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 :
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com
To find a group near you, visit:
http://www.911Truth.ca
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.
- adanac's blog
- Login to post comments
Context
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:
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.
reply
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?
http://americanbuddhist.net/node/3390
"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.
clarification
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
http://www.northtexas911truth.com/
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;
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,917298,00.html
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";
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;
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.