2011 Toronto 9/11 Hearings.(Full Length Video)

I searched high and low and could not find any of the videos already posted. All I could find was a few threads talking about the upcoming hearings from back in 2011. I am surprised nobody has posted this yet. I found these hearings extremely informative. I can no longer believe the OS after watching these and I can't understand why so many adamantly advocate the OS and the 9/11 commission report. So if you have time and are interested here is the full length recording of the hearings. I know it is five hours long so you have to be in for the long haul on this one. Has anyone else seen this yet? If so what did you think?

reply to post by usmc0311


I haven't seen this yet, and frankly 5 hours is a bit long. I'm interested in your change of opinion after watching this video though. Does it contain an advocate for the 'official story' or anyone to represent it in any way?

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by usmc0311

 

I haven't seen this yet, and frankly 5 hours is a bit long. I'm interested in your change of opinion after watching this video though. Does it contain an advocate for the 'official story' or anyone to represent it in any way?

I've never fully believed the OS but these are what sealed the deal for me. They break down each part and present it to a panel of some very intelligent individuals. It basically covers every part of the events that day. I also believe they have a psychiatrist speak about why so many people could have been duped and the ways that the government played the people. They do discuss the 9/11 comission report and the OS quite a bit. I felt they were very fair hearings and very informative.

reply to post by usmc0311


I appreciate your reply, but you didn't answer my question. You say they dissect every part of 911, but at any point is there a single person or a group of people who advocate on the part of the 'official story'?

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by usmc0311

 

I appreciate your reply, but you didn't answer my question. You say they dissect every part of 911, but at any point is there a single person or a group of people who advocate on the part of the 'official story'?

I don't recall any direct OS supporters but I do not know the beliefs of the pannelists before the hearings either. It has been a while since I watched the them all. I am watching it now so I will let you know if any come up. I hope that answers your question clearly enough.

reply to post by usmc0311


It does thank you. I'm just concerned that it's another situation where all the information is presented by one side and they then tout a conversion of someone as a victory. I'll try and find some time to watch it but 5 hours is really pushing it!

Cheers.

reply to post by exponent


It is really worth watching. The whole idea behind it was to present credible evidence to push for a new official investigation. Very interesting stuff.

These hearings were nothing more than a conspiracy convention.
Ask yourself:
Why were these held in a different country? What does Canada have to with the inner workings of the US?
Why did they NOT have people directly involved with 911 in these 'hearings'?
How did they refute eye witnesses? Did they even have any eye witnesses at these 'hearings'?
Did they have any 'court worthy' evidence? Or was it speculation?
Who made money from these 'hearings'?

Think witch hunt to make a buck.

Originally posted by samkent
These hearings were nothing more than a conspiracy convention.
Ask yourself:
Why were these held in a different country? What does Canada have to with the inner workings of the US?
Why did they NOT have people directly involved with 911 in these 'hearings'?
How did they refute eye witnesses? Did they even have any eye witnesses at these 'hearings'?
Did they have any 'court worthy' evidence? Or was it speculation?
Who made money from these 'hearings'?

Think witch hunt to make a buck.

To me it does not matter where the hearings were held. It is the information that is important to me.They had quite a few eyewitnesses involved in these hearings. Have you watched them? I and many others believe that much of the evidence reported was very court worthy. The whole idea behind these conventions was to gather support for a new official investigation into the terrorist attacks. I personally don't care if anyone made money from it. It is available free on the internet so I had to pay nothing to view them.

This REFERENCES post
in my thread titled
FDR Analysis by DENNIS CIMINO, FDR-EXPERT at the Vancouver, B.C. Hearing, on June 17, 2012.
offers a few interesting links to the most recent Vancouver Hearings, the ones from 2012.
They were not held in Toronto, so I'm not sure if it's the same group or organizers, but it seems so.

The thread itself concentrates on the lecture Dennis Cimino gave there.

This is a link to the June 2012 Vancouver Hearings website, where you can find a plethora of sub-links to speakers and their lectures there.

And this is the website of Donald Fox, with many lectures from Vancouver Hearings speakers, not only as YouTube's but as text files too.
This is an excerpt of its front page text :

There are a half-dozen or more theories about how the Twin Towers were destroyed, where, as The Vancouver Hearings have established, the “official account”–that the buildings collapsed, due to the intense heat of the jet-fuel based fires, which caused the steel to lose its strength and lead to a cascade of floors falling upon one another– is the least defensible and most effortlessly refuted of them all.

It has cost me the last two months to read all material from those 2012 Hearings, and the articles on the Veterans Today website, which were also highly informative.

There is an awful lot of new and old info to discuss, so "let's roll" with your posts.

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by usmc0311

 

I appreciate your reply, but you didn't answer my question. You say they dissect every part of 911, but at any point is there a single person or a group of people who advocate on the part of the 'official story'?

Exponent, you are clearly an intelligent and rather civil opponent.
I do agree with you wholeheartedly that it's a strange given, that organizers of 9/11 gatherings do not invite advocates of the official (NIST) story.

Having chewed on this for a while, the best solution to begin with in this rather special 9/11 ATS forum, that is slowly deteriorating again into a bickering contest by now, would be to split it up in two much more life-worthy sub-forums.

Pro USA factions-instigated 9/11-conspiracy. (Thus Contra the below one.) I.o.w., The True-History seekers.
Pro Radicals-instigated 9/11-conspiracy. (Thus Contra the above one.) I.o.w., The Officials Believers.

Simply said ;
The PRO 9/11 forum : There's a 9/11 Conspiracy !
The CONTRA forum : There's no 9/11 Conspiracy !

In that case, you loose all the bickering back and forth in each 9/11 forum thread nowadays.
And it will be as easy as in a Kindergarten infant class, to keep the peace in each sub-forum.

Put the known pro conspiracy moderators in the contra conspiracy forum.
And the known contra conspiracy moderators in the pro conspiracy forum.

I would exclude all mods with a military background from both conspiracy forums. They have a tad bit more patriotic feelings implemented as a result of their training in the military, than the civilian ones. And tend to take sides on the wrong feelings and arguments. No offense guys and galls, but you have to classify a hawk as a bird of pray, and not as a dove.

Anyone posting in ONE forum automatically adheres from that time on, to that forum its basic stance.
Moderators remove posts that are clearly posted in the wrong forum, and repost them in the right forum. Pro or Contra.

And you will slowly or quickly see, that in each forum the threads from the other forum will be addressed, and vice versa in a fluent manner, without causing the recent unreadable, pages-long bickering contests.
And, both sides of the divide will feel comfortable and protected by their peers in their own forum. Where they will be at "home", at last.

At last, fluent and cohesive threads again. To the point and addressing the opponent's arguments, which were read in the other forum and tagged as such, with their post numbers. (f.ex.: "see PRO-post nr. 3456. It's crystal clear that his argument is wrong etc.")

To assist easy reading and fast comparing of all arguments, Rule nr 1 would be that the first posted thread has the "copyright" on the thread title. Thus, the other forum members, willing to address that thread, have to start a thread in their forum, with the same title, and a fat "CONTRA : " at the start of that title.

If the management here at ATS expresses their unwillingness to contemplate on this idea, it would be quite a good idea for f.ex. you, with your IT experience, to create such an off-shoot of the ATS 9/11 forum on an "outsourced" created web site. A Dutch based one f.ex.?

Who likes such an idea?

If ATS likes it, that would be by far my first choice, I feel settled here for a long time already. And all the "infrastructure" is already in place. (please bring it to the attention of the Staff here, a.s.a.p.)

After some time, when it would evolve into an idea that is a life-worthy one, ATS could take that expanding forum back in, and make the old mono-cultural 9/11 forum a Read-only forum, so nothing is lost and still researchable.

A kind of 9/11 genetic experiment "On the Origin Of Our Sub-Species", the Pro- and Contra 9/11 Conspirators.

reply to post by usmc0311


usmco311, I'm viewing the video now, and will try to give a compressed review of those 5 hrs afterwards.
One man I like to hear is David Chandler, while Mr Cole is also a must-see for me. And a few others too, I'll keep you informed.

reply to post by LaBTop


First 2 and a half hours :
Review of the opening post's 5 hrs 15 minutes long highly interesting video.
To start with, these are all academically schooled elderly men and women. They are at the top of the knowledge chain, do not underestimate their skills and commitment.

0:00 - 0:30 Various introductions.
0:30 - 0:43:10 One of the "Jersey Girls" tells how their plea for an independent investigation of 9/11 was hampered by Dick Cheney. And how at last at a meeting where all politicians involved were present, while the press was waiting outside, the girls got their investigation after they threatened to not leave that room until they got one. At first Henry Kissinger was introduced as chairman of that new commission. The girls found out that he had some of the Bin Ladens as his law firm's clients. She asked him at a meeting at his office why he wouldn't want to make his list of clients public, then asked him if he had any Saudi's on his list, or any Bin Ladens. He spilled his coffee and nearly fell off the couch, she said. The next morning Kissinger resigned as the head of the committee.
Tom Kaine became then head of the 9/11 Commission. The director became Philip Zelikow.
The next two years the girls had to battle the Congress, the White House and the Commission, as watchdogs of that 9/11 Commission. Zelikow ran the show and he decided who to hear.
She is a very articulate and brave woman, and defends her cause very well, you should listen to her full 13 minutes, how they were countered by Washington and Cheney and Zelikow especially.
0:43 - 0:56 Lecture on perception of crimes of the State. SCAD's. The abuse syndrome of the citizens. Concept of conspiracies. Embracing of coincidence theory, everything is bad luck. Secrecy. List of unsolved state terrors. Watergate, Kennedy murders, Assassinations at home and abroad, Iran Contra, Iraq Gate, OKC, WTC 93, 9/11, Antrax Letters, clustered state crimes by the same conspirators, etc.
0:56 - 1:10 David Ray Griffin : Anomalies in the 911 Commission Report.
Five signs that the Bush-Cheney cabal did not want 9/11 investigated.
The hijackers stories.Cocaine use, strippers.Identity switches.PENAC, war with Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld Secr. of Defense, Richard Meyer, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 911 Commission is untrustworthy.
1:10 - 1:40 Inadequacies of the NIST Reports by Kevin Ryan.
Temperatures not high enough to melt steel. Loring Knoblaugh, CEO of Underwriter Laboratories Inc. wrote Kevin :
We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on, and it did beautifully.
As we do not follow-up service on this kind of product, we can give an opinion only on the test sample which was indeed properly coated.
We test to the code requirements, and the steel clearly met those requirements and exceeded them. Then you see the NYC code requirements typed out.
He still says that the buildings came down essentially in free fall speed.
(That is BLATANTLY UNTRUE, as I proved years ago already here at ATS, with the video that was backwards shot by a fleeing BBC camera man, where you can count the seconds before that first debris hits the ground (12 seconds) and then HALF of the building still stood erect as clearly can be seen in that video, so 24 seconds is more realistic for the whole Tower collapse time.)
First and second law of motion. Pancake theory. Not supported by NIST and not viable.
NIST never investigated explosives. All 5 test by NIST itself did not support NIST's own explanation of the collapses. Towers could loose 25 % of their columns and still stand, NIST now says that only 15 % were damaged or severed.
1:40 - 1:47 David Ray Grifffin? (think I fell asleep for a few moments.Old). Insulation of steel. Insider Trading. Put Option Trading.
1:47 - 2:00 Barbara Honegger. Eyewitnesses and Evidence of Explosions at the Pentagon.
Team 8 report on non-response of NORAD. Shaped charged explosives formed C-Ring hole.
Three exit holes in the C-Ring (no, only one and two open doors with smoke smears above them). April Gallop statements of no jet fuel, no plane parts. Navy man says Naval Command Center exploded in a huge orange fire ball. Multiple witnesses smelled cordite, not jet fuel.
Two DoD security boot camera videos of impact, released at the Moussasoui trial in 2006.
2:00 - 2:08 Jay Kolar. The alleged 9/11 Hijackers.
Passenger airline list hijackers names changed in the first days by FBI.
Atta showing up on Portland connecting flight, standard video that has security data on it, the Dulles Airport video with Atta is devoid of security data. Every other screening video in the country has security data on it, only not the one with Atta from Dulles on 9/11.
Two hijackers turned up definitely alive after 9/11. And were certainly the ones on the FBI search list with correct passport numbers etc, only they are still alive and well.

2:08 - 2:32 Richard Gage, A&Efor911Truth. Evidence of the Demolition of WTC : An Overview. Controlled demolition hypothesis, the scientific method, an open system, not as the official system. Fire is chaotic with chaotic results, a-symmetrical. Large deformations. Burns out floors in about 20 minutes, then seeks new combustible materials.
A few long burning other hi-rises that did not collapse. No pulverized concrete. Witnesses heard explosions, saw flashes. Examples of demolitioned buildings. At nearly free fall speeds.
Characteristic features of demolitions. Fire can not create all of them. WTC 7 collapse videos.
Dan Rather comment. Side by side comparison of WTC 7 and known demolition.
NIST's computer simulation stops after 2 seconds, because the simulation starts to topple over. They show massive failures inside the building without breaking windows as we saw in reality. Expanding hot gaseous clouds. Much hotter than the few visible fires just before collapse of WTC 7. FEMA : best hypothesis: fire has a low possibility of occurring.
No forensic investigation of structural elements allowed for WTC 7.
There was more steel on all four sides of the Twin Towers, than window spaces. That steel had all to be forced down. Top of North Tower was pulverized before being able to act as a pile driver to demolish the rest of the Tower. Video of collapse of Tower shows clearly horizontal rings of explosions around the facades, under the already exploding upper floors. South Tower asymmetrical loading of the top part., then symmetrical collapse.

2:32 - 2:41 Michel Chossudovsky. Global Consequences of 9/11.
US military doctrines. War of Conquest camouflaged as War on Terror. War cabinet was formed in the afternoon of 9/11. Afghanistan was declared the state sponsor, Al Qaida was behind these attacks. The following morning when no one knew who done it, in Brussels the Atlantic Alliance (NATO) met and stated that an attack on one of his members meant an attack on all. NATO declared war after three days on Afghanistan. Taliban were the government of Afghanistan. Taliban offered two times to hand over Bin Laden if there was evidence of Bin Laden planning 9/11, and was denied. Planning took several months to prepare this war of that size. The war on Afghanistan was well before 9/11 in the pipeline.
Mass mobilization of citizens all over the world to stand behind this operation to hit back.
Al Qaida was an asset of the CIA. Bin Laden went against us, says CIA. CIA were the sponsors of Al Qaida to destabilize the Russians in Afghanistan during the cold war. Al Qaida continues to this day to be an asset of the CIA. We see them everywhere to this day.
CIA MI6 Mossad steer Al Qaida. War of destruction, we are on a crossroad in history.
Fear and intimidation, pretext to wage war. Patriot legislation, etc.
2:41 - 2:44 Cynthia McKinney. Attempts to Raise Questions about 9/11.
We ain't free, so the talking points were constructed for another reason. Influence Congressmen and women.

2:44 - 3:04 Graeme MacQueen. Eyewitness Evidence of Explosions at WTC.
Surely somebody would have seen or felt them. A brief overview. 3 convictions that day :
1.Towers came down because of explosions.
2. There is substantial eyewitness evidence to support it.
3. It's been ignored and suppressed by 9/11 Commission and NIST.
First video filming the first Collapse of Tower. Explosion and blast as description by reporter filming it. Second video from far away, this other filmer of first collapse shouts "that's a F+##in BOMB ! "
On that day the main feeling was that it was bombs that did it. More bomb theories. Jules and Gedeon Naudet 9/11 film piece. North tower looked like a demolition, floor by floor it was popping out, boom boom boom. Paul Lemos 2:55 : All of a sudden I looked up and saw about 20 stories below the fire, explosions, boom boom boom boom etc. and this went down (LT: I never saw this clip! He is VERY emotional, he SAW those explosions! This one is worth all the 7 hours I spend on this review!). Authorities later brought him an architect who clearly had orders to convince him that what he saw and heard were not explosions.................
Watch these 20 minutes from Graeme FIRST.!

Published on Sep 7, 2012 :
9/11 The Toronto Hearings - 2011/12 (New Release - Full Length) 5:14:32.
www.youtube.com...
9/11 Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out (Full Length) 2:15:21.
www.youtube.com...
9/11 Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out, 63 min.version (new documentary 2012)www.youtube.com...

3:04 - 3:27:38 David Chandler. WTC 7: A Refutation of the Official Account.

What a damn BEAUTIFUL lecture !

Exponent, when you have viewed this 23.5 minutes lecture by this master-teacher, I like to hear your reaction. You know very well, you, just as any scientist, have to obey to true investigative rules :
When there is no refutation possible, you have to accept the truth.

I hope you are not going to wriggle out from under this INDISPUTABLE evidence that WTC 7 was RIGGED.

About 8 floors were rigged, and blown to smithereens, to make room for those 2.5 seconds of free fall of the whole upper building part.

Any advocate of the official theory has to admit after viewing this wonderful lecture by this gifted man, that they were dead wrong in believing a bunch of docile followers of academical greed. NIST.
There can't be any other conclusion, Sunder and his colleagues from NIST must know by now, very sure, that they bow for the MAMMON.

These men have no backbone ! Spineless researchers, willing to falsify their own results.

Cutter Charges in the North Tower of the World Trade Center Uploaded on Feb 12, 2010.
www.youtube.com...

Small explosive ejections focused on a corner column of WTC1 (The North Tower of the World Trade Center) are evidence of cutter charges used to cut the corner columns. One of these occurs at the 98th floor at the onset of the demolition of the building. The other occurs lower in the building at the instant the column enters free fall.

My (David Chandler) new DVD: "9/11 Analysis" is now out. Go to www.911speakout.org... .

I see many more, longer stretched out puffs appear, when the demolition front rows of smoke emissions per floor, rush down. Just under those rows of smoke circling the facades, it's so obvious, I can't understand that for all other watchers, this isn't totally clear evidence of planted charges.

As soon as you mention Kevin Ryan, David Ray Griffin and April Gallop, I know it is not worth my time to watch. Supposition and conjecture is NOT evidence. Nor is the out and out lies that they have been caught telling again and again.

3:27 -3:51 Jonathan Cole. The Official Account And The Experimental Method.
How did the Twin Towers fall? The Washington Post, News Week and other national newspapers wrote the next day already that the burning jet fuel had caused the Towers to collapse. It also melted the steel they reported, without any investigation on its way yet.
Office fires and jet fuel can not melt steel, but there was melted steel beams (photo).
Failing pancaking theory in the first year. Progressive collapse (pancaking).
New Zealand pancake after quake, WTC no pancake, only dust and debris.
WTC corners in video still standing while sides already broke out.NIST came along, fall 2005.
NIST: Column failure theory. Were unable to describe the full collapses.
Example videos of blown up buildings who failed to come down as expected.
Thermite theory. Could not melt a steel column said Nat Geographic, Myth-busters. And massive amounts would be needed. Mr. Cole started to experiment with steel and thermate.
Videos of it.Tiles attached sideways with thermate did not work. He then made steel box tubes to hold the thermate in, the thermatic box-cutter. That cut steel, so he made a larger one, on both sides, and it cut the beam perfectly. Then he cut vertical columns, video.
Videos of thermatic explosions, bolds melting and cutting, bold-head cutting with thermate.
He made copies of the WTC external columns and cut them, videos.
"In these days, a man who says a thing cannot be done is quite apt to be interrupted by some idiot doing it." Elbert Green Hubbard.
"All arguments from Authority are unacceptable", said Carl Sagan.
3:51 - 4:07 Kevin Ryan. Extreme Temperatures at three WTC's..
Two papers discussed written by Jones, Ryan and others. Molten steel found in the rubble.
Photo's of molten steel and molten aluminum. Red orange and silvery gray.
Chain of custody forms for collecting their dust samples. Microspheres are formed by molten metals. Photo of the "meteorite". Thermal hot spots photo's.Red/gray chips. Dust cloud was very hot, burned some people when passing them.
4:07 - 4:23 Niels Harrit. Incendiary/Explosive Residue in the WTC Dust.
Dust+magnet attracts black iron spheres. Paper publicized. Nano thermite. Pictures.
Explosive materials explanation. Nano thermite packs more energy per volume then normal explosives. Niels shows a collapse video, which changed his mind. Many smoke trails.
First responders with lung problems. Carbon nano tubes found in their lungs.
And also in the beaker with ignited thermate by Ryan.
4:23 - 4:42 David Ray Griffin. Anomalies of Flights 77 and 93.
NORAD times changed over three years. FAA did not notify the military. Military got off the hook for this fake reason. More already long time known stories. (ehh, to me)
United 93 discussion. General Arnold said that the FAA very aggressively reported UA 93 to them. While the 9/11 Commission said that the FAA never contacted the military.
Shoot down of it or not. Two crash sites, one six miles away.

4:42 - 4:54 Peter Dale Scott. 9/11 & Deep State Politics.
There's now a deep felt consensus, even in the staff of the 911 Commission, that there is something very wrong with the 9/11 Story. CIA withheld information on Bin Laden to the FBI.
Hijackers were protected by NSA and CIA, they acted so stupid that they would else have been detected long before 9/11.
First WTC bombing 1993. FBI had Egyptian informant inside the terrorist. 1998 bombing US embassy in Nairobi, Kenya.
4:54 - 5:05 Laurie Manwell. SCADs and Psychological resistance to Alternative Accounts.
Silence is Betrayal. The betrayal of Truth. State crimes against democracy, SCAD.
Free society to a police state. Consequences of the "Warm-Cold" effect. Media can frame a candidate as warm or cold, without no factual basis. False beliefs. We must educate ourselves about how the government tries to manipulate us.
5:05 - 5:10 Mike Gravel. State Deception in the Past and Today.
Former U.S. Senator & 2008 Presidential Candidate.
People must be full partners of their representatives. He basically says that the US government has always cheated her voters, and always killed covertly, also killing the 3000 on 9/11would not be beyond them. They always cheated to get elected, why would they not cheat again?
Quite an honest politician! Because he's old and doesn't give a ... anymore, supposedly.
The people must be the policy makers, and then they are the senior partners.
He was following 9/11 for three days, and he knew that THE FIX WAS IN, he knew it because he was following the military-industrial complex and fighting them for the last forty years.

911 generated THREE wars....Afghanistan, Iraq, and the War on Terror, which will infinitely finance the mil.-ind. complex.
Freedom is participation in Power, said Cicero. If you do not participate in making laws, none of you have ever participated in election to office. He participated in power, and what he saw is terrible.
5:10 - 5:14 Bob McIlvaine filmed at Ground Zero August 10, 2011.
His son died at the North Tower on 9/11/2001. He started to work at Merill Lynch just 6 weeks before 9/11. He became mad when he heard the 911 Commission's 5 minute questioning of Condoleeca Rice about the August 8th meeting at the White House about the threat of Osama Bin Laden.
He thinks she basically told a bunch of nonsense, and after that, everyone was shaking hands with her. He has been mad every day since.