Support 911Blogger


Tenth Anniversary Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001

On the 10th anniversary of 9/11, the International Center for 9/11 Studies will sponsor four days of citizen hearings at Ryerson University in the city of Toronto, Canada. These international hearings will be commonly referred to as the Toronto Hearings and more information can be found at http://torontohearings.org/ .

The objectives of the hearings are as follows:

1. To present evidence that the U.S. government’s official investigation into the events of September 11, 2001, as pursued by various government and government-appointed agencies, is seriously flawed and has failed to describe and account for the 9/11 events.

2. To single out the most weighty evidence of the inadequacy of the U.S. government’s investigation; to organize and classify that evidence; to preserve that evidence; to make that evidence widely known to the public and to governmental, non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations.

3. To submit a record and a summary of the Hearings, together with signed Statutory Declarations by witnesses, to relevant governments, groups and international agencies with the request that a full and impartial investigation be launched into the events of September 11, 2001, which have been used to initiate military invasions and to restrict the rights of citizens.

4. To engage the attention of the public and media through witness testimony as well as through public talks and media events during the four day event.

For more information, contact the steering committee at http://torontohearings.org/about/ .

Please support a participant in the Toronto Hearings by making a donation to pay for their travel and accommodations.

excellent idea

We need to get some international action on this.
Great, Kevin. Very exciting.

Awesome.

Perfect.

We can do anything, we can change the whole frame of reference, armed with nothing but the truth and reality.

Money

The Chip In is a good idea, but I think we also ought to be targeting weathy americans, for donations, to the cause of historical truth and justice, they would understand once they recieve the information, precisely what's at stake, and thus they would give, abundantly, heck some old lady would bequeath her entire estate to our cause, if we had the right not-for-profit, as a central fund raising mechanism. Together, with all who support the cause and in every way and manner, we could alter the entire historical landscape in favor of a much much better world and a much much brighter future for one and all.

There is hope, if we would only put our minds together, and just do it, run for office, infliltrate every sphere of modern culture, until the truth has saturated one whole generation, if not the "experiencing generation" (to quote the notorious Philip Zelikow) then the the very next one, looking back, in hindsight, through the ever present rear view mirror of near 20/20 historical hindsight (we still have the videos of the twin towers' destruction in perpetuity)

Can't not happen, in the final analysis, this historical end game relative to the truth and the reality of what actually occured.

And the mere absence of those buildings, given the way they FELL, it forever begs the question - what really happened there? - did the buildings just "collapse"? Or must they have been blown up with explosives in a top down highly controlled, high precision military demolition.

In this way, the current president Obama, has attempted to place himself and history, outside of the realm of simply what can and cannot be believed, it's absurd - how stupid do they really think EVERYONE is..? In fact, they are counting on EVERYONE's stupidy, to keep pulling the wool over everyone's eyes, which is why so many were "unsettled" in some way or at some level over the kiling of Bin Laden (without "closure"), everyone knows, at some level that the whole 911 FIASCO was a terrible and monstrous DUPE or ruse AGAINST the average american citizen - and it represents, therefore, the very height of incivility, or simply put, barbarism, and the people celebrate, the lie a mere historical "membrane" away (what the higher mind cannot accept?), depending on what one has considered carefully after weighing this entire chapter of historic insanity, now supposedly rendered "credible" now that Osama Bin Laden has been killed - how absurd, and insidiously ingenius such a scheme, every bit of it built upon a lie to no end. Real long term history and social consciousness, cannot remain forever in a state of ignorance, at some point you can no longer fool all the people all the time, doesn't work that way - they ought to know this and understand it, and so therefore the REAL threat of future terrorism, actually eminates from "THEM", from within, from within our own government (and shadow government) and "social matrix" of mainstream projected reality via media channels like CNN, Fox News etc. (Operation Mockingbird funneled reality).

The lie? - that the twin towers of the world trade center "collapsed" in a "compaction", to within three seconds of absolute free fall for any freely dropped object, IN AIR, from the same height, on September 11th, 2001. This did not occur and could not have, and most apparently the buildings were NOT destroyed in that manner. No. They were blown up - it's self evident truth.

This is crazy. I am NOT Winstin Smith and this is NOT 1984!

We will WIN this info war - can't not, when you have simple hard phsyical reality and truth on your side. And it's plain as day, in your face, and in plain sight before the entire world's, and now history's, own eyes.

Let's pick it up a few notches then why don't we, and use the truth about 9/11, not only as the actual historical reality, but the point of leverage by which to begin at last building a better world, for ourselves, our families and for our fellow man the whole world over, both ignorant AND enlightened, even for God as truth and reality itself..

The barbarous lie of 9/11 stands and remains now rather symbolically displayed in the way and the manner in which bin Laden was actually killed, unarmed, while his young daughter and wife looked on.

9/11 Truth.

It's a Juggernaught. In the road. Unstoppable.

"2011 the year of evidence-based research..."

"...The Toronto Hearings Steering Committee would like to make an appeal to all citizens around the world who are sincerely committed to discovering the truth about the attacks of September 11. Let’s make 2011 the year of evidence-based research. If you cannot spare the time to do your own research, or do not have the skills, please consider supporting a Toronto Hearings participant by contributing an amount toward paying for that participant’s travel and accommodation...."
http://torontohearings.org/

Toronto Hearings

Wonderful idea. I will contribute immediately. But how do we get this into the papers and on tv? Perhaps a book. !!! Your papers, especially need that preservation. What publisher? Kevin, thank you for your dedicated digging and courage. Acknowledging that governments are not honest or likely to convict of anything, what chance for success.? I guess, just for the public, historical record. But where's the publicity/news announcement except online.? There's the great divide between those who know and those who do/will not. If it's not on the evening news in a credible, consistent, continuing fashion, then nobody mainstream takes it/us seriously. Hartford did not make the local papers I think. The San Francisco Conference, the same? Just keep plugging away person to person in the street, at functions, letters to editor. The emperor is nude. Rereading the wealth of info in Mike Ruppert's '04 "Crossing the Rubicon." Worth carrying around for discussion/conversation starters/enders??? A lot in there re OBL and all the damning, prior knowledge.

Great to see this out in the public domain

I would suggest that some video trailers be made to promote this on You Tube and elsewhere.

I would also suggest that a made for public access program be created giving an overview of what is known already and why these hearings are important.

This could then be put on public access tv all over the U.S. for free. Combined with low cost direct to the public advertising, we can get a lot of folks to tune in and then either attend, contribute, both; or at least discuss the issue.

I will be lobbying our group to donate as much as possible to this event, as we have not even begun planning our own anniversary event. Hopefully, we can find a way to tie all the anniversary events together via the web, and make a truly global statement about the use of false flag events to start and/or perpetuate conflict.

I say "HEAR HEAR" to the Toronto Hearings!

Thank you Kevin, for all the excellent you have done and continue to do.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Excellent!

So glad to see such an important anniversary event that is grounded with the involvement our strongest researchers, located at a university, and without the glitz of typical entertainment based events.

Please donate everyone!

Our Focus

I think our focus, in terms of the evidence, ought to be now directed like a laser beam on the actual occurance of the destruction of the twin towers of the WTC on 9/11, with building 7 as an adjunct, and one which points directly to the remaining evidence that the twin towers were also destroyed in a high precision engineered military demolition, in the case of the twin towers, an unconventional top-down demolition, which was not and could not possibly have occured as a sole result of the plane impacts and jet fuel and office fires which ensued at and around the impact level of the buildings, in the case of the north tower as high as the 95 and 96th floor, of the 110 story building.

This fire hose and juggernaught of truth telling & information dissemination goes directly to the voracity, and in truth the utter absurdity in reality (what actually occured) - of the official story, proving it to be nothing more than a Zelokow crafted and mainstream media promulgated myth, which does not stand up under any amount of rational scrutiny or analysis, or, within the framework of the immutable laws of pyhsics such as Newton's Three Laws of Motion.

Therefore, in my mind, I would think that the "Geat Work" or the "Magnum Opus" of our movement, as a movement of the truth itself, ought to involve the use of the entire depth and breadth of the membership of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth - for the publication of a comprehensive, "structurally sound" and highly scientific, absolute definitive rebuttal to the NIST and FEMA Reports, not for building 7 only, but directed primarily at the causal mechanism of destruction of the Twin Towers themselves, which is the very CRUX of the whole thing as a global psy-op, rendered plain as day (as recorded when it happened) in perpetuity (time is on our side, if long range historical truth and justice is our pursuit).

Published in more than one recognized and respected, peer reviewed scientific and engineering journal, such a PROOF would then be subject to scientific scrunity and analysis on a GLOBAL basis, and although some might try, they would only be proven wrong, and in fact foolish, when attempting any rebuttal of such a paper. And so we're looking then at a comprehensive "collapse" model which will PROVE, once and for all in the fullness of time and history, that in fact the buildings did not, and could not possibly, have "collapsed", at all.

Just a thought..

Side by side..

Side by side with that should be all the points where NIST has openly lied/exaggerated the evidence for their claims. LIke the video showing WTC7 falling side by side with a CD, all of NIST's falsehoods should be exposed. Many come to mind such as Barry Jennings, sheer studs, foreknowledge, hiding from free-fall, lack of experiments conducted for Bldg 7, lack of response to the FEMA Report Appendix C, no empirical evidence of steel temperatures studied, calculations for thermal expansion, denials of molten materials and explosions, and that's all just for bldg 7. For the twin towers there is the bare assertion of "inevitable collapse" with no calculations or mechanisms to support that claim. Tests conducted by NIST do not support their conclusions. The molten iron flowing from the south tower just minutes prior to its destruction. The bare assertion that fireproofing was knocked off. Hiding key evidence under "public safety" concerns. "dust puffs and pressure pulses."

Put all the evidence supporting both theories in a side by side list and let the professionals compare. The only conclusion any thinking mind can come to is that the official theory is not credible. Attack the credibility of the final reports like supporters constantly do to the movement. Make it difficult for professional organizations to continue supporting such unscientific notions and keep their own credibility by pointing the laser directly at the hypocrisy of it all.

[the]...freedom to obtain and distribute information, freedom for open-minded and unfearing debate and freedom from pressure by officialdom and prejudices. Such a trinity of freedom of thought is the only guarantee against an infection of people by mass myths, which, in the hands of treacherous hypocrites and demagogues, can be transformed into bloody dictatorship. Freedom of thought is the only guarantee of the feasibility of a scientific democratic approach to politics, economics and culture." Andrey Sakharov

That my take..

peace all

dtg

exciting

This is very exciting that it's happening in Canada. Will this be the main N. American event to go to for the tenth anniversary?

German translation of mission statement

of the Toronto Hearings can be found within my blog entry. Please forward this to german speaking people.

http://www.911-archiv.net/blog/sittingbull/toronto-hearing-zum-10-jahrestag-von-911.html

If you can't donate or if you already have...

We can also help Kevin and friends by contacting the media outlets up and around Toronto and asking them to cover this important event.

This is a list of television and radio stations along with a list of media outlets in and around Toronto, Ontario including the Greater Toronto Area
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_in_Toronto

NBC Buffalo NY: http://www.wgrz.com/company/contact/accountable/default.aspx (cbishop@wgrz.gannett.com)
CBS Buffalo NY: http://www.wivb.com/subindex/About_Us/Contact_Us/ (newsroom@wivb.com)
ABC Buffalo NY: johndis@wkbw.com ; news@wkbw.com
FOX Buffalo NY: http://www.wutv29.com/sections/station/
PBS Buffalo/Toronto: http://www.wned.org/Contact_us.asp

Tons of work to do. Emails & Phone Calls.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_in_Toronto

Are they? Really? ? ?

Hearings!!!

I"ll bet the perpetrators are shaking in their boots now!!

A great event - good wishes to all

The peaceful coming together of people for rational discussion is always a good thing.
I am happy to see this has been put together and appreciate much hard work goes in to an event of this sort.
I wish all participants well. I am sorry I cannot attend personally (I live on the other side of the planet!) but will do my bit to make sure people in my country are aware of the Toronto Hearings.

The Toronto Hearings, CIT, Honegger and Gallop

There is a parallel event that features Citizen Investigation Team's film "National Security Alert" (Pentagon "flyover"), shortly after the hearings, also in Toronto, organized by Barrie Zwicker. The event is claimed to be non-interfering, but "complementary", yet it also appears that at least one individual "close" to the organizers, namely the maintainer of the "Toronto Hearings" website, is a CIT sympathizer who wishes he/she could introduce CIT to the conference. Wordpress user "Toronto Hearings" also wishes for this reason to remain anonymous. Moreover, it appears that the conference will possibly feature CIT's work indirectly, using other participants as proxy. I have, among others, these questions:

* Why was Zwicker part of the Toronto Hearings advisory committee and why was he given information "in confidence"?
* Did Jeff Jacobucci (A known disruptor & Holocaust denier who attacked Donna Marsh O'Connor and registered "911blogger.org") plant the seeds for this "parallel event"?
* Who is Wordpress user "Toronto Hearings" and what is his/her influence?
* Is the steering committee aware of the actions of user "Toronto Hearings"?
* Will Honegger and/or Griffin trojan horse CIT's work into the Hearings?
* Why is Honegger still a credible figure, invited to important meetings such as these?
* How much of Zwicker's alternative presentation was established in concert with the steering committee, if any?
* Will Lorie van Auken agree with these developments?

The reasons for these questions are outlined in the forum post below:

The Toronto Hearings, CIT, Honegger and Gallop

I am astonished and alarmed

Given that theToronto Hearings has claimed that it will avoid contentious issues, how is it possible that Honegger and Gallop will be presented?

I am not so concerned about DRG. He has a copy of the paper by David Chandler and myself and I do not believe he would make assertions that he believed the plane flew over the Pentagon.

I think there is a perfectly valid explanation for Honegger's observations. I conclude that they do not prove the damage was done by something other than a large commercial aircraft. My views on her work can be found here:
http://www.scienceof911.com.au/pentagon/critique-of-barbara-honegger

I would like to know whether the Toronto Hearings will present a speaker to argue against Honegger. If not why not?

Of course David Chandler and I would say that the statement that a large commercial plane hit the Pentaon is not contentious. It did hit. We should be speaking on that subject at the Hearings. There is no witness to a steep bank as the plane approached, and many witnesses to a slight bank or no mention of bank. Without a steep bank, which would be unforgettable, it would be impossible for the plane to deviate significantly, therefore it flew straight. If it flew straight, there is no need to suspect that it did not descend and plough through the light poles, the fence and the generator, on the way to the observed impact point, as seen in the FDR file. And there is no witness to overfly either, though hundreds were in a position to see it, as we all know.

I'm working on it . . .

I'm working on it . . .

Thanks

I know you like to be informed of things like this.

If only I had been!

If only I had been!

Can there be no forum for the

Can there be no forum for the discussion of the apparent disagreement over what hit--how it hit--what happened at the Pentagon? Is it automatic that a parallel event was designed to interfere and discredit the Toronto hearings and thereby all of 9/11 inquiry? It makes sense to me that other 9/11 groups would want to, respectfully, piggyback their events on the hearings. That's what I would call an efficient use of resources.

I'm thankful at this point that I haven't studied the events at the Pentagon and have almost no opinion as to what role it played in the inside job. Amazingly, this lack of knowledge on my part has not altered my conviction that there was inside knowledge and intent on 9/11, nor does it alter my support for 9/11 inquiry. From the outside, I see two groups polarized on this issue, each firmly convinced of the correctness of their positions. I note that this polarization and "controversy" over the Pentagon does not change the broad direction of the 9/11 truth/justice effort, nor does it even register in mainstream perception of 9/11 events, or of the 9/11 truth movement.

When will this be resolved? Why can't the two sides get together and hash this out? Why does this have to be so acrimonious?

I have as yet found no reason to have anything but respect and appreciation for Barrie Zwicker, who has done a great deal, especially in earlier years, speaking out on 9/11 issues and bringing 9/11 media skepticism to the mainstream.

resolution

>>When will this be resolved?

The journal has posted papers by Frank Legge which are peer reviewed on the topic. Scientific findings are typically not hashed out by groups on Internet forums, but are reached using the scientific method, testing hypotheses using the available evidence.

Many on the "no Boeing" and "Flyover" camps attempt to exclude all eye witness and other evidence which contradicts their claims. You cannot reach a resolution to any problem by excluding evidence that does not fit with a pre-determined claim. Examples include the claims that all witnesses were confused, lied, were plants, agents, etc. There is simply no evidence for these assertions.

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon
Frank Legge and Warren Stutt

What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth
Dr. Frank Legge

>>I have as yet found no reason to have anything but respect and appreciation for Barrie Zwicker

He has endorsed, supported and advocated the claim that a plane flew over the Pentagon and no one noticed. Many have lost respect for him because of that.

>>I'm thankful at this point that I haven't studied the events at the Pentagon and have almost no opinion

Even if you hold no opinion, this point still applies:

Summary and Conclusion

The evidence regarding what hit the Pentagon is contradictory. It is likely that contradictory evidence has been deliberately provided. There are some who assert that there was not enough debris for a plane crash and that a plane could not have penetrated as far as the observed damage indicates, however the plane would only have had to destroy part of one wall for most of its material to be able to slide among the support columns. There is photographic evidence of plane parts that are undeniably from a 757, however they could have been planted. There is evidence of a powerful explosion which may have changed the structure of the plane and its
impact marks. If a 757 did not hit the Pentagon, something else must have made these marks and damaged the light poles.

There are three competing and contradictory stories about the flight path of the plane. The official flight path cannot be scientifically refuted by the available evidence. How are we to deal with this uncertainty and confusion?

There are two essential points to note:

1. Nothing should have hit the Pentagon. This implies that a stand-down order existed, as appears to be confirmed by Mineta’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission.

2. The authorities could easily show us what hit the Pentagon but they do not. This
implies that the provision of contradictory information is deliberate and has a purpose.

These provide prima facie evidence that the official explanation of the event at the Pentagon is false and that a cover-up exists.49 This is more than sufficient to demand a new investigation, regardless of what hit the Pentagon.

Today

I'm an understanding kind of mood, and I completely understand that you have these questions.

It would take any one of us exceedingly long to get you up to speed on this issue, and get you to understand why some of us are so upset. You should also know that there are sometimes lengthy e-mail discussions between groups and these exchanges are never seen by the public. Some of them include threats or harassment.

The problem with Barrie Zwicker is he snitchjacketed 911blogger, and some of us took that very personally. Please try to imagine how you would feel after doing 9/11 research for say 7 years and somebody labels you an "infiltrator" who spreads "disinformation". I tend to assume somebody is not an infiltrator or 'spy' or 'agent' until I have some really persuasive evidence, and even then, I'll try to remain cautious.

I recommend you follow the link above, and from there, read the other links as well. I'll leave it there, because I don't want to derail.

The time is long gone

for an open forum on the Pentagon. Those who assert the plane flew over the Pentagon have come up with no new evidence for years. All they do is repeat the claim that the plane flew north of the Citgo service station therefore could not have done the observed directional damage.

The plane did not fly north of Citgo. The witnesses were mistaken. Here is the conclusion of the paper which sets it out:

Summary and Conclusion

The calculations we have displayed here show extreme values for the g-force required to deviate from the initial path to pass north of the Citgo service station, 4.3g being the lowest conceivable value, requiring that Morin’s testimony be totally set aside for no apparent reason, and the impossible 12.1g if some of Morin’s testimony is accepted. The bank angles are even more telling, since they would be clearly observable, 77° being the lowest possible. These values are confirmable by the reader using free software tools.

The force calculated is well beyond the legal limit for this aircraft, 2.5 g, and also above the likely strength safety margin. Control of the aircraft, even at the lowest computed g-force, would be impossible for other than a highly trained aerobatic pilot and the physical survival of the aircraft would be at least in doubt.

The bank angle would be so steep as to astonish observers and be well remembered and frequently reported, but steep bank angles were not reported at all. Nothing more than a slight bank was described, even by those observers who claimed to see the path of the plane clearly enough to feel sure it was north of the Citgo service station.

It is physically impossible for a passenger plane to pull sharply out of a descent at a steep bank angle. The plane was descending steeply but managed to quickly level off, hence could not have been steeply banked.

It is physically impossible for any plane to pass NOC at the reported speed without banking steeply, hence the few witnesses who claimed to have observed the north path were necessarily mistaken about the path of the plane. Several such witnesses reported that the plane was flying level in the vicinity of the Navy Annex, in complete contradiction of the curved NOC path.33 The NOC witnesses are outnumbered by witnesses to impact by about 10 to 1, or about twice that if we disqualify the NOC witnesses who contradicted themselves by reporting that they saw the impact. There is a complete absence of witnesses to the plane flying over the Pentagon, though hundreds of people were in a position to see it and the sight would have been striking, commencing, or approaching, with a remarkably steep bank.

If, as we have shown, the plane did not fly north of the Citgo service station there is no reason to suspect that it did not hit the Pentagon. If it was flying close to the ground in the vicinity of the light poles, as described by many witnesses, it could not miss. The FDR file, the damage to the light poles, the fence and the generator, and the shape of the damage on the face of the Pentagon all indicate impact. All arguments used to suggest that the plane could not have hit the Pentagon have been shown to be unfounded.31,5 CIT is shown to be presenting a hypothesis which is physically impossible. According to the scientific method this hypothesis must be abandoned.

It is to be hoped that those who have been puzzled by the apparently contradictory assertions surrounding the Pentagon attack, will now see that it is appropriate to withdraw support for the divisive notion that no plane hit the Pentagon. There are many disturbing issues related to the Pentagon attack, as have been clearly set out by Kevin Ryan and others, but the question of whether a plane hit the Pentagon should not be on that list.

Show "2 Major Accounts: The Plane Hit The Pentagon Via North Of Citgo" by Aidan Monaghan

The bank angle is the killer issue

Not one witness has been found who reported a steep bank angle. Several witnesses reported a slight bank angle. Some even said the plane was "flat" as it passed the Navy Annex. A slight bank angle means only a slight deviation. To deviate round the Citgo service station would have required a bank angle of at least 77 degrees.

That is such a steep bank angle, never observed in large commercial planes, that it would have evoked a great deal of comment, yet none can be found. The number of witnesses to impact far outweighs the number of witnesses who reported the north path.

The speed of the plane is shown by two independent methods, the radar data and the FDR data. The radar from four separate installations shows a straight track aiming at the impact point on the Pentagon. The radar from the nearest site follows the plane to within 6 seconds of impact. The FDR file shows the plane flew staight from there to the Pentagon. Both the FDR and the radar provide the speed and the acceleration. They agree. Many witnesses reported the engines speeding up. None reported the engines being shut down. The FDR shows the throttles were pushed fully forward half a minute before the impact and the plane accelerated from that moment. At full throttle, and assisted by gravity as it was diving, there is no possible way that it would not have accelerated all the way to the Pentagon.

The testimonies of Morin and Hemphill also support a straight approach and therefore a south approach. Hemphill had a remarkably good location. His view to the impact point passed directly over the roof of the Citgo service station. He said the plane was on his right and passed from a point near the VDOT antenna (south of the Navy Annex) direct to the impact point. This means it stayed on his right all the way and did not pass over or north of the service station. Because of his position he could not have mistaken the path.

Morin may have thought the incident took quite a long time but he is one of the witnesses to the plane going "full throttle". If full throttle it could not have taken the time he said. You have to sift what witnesses say - some things will be reasonable and other things will not. It is reasonable to believe that witnesses to the traumatic impact would remember it more accurately than the unimportant prior path of the plane. LaGasse, Tucios and Brooks all stated that the plane hit the Pentagon. It is reasonable to believe that they were correct in that, but wrong about the prior path, given that it was impossible without a steep bank.

Lower Reported Speeds Eliminate Need For Extreme Bank Angle

I believe most eyewitness evidence suggests that AA 77 hit the Pentagon via a descending right-banking turn or turns while passing "north of Citgo" at a speed lower than officially reported.

Morin's alleged "south of Citgo" account seems problematic. It has been construed as "south of Citgo" evidence, yet Morin describes his view of AA 77 being blocked by trees to the northeast of his location, which is in the direction of the Citgo gas station and away from the impact point.

Since your interest seems to be in the reliability of the on scene witness accounts (including CIT's), their reports of groundspeeds much lower than 500+ mph should take precedent over the alleged official data that took years to release. If the WTC collapse models, reports and theories can be "cooked" in order to mislead, so too can the FAA and NTSB data. Why are some so willing to accept it, especially in light of other information refuting it?

There seems to be selective consideration and rejection of witness accounts within your hypothesis in order to seemingly conform to a desired conclusion. This is an unscientific approach.

I will address the Hemphill accounts later as time permits.

Aidan, you can believe anything

Aidan, you can believe anything you want. You can even believe in bigfoot, but that doesn't make it true ;)

Old & debunked

Aidan, this is old and debunked. You are parroting CIT soundbites, and you know absolutely nothing about Morin, AA 77's speed or Hemphill. It's infuriating. Stop embarrassing yourself and stop promoting this utter nonsense. Morin could only see SoC. Ranke acknowledged that and even derided Morin until he could turn him into something he wasn't. Hemphill has chided and denounced CIT for misrepresenting him. He saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Time distortion means "speed estimations" by some witnesses are totally worthless.

All witnesses support impact, no witnesses support flyover. The physical evidence supports impact, the radar data supports impact, the DNA evidence supports impact, the FDR supports impact.

Yeah you'll "address Hemphill" won't you. What a joke. Jeff, I'll let you do the honors, and paste Albert's e-mail, if you like. I'm tired of Aidan's antics.

Like you said SnowCrash,

Like you said SnowCrash, Aidan is just bringing up nonsense that is old and debunked. The information is out there for anyone interested. Aidan is free to believe in whatever he wants no matter how ridiculous it is.

@Snowcrash: Do You Have Trouble Reading?

At no time within this thread have I claimed that AA 77 flew over the Pentagon.

Therefore, your comments alleging such are invalid.

which evidence to accept?

Regarding Morin's testimony, he not only said he was aware of the plane for a rather long time, he also said it was going full throttle. These remarks conflict. The radar data show how fast the plane was going up to a point 6 seconds from the impact point, if its speed and acceleration were maintained. Many people said the plane was full throttle or spooling up. Nobody said the engines were shut down. So to assert the plane slowed down is to make a claim that is not merely without evidence, it is in defiance of evidence. If you say the radar was faked, again this is a claim without evidence. It is impossible for a plane diving at full throttle to slow down. I see no reason to doubt the FDR file as I can find no discrepancies in it. To claim it is faked is a claim without evidence.

Even if the plane was going slower and Morin had not two seconds but ample time to run well out from the Navy Annex so that he could follow it by eye, you cannot get away from his clear description of the way the plane disappeared. Had the plane turned left, as you suggest, it would have disappeared behind the Navy Annex left wing first. What Morin clearly stated was that it disappeared from the bottom up, as it would if it had gone straight and descended behind the row of trees. At some point you stated that the trees were not there in 2001 but the image David and I used in our paper was obtained from Google Earth, and dated just after 9/11, as stated in the paper. The trees were there.

You denigrate the FDR data on the grounds that the perpetrators had plenty of time to cook the results. What you appear to have missed is that the FDR data has been in our hands for many years. It just had not been properly decoded until Warren Stutt used his undoubted skills to write his own decoding program and discover the missing last frame, present all the time. We had it in our hands long before anyone went to interview the NOC witnesses by their selective methods and then selected their words to suit their preconceived notion. Hardly scientific.

I say that Warren had undoubted skill as he did not just decode the last frame, he decoded the whole thing and got the same result for the rest as obtained by the official software. I don't know if you are aware of how he did it but it goes like this. He started from scratch, not building on someone else's software. In doing so it was bound to be just sufficient to do the job. It did not contain the bells and whistles that the official software contained. It did not have error correcting code. That is why it worked, because it was the error correcting code that stumbled on the last frame. Warren concluded that the error correcting code could not deal with a particular type of error. He proved this theory was true by searching manually for the troublesome error and fixing it. Then the official software did decode the whole file. I think his application of computing skills and the logical process is exemplary. Nobody else managed it in all those years. As a result of his findings he has advised the NTSB of the weakness in their system. I believe he suggested that it might be safer to use an error flagging routine rather than an error correcting routine so that a human rather than sofware would be activated. Such a procedure would be more fail safe. It is not surprising that he has not had a reply.

Frank

I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of Warren Stutt's reverse engineering skills. Code and/or data reverse engineering is the hardest discipline in IT. This rare skill was used by Warren for something very, very useful. Fravia would be proud.

Oh, and Craig once thought Morin was a SoC witness himself, and derided him for it. Morin is a still SoC witness, but as soon as CIT find a way to put a spin on a witness, they will. Either they will distort their testimony, cherry pick, or accuse the witness of working for the 'perps' of the 'military deception'.

Warren Stutt should have been presenting in Toronto, that would've been great.

Harassment, but by whom?

As efforts to select and get commitments from witnesses have proceeded, the organizers of the hearings have been coping with attacks from all sides, McQueen says. He adds that it even got to the point where he and his wife were harassed at home by individuals who were unhappy with decisions that hearings’ organizers had made.

“I’m not sure I’ve seen anyone stoop this low,” McQueen says. “It’s very disheartening.”

-- Craig McKee

I'd like to know who is doing this, and I hope it's not anybody from the "pro-plane" group.

Please stay on topic

This thread is not a place to debate Pentagon minutiae. This is about the Toronto Hearings.

Toronto Hearings jeopardized

David Chandler and I tried to get our paper published in good time for the Toronto Hearings. We probably spent too long refining the paper and time went by, thinking publication would be easy. We did not allow for the power of the opposition forces against the paper. You can see how effective the CIT arguments have been in muddying the waters, and hindering scientific debate. Now we learn that proponents of the overfly theory will be speaking at Toronto but no speaker making the case for impact is listed.

Initially it was asserted that nothing controversial would be discussed at Toronto. I took that to mean that the Pentagon attack would not be mentioned. It seems we have been deceived. The proponents of overfly cannot now be uninvited so another remedy must be sought. The only appropriate remedy is to include a speaker who can present the case for impact. David Chandler will be present but apparently confined to discussing the controlled demolitions, which he will do very well. What a gigantic lost opportunity this is shaping up to be.

Jim Hoffman has volunteered to present the case for impact but there has been no response. One can only wonder how it has come about that this wonderful idea, the Toronto Hearings, with so much time and money devoted to it, has been subverted. It is not too late for repairs. I suggest all who are concerned communicate their feelings to the organizers ASAP.

After all the research

conducted by various prominent 9/11 researchers, it would be unthinkable that these views were to be unrepresented in Toronto. Yet it's as if diverging from the "OCT" as far as possible is more important than truth. This is a well known problem, where "divergence from the OCT" is seen as synonymous with verisimilar, rather than simply looking at the facts and going from there.

Actually

This is a problem which goes way beyond 9/11 Truth, to the core of political belief systems. No wonder it's tearing up this movement.

I think anyone who cares

I think anyone who cares about THE TRUTH should withdraw their support and decline to participate in this event.

Absolutely not

Everyone who cares about the truth should do what they can to save what can be saved. If one doesn't participate, the entire forum is left for those who spread mis/disinformation.

I hasten to clarify a point

My use of the word "deceived" in the above post was not meant to imply that the board had done anything improper. I am sure the board changed the plan of the Hearings with the best of intentions.

What I feel may be the case is that some party outside the board may have used arguments to include some support to the overfly notion and the board was persuaded to do so. I found this change most regrettable and perhaps fired off the above post without taking the time necessary to ensure a correct communication of a delicate matter. Had I spent the time I would have said it appeared that some party outside the board had deceived the board.

I apologize for concerns that may have been raised by my lack of clarity.

FYI

The situation has changed. I'm not sure what it will end up being myself, but it won't be what it was appearing to be, which means that some of our efforts made a difference.