International HEARINGS on 9/11 To BEGIN In Toronto in September

[Segami]

:smoke: :popcorn: :smoke:


" TORONTO, Aug. 8, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A decade after the events of September 11, 2001, which resulted in the immediate deaths of nearly 3,000 people on American soil, countless victims from toxic dust, and hundreds of thousands of deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq, international hearings on this pivotal event will begin in Toronto in September.



The events of September 11 provided a pretext for a War on Terror that has led to military invasions and occupations, and attacks upon civil and human rights throughout the world. The credibility of the official investigation into the events of September 11, 2001, carried out by the U.S. Government between 2003 and 2005, has been questioned by millions of citizens in the United States and abroad, including victim family members, expert witnesses and international legal experts. To date, open and transparent judicial hearings to question the official evidence provided by the U.S. Government have never taken place in the United States or abroad. Similarly, no perpetrators of the events of September 11 have ever been brought to justice on American soil.



A group of international citizens has therefore undertaken to privately fund and cause these independent hearings to take place. Because of the global ramifications of the events of 9/11, the initiators of this inquest have opted to select an international location outside of the United States for these hearings to proceed. The city of Toronto, Canada was chosen as an ideal "international" location because of its proximity to New York, Washington and Shanksville (the crime scenes). Sponsored by the International Center for 9/11 Studies, the first four days of these hearings will take place at Toronto's Ryerson University between September 8 and 11, 2011. During these proceedings, which will be broadcasted live via the Internet, various expert witnesses will present evidence into the case.



Private funding to carry out these initial hearings is being provided by citizens from around the world. Limited seating to attend the hearings is also available. The Toronto Hearings will be moderated by Dr. Michael Keefer (Canada) and Dr. Matthew Witt (United States), and the final report will be edited by American attorney James Gourley.



http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/international-hearings-on-911-to-begin-in-toronto-in-september-127227548.html



.

[zappaman]

1. Won't make a difference

the evil and all-knowing BUSHCO will control the proceedings.

[KDLarsen]

2. Oh, I wonder what the verdict will be...

Will Bush/Cheney be found guilty or VERY GUILTY? :eyes:

[Ohio Joe]

3. Just $200 bucks a seat... What a bargain!

or just give them money and don't go, they like that even more... And don't forget to buy the book when it's over!

[William Seger]

4. Australia would be more appropriate

[jberryhill]

36. No... things collapse UP in Australia

They wouldn't understand the concept of things falling down.

[BeFree]

5. Great news, thanks, Segami

There should be some great images coming forth. Folks who lack seeing the videos and the non-OCT information may, if they so choose, finally have some of their questions answered.

It is a shame that something like this can't take place in this country.
Heck, it can't even take place on DU without getting thrown in with the DUdr's.

[zappaman]

6. heh

"There should be some great images coming forth. Folks who lack seeing the videos and the non-OCT information may, if they so choose, finally have some of their questions answered."

that would be great seeing as how we can't count on you to answer any questions.
still having problems finding links to all those videos showing the explosions in the garages that brought down the WTC that YOU claimed to have seen?
:rofl:

[William Seger]

7. 2006 has come and gone

When this gaggle of "experts" recycle the same "evidence" they been peddling for years, anyone truly interested in answers will find that "evidence" dissected on various web sites that you refuse to read. Perhaps many of them won't read those pages either, preferring the glorious fantasies even if maintaining them requires self-inflicted ignorance, but really... so what?

[BeFree]

8. I Refuse to read?

Like what? I read 'myths' and it was full of malarkey. Nothing new there.
Read lots of google linked sites.

What is your favorite? Give me a link and tell me why I should read it, if it isn't too much of an effort for you......

[William Seger]

10. Seems to me, the only way you could say that about 911myths.com

... is either A) you have refused to read it; B) you have very poor reading comprehension; or C) the only response you have to that site's scathing refutations of "truth movement" nonsense is a pathetically lame attempt to poison the well.

Which is it?

[BeFree]

11. What is it you like about myths?

What I read was personal opinions that were no better than mine.

Can you even tell me what it is you like about myths and why I should read it again? And do it without personal attacks?

[William Seger]

12. "personal opinions that were no better than" YOURS?!

LMAO, but that seems to be a personal opinion based on your own disdain for (and/or misunderstanding of) evidence-based reasoning.

[BeFree]

13. So, nothing you like about myths?

All you can do is attack me? Bwahahaha
More people read me than myths, probably.

[OnTheOtherHand]

14. projection much?

All you did was attack the website, without rebutting any of its content whatsoever. Actually, you didn't even acknowledge that it has content. "What I read was personal opinions that were no better than mine." But a great deal of the content on 911myths.com isn't "personal opinions" at all. If you only read the things you've already decided to disagree with, obviously you won't get much out of the website, no matter what anyone posts here.

[BeFree]

16. Hell anybody can copy the 9/11 commission report

And offer up opinions like that dud did.

What is it you like about myths?

And this is a gem of yours: "If you only read the things you've already decided to disagree with, obviously you won't get much out of the website, no matter what anyone posts here."

Now that is projection!!

I read things first, then see if I agree, or disagree. To read something I don't agree with before I read it is only something bushco supporters are able to do.

Gawd, there I go again, giving you a reading lesson. Shame on me!!

Now, where was I? Oh yeah.... Why should I read myths again?

[OnTheOtherHand]

25. say what?

Most of the content on 911myths.com isn't from the 9/11 commission report at all. Do you not know that, or are you just changing the subject?

What's useful about the site is that it cites a lot of information, and provides links to it, so that the reader isn't forced to rely upon the author's opinions.

I read things first, then see if I agree, or disagree.

That may be so, but it misses the point.

According to your own words, BeFree, what you read on 911myths.com was personal opinions -- not anything else.

Since you've stated your own opinions on this issue many, many times, I think it's fair to say that you had already decided to disagree with the opinions in 911myths.com that you've dismissed as "malarkey."

If you are interested in learning about 9/11 or anything else, you need to read for information and evidence, not just opinions.

Now, I respond to evidence, so if you have a fact-based critique of something you read there, I'd be happy to see it. So far, I really have no way of knowing if you even read the "personal opinions," never mind anything else.

[Ohio Joe]

30. Man... I almost missed BeFree's obligatory "bush supporter" insinuation

See... First comes the set up:

"Now that is projection!!"

BeFree says here that OnTheOtherHand is the one who makes up his mind before he reads something. This is then followed up right away with:

"I read things first, then see if I agree, or disagree. To read something I don't agree with before I read it is only something bushco supporters are able to do."

Sure seems clear to me that once again, BeFree calls another DU'er a bush supporter.

[William Seger]

15. Uh huh

If more people read your substance-free ramblings than 911myths.com, then you do more damage to the "truth movement" than they do, probably. But fortunately for you that's just a delusion, probably.

What I like about 911myths.com is that they take claims made by the "truth movement" and examine them to see if they are based on credible facts, and if so, do they really imply what the "truth movement" claims they do. If you can't even recognize the efforts to see if the logic is both sound and valid, then I shouldn't be surprised that you find your own ignorant opinions of equal worth. Maybe it's because that examination leaves the "truth movement" pretty much empty handed relative to the wildly implausible claims they make, but the very fact that the "truth movement" has such an apoplectic response to basic cross-examination is reason enough to always put "truth movement" in quotes to highlight the joke that it has become.

[BeFree]

17. Yeah, well

Before 9/11 was Able Danger and the 20 alleged hijackers roaming the country.

I looked on myths for their opinions on that and found scant info and false opinions.

Maybe you can find something from myths now about Able Danger and the 20 freely roaming people who were on the list, and while you are there something about the Aug. 6 PDB?

What I do not like about myths is they do not examine the bushco operations. In fact, they ignore those operations, afaics. Or if not ignored, offer up baseless personal opinions.

Anyway, surely myths isn't the only place you get your info from is it?

[William Seger]

22. Ah, so it's the reading comprehension thing after all?

Seems to me they have a reasonably good introduction to the subject, (and I defy you to actually point out any "false opinions"), and then they give a fairly extensive list of links where you might have found more info had you not overlooked it:

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Able_Danger

Now that you remind me, another thing I like about 911myths.com is that they provide excellent references.

So does "The Obi-wan Kenobi of debunkers" Mark Roberts.

I suspect that the hucksters who are trying to pull off this "international hearing" scam are well aware of those sites and MUCH more. Why do you suppose they try so hard to ignore them?

[OnTheOtherHand]

26. Morton's demon?

Human beings are adept at filtering out discrepant information. It isn't hard.

I assume that a bias toward filtering out most discrepant information, most of the time, is adaptive. We're besieged with sense data moment by moment; we probably have to ignore most of it without pausing to evaluate whether it is discrepant or not.

Of course that doesn't really explain the spectacle of someone who refuses to assess evidence.

I was looking up Michael Keefer (the Canadian moderator for these 'international hearings'), and I came across an interesting passage:

...refuting this rhetoric at length would be tedious. I would prefer instead to quote Paul Craig Roberts’ magisterial rebuke:

The explanation that the three WTC buildings collapsed as a result of damage and fire is a mere assertion. The assertion is not backed up with scientific calculation to demonstrate that the energy from the airliners, fire and gravity was sufficient to collapse the buildings. A number of independent authorities believe that there is a very large energy deficit in the official account of the collapse of the buildings. Until this issue is resolved, the official explanation is merely an assertion no matter who believes it.

The Canadian scientist Frank R. Greening has made the only independent scientific attempt of which I am aware to show that a gravity driven collapse of one of the buildings, WTC 1, was sustainable. His paper is published in The Journal of 9/11 Studies, Vol. 2 (August 2006) and is available online. It is a reply to earlier calculations by Gordon Ross, who concluded otherwise, and is answered in the same issue by Ross, who shows that Greening’s work actually demonstrates the existence of an energy deficit.

It is instructive to read this exchange between competent authorities. Few readers will be able to follow the application of scientific principles and the calculations of the required and available energy. However, it will be clear that the issue is a scientific matter that is over the heads of members of a political commission, pundits, and bloggers, and that it is inappropriate for a pundit, who himself is incapable of following such a discussion, to call those participating in it “conspiracy nuts.”

"Magisterial"? Hardly. If Greening's work is the only "independent" work of which Roberts is aware, Roberts isn't trying very hard. It isn't his job, apparently.

[OnTheOtherHand]

27. a bit extra

I tried to add a few things to that post, but my connection didn't work. The article link is here. Keefer goes on to say, "Evidence -- to my mind conclusive -- that the official accounts are physically impossible... has been assembled by... scientifically qualified researchers...." (Anyone who cares can read the whole thing in context.) The question is: how did he conclude that the evidence was "conclusive"?

[LARED]

24. bushco operations????

Maybe 911myths doesn't understand what bushco operations is supposed to mean.

I would suggest you provide a definition for them...... wait..... never mind....I forgot even you can't define Bushco.

[zappaman]

28. I agree with BEFREE

that evidence and facts and science are stupid.
Like BEFREE, I prefer to believe whatever I want even if I have no facts, evidence or science to back up my claims.
Together, we will take down BUSHCO!

[BobbyBoring]

29. The one "Myth 911 myths doesn't dispell is

None of the hijackers could fly and 767s and 757s are not capable of doing what they did.

The most damning case against the official story comes from Pilots for 9/11 truth.

Since planes were the major part of 9/11, it's worth reading........

[zappaman]

31. not one sentence in your post

is true.
good job!

[LARED]

32. Well this part is true

None of the hijacker could fly. SOme could however pilot commerical airliners.

[zappaman]

34. well played n/t

[hack89]

33. Despite all those flying lessons, simulator time and certification check rides?

really? They were all licensed commercial pilots - perhaps not good ones but if you don't have to worry about take offs and landings then perhaps good enough.

[BobbyBoring]

37. That has nothing to do with

The fact that it is impossible for the planes to do what they did.

During WW II, P 38 pilots found out about this thing called compression. They found out the hard way. Over certain speeds, the air races across the control surfaces so fast that they do not respond. There is NO WAY that the second "Plane" could have made the turn it did to hit the building. If you watch the "Films", the plane damned near missed but somehow made this banking turn at 500 MPH +.

It can't happen

[hack89]

38. So those were not real planes that everyone was watching?

because something was making all those maneuvers.

[BobbyBoring]

39. Correct

They were not real planes. They were super imposed over the image of the device used to destroy the buildings.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBpTWYUgvcM

This is only one of many videos on the subject.

Again, it's far easier to buy in to the official story. When you buy in to the idea that our government killed 3,000 of it's own citizens to advance the Neo con agenda, it's kind of hard to sleep...........

[zappaman]

40. "Again, it's far easier to buy in to the official story."

that is because it actually makes sense and there is tons of evidence to support it.

"They were not real planes.
They were super imposed over the image of the device used to destroy the buildings."- unfuckingreal.

[BobbyBoring]

42. Makes sense???

What part of it? 19 Arabs somehow or another out smart every defense system we have and make planes do things they can not do, and make buildings collapse in ways that are impossible unless the is controlled demolition? That makes sense?

Again, 757s and 767s are very sophisticated aircraft. They have a computer override that WILL NOT allow the pilot to perform maneuvers that will impose high G forces on the plane or it's passengers. You can not make a 6 G turn in either craft. Pilots with thousands of Hrs. in both planes tried to reproduce the alleged flight paths and hit the twin towers and could not do it. Spend a few minutes here.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

These guys are not Alex Jones type whack jobs or rabid wing nuts. They are professionals that want to know the truth.

Look at how America changed after 9/11. Our freedoms have eroded to next to nothing. We're fighting more wars for big oil. 9/11 provided an excuse for that. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were on the drawing board WAY before 9/11. They just would have been a hard sell to the American people absent of a "New Pearl Harbor".

That's all 9/11 was.

[zappaman]

43. yes please explain the hundreds of witnesses who saw 2 planes fly into the WTC

was it some kind of gas they were sprayed with to give them hallucinations?
or some sort of 3D/holograph technology that has been secretly developed using reverse engineering from the downed UFO at Roswell.
You keep saying it couldn't happen but have yet to supply a better, more reasonable alternative.

[BobbyBoring]

44. Yes

It was BUSHCO gas in the air that made them hallucinate.

How can a fellow Zappa fan be so blind?

FZ would be having a ball with what's gone on since the turn of the century!

He had so much fun with Bush 1 and raygun

Imagine if he were here for W!

[hack89]

41. So what technology did they use?

I am not aware of any 360 degree projection technology.

[Ohio Joe]

23. Did you read the part about the "dancing Israelis"?

[SidDithers]

9. Will they have burning bunny cages?...nt

Sid

[William Seger]

18. ... and cardboard box dropping experiments

... by this expert witness:

[defendandprotect]

19. Good idea -- and imagine that there's a lot of activity to cover up this one as well -- !!

[defendandprotect]

20. What we really need are international truth hearings --

I'm less concerned with punishing the Bush/Cheney gang for 9/11 than

having their crimes known --

We also have to begin to recognize that 9/11 couldn't have been pulled off

without the cooperation of the TV networks/anchors --


Everyday here on DU you will see references to how our corporate-press lies --

but I don't really think that most really understand the depth of those lies!!

[BeFree]

21. Anthrax in news departments

And sent to congress.

And no one has ever been charged with sending the anthrax, altho they say it took only the best equipment to make the grade of anthrax that was sent.

Yes, there has most certainly been a concerted effort to keep a lid on 9/11. Not even this conference will be able to remove the lid, but maybe, if we are lucky, they will crack it some more.

[defendandprotect]

35. Agree -- n/t

[CJvR]

48. They hav'nt?

IIRC they caught a guy, some discontent scientist, for that fairly quickly and it turned out to be completly unrelated to the Jihadists.

[BeFree]

50. YDRC

They still haven't pinned it on anyone, tho they did try to pin it on your guy. So, you don't remember correctly.

[defendandprotect]

45. WILL BE BROADCAST LIVE ON THE INTERNET -- !!! September 8 thru 11, 2011

Sponsored by the International Center for 9/11 Studies, the first four days of these hearings will take place at Toronto's Ryerson University between September 8 and 11, 2011. During these proceedings, which will be broadcasted live via the Internet, various expert witnesses will present evidence into the case.

Will a link to the Center -- or a link to Ryereson University -- get us to the LIVE PROCEEDINGS?

[zappaman]

46. Also heard the SYFY channel will carry the proceedings. n/t

[CJvR]

47. Nice...

...do you have to bring your own tinfoil or is that included in the ticket?

[LARED]

49. A regular who's who of CT'er will participate

The Hearings will be moderated by Michael Keefer (Canada) and Matthew Witt (United States) and the final report will be edited by the American attorney James Gourley. Themes on days 1, 2, and 4 will include: al-Qaeda, air defense failures, anomalies of Flights 77 and 93, the nature of false flag terrorism, and psychological resistance to accounts that challenge the official one. Peter Dale Scott, David Ray Griffin, Laurie Manwell, Graeme MacQueen, Lance DeHaven-Smith, and Kevin Ryan are some of the confirmed witnesses. The Hearings will also include addresses, during the day and in the evenings, by eyewitnesses and by members of 9/11 victims families.

http://torontohearings.org/

it will be interesting to see the outcome of this boondoggle. I predict a massive collective yawn will be heard just about nowhere.

[BeFree]

51. eyewitnesses and by members of 9/11 victims families.

Guess is it will scare you badly to hear any alternative to the bushco Official Conspiracy Theory?

Up thread there was a post about not wanting to read (or hear) anything that one may disagree with. And I replied that it was mainly bushco supporters who were most capable of doing just that.

So, yawn yer ass off. Just wonder why you feel the need to post here and tell us how you look at information....

Even if they are ...""...eyewitnesses and by members of 9/11 victims families." ??

[Ohio Joe]

52. Yay! BeFree slips in two "you support bush" insinuations in one thread

I guess when one refuses to back up claims, that is the next best thing to go to.

[LARED]

54. The man has talents

We can only guess at.

[LARED]

53. Do you think the eyewitness and family members

Are going to have something new to say?

Do you think this hearing will provide an alternate to the so called bushco OCT that is new or different or compelling in any way?

Don't bet the farm on it.

[truth2power]

55. BeFree if I may suggest...

Sometimes one needs to resist the urge to respond to everyone who wishes to engage you in conversation. Often, people who engage you (and this applies on any subject you could name) don't really want answers. They just want to vent, gripe, complain, or in other ways to obstruct the progress of any discussion you might be having.

Where 9/11 is concerned, there has long been indisputable evidence of it being a false flag operation. There are some whom you will never convince, and there are those who are skilled in diversionary tactics of one sort or another. For what reason is another discussion entirely.

Where the Sept. 11 forum is concerned, try to ignore the background noise. Just my $.02 :)

[BeFree]

56. I appreciate that

And concur. Sometimes I get into it with those who just want to argue. I do it for two reasons:

One to keep the conversation going - this place was dead awhile back, and

Two, others need to read rebuttals to the denialists. You may have notice I have not been posting much here - no real need - others have been carrying the ball, as it were.

There are some that I may never ever reply to again for I feel they are just here for their stupid games. Thanks for your 2 cents. It makes sense.