Support 911Blogger

Live Streaming Day 2 of the Toronto Hearings

Streaming live video by Ustream

This is the official broadcast site of the International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001, at Ryerson University from Sept. 8 to 11, 2011. The official website of the Hearings is:

(Subject to Changes, All Times Eastern)

Saturday, September 10, 2011
9:00 – 9:15 Moderators: Overview of the Day’s Testimony
9:15 – 10:30 Graeme MacQueen: Eyewitness Evidence of Explosions at WTC
10:45 – 12:00 David Chandler: WTC 7: A Refutation of the Official Account
1:00 – 2:15 Jon Cole: The Official Account and the Experimental Method
2:15 – 3:30 Kevin Ryan: Extreme Temperatures
3:45 – 5:00 Niels Harrit: Incendiary/Explosive Residue in the WTC Dust
5:00 – 5:30 Audience Question and Answer

Sunday, September 11, 2011
9:00 – 9:15 Moderators: Opening remarks and Moment of Silence
9:15 – 10:45 David Ray Griffin: Anomalies of Flights 77 and 93
10:45 – 12:00 Peter Dale Scott: 9/11 and Deep State Politics
1:00 – 2:00 Laurie Manwell: SCADs and Psychological Resistance to Alternative Accounts
2:00 – 3:15 Senator Mike Gravel: State Deception in the Past and Today
3:30 – 4:15 Audience Question and Answer

Thank you for posting this; I

Thank you for posting this; I would've missed out on a decent amount of info. (even though I'm gonna be receiving a DVD copy and written transcript later on it is nice to see it live as it occurs in history)


The live sound is fuzzy. Would someone please alert them to fix it.

Breaking news: Jimd3100 vindicated

Like clockwork, saw this right after writing this:

* We already know that 'officially' a shootdown order was never given and couldn't have been given by anybody else but the NCA.

And Jimd3100 added:

It took about 10 years, but the MSM is finally starting to understand that Cheney giving shoot down orders is the same thing as a stand down.

Then.. browsed to Rawstory and there it was... They acknowledge it and try to cover it up with excuses of "chaos"..

This was Jimd3100's article exposing this in July 2010:

Thank you James.

I don't know why

..anybody would vote this down, although I understand many people don't like what folks like me and James have to say.

I hope this will be discussed at the Toronto Hearings... it deserves to be up there with the rest of the evidence, it's irrefutable. Bush and Rumsfeld (The National Command Authority or "NCA") went AWOL so that the planes would never be intercepted. They knew any order by Cheney would be disobeyed, because Cheney isn't part of the NCA and therefore equally qualified giving "shootdown" orders as the secretary of agriculture. This is treason.

Yes, treason!

But the greatest crime is the absence of TRUTH and the accountability that comes with it!

Cheny. Bush.

New information computing....

Please clarify if I am mistaken on any of the below:

There are now new tapes that verify Cheney gave a shootdown order.

Military ignored his order because he did not have proper authorization.

Bush and Cheney left the 9/11 Commission with the impression that Bush had given the order.

Because their testimony was not recorded we have no idea what they said, but it appears that at least one of them lied (both by accomplice to).

The order to shoot down was gven too late, by the wrong person.

No fighter pilots were able to identify any of the flights visually (officially).

Right so far?

order of cheney

the more interesting question is, what kind of orders Vice-President Cheney gave around 09:25 in the bunker under the white house! the confirmed account of mineta stands very strong.

the less interesting question is, why the shoot-down order of Mister Cheney did not go down the chain of command. the reason for the less importance is, that around 10:15 (as Cheney gave the shoot down order) the attacks were already over. nevertheless it is true, that any kind of order by Cheney stood against the law, because only the president or the secretary of defense could order the military anything.

The lineup of speakers...

is like a "Who's Who" of people with CHARACTER, INTELLIGENCE, COURAGE, CONVICTION.

I'm proud to be associated with this effort.

"Let your masters come and attack us:

we are ready to meet them beard to beard."

- William Wallace before the Battle of Stirling, September 11, 1297

To those who just watched Barbara Olson

I would like to make it known that I firmly disagree with her presentation. I also went online to the chat box and voiced my opinion there, and left when Richard Gage's presentation started. Good luck Richard.

Specific critiques of Barbara Honegger:

* Adam Larson — "Barbara Honegger - The psychic munchkin behind the holy grail" - 2006-12-15
* Frank Legge — "Notes on Barbara Honegger" - 2011-07

Various critiques:
* Jim/Victoria Hoffman — Pentagon Attack Errors
* My own critique of "No 757" theories (Tight compilation of evidence - recommended)

About Barbara's cordite claim:
* Cordite is an obsolete replacement for gunpowder, and it is not used in modern explosives. Whatever they were smelling, it wasn't cordite, unless someone was firing a deprecated British gun from WW II.

About Barbara's (And apparently Aidan Monaghan's) "three exit holes" claim:

About Barbara's flawed timeline:
Adam Larson — "Posts with label attack timeline."

With respect to Barbara's criticisms of the impact video:

Secondary explosions were probably caused by the plane itself, oxyacetylene tanks in front of the Pentagon, the generator, gas lines, and a jet fighter broke the sound barrier over DC.

Frank Legge and Warren Stutt's decoding of the Pentagon Digital Flight Data Recorder explained here.

My rebuttal to accusations against 911blogger of "covering up" Pentagon evidence here.

Pat Curley has already noticed Barbara's presentation, and might be monitoring the chat. Be mindful of the possible presence of people of his ilk, looking for something to quote on his blog.

Please watch this:

Thanks, and I agree

Sometimes it's a bonus to have video blocked at my work.

But I already know the claims and I don't think they add anything to anyone's understanding of what happened, and instead, have already been undermined by Frank Legge's analysis, worth reposting here:

Notes on Barbara Honegger
Posted on 30 January 2011

Cause of Damage to the Pentagon: Witness Testimony
Frank Legge, July 2011

. . . It follows therefore that, if explosives had been detonated prior to the arrival of the aircraft, there would have been two explosive events.

A search of eye witness testimony finds that many people were in a position to have observed two explosions but none appear to have reported anything which can be interpreted as a destructive explosion followed by the explosive plane impact (see appendix below). There are some who report multiple explosions but these are in the context of minor events following the plane impact; presumably gas bottles exploding due to heat.

Honegger is one of a number of authors who provide a great deal of information about events and people which raise suspicion about the accuracy of the official reports, but it appears that there were not two explosive events at the Pentagon, nor was the Pentagon struck by a smaller object than a Boeing 757. Whether the impact was accompanied by the use of explosives is not clear. There is some evidence that it was, but it is not compelling. There appears to be little doubt that the massive keel of the plane and the heavy cores of the engines, travelling at 556 miles per hour according to the FDR file, would have enough energy to penetrate the wall. With so many witnesses watching the low level approach of the plane, and seeing its impact, there can be no doubt that the bulk of the plane did enter the Pentagon.

The most probable explanation for the substantial time discrepancy is that the official account of the time of impact is incorrect. As Barbara points out there were several variations of the impact time initially reported, suggesting faulty data handling. The final official times are in reasonable accord with the FDR file, with the last frame not decoded.

It may seem surprising that the FDR file would not have the correct time. One might assume that the time would be derived from GPS, as would be the case now, but the NTSB reported that GPS was not operating. Probably it had not been fitted. The clock may have been defective or set carelessly by the Pilot. Regardless of the cause of the discrepancy in the times, there can be no doubt that there was only one explosive event.

Summary and Conclusion

The two speculations which arise from Barbara Honegger’s work are (1) that the Pentagon may have been hit by something smaller that a Boeing 757 and (2) that the damage, at the same moment or earlier, was caused by explosives.

There is very strong witness testimony and physical evidence that the Pentagon was hit by a large commercial plane, which rules out the first speculation, and there is no evidence whatsoever for two separate substantial explosive events. This rules out the idea that the explosion and impact were separate events but leaves in the possibility that explosives were used to enhance the impact damage.

The discrepancy between the official impact time and the time reported by witnesses may have been due to the official time being based on the FDR data file and that the clock in the aircraft was incorrect, or simple mishandling of data. There is no proof in Honegger’s work that a large passenger plane did not hit the Pentagon

@Snowcrash: You Are Wrong (Again)

Snowcrash alleges: "About Barbara's (And apparently Aidan Monaghan's) "three exit holes" claim"

I have never claimed that there were 3 Pentagon C-ring exit holes. I have said previously that there is more evidence of internal Pentagon fire south of or to the left of the noted C-ring hole, more indicative of AA 77's impact via a NoC path, as opposed to the official path.

Please pay closer attention in the future before making allegations.

You have also previously denied the documented fact that the 2 9/11 FDRs did not have inventory control serial numbers attributed to them. This fact has been known to many for years.

Unanswered Questions on 9/11 live radio

The intrepid Russ Baker on live radio - this Sunday night at 11PM PST.

Bought Russ' book

So maybe I'll check it out if I find out where international listeners can get access to this.

on "Coast to Coast" with a HUGE audience

should be excellent

Paying close attention

You are a NoC + impact proponent, which automatically requires Lloyd England, cab driver who nearly got killed on 9/11 to be 'in on it'. It requires the Citgo security cam to be fake, requires staging of light poles, a tree being trimmed by NWO agents, a VDOT pole clipped by a wing tip, including a missing rung, to be fake, it requires the engine shaped foundation damage at the Pentagon to be fake, the engine shaped generator damage and cut from the flap track to be fake, the tail imprint to be fake, the directional damage to be fake, the angularly cut exit hole in the C-ring to be fake, the airplane debris that got diagonally spewed out of it to be fake, the SoC DNA splatter pattern to be fake, the FDR to be fake (since it would have to be found in a different location), the angular bending, cracking, spalling and necking from the Pentagon's spirally reinforced columns to be fake, and a whole host of other things, including SoC witnesses attacked and marginalized by CIT.

You've endorsed CIT, you've come to the conclusion there is no evidence for flyover and now you choose an intermediate position, equally nonsensical, but you hope it will buy you time while you search for more 'clues' trying to save face. In the process, you are willing to attack me and others for speaking the truth all along.

What do you base your suspicions on? Smoke damage from a roll up door which was opened in rescue efforts, thus acting like a fan for the fire, sucking in air and letting out smoke and soot, and the well known pitfall of 'intuitive physics', i.e. the amateurish assertions of non-physicists about collision dynamics. Craig Ranke's famous adage "My see-saw analogy renders the need for calculations moot". What an idiot.

You specifically talk in your comment you link about wall breaching kitS. That's plural. I'm two steps ahead of you. I know what you are looking for in your efforts to confirm your hybrid theory. I know you look at Jim Hoffman's version of Eric Bart's approach path visual. (Three smoke spots) That's why I recommended Frank Legge use Eric Bart's version to avoid confusion. This is the version hosted at History Commons. I'm really not in the mood to have long debates with you until you start showing some semblance of insight into Pentagon research and stop subconsciously blaming me for your CIT endorsement. It was your mistake, you deal with it.

Angled column damage. No NoC impact. There is a mountain of evidence proving you wrong, still you persist. This is a natural psychological response. But expect me to take you to task if you continue attacking me and others with your outdated and disproven theories.

Moving on...About FDR serial numbers: 9/11 was a terrorist attack, not an accident, therefore it fell under the jurisdiction of the FBI, not the NTSB. Hence no NTSB 'accident' report. This is your giant straw man, not mine. Further, had you even done the tiniest amount of browsing through Frank Legge's website, you would have found his FAQ, discussing the serial numbers found by Warren, even though he initially couldn't find such numbers in the preamble data from other FDRs either.

That's why I said "false", Aidan. Like that time when you posted about missing BTS data in a FOIA report meaning that the 9/11 flights might have been grounded for a year before 9/11. You were being shafted by the BTS and I pointed that out to you. The plane spotter database showed these planes all over the map.

Now can you please stop wasting my time and the time of well-meaning 9/11 truthers who just want to know what happened at the Pentagon, then move on to research that actually proves something we can take action on? Take your time and please come around. Or dig a deeper hole. It's up to you.

9/11 Blogger REFUSED to post this, but it's obviously relevent

to conferences like these..

Who of the "truthers" discussed appears more rational? It's seems like the author is a reserved, critical, and open-minded individual. This article proves people like the author can be reached out to if we behave like adults and get our facts out. Keeping our theories to ourselves in public presentation is the most important thing anyone seeking 9/11 justice can do. There are likely journalists of this quality watching parts of the Toronto hearings. Who of the speakers will appear more rational...

Show "The Toronto Hearings?" by BMAC

Animal references

You should have been banned on the spot when you said that. Alas. It was Barbara Honegger who brought NPT to the Toronto hearings, not me.

Edit: I don't have an anti-CD agenda, and I don't want to sink to your level.

How can comments like BMAC's be allowed here?

Dog comparison's? You are out of control. SnowCrash's comments are extremely relevant to a discussion about the hearings! Anti-cd?? Where do you get that from? Any evidence? Of course not because SnowCrash is perfectly open about discussing it as a possibility.

And since you brought up Griffen, allow me to say that I feel SnowCrash and Jim are far more valuable assets to those seeking justice for the 9/11 attacks. Griffen's continues to assert debunked and baseless theories about fake hijackers and phones calls and pentagon alternatives, even though he has been shown over and over and over again that these theories are outdated and bankrupt. This not only makes him a weak asset, it makes him a detriment to an important cause. That's right! On the other hand if it is pointed out to Jim or SnowCrash that their facts are off, they are willing to change. This iss a critical difference between people like you (BMAC) choose to attack and insult, and DRG.

Also read the article I posted in my comment above. Keep immature insults out of it and try bringing something to the table. SnowCrash and Jim have...

Toronto Weather?

What is the point of the thread, to talk about the weather in Toronto?

The Toronto hearings I presume are discussing many parts of 9/11 research and evidence.

BMAC - I strongly disagree with your statement, I won't take away from the thread anymore about it than that.

The discussion of thorough research related to 9/11 fits on this thread entirely, that is the point of the Toronto hearings.

Try not to get too frustrated folks, important days are ahead.


Please keep the comments on the evidence and focused on the thread topic, not focused on people posting here or their intentions.

Snowcrash posted a comment that was not about the Toronto Hearings early in the thread and it looks like someone to a conclusion that it was an intentional distraction.

Without crystal balls and ESP we don't know what people's intentions or thoughts are. Please keep comments civil and in response to the evidence, not thoughts or people themselves.

Calling people names like "worm" will lead to time outs, kids.