in the presentations of Cynthia McKinney, Jay Kolar, Paul Zarembka, Barbara Honegger, Graeme MacQueen and David Ray Griffin met and went beyond the standard of providing the most “weighty” evidence belying the official story of 9/11.
However, the use of criteria of selection that valued absence of controversy over scientific truth was a blunder. Putting primacy of public relations ahead of the science of 9/11 could only move the “hard science” group in the direction of the lowest common denominator.
While Laurie Manwell was given ample time to explain, for example, what part of our brain causes us to defer to authority, many important aspects of 9/11 were given only short shrift.
There was a failure to provide an extensive discussion of the absence of any evidence of a Boeing 757 at the Pentagon which was probably its most glaring failure–apart from the clear impression of wanting to paper-over the scientific limitations of appealing to a substance that cannot have been responsible for blowing apart the Twin Towers as though it could have been, which may leave a bitter-sweet taste for those who were there, when they finally put “2” and “2” together. This is a problem that is not going to go away.
If this had been done the judges would have had a firmer basis to reach conclusions and the “hearings” might have had a stronger claim to its own name. Supplanting truth with banality is a recipe for castrating the 9/11 Truth Movement as a force for good.
Some of the truths we have discovered may have far more potential to capture the imagination of the public than even the most extensive discussions of how an incendiary might possibly be reworked to function as a high explosive. For the life of me, I cannot see how such an approach has any potential for capturing the imagination of the public or leading us towards proper criminal investigations into 9/11.
Illuminating the fact that no plane hit the U.S. military command and control center, or that five Israelis but no Muslims were arrested on 9/11, might do it, but the unproven, speculative nanothermite hypothesis advanced in particular by Harrit during the Hearings along with Manwell’s abstract psychoanalyses would in a court of law be dismissed as lacking direct relevance to the crimes perpetrated on 9/11.
Will the Censorship of the Israeli Connection to 9/11 Continue?
As someone who recently viewed “Munich,” the Stephen Speilberg film about Mossad agents seeking retribution for Black September, I was surprised to see one of the onscreen Mossad agents present at the Toronto Hearings.
There I was shoving bacon and eggs down my throat, demonstrating to all that in a previous incarnation I was indeed an English hooligan, when Pernille Grumme (Niels Harrit’s partner) and French actor Mathieu Kassovitz sat down to ask me several questions relating to 9/11. It turns out that Mathieu has an interest in 9/11 and, at least on the surface (he is an actor you know), seemed very concerned with the cover-up of 9/11.
Mathieu Kassovitz in fact pledged $50,000 for Senator Mike Gravel’s ballot initiative for which we must all be grateful. As a result of his concern for 9/11 Mathieu Kassovitz was allowed to speak at the Hearings and has expressed an interest in making a film about 9/11.
As more and more of us are exposing the Israeli involvement in 9/11 one cannot help wondering if Mathieu for ideological reasons will exclude this evidence, as the Toronto Hearings did, from any forthcoming 9/11 films. The Spielberg movie in which he starred was certainly a pro-“war on terrorism” film, which portrayed Arabs as expendable, murderous terrorists and Kassovitz and his fellow onscreen Mossad agents combating Arab barbarism jus in bello.
The inconsistency between LIHOP and MIHOP, the failure to confront “the nanothermite challenge”, and ignoring evidence implicating the Mossad in 9/11 were perhaps the most glaring failures of the Hearings.
But I am sure that others were as astonished as I to hear Kevin Ryan, of all people, apologizing for the inadequacies of the work of the NIST scientists on the ground that he did not doubt their “honest work” which was revised and tweaked by their supervisors, who conveyed false impressions.
But he doesn’t explain how he could possibly know this.
It would have been far better if there had been less political correctness and more truth, both in the hearings and in this film, because there can be no doubt that the controversial decision to sideline “controversial evidence” has had the effect of suppressing truths about 9/11 which might unintentionally and lamentably make the forthcoming Final Report of the International Hearings on September 11, 2001 far less persuasive than it otherwise might have been.
Thank you. This conference will evidently convey very important information that has been deliberately “ignored” by leaders who “should” know better. Alas, like most 9/11 Truth events, it will apparently miss the essential 9/11-related information.
The preparation, execution and cover-up of 9/11 have been, to put it mildly, terribly under-reported and under-investigated. They deserve all the scrutiny this conference promises, and much more. However, just as the chief engineers of the twin towers’ controlled demolitions were unlikely to accept the job without prior assurances of a cover-up, the upper crust of the U.S. government was unlikely to provide this cover-up without prior assurance of a censorship.
Evidently, the 9/11 censorship, contrary to the 9/11 operation itself and its flimsy cover-up, has operated very well. Just about all leaders of importance have faithfully treated the official “Osama bin Laden’s fanatics did 9/11″ myth as an axiomatic truth. Many of them have sent their gullible followers on a wild goose chase after the nefarious 9/11-facilitated calamities such as the open-ended U.S.-led warmongering. Arguably, the 9/11 censorship is a much more formidable problem than the 9/11 false flag and its U.S. cover-up. As such, it deserves the most investigative focus.
The analysis of the 9/11 censorship happens to be disconcertingly easy compared to that of the false flag or the cover-up. It has been available for some time at http://www.global-Platonic-theater.com. It also leads straight to a highly favorable global sociological paradigm shift.
If the conference would ever care to expose how 9/11 Truth literally saves the world…
Love,
Daniel, This is extremely good. Let’s have some exchanges over email. I think you would be a great guest for “The Real Deal”. jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Beware of this fellow Dan! His suggestion that 911 and its cover-up were/are engineered by some good-hearted souls who want to save America and humanity is sheer lunacy and deception. The truth is that ALIENS and their AGENTS (Zionists from Israel) are responsible for 911 AND its cover-up – and what THEY have in mind (and HAVE HAD in mind for eons) for humanity is of such horror that would make suicide appear as an attractive alternative to many. If anyone doubts the existence and influence of ALIENS, they should study my blogs and/or Google ‘William Pawelec’ and ‘Phil Schneider’. When we finally get to the bottom of 911 Truth, we will discover the terrifying ALIEN AGENDA (SEE! “War of the Worlds” post on my blog). Remember that the “Ball” which descended to destroy the WTC (instead of the alleged airliners), represents ALIEN technology.
No, this is NOT tinfoil hat stuff or fantasy – it’s REALTY, believe it or not. Only the Truth will make us free.
Godsend, this is supposed to be your serious take on 9/11? Aren’t you leaving Bush, Cheney, and the neo-cons out of the equation? I liked you suggestion about Alan Sabrosky, which I am going to follow up. But I am not at all sure what to make of this latest post of your. You take this for real?
@Joshua Blakeney
The objectives of the Toronto Hearings
(1) To present evidence that the U.S. government’s official investigation into the events of September 11, 2001, as pursued by various government and government-appointed agencies, is seriously flawed and has failed to describe and account for the 9/11 events.
(2) To single out the most weighty evidence of the inadequacy of the U.S. government’s investigation; to organize and classify that evidence; to preserve that evidence; to make that evidence widely known to the public and to governmental, non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations…
Quote Joshua Blakeney
“Either the Toronto Hearings were intended to prioritize the most compelling evidence (even if it was politically incorrect) as a court of law would do or the steering committee tried to fashion the Hearings relative to the bigoted, 9/11-cover up artists in the corporate media.”
The most important aspect of a court of law is that it allows a defence case to be presented as well as the prosecution case. It doesn’t just allow the prosecution to present their case without hearing counter evidence and, maybe more importantly counter argument ,from the defence. The reason for this is to try to establish the truth. A conference that sets out to put forward a one-sided, biased , agenda-driven and distorted presentation of evidence is a fundamentally flawed forum for any serious pursuit of truth. All the more bizarre to hear one of the panel members , who preumably knew what the objectives of the hearings were, to remark that he hadn’t heard any evidence to convince him that 911 wasn’t an inside job!
And equally strange to hear this specious statement:
“In a proper court of law, were it established on the first day of the trial that entity X (in this case al-Qaeda) was not involved in the crimes, any subsequent references to it would be omitted so as not to waste the court’s time. Subsequent 9/11 hearings should employ such a process of elimination.”
..and this in a conference that in the first place has as much resemblence to a court of law as a kangaroo court has.
And then there is David Ray Griffin , called as a witness to speak about issues including what happened at the Pentagon. They could have gone to the US and invited literally dozens of people who were actual witnesses to what happened at the Pentagon, but they have Mr. Griffin who wasn’t there to tell them all about it, which is apparently that flight 77 didn’t crash into the Pentagon. Reading the arguments he uses to come to that conclusion, the phrase ‘omissions and distortions’ comes to mind. They did actually consider inviting a witness to what happened at the Pentagon, April Gallop. She was inside the building when the place collapses around her and, trying to get herself and her son out in the dark and the smoke, she says she didn’t see parts of a plane she wasn’t looking for. There are any number of people outside the building who watched the plane crashing into the building but the one witness they considering inviting is April Gallop (who sued American Airlines for allowing their plane to be hijacked and crashed into the building). So much for the pursuit of truth. Looking at the agenda for the Vancouver Hearings I have a feeling we are in for more of the same.
Well, this is very interesting. I interviewed Mike Sparks about the Pentagon witnesses for three shows (six hours), which you can find on radiofetzer.blogspot.com. The evidence that no Boeing 757 crashed there is simply overwhelming, including the conclusion of Gen. Albert Stubblebine. It’s easy to find (what appears to be) “evidence” for the official account, which has been sold to the American people endlessly since 9/11. But you might want to consider that even Lee Hamilton and Tom Keane, the co-chairs of THE 9/11 COMMISSION, have published a book, WITHOUT PRECENDENT, in which they complain that the Pentagon gave them three different versions of the events of that day.
The investigation was underfunded and controlled by Philip Zelikow, whose own area of specialization was the creation and maintenance of public myths. What we need are attempts to falsify the official account, which, it is true, will resist falsification. But the remarkable fact of the matter is that it succumbs to falsification on virtually every count. My opinion is that the fabrication of the alleged “crash sites” is the key to unraveling the mythology of 9/11. See, for example, “What didn’t happen at the Pentagon” and “Seven Questions about 9/11″. And consider the following and evaluate the evidence and arguments:
“9/11: Planes/No Planes and ‘Video Fakery’”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/911-planesno-planes-and-video-fakery/
“9/11: The official account of the Pentagon attach is a fantasy” (with Dennis Cimino)
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/13/911-the-official-account-of-the-pentagon-attack-is-a-fantasy/
“The 9/11 Passenger Paradox: What happened to Flight 93?” (with Dean Hartwell)
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/15/the-911-passenger-paradox-what-happened-to-flight-93/
The Vancouver Hearings are going where other conferences have not: how were the towers destroyed, what happened at the Pentagon, and who was responsible and why.
Albert Stubblebine, someone else who was not at the Pentagon on 911. His conclusion that a plane didn’t hit the building is based on the idea that there was a small hole in the facade of the building. This is the reason most people reach that same conclusion and is testimony to how successful the 911 truth movement have been in concealing the actual damage to the building from so many people for so long.
Mike Sparks wasn’t there either. I was listening to him read out a big long list of witnesses and waiting for the name Mike Sparks to come up but strangely it didn’t. Listening to him talk about it, his statements , including the question why are there not more witnesses , and that it must be because they didn’t see a plane hit the building and are afraid to come forward , is a load of specious, convoluted, inane nonsense. In fact I would say he produced the most concentrated load of specious nonsense it has ever been my misfortune to hear, ever. He is someone who has spent so many years thinking about something and believing more and more implausible things about it that he is no longer able to tell the plausible from the implausible. He never will be able to tell the difference and therefore will never have any way to make any rational judgement about it, or probably about anything else. All of which could have been prevented if Mike Sparks had actually been at the Pentagon that day. He is saying all these witnesses are lying and at the same time that their accounts don’t match up. They are all lying agents putting forward false accounts and their accounts don’t match up. How many people saw lightpoles being knocked down? No one!
‘I saw the plane hit the building’ said the lying agent ‘but did it hit the lightpoles? , eh I’m not sure..’!! Let’s drop debris from a C-130 on the lawn of the Pentagon after the crash…what a plan.
I love the part where he dismisses the accounts of people who weren’t even there when it happened…..
I see he has connections with weapons assessments. I hope , against hope it seems , he hasn’t got a gun licence.
You are wrong, which is curious, since I actually include an interview with Stubblebine, who explains how he knows no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon–because there is no impression of its wings on the building! Also no massive pile of debris from a 100-ton airliner, no wings, no tail, no bodies, seats or luggage. Not even the engines were recovered. You don’t have to have “been there” know that the alleged flight path–just skimming the ground at over 500 mph and hitting multiple lampposts–is an aerodynamic and physical impossibility. Mike Sparks is a very smart guy, but I am having some rather serious doubts about you.
The clear, green, unblemished lawn is more proof that no Boeing 757 hit the building. Since the debris was not there long after the alleged “plane crash”, but does start showing up later, it has to have come from somewhere. It would have been rather awkward to have had officers and enlisted men carry pieces of debris out onto the lawn, but dropping it from the C-130 circling the building would have made sense. That hypothesis, by the way, was mine, not Mike’s, and I wasn’t there at the time, either. But your reasoning is so shoddy that I am dumbfounded that you have actually posted such a superficial and indefensible commentary.
Hope to meet you ( joshua ) in Vancouver….. I fear that whatever wrote under the name of A. Wright is being paid by the word, I hope there will be name tags and it is wearing one.
cheers
@Bob Campbell
I can’t be there unfortunately – I live half a world away and at 25 cent a word I just can’t afford to. Why don’t you put an ‘A.Wright’ name tag on instead and see what happens?
Why is Dr. Alan Sabrosky (“It is 100% certain that Israel {Mossad} did 911″) not on the Agenda?
Well, he would have been a great choice. I made an inquiry of Gordon Duff about him and Alan joining us some time back, but we never really worked anything out. Perhaps I can make an inquiry of Alan and see what could be arranged. Thanks for the prompt.
OK. I don’t see how Alan could turn down an invitation to present his case to the world in front of distinguished fellow-believers in 911 Truth! If he declines, that would be an ominous omen (unless he’s involved in some crucial behind-the-scenes work on “Seven Days in July” – 711).
Dear admin, (reply to your comments on my Daniel Noel comments)
NOTHING and NOBODY is left out of my equation. Bush, Cheney, the NeoCONs, the MSM, Obama, Biden and all the other Zionist Slimeballs, many with dual Israeli-American citizenship. 911 is only the tip of the iceberg, which is intended to sink America and all of humanity. Would I be kidding about a subject as deadly, devious, devastating and CRIMINAL as 911?
If you (and others here) are tempted to dismiss my comments here (and on my blogs and websites) as the ravings of a lunatic, let me remind you that I graduated from the same Ivy League College as Obama (Columbia) and that I hold an MBA from UCLA (along with an extensive, multi-industry and multi-national executive-level career) . Not only that, I speak from personal experience when I talk about the origin of the “War of Terror” (DoD, Sen. John Warner, SAIC, etc.), which formally and openly commenced with 911. Do you not know that “Ike” negotiated a treaty with the ALIENS at Holloman AFB? Do you know who Art Campbell is? Do you not know what William Pawelec and Phil Schneider revealed in their interviews (about the ALIENS in DUMBs who have infiltrated the MIC and the Federal Gov’t and other Federal Agencies)?
I am DEAD SERIOUS in my earlier comments here and my (much more extensive) comments on my websites and blogs.
Take some time and STUDY them. Be prepared for SHOCK & AWE! And remember, Truth is (FAR) stranger than fiction! The cover-up (of events including 911) is of truly astronomical proportions! :O
Don’t skyscrapers have to support more weight toward the bottom and keep from toppling over due to the shear force of the wind? So don’t the distributions of steel and concrete have to be determined before they even break ground for construction? Can they even do a good cost estimate without that distribution of steel information?
Even the NIST admitted in report 5D, which was about effects the shock of the airliner impacts on ceiling tiles, that they needed to know the distribution of weight for the towers. So why hasn’t Richard Gage and David Chandler been talking about that? What happened to the Conservation of Momentum? Ten years of strangely mystified Newtonian Physics on both sides of the debate. I even asked Gage about it in 2008, but there is not much discussion of it on the AE911Truth website. Peculiar indeed.
Criminals prevent underdogs to investigate or prosecute them. Don’t forget they are the ones in power & are pulling all strings…
http://www.communitycurrency.org/BushCrimeFamily.html
So what is the story with the engineering schools in Canada?
If airliners could not have destroyed the towers then how could experts at the engineering schools not have figured that out years ago?
9/11 is a global issue for all of the engineering schools in the world. Physics and gravity is pretty much the same all over the planet. This problem should not have been unresolved for TEN YEARS. Politics, conspiracies and religion are all irrelevant to analyzing 200 tons hitting 400,000 tons.
Oh, I believe almost every competent civil, mechanical and structural engineer knows that those buildings could not have collapsed. But their companies may have federal grants or the realize that a government that would murder 3,000 of its own citizens might not hesitate to take out a few more, even if they were engineers. Have you seen my “New 9/11 Photos Released”, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-911-photos-released.html
But since it is easy to understand why the buildings could not collapse because of simple Newtonian Physics then what does this say about our teaching of physics at the majority of high schools in the West? This is not about just the US. It is about all of Europe, Canada, Australia, South America. The physics is the same all over the planet.
But you cannot find the data on the distributions of steel and concrete down any skyscrapers. At least not on the Internet. So what is the Truth Movement doing with simple physics. Why does AE911Truth make understanding this so difficult? I asked Richard Gage about those distributions in 2008. He looked at me like I had grown a 2nd head and said the NIST was not releasing accurate blue prints. Shouldn’t he and his engineering buddies be able to come up with decent numbers without blue prints? Don’t all skyscrapers have to hold themselves up, so isn’t that kind of collapse impossible for any skyscraper?
Why do not you rise up your level of thinking ask why the USA is hated aruond the world not only by Islamic groups. see this you may hate yourself.
if WTCs had collapsed then where did their one million ton debris go? your new pictures look similar to these clips: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvnLag-Umss
Of course they did not COLLAPSE. I can’t believe that anyone would make that claim today–unless they work for NIST! It wasn’t possible for them to have collapsed, as Chuck Boldwyn will explain during his presentation at The Vancouver Hearings!
they why is so much time & effort spent on arguing all the negatives (ie: things that could not have happened), rather than what actually happened?
Jim: you need some proven prosecutor like Vincent Bugliosi, who by using laws, can transform sufficient existing evidence into proofs of facts, as he did in his successful prosecution of Bush. Then you can take it one level up as he discusses here: http://www.prosecutionofbushmovie.com/ otherwise, this will be another endless cat a mouse game similar to Kennedy murderers…
@psikeyhackr: its much simpler than that: something that disappears can’t collapse: eg: you have a 4 foot tall & 1foot wide structure made with LEGOS. you kick into it at 1 foot as if you are kicking high a football. Your kick-force lifts and disintegrates the top 3 feet of building into its elements (Legos). the bottom one foot may collapse and partially disintegrate. Isn’t this almost what happened? buildings pulverized into atomic-size dust and were blown away with high-winds all day on 9/11/01. So what was left behind to collapse?
Jim: a glance at this historic book of 1980 reveals why it should be brought up in your Vancouver hearings http://www.historyisaweapon.com/zinnapeopleshistory.html
WTC atomic-blast force Formula:
FORCE = Mass X Acceleration = 300 tons X 200 m/s= 60 Kilo Ton Force (only possible with Nukes)
300 ton WTC piece shot 200 meters in 1 second with ATOMIC-bomb force = = (Similar to 300 ton L.A.Rock)
Can anyone online hear the Vancouver speakers? or is it video only, like mine?
No. I paid my money, have been trying to watch. There is no sound. The camera angle and lighting is terrible. A big disappointment here…
Martin, I am very sorry about this. I have spoken with the tech guy and he is working on it.
Thanks for working on it. What time does today’s seminar begin??
Kagan has publicly steatd her fondness and respect for Aharon Barak, chief judge of Israel’s High Court of Justice as well as for Israel. What I would be very curious to know is what her opinion of Justice Richard Goldstone and his report on Gaza. As a Jew, is he someone she would admire or vilify. Was she asked this and I missed it?
I do have sound now, but low volume and with interruptions .
Jim: if Vancouver hearings are to expose facts & sciences supporting them, then why was my previous comment with links censored? if this website practices censorship then how could you expect the criminals in charge not to censor 9/11??
Your camera is on the wrong side: podium & speakers block view of displays.
The IDF has had openly gay seloidrs for nearly two decades now, so that position would be entirely consistent. There is no official policy within the IOF that states that gays enjoy any form of equal treatment or protection. In fact, there have been many cases in which the harassment and the taunting of gays in the Israeli army pushed the victims to commit suicide. Have you served in the IOF? Or do you regurgitate whatever you hear on NPR?
Jim: people online need only see the screen, not the speaker. So a fixed camera on the other side would work better than this., thanks.
Thanks for testimonies implicating NUKES, proven from different perspectives.
This book is in line with your presentations: http://www.islamicparty.com/satvoices/main.htm http://www.islamicparty.com/satvoices/acknowledgements.htm
your lives-stream voice broadcast started interruptions since a few minutes ago. Impossible to make out sentences.
Pentagon missile video: http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/44286/NEW_9_11_VIDEO_MISSILE_STRIKE_PENTAGON/
That a Jew, Jews, could overcome the holtisity of the American convention towards Jews, My God, what a hideous man you are, Witty! What a piece of work! Has the Goldenah Medina done so badly by you, Witty? Or was it the years of enslavements in the South, and then 150 years of the Chaim Crowstein laws? Oh, what a relief Brownstein vs. Board of Ed. must have been for you.Witty, just a tiny bit of advice for you: it’s not considered too cookl to complain about being slowed in your race to the top when so many people can’t even get in at the bottom.
another video clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKcV-t2MjU4
Barbara Honegger? the Navy reporter? I remember very well her testimony in a Santa Monica presentation, around 2005, where she swore that nothing had hit Pentagon and that multiple concrete walls had been destroyed with installed charges. She even gave name of an Admiral who was sure of this and that he had walked through several such 6-8 thick foot such walls and over dozens of dead bodies who had been clearly killed with the demolition charges. Now, after seven years she swears there was a plane?
Thank you Prof. Jim Fetzer, and everyone else, for this great accomplishment. Looking forward to see the projected indictments.
As you know, I don’t think it’s a secret I am JewishShe’s sitetng up the stage wait for it ..The state of Israel has meant a lot to me and my family.That’s code for: You had better confirm my appointment or else you’re a bunch of Israel hating anti-Semites who will suffer the wrath of AIPAC .
Useful legal matters to consider: http://tapeexpert.com/pdf/gruber%2014%20videotape.pdf
http://store.westlaw.com/american-jurisprudence-proof-of-facts-3d/2082/13503828/productdetail
Potshots.Listen to the actual woman. Is she an atddiion to the Supreme Court.She also expressed an admiration for Thurgood Marshall, who also didn’t have judicial experience before his contribution to the Supreme Court.Get back on the field guys.You, including Phil, are expressing literally knee-jerk, Pavlovian, reaction.
I think it’s time to investigate some of the bizarre and absurd claims made by Richard Gage, not the three WTC hi-rise collapses on 9/11, since they’ve already been thoroughly investigated by much more qualified, competent, and honest people. The NIST scientists and engineers were only able to time the top 18 stories, or 242′, of the collapse of WTC 7′s facade, and determined that it took 5.4 seconds, yet Gage and others in the 9/11 “truth movement” claim that the entire 610′ collapse only took ~6.5 seconds. Did the other 368′ fall in just over 1 second? How is he even able to give us a time to the nearest 1/10 of a second for the entire collapse when NIST couldn’t because buildings in the foreground blocked the view of video cameras?
How can he claim that the towers nearly free fell when the loose, airborne debris from their upper stories was obviously falling much faster than the collapse zones, and began hitting the ground while at least 40 stories in each one were still intact? The North Tower was only down to the height of WTC 7 when debris from the upper stories first hit the ground. Was g miraculously increased on 9/11? They fell in ~15 and ~22 seconds respectively, nowhere near the ~9.25 seconds that free fall would have taken:
http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4#p/u/40/qLShZOvxVe4
yet he begins every presentation with his near free-fall claim. He’s also claimed that the dust clouds from the collapses were “pyroclastic,” but there are no reports of anyone’s skin being instantly peeled off, and he’s claimed that the fires in WTC 7 were minor, totally contradicting these NYC eyewitnesses:
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/accountsofwtc7damage
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc
How could his claim that 400,000 yards of concrete were turned to fine powder be true, when there was less than 100,000 yards of concrete above grade in both towers combined? Does he know how to turn 400,000 yards of concrete to fine powder with explosives without leveling NYC?
Has he ever seen a controlled demolition that left molten metal in the debris for months? Has he ever seen one that didn’t leave even one explosively-cut column in the debris? Since he claims that explosives were planted in the core columns to start the collapses, and that it was done from elevator shafts, has he even looked a floor plan of the cores above the 78th floor sky lobby? There were only 6 regular elevators above there, plus a freight and 2 express elevators, and they were only near 6 of the 47 core columns. Several of those were in the paths of the planes, and the perimeter columns collapsed first, so he’s not even making sense, especially considering the fact that 30 or more stories of core framing stood 15-25 seconds after each tower’s main collapse was over.
We should investigate the nonsense coming from Richard Gage, as well as his “engineers.”
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3834688&postcount=12
There is no official piolcy within the IOF that states that gays enjoy any form of equal treatment or protection. Right . . . and . . . why would there be, exactly? I’ve spoken with openly gay members of the IDF. They spoke mostly of the support they received from their colleagues when they came out. The point is that gay soldiers can serve openly in Israel, and they cannot in the US.
Hi Jim-
I listened to a recent show you did w/Rick Adams and wanted to let you know that I appreciated your take on what’s going on w/Dr. Judy Wood. For whatever reason, I’ve been suspicious of her for awhile–something just didn’t seem right. I never dismissed the idea of advanced weapons being used on 911, but I just didn’t find her presentation (in a few radio interviews) convincing. And I think this was simply b/c I wanted to hear her present the case based on the science, but found her to go off in other directions, like mentioning her lawsuit and making negative comments about other researchers.
Also, I greatly appreciated the excerpt below (posted at the end of this message) from this site: http://www.911vancouverhearings.com/ (please extend my thanks to whoever wrote it). This actually really gets at what has been bothering me for a long time. Though this excerpt only mentions Peter Dale Scott and Chossudovsky, it also applies to what Tarpley has been doing, not just with 911 but also w/the recent situation in Libya and now Syria. I’ve noticed that Tarpley continues to invoke the “Al-qaeda” term, which seems to give life to the notion that a bunch of muslims are getting together and becoming terrorists. And, in some ways, I think this feeds the official story about 911. It seems as though it would be much more accurate to refer to such muslims as “mercenaries for NATO” or “thugs for Western intelligence agencies,” which is what I hear other commentators say (e.g. Mark! Glenn, Jonathan Azaziah, etc), but Tarpley continues to push this “al-qaeda” line, as though muslims are getting together on their own and getting an “al-qaeda” membership card.
Anyway, just wanted to pass that along and let you know I greatly appreciate what you did w/the Vancouver Hearings, especially in terms of pushing for the role of Israel/zionists to be addressed. I’ve posted info on this over at http://theinfounderground.com/forum/index.php (an anti-zionist forum) and it seems like people are taking an interest (I think lots of people who are awake to 911 kind of stopped following things b/c it seemed like the 911 “truth movement” was controlled/infiltrated by zionists). Also, fyi, I think it’s kind of interesting to take note of which websites completely ignored the Vancouver Hearings. I did a quick search and found that globalresearch.ca and infowars ignored the Vancouver Hearings, though both did stories on the Toronto Hearings (I’m convinced Alex Jones is controlled opposition–I’ve never heard him even mention the Israel Lobby on his show)
Thanks again for all of your work to get the truth out!
Sandra
Here’s the excerpt I was referring to:
On the first day of the Toronto Hearings David Ray Griffin established that there is no evidence that al-Qaeda or Osama bin-Laden did 9/11.
Although the video of Griffin’s testimony from September 8th is not posted in its entirety on the internet, I explicitly recall someone asking a question of Griffin during the Q&A about bin Laden and him replying that he didn’t feel any need to discuss bin Laden or al-Qaeda as they relate to the events of 9/11, because there is no evidence that they were involved in the events of 9/11.
This, like the vast majority of Griffin’s utterances, is accurate. Griffin’s assertions were supported by the excellent presentation of Jay Kolar on the morning of September 9th.
Firstly, bin Laden denied involvement in the events of 9/11; most, if not all of the alleged hijackers were not Islamists; it is unclear whether or not al-Qaeda even exists as an autonomous and coherent non-state actor; there is no evidence that t! he alleged hijackers boarded any of the flights on 9/11; and, as Wayne Madsen has revealed, British intelligence documents suggest that the alleged hijacker cells were run and operated by the Mossad.
In a proper court of law, were it established on the first day of the trial that entity X (in this case al-Qaeda) was not involved in the crimes, any subsequent references to it would be omitted so as not to waste the court’s time. Subsequent 9/11 hearings should employ such a process of elimination.
A process of elimination was not displayed during the Hearings; come the afternoon of Day 2 of the Toronto Hearings Professor Michel Chossudovsky, who came through the door at the last minute having arrived from Montreal and who spoke extemporaneously, made repeated references to al-Qaeda, bin Laden, and the complicity of intelligence agencies with Islamists, thereby implying that this was relevant to what transpired on 9/11.
Either al-Qaeda and bin Laden were! involved in 9/11 or they weren’t.
It cannot be both. Perhaps Chossudovsky was chosen to speak not because of what he says about 9/11, which reinforces the myth of al-Qaeda involvement in 9/11 leading an investigation into 9/11 on a wild goose chase, but rather because of his credentials.
This may have also been the case with Professor Peter Dale Scott, who spoke of the alleged al-Qaeda hijackers boarding Flight 77, even though the speaker immediately before him, David Ray Griffin, had explained at length that it was simply impossible that “al-Qaeda hijackers” had taken control of Fight 77 on 9/11.
Michel Chossudovsky entitled his book “America’s War on Terrorism”. “Israel’s War on Terrorism” would have better encapsulated the historical genesis of the “war on terrorism”
Either al-Qaeda hijackers hijacked Flight 77 or they did not. Either Griffin is right and Scott is wrong or vice versa. The organizers–by failing to critically analyze the prior statements of Chossudovsky and of Scott–both of whom seem to be stuck in an “al-Qaeda were involved in 9/11″ analysis–allowed the Toronto Hearings to hear testimony whose relevance to the events of 9/11 is highly tenuous.
Indeed one cannot help but wonder if these individuals were chosen not because they bring forth evidence about which there is “[a] high degree of certainty; importance; and consensus”, but rather because they are big names whose credentials would make the hearings look credible–even if their testimony would regress the quest for truth and justice by taking the Hearings off course.
In other words, despite all the stated rigid criteria aimed at sorting strong from weak evidence, the organizers possibly committed the fallacy of appealing to the authority of the names of two famous researchers who are perhaps famous and less persecuted because, unlike more rigorous 9/11 researchers (for example, Barrett and Fetzer), they parrot the al-Qaeda myth thus indirectly aiding and abetting those culpable for 9/11.
In “The Road to 9/11″ Peter Dale Scott fails to consider whether or not al-Qaeda actually hijacked the planes on 9/11 and presents an implausible LIHOP analysis of 9/11. While Scott has done exceptional work theorizing about “deep events”, his empirical research is somewhat lacking, at least on the subject of 9/11.
Could it be that Peter Dale Scott’s Road to 9/11 (2007) was published by a major print house because it wasn’t subversive to those in power? After all in his works Scott has mainly emphasized the historic role played by “al-Qaeda” in the imperialism of the United States.
Whilst this history is interesting it tells us little about 9/11, which appears neither to have been done by Islamists nor to have primarily advanced Big Oil’s desired policies.
Rather, it seemingly involved the Mossad-controlled, mostly secular patsies and represented a coup d’état by a Zionist faction of the ruling class in order to implemen! t policies which departed markedly from the traditional U.S. Middle East imperial policy of fostering stability for oil markets through the propping up of Arab strongmen like Saddam Hussein.
And could Michel Chossudovsky be so highly successful because he draws attention away (perhaps for emotional or ideological reasons) from the fact that the whole “war on terrorism” was concocted by Likudnik Zionists to shift U.S. imperial policy in a direction desired by them?
The invitation extended to individuals who wrongly testified that al-Qaeda were involved in 9/11, such as Scott and Chossudovsky, appears to have been at least in part intended by the organizers to promote a favorable public reception of the Toronto Hearings.
That very objective was implied toward the end of the Toronto Hearings by steering committee member Laurie Manwell, who explained that they had gone to great length to project the Hearings in a way that would appeal to the mainstream media as a public relations strategy.
Holding up the two mediocre news reports by The Globe and Mail and The National Post on the Hearings, she candidly stated that the steering committee had “deliberately” framed the Hearings to curry favour with those whom many of us regard as 9/11-cover-up artists in the mainstream media.
Unfortunately, this provides insight into the steering committee’s methodology, which departs from recognized means of discerning truth as a court of law would do and places politics before science.
Either the Toronto Hearings were intended to prioritize the most compelling evidence (even if it was politically incorrect) as a court of law would do or the steering committee tried to fashion the Hearings relative to the bigoted, 9/11-cover up artists in the corporate media.
The controversial decision of the Toronto Hearings to include the least controversial evidence within the Truth Movement represented an abandonm! ent of the traditional approach to truth-seeking, which should be divorced from political correctness, since “controversial” evidence can be true and non-controversial “evidence” can be false or redundant.
It can be argued therefore that of the nineteen or so “testimonies” given over the four day period of the Toronto Hearings at least two, those of Scott and Chossudovsky, were mostly superfluous due to the fact that they endorsed the myth that Osama bin-Laden and al-Qaeda were involved in 9/11, even though, as was established on Day 1 by David Ray Griffin, Day 2 by Jay Kolar and again on Day 4 by Griffin, neither were actually involved.
To have a discussion of the political motives for 9/11 without including a discussion of Israeli geopolitics, whilst perhaps gratifying to the pro-Israel National Post, is highly displeasing to those of us who’ve worked hard to expose the multiple Israeli connections to 9/11.
The vagaries about al-Qaeda in relation to 9/11 offered by Chossudovsky and by Scott could have been replaced by more apposite testimony coming from scholars, such as Professor James Petras, a distinguished sociologist who has demonstrated that the “war on terrorism” has a lot more to do with Israel than Big Oil and who, unlike the Hearings, includes the evidence of Mossad involvement in 9/11, such as “the Dancing Israelis”, in his analysis of 9/11 and of “the war on terrorism”.
far too much emphasis has been placed on the Official Conspiracy Theory key points, such as the cover and deception by the Central Intelligence Agency, fundamentally reinforced by their agents, by the way, much in the same way the London 7/7 Bombers were recruited and paid by MI-5/6 and mislead to believe they were performing some sort of function, when in fact they were patsies being set up by C.I.A. / MOSSAD (there shall be no further differentiation between these two groups as they are one and the same, one has an office in Tel Aviv, one has one in Langley, VA, but they’re the SAME PEOPLE working for the same zionists named Rothschilds.
In any case, the primary sub groups of conspirators have been indicted by some of us with substantial evidence which suggests that at some point, there will have to be some form of internationally sponsored trial that takes place, whereupon all of these zionists under Rothschilds and House of Windsor control out of London, finally get brought before some international authority and face execution for the heinous acts of despicable mass murder they commit over and over again in the quest for the almighty shekel.
Humanity cannot survive too much more of this hubris and greed, and it is ultimately going to be borne out that Rothschilds banksters and the House of Windsor aka The Royal Family, of the United Kingdom, or Great Britain, are the main progenitors of death and destruction for profit on this earth, with no close second place holder on the horizon.
These Hearings in Vancouver at the very least established that in the near term, the global community is approaching the ‘had enough’ moment and that these crimes shall be punished by the death penalty in most cases and life imprisonment in a few rare instances where there was no clear malicious intent on the part of those who conspired to shield the world from the TRUTH of what was done on the behalf of these murderers named Rothschilds, and House of Windsor slime parading around while also murdering their loyal subjects in false flags like was done on 7/7 by them to their OWN PEOPLE!
The time has come to end zionism. Imprison the Rothschilds. Abolish the Monarchy in the U.K. and replace it with something a tad less ZIONIST in nature.
The world cannot survive another decade of this hubris, this global murder, the greed that feeds these sub-human impostors feigning to be jews but who are not truly of judean heritage even a little bit.
Enough is Enough.
Bravo to ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. But who is supposed to undertake any such actions against the corrupts you named? They have everything in their hands.
yes, they have nearly everything in their hands, but their hands are driipping so much innocent blood, that across the globe, people are seeing these monsters for whom and what they are, and the peoples of the earth tire of the relentless pursuit by Rothschilds and the British Monarchy toward global enslavement of all mankind.
So we must perservere and not hold back. If the people of the earth decide they can just accept their fate, to be no more than chattel in perpetual serfdom and slavery, unto debt userers who are trading fiat fake money for hard gold and other tangible assets as they loot EVERYTHING around this earth to feed their insatiable lust for more wealth and power, then we have already ‘lost’ this battle.
We cannot and we dare not stop the counter-offensive. We have no choice but to attack, back up, regroup, counter attack, present TRUTH and expose them at every possible venue, every juncture in time, every opportunity.
The people of the earth have no choice but to join this battle against GLOBAL ZIONISM, and the progenitors of that sickness, or else face ultimate extinction at the hands of a few families aligned with the planetary looting and the grand theft of all that is not nailed down that can be stolen by them and traded for gold.
We have very very little time left. They are consolidating their power, and enacting draconian, snuffing legislation in virtually every government, every parliament, every congress they can BUY THE REPRESENTATIVES IN, and they know that a global tide is indeed rising against their hubris and greed and destruction.
Until every last one of these snakes of the ROTHSCHILDS families (and there are many) are stripped of their power, punished for their mass murdering and global wars for profit, the peoples of the Earth will by necessity cower in fear for the next shoe drop to come as these armies of mass death continue to rape and pillage to install their ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT OF ZION in the place of natural democracies and non-totalitarianist regimes.
Our time is running out. I cannot over emphasize the importance of speaking to all you know about what ZIONISM is, and how evil it’s manifest on earth has been and forever shall be if it is not EXPUNGED FROM THIS EARTH!!!!!!!!!!!!
and it must be destroyed. Every last bit of it…and every one of the monsters who espouse it.
I think it fair to consider the Citizens 9/11 Commission Campaign to be an aaotcdve. We are advocating for the truth. We are also the plaintiff, and we want to express our case before the court of public opinion as well as before a transparent commission of citizens who are known for their intelligence and who are widely trusted to be impartial to all tendencies but the path to the truth. We know that a commission packed with politicians will never give us impartiality, so we are going directly to the citizens.Senator Gravel will be making a proposition at the Toronto Hearings. He will be proposing a method by which all of us who have struggled so long to reopen the investigations can realistically expect to do so. He is proposing a solution to the intransigence of politicians who will never be convinced to reopen the investigation, despite the new forensic evidence and the recognition that millions upon millions of people worldwide know we have been lied to for the last 10 years. How do we know, the co chairs of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory told us so, saying We were set up to fail. The path Senator Gravel will propose is inevitable. People are recognizing all over the planet that we must control our own governance. The time has come for the people to act.
Here is another temporally anomalous post. Because it talks about an independent commission, it makes more sense than others I have not allowed. I would encourage everyone who wants to understand the breadth and depth of evidence that refutes the official account to attend The Vancouver Hearings, which complement The Toronto Hearings by addressing controversial aspects of 9/11 research that it did not address or, at least, did so only peripherally, as we have explained above.
Thanks, Anthony, for this eloquent suammry of the forces arrayed against citizens who are forced to substitute their efforts for corrupted government and media establishments—who not only don’t do what they’re paid to do, but may be engaged in the criminal conspiracies themselves. Americans sometimes forget that this blight also exists in Canada as well as the UK.
For the Truth, the Whole Truth and nothing but the Truth, click on GodSend and keep on clicking. Be prepared for SHOCK & AWE!
How about this one: “He who detects a bunch of LIARS, let him EXPOSE them, whether THEY like it or not.”? Sorta like “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of Darkness but rather EXPOSE them.” We MUST expose the LIARS and perpeTRAITORS of 911 – or we’ll all be “dead ducks”! (sooner or later).