911Truth.ca Honour Roll: Distinguished Canadians calling for a New 9/11 Investigation.

Here are some of the All-Stars of the 9/11 Truth Movement in Canada. While the grassroots movement has grown from 2 or 3 groups in 2007 to over 25 groups in 2009, the list of scholars, scientists, intellectuals, pilots, engineers, journalists, authors, public figures, etc has also continued to grow. We present some of those whom we are aware of here.

This clip will be on our forthcoming DVD called Canadians for 9/11 Truth, featuring some of the best evidence refuting the "official story", as well as, some recorded presentations by several of the people shown in this clip. This is also in conjunction with an article we will be publishing soon about the 9/11 Truth Movement in Canada, as we approach the 8th anniversary of the 9/11 events.

The unsung heroes, however, are those in the grassroots movement, who generously devote so much time, effort, talent, and their personal resources to "Being the Media" and getting the word out to their fellow citizens. You guys rock!!

Because of you, Canada is waking up, and a new investigation IS taking place, whether the government likes it or not, and whether the corporate media wants to acknowledge it, or not.

The clips you see are from :

To find a group near you, visit:

If there is no group near you, start one! Or go out on your own and use 911Truth.ca as your homepage.

*The music track is "Inside Job" by Roy Shivers. It is open source, and includes some commentary by Alex Jones.

** we've added Connie Fogal, Splitting the Sky, Will Thomas, and Rodrigue Tremblay who are not yet listed at patriotsquestion911.com for a total of 30 individuals mentioned in this clip.

***we also added Michael J. Fox who is named on patriotsquestion911, and we presume it is the Canadian actor.


Quote from TIME:

Quinn was one of 43 men (11 guards and 32 convicts) who died as a result of the four-day riot in September 1971—most of them shot by state police when they stormed the maximum-security prison in upstate New York behind a fusillade of bullets.

Now here's what I found after looking up the incident on Wikipedia. Attica, it turns out, was somewhat like the seventies version of Guantanamo Bay:

The Attica Prison riot occurred at the Attica Correctional Facility in Attica, New York, United States in 1971. The riot was based in part upon prisoners' demands for better living conditions. At the time, inmates were given one shower per week and one roll of toilet paper per month. On September 9, 1971, responding to the death of prisoner George Jackson, a black radical prisoner who had been shot to death by corrections officers in California's San Quentin Prison on August 21 while armed and attempting to escape, about 1,000 of the prison's approximately 2,200 prisoners rioted and seized control of the prison, taking thirty-three correction officers hostage. The State began negotiating with the prisoners.

During the following four days of negotiations, authorities agreed to 28 of the prisoners' demands, but would not agree to demands for complete amnesty from criminal prosecution for the prison takeover, or for the removal of Attica's superintendent. Under order of then Governor Nelson Rockefeller, state police took back control of the prison. When the uprising was over at least 39 people were dead, including ten correction officers and civilian employees.


At approximately 8:20 A.M. on Thursday, September 9, 1971, 5 Company lined up for roll-call. Hearing rumors that one of their companions was to remain in his cell and that he was to be tortured after being isolated for an incident involving an assault with a prison officer, a small group of 5 Company prisoners protested that they, too, would be locked up, and began walking back towards their cells.


Complaints led to anger when the rookie correctional officer tried to calm the mob of prisoners. He was assaulted and the riot began.

Officer Quinn in the central control room of the tunnels tried to phone for help when he saw what was happening in the tunnel. However, he kept getting a busy signal and the mob of prisoners managed to get into the control room and beat him unconscious with the lead handle of the rotary phone. This officer would later die from injuries received at the hands of the inmates.

The inmates quickly gained control of sections, D-yard, two tunnels, and the central control room, Time Square. Inmates took forty-two officers and civilians hostage and aired a list of grievances, demanding their needs be met before their surrender. In a facility designed to hold 1,200 inmates and actually housing 2,225, theirs was a substantial list. They felt that they had been illegally denied rights and conditions to which they were entitled, illustrated by such practices as being allowed only one shower per week and one roll of toilet paper per person per month.


The situation may have been further complicated by then-Governor Nelson Rockefeller’s refusal to come to the scene of the riot and meet with the inmates, although some later evaluations of the incident would postulate that his absence from the scene actually prevented the situation from deteriorating. Negotiations broke down and Oswald told the inmates that he was unable to negotiate with them anymore and ordered that they must give themselves up. Oswald later called Governor Rockefeller and again begged him to come to the prison to calm the riot. After the governor's refusal, Oswald stated that he would order the State Police to retake the facility by force. Rockefeller agreed with Oswald's decision. This agreement would be later criticized by a commission created by Rockefeller to study the riot and the aftermath.


At 9:46 A.M. on Monday, September 13, 1971 tear gas was dropped into the yard and New York State Police state troopers opened fire nonstop for two minutes into the smoke. Among the weapons used by the troopers were shotguns, which led to the wounding and killing of hostages and inmates who were not resisting. Former prison officers were allowed to participate, a decision later called "inexcusable" by the commission established by Rockefeller to study the riot and the aftermath. By the time the facility was retaken, nine hostages and twenty-eight inmates had been killed.

The final death toll from the riot also included the officer fatally injured at the start of the riot and four inmates killed when "inmate justice" was administered. Nine hostages died from gunfire by state troopers and soldiers. The New York State Special Commission on Attica wrote, "With the exception of Indian massacres in the late 19th century, the State Police assault which ended the four-day prison uprising was the bloodiest one-day encounter between Americans since the Civil War."

After the riot, nothing was done to prevent reprisals by troopers and prison officers. Inmates were made to strip, crawl through the mud, and then some were made to run naked between lines of enraged officers, who beat the inmates. Several days after the riot's end, prison doctors reported evidence of more beatings. The commission established by Rockefeller to study the riot and the aftermath accused state officials of allowing rumors to spread, and of unjustifiable delay in denying the false report that one hostage had been castrated and that others had their throats fatally slashed.

Media reports claimed that inmate hostage-takers slit the throats of many of their hostages, reports that contradicted official medical evidence. Newspaper headlines made statements such as "I Saw Slit Throats," implying that prisoners had cut the hostages' throats when the armed raid occurred. These "reports" were later found to be deliberately fictitious. (!!!)


Many people attribute the riot to the racial issues inside of the prison at the time. Of 2,225 inmates, 54% of the inmates were African American and 9% Puerto Rican; however, all of the 383 correctional officers were white. From reports on the prison conditions, some corrections officers were openly racist and assaulted the prisoners with their batons, which they dubbed "Nigger Sticks." During this time period "black militancy" was at its peak and several prisons had their black militants transferred to Attica. Additionally, George Jackson, a member of the Black Panther Party, died at the hands of white prison officers only a few days before the riot in the San Quentin State Prison in California, and Winston Moseley, Catherine Genovese's murderer, participated in the riot, adding to the racial tension. The aftermath of the riot called for prison reform, especially in the treatment of minority inmates who were becoming a majority in several state correctional facilities across America.

Additionally, Muslims were allegedly targeted by the officers for torture and punishment. It was believed that a group of Muslims were responsible for the uprising and the harm of the hostages, when in fact the group of Muslims were protecting the hostages from other inmates. The leader of the Muslims even told the other inmates that if any of the inmates tried to hurt the hostages, "to kill them [the inmates] or die protecting the hostages."


A number of former Muslim inmates testified that they had been singled out for "special" brutal treatment by troopers and corrections officers because they had played an active role in protecting the hostages during the four days before the retaking. Because a number of militant inmates were prepared to do harm to the hostages, Frank "Black" Smith, in conjunction with the Muslim leadership, implemented a plan to secure the safety of the hostages during negotiations.

This view was corroborated by Michael Smith, age 51, a former corrections officer


He never lost consciousness as he laid on the catwalk until a trooper stood over him pointing a shotgun at his head. He was certain that he was going to be killed. A corrections officer saw what was going on and yelled to the trooper, "he is one of us" and then the trooper focused his attention on Don Noble who was still alive. Michael Smith yelled to the trooper, "he saved my life" and the trooper spared Noble.

Funny how the authors of this article refer to "the commission created/established by Rockefeller" three times. Didn't the commission have a name, or is Wikipedia trying to wash the blood from Rockefeller's hands?

Try to imagine how it feels to be locked up in a racist torture hole....if I hadn't looked this up, I would have never known.

Seek clarification re: Graeme MacQueen's thoughts

In an article on the Americanbuddhist website Graeme MacQueen wrote:

" I've moved through these three stages, as I think many people have. For some time I assumed the first option (official story) was probably true, although I was not impressed by the evidence for it and was aware of anomalies; then I moved fairly quickly to think LIHOP was probably closer to the truth. It's only in the past year that I've decided MIHOP fits the facts as we know them best."

Dr. MacQueen concluded with: " So I seem to have come to accept that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda probably carried out the attacks, even though some of the evidence presented to us, such as the absurd "smoking gun" video found in late 2001 Afghanistan, seemed to me clearly fake.."

I hope Dr. MacQueen will clarify the seeming contradiction in these two quotes.

Thank you Dr. MacQueen for your all your work.


Hmmm. I didn't think there was anything ambiguous about my statement in this interview. I was talking about the past and the stages I'd moved through up until 2005, at which time I rejected the OBL hypothesis and concluded 9/11 was an inside job.

Congratulations to the maker of the video; I'm honoured to be included.

Am I misreading the last sentence in the last paragraph?


"I suppose this is a rather long-winded answer to why I was interested in 9/11 initially. In the years since then I had tried to keep an open mind about who may have carried out the deed—for example, I read some of Barry Zwicker’s work on this, having respected his work in Canada for many years—but as I look over the various talks I’ve given in the years since 9/11 I see a bit of intellectual laziness creeping in. It’s like: I don’t have the time and energy to devote to this issue and in any case it’s probably a labyrinth in which a person could get lost for their whole lifetime, expending good energy that ought to be used working for peace and justice. So I seem to have come to accept that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda probably carried out the attacks, even though some of the evidence presented to us, such as the absurd "smoking gun" video found in late 2001 Afghanistan, seemed to me clearly fake."

Dr. MacQueen - Upon re-reading the above, I think the operative word in the last sentence is "seem." I think you are saying that in looking over some of your past talks you can see that you may have given the impression that you have come to accept that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda probably carried out the attacks. Is this the correct interpretation? If so, it is too bad the interview closed with something that could be easily misunderstood.

I have the greatest respect for you and your work. I find your demeanor in your talks to be excellent as well as the content. It is because I hold you in such high regard, that I am troubled by the final sentence in the interview. I wonder if others find this last sentence confusing. If so, you might want to clarify it to the readership of the American Buddhist. It would be a terrible shame if even one person went away from reading that last sentence with an incorrect impression.


Well, you are misreading the statement, but I guess it's not your fault. It's a bit unclear as it stands. As I recall, this part was originally at the beginning of the interview and the editor decided to move it to the end. What I'm trying to say is that after 9/11 I was initially open-minded as to who could have carried out the act; then I became (like most people, I think) intellectually lazy and came to accept that OBL did it. It's a retrospective: I'm looking back, reading the speeches I gave between 2001 and 2005, before I started doing serious research on 9/11. If you think there are others out there who share your reading of this, please let me know. No one's ever expressed this confusion to me before.

Thank you for clarifying

"As I recall, this part was originally at the beginning of the interview and the editor decided to move it to the end."

Why the editor would move this statement to the end, thus throwing things out of order, is known only to him or her. The fact that the article was somewhat about the evolution of your thinking would necessitate (it would seem to me) being faithful to the order in which the interview actually occurred.

Changing the order of paragraphs in an interview is less blatant than changing the order of sentences. And changing the order of sentences is less blatant than changing the order of words. And changing the order of words is less blatant than changing the order of letters.

But ANY changes to the order of a person's communication does violence to the communication.

But for the fact that you are such a high-visibility and highly-esteemed scholar, I would just drop this.

I expect a bunch of minuses for harping on what may seem insignifcant, but I do sincerely feel that the editor has done violence to your interview (although I make no judgments concerning his/her reason for doing so - or even if he or she was aware that he or she was doing violence).

I am not a Buddhist scholar, but I believe that Buddhism is about clarity of consciousness. That being the case, perhaps the editor might want to issue a clarifying sentence. Even though the article is old, one never knows who will read it or how they will be affected.

Nam Myho Renge Kyo (I have no idea what tradition this comes from. I just remember it from somewhere in the labyrinth of my memory. For those who are unfamiliar with it - I don't know the literal meaning, but I think that the gist is that it is a mantra for dispelling evil on all levels of consciousness - so it can't hurt to say it)

I love seeing this Canadian pride in 9/11 Truth !!

Canada rocks! Keep broadcasting those actions and those stats!

North Texans for 9/11 Truth

Spreading Tool.

It would be cool to make a compilation similar to this of the celebrities and scholars in America that question the governments version of 9/11. From Willie Nelson to Richard Gage. A quick caption or description on each one with a good soundtrack etc. Could possibly be a positive and powerful tool for spreading this information to those that are still doubters. Peace and great work and example.

Comments closed.

Comments for this thread are closed, while the moderation team reviews claims and counterclaims about the history of John Boncore, aka Splitting the Sky, aka John Hill.

Regarding the accusation of "murderer" directed at STS.

Last week 911blogger.com user Richard Brinkman referred to 9/11 activist Splitting the Sky (aka John Hill, John Boncore) as a murderer in a comment that has since been removed from this thread, along with the associated replies.

Brinkman linked to this article, from 1975, to back his characterization;

However, after STS was convicted in 1975, an appeal of his case was initially prepared by William Kuntsler, and then the appeal was handed off to Ramsey Clark and ACLU lawyer, Ed Koren. They presented their case to the court of appeals, but on the day when STS was supposed to appear before the court, his legal counsel could not locate him.

William Kuntsler writes of this in his autobiography, "My Life as a Radical Lawyer";

"They both put in a tremendous amount of work... They argued the case before the court of appeals, and the argument went very well. When [STS] was scheduled to appear in court, we had no idea where he was.

According to New York law, if a defendant fails to appear, he loses his right to appeal, so the courts decision was never written. Not long after, Ramsey was in an elevator at the court of appeals building in Albany on another matter when one of the judges said to him, "You know, you would have won that case."

I was enormously upset and and disappointed because the court of appeals decision would have shown the essential unfairness of the murder trial. And, most important, it would have cleared Johnny's record - unless, he was tried again and convicted, which was extremely unlikely. To me it was terribly unfortunate that the aborted decision overturning the conviction of John Hill for the murder of Officer Quinn was never made public."

Further, due to the activism of lawyer Malcolm Bell, a commission was set up to review the convictions, and more importantly, lack of convictions of any of the men, who under the orders of then Governor Nelson Rockefeller, opened fire on the Attica hostages and inmates, killing dozens, in a barrage of bullets and teargas.

The first commission to review Bell's claims was the Bernard Shaw Commission or Shaw commission. Upon receipt of the commission's report, then Governor Hugh Carey sealed the books on Attica, granted amnesty from prosecution to any of the shooters who killed multiple hostages and inmates, dismissed all pending indictments against Attica rioters still waiting trial, and granted an executive clemency to Splitting the Sky.

Following the Shaw commission were a string of others. They are referenced by Bell in this letter to Governor Pataki, in 2003, asking him to un-seal the Attica files;

"No matter how you view the events of September 1971, it is beyond dispute that the people and State of New York are deeply indebted to these people. For it is beyond dispute that State law officers shot ten hostages dead and shot and seriously wounded several other hostages, and that Officer Quinn was also killed in the line of duty to the State.

These facts are true if you take the view, consistent with the findings of McKay Commission, the Meyer Commission, Special Prosecutor Alfred Scotti, and myself, that State law officers were wanton, reckless, and in some cases murderous with their shotguns, rifles, and pistols when they shot these hostages. These facts are equally true if you believe Governor Rockefeller when he claimed that the troopers did “a superb job.” Under either version, it is and always has been beyond dispute that the State sacrificed the hostages as the price of getting its prison back."

Clemency does not clear your record, however, it is clear that Kuntsler, Clark and Koren tried to have the slate wiped clean for STS, and it's clear that they felt that they had a very strong case to clear STS of the charge of murder.

With the Attica files sealed, it's difficult to source this information. What I have typed above, (excluding Bell's letter), is derived from STS' autobiography, pp 20-47.

These pages were scanned and sent to me by the initiator of this thread, adanac, at my request.

To my knowledge, STS has not been involved in a murder following his 1975 conviction, for which he was granted clemency, and for which he has consistently proclaimed his innocence. To refer to a past conviction is one thing, but to drag it out an event that occurred 30+ years ago without acknowledging the events that followed in the meantime is egregious and unfair.

While conducting this research, Brinkman wrote to me and asked for his account to be closed. Because of Brinkman's conduct here, this is a very good idea and his account here is now closed.