Look out, Toronto—the 9/11 Truth Movement is coming to town!
Just in time for the 10th anniversary of 9/11, Toronto is set to host a conference for people analyzing the “myth of 9/11.” Dubbed the Toronto Hearings and sponsored by the Texas-based International Center for 9/11 Studies, the symposium of conspiracy theories at Ryerson University aims to reveal that the U.S. government’s official narrative of the attacks on the World Trade Centre twin towers is flawed or false. We expect it will also be a hotbed for debate over urgent and important questions like: were the Afghanistan and Iraq wars planned before 2001? And did an airplane actually hit the Pentagon? Naturally, the timing of the event has ruffled a few feathers (stay classy, International Centre for 9/11 Studies); but we say, just let the crazies be and salute Rob Ford and other city councillors for staying mum on the subject. Read the entire story [National Post] »
This is gross.
The Toronto Hearings are quite important. The Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy will be attending as a Panelist:
http://torontohearings.org/panelists/
All people who would like to know why hundreds of Canadian soldiers have died to avenge 25 un-investigate Canadian deaths on 911 should attend this conference. Is war which ccost 4 trillions of tax dollars the solution? Millions of scientists, engineers, chemists, architects, historians know that the official government conspiracy theory is seriously flawed. Why would three building come down symmetrically into their footprints at freefall spead? This can only be accomplished with masterfully placed explosives. Why are there no videos of a plane hitting the pentagon?
What lunacy.
reveal the TRUTH 9/11 was an inside job !!!
Anyone that says this is gross / lunacy has not looked at the evidence. It’s time to open your mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw&feature=player_embedded#!
In the media here in the U.S. there is a complete blackout on anything but the Bush administrations official account of 9/11 and the same applies to Israel’s 44 year military occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. It is for this reason that many U.S. citizens welcome Canada’s willingness to permit an open discussion on what really happened on September 11, 2001
John Michael McGrath; I’m sure you meant ‘crazies’ endearingly, but it actually makes you sound arrogant and uninformed. Do some research. Start w/ the youtube link two posts above. This discussion about 9/11 is among serious, reputable scholars and professionals, not ‘crazies’ by any stretch of the imagination. Get educated, or remain neutral on the subject. And for god’s sake, be responsible with what little public influence you have.
I have been studying the crimes of 9/11 for about 2 1/2 years now and know without any doubt at all that we were lied to about what really happened that day. First of all there was a third building that also fell straight down that day called Building 7. Watch it’s collapse here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvx904dAw0o
This 47 story skyscraper fell in 6 1/2 seconds that afternoon for no apparent reason. No plane hit it. There were a few office fires in this building but it’s impossible for ordinary carbon based fires to weaken all of the massive steel columns simultaneously down at the base of the structure to cause a perfectly symmetrical collapse. The National Institute of Science and Technology has admitted that this building fell at free fall acceleration for one third of it’s collapse so for those of you who think I wear a tin foil hat or who call me a conspiracy nut I have just one question. Please tell me how this building fell through it’s own foundation as fast as a bowling ball through air.
In case you missed the video please listen to the brave Ed Asner narrate this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw&feature=player_embedded
$8billion in insurance paid out, no asbestos removal costs is one of many motives.
elevator refit, power downs weeks leading up and security company ties give opportunity.
who had the means to divert norad, place explosives, place put options on airlines in record amounts, remove evidence, etc.. etc..
reminds me of a story of a big lie a german once told..
WTC 7 was built in 1986-7, well after asbestos was written out of all US building codes, so there were no “asbestos removal costs.” There was an insignificant amount still in the lower floors of the North Tower, but most of that had been removed prior to 2001.
The total insurance payout was $4.68 billion, and the estimated replacement cost of the towers is $9 billion.If you think the owner/lessee made money on the al Qaeda suicide attacks of 9/11, don’t go into the real estate business.
Watching Youtube videos is not “studying”.
Dan: “Please tell me how this building fell through it’s [sic] own foundation as fast as a bowling ball through air.”
It didn’t. Free fall from 610′ takes ~6.15 seconds, and the facade collapse of WTC 7 took 8-9 seconds. Please tell me how the time it took to collapse indicates what caused it. Do you even have a perp and motive for this imaginary controlled demolition?
August 21, 2011 YouTube Report from Edmonton Alberta Canada – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-81063xvyk
110 more signatures were added this week in Edmonton
From the 13 – 20 of August 2011 by the Alberta Legislature
& Just outside the gates of the Edmonton Fringe Festival- ” 827 Edmontonians want to see a Public Investigation of 9/11 In Canada!”
I see you will publish the disinformation presented by the well-known troll known as Albury, but you will not publish the comment made by Physics professor David Chandler, who is one of the speakers at the event. Here is the comment he tried to post:
This kind of mindless reporting is becoming standard fare, unfortunately. The characterization of the conference and its participants is without even an attempted justification. It’s pure, uninformed knee-jerk defamation. I challenge readers (I challenge this reporter!) to look through the website for the conference and judge the caliber of the participants for yourselves. It’s at http://torontohearings.org/ . By the way, I’m a participant. I’m not a conspiracy theorist. My work speaks for itself: http://911speakout.org .
~ David Chandler
Albury,
Even the final NIST report on WTC 7 disagrees with you. But not before they disagreed with themselves. In their draft report released in August 2008, they measured the collapse incorrectly (to hide the fact of freefall), in part by averaging the total time, and decided it fell 40% longer than freefall time. When it was pointed out to them that frame-by-frame measurements revealed a period of freefall equal to 100 feet or about 8 stories, they changed their final report to reflect this period of freefall, though they did not point out the ramifications of freefall, which is that ALL supporting structure would have to be removed simultaneously in order for this to occur. Interestingly, they also changed the wording in the final report and removed the words “consistent with physical principles” and replaced them with “consistent with the global collapse analysis.”
So you see, even NIST is not claiming its report is based on the laws of physics.
The NIST engineers did not “measure the [WTC 7] collapse incorrectly,” or “disagree with themselves,” nor were they foolish enough to claim a time for the entire collapse, as Jones, Gage, Ryan, etc. have done, right to the nearest 1/10 second. They timed the part that can be clearly seen in videos, which is the top ~242′, and very accurately determined that it took ~5.4 seconds, or ~40% longer than the ~3.9 seconds that free fall would have taken, fully explaining their methodologies in NCSTAR 1A and 1-9:
3.6 TIMING OF COLLAPSE INITIATION AND PROGRESSION
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf
For more detailed information, read 12.5.3 here:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf
A map showing 9 different camera locations north of WTC 7 is in fig 5-183 at this link:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%201.pdf
Only someone with zero understanding of dynamic loading would ever claim that ~150,000 tons of falling building could be measurably slowed by the framing that was in place from t=1.75 to t=4 seconds, but please feel free to explain how the remaining ~368′ came down in ~1.1 or 1.2 seconds, since your “researchers” claim that the entire collapse took 6.5 or 6.6 seconds.
If “ALL supporting structure [was] removed simultaneously,” why wasn’t one shred of evidence of explosively-cut columns found in the debris? Cutter charge signatures look nothing at all like factory ends with plates and bolt holes, or like any other kind of mechanical breakage. Were all of the cleanup workers blind and stupid, or in on the plot too?
Chandler’s a HS physics teacher, not a professor, and his “work” does speak for itself. No competent SE would ever use a collapse time as evidence of the cause of one. Maybe Letterman will book him, however:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-P-bEHKVIE
After falsely accusing more than 200 highly-credentialed NIST engineers and other experts of lying and/or incompetence, he’s whining about defamation? Please.
Replying to Albury for the benefit of readers:
NIST’s gets a measurement of 5.4 seconds, to agree with their fabricated computer model, by choosing a grossly erroneous start time as demonstrated here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP4_8s-2Gmc
As for NIST’s competence, I agree. That’s why I say they are lying rather than making errors. They are culpable. Check out their lame defense here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
As for professor vs teacher, I’ve taught physics at both high school and college levels. I’m satisfied calling myself a high school physics teacher. Others who call me a professor are also technically correct. Note that in my confrontation with NIST I speak of myself as a high school teacher. I’m not overreaching. Labels don’t matter. Credentials don’t matter. Truth-telling is what matters.
For the benefit of readers, David, what are your calculations for the segmented times under the Probable Collapse Sequence in NCSTAR 1A? Since truth-telling matters so much to you, how did Gage, Ryan, Jones, and other “9/11 researchers” get 6.5 or 6.6 seconds for the entire collapse, when it actually took 8-9 seconds, and the end of it is impossible to determine to a 1/10-second degree of accuracy because of buildings in the foreground and dust clouds later in the collapse?
Since you’ve also calculated the distance fallen (at nearly g) from t=1.75 to t=4 seconds as ~81′, not the ~105′ posited by the NIST engineers, you apparently assumed a velocity of 0 at t= 1.75 seconds. Why?
I’d suggest leaving building collapse investigations to structural engineers with doctorates and PE certification. They fully corroborated their 5.4 seconds in the links I already posted, and weren’t foolish enough to present a total collapse time. They also have better sense than to present any time as evidence of the cause of a collapse.
I personally called the FBI and CIA after a coworker tipped me off that he and some others were “taking flying lessons without bothering to leran how to land.” He also said “someone else was paying for their flying lessons.” I spoke to people calling themselves government officials 5-6 times about information I had starting 6 months prior to 9/11. I called back several times when I saw nothing in the news about my report. I was even able to give them the date, but not the year of the attacks. I also called the local flight school where they had been taking lessons to warn the flight school to stop and to notify authorities.
So many conflicting conspiracy theories out there.
Perhaps if the writer and readers would listen to this interview with two of the organizers of the event, they might have a better sense of the seriousness of the hearings:
Interview with Adnan Zuberi and Prof. Graeme MacQueen, organizers of the Toronto 9/11 Hearings, being held at Ryerson University, Toronto ON. Sept. 8 to 11.
Info: http://www.barryshainbaum.com/radio.html, click on Aug. 21 show.
Here’s a short list of people who disagree with your retired theology prof and his friend:
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/someoftheagencies%2Corganizationsandindivi
The fact that building 7 reached free-fall acceleration is actually a mathematical proof of controlled demolition, but since the math is seemingly too complicated for most, try to imagine this situation and think about the plausibility:
You and 3 buddies take over the cockpit of an airliner with boxcutters, by outmaneuvering about 100 passengers and then tossing 2 former fighter pilots thru a cockpit door that is about 2-1/2 feet wide. Using your knowledge of single engine cessnas, you manage to turn off the auto pilot and take over the controls of the airline 30,000 ft over Ohio. You then develop an instantaneous mastery of the myriad of controls and instruments, and point the airplane directly at an unseen ground target about 1500 miles away. You arrive at your target unchallenged by the passengers and crew, only to find that you’d rather hit the adjacent face of the building, so you perform a banked turn at 500 mph, just above sea level, and slam into the center of you intended target. 15 minutes later, your 4 other buddies accomplish the same feat.
Does that sound likely to you? Although the twin towers seem large, from 30000 ft over ohio, they are analogous to a needle in a haystack. To suggest that someone untrained to fly an airliner is cable of doing this is basically just ludicrous. Where’s your common sense?
You’ve just provided mathematical proof of gravity, along with clear evidence that you’re not a structural engineer and have no concept of what it takes to slow down 150,000 tons or more of falling building by any measurable amount.
You had 4 “buddies” on 3 of the flights, and were in first class, so you “outmaneuvered” a flight attendant or 2, opened an unlocked cockpit door, and attacked 2 pilots from behind with those harmless-sounding “boxcutters,” which were small pocket knives in most cases. Since at least one of you had logged sufficient hours in Boeing simulators to get a commercial pilot certificate from the FAA, you had the basic ability to steer a Boeing wide-bodied twin in perfect weather conditions into a huge target that could be seen from 50 or more miles away, and since no airliner had ever been hijacked and used as a weapon, and the 33 to 76 passengers (not 100), depending on the flight, were reluctant to intervene with the pilots out of commission and you at the controls, you got away with committing suicide and murdering a lot of people. If you think any of the hijacked planes on 9/11 was “1500 miles away” from its target, when the longest any was airborne was ~81 minutes, you’ve just explained why you’re a “no-planer,” the bottom of the heap in the 9/11 “truth movement.”
The only evidence you need to know the official conspiracy theory is a lie, are the videos and pictures of the towers exploding.
http://911review.org/Wget/members.fortunecity.com/911/wtc/tower-explosions.htm
125,000 and 60,000 tons of falling upper stories onto the intact structures below is not evidence of explosives, but of gravity. If your silent, plane-proof, imaginary, redundant, and fireproof explosives had caused the tops to fall, the clouds of smoke pouring out of the impact floors would have been very visibly scattered seconds prior to the collapse, not slowly pushed out after the tops started falling. Explosively-severed columns would also have been found in the debris and documented.
Here’s what a real C/D looks and sounds like:
http://www.break.com/index/landmark_tower_demolition.html
Your controlled demolition “theory” is DOA. No evidence, no motive, and impossible are the 3 main reasons.
Reading the main stream media’s version of events is neither ‘studying’ nor ‘informing oneself’. Why does the main stream media want to cover-up the fact that thousands of professors, scientists, engineers, architects, historians, aviation experts, firemen, polititians, victim’s families are all saying the Bush/Cheney conspiracy theory is false. There is no plane to be scene at the Schanksville crash site. We were told the passengers overpowered the ‘terrorists’ which lead to a plane crash. The plane should then have been seen crushed at the crash site. Please people look at 911truth.org.
I wish I could attend these hearings; very prestigious and intelligent speakers will be presenting.
I’m a computer scientist, and simple logic tells me that the government’s account of 9/11 events are false in major ways. The evidence to support this is not quacky, it is real. I invite you to visit ae911truth.org to find out more.