Live Streaming Day 4 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)

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


David, Jonathan, Kevin and Niels (still going on now) gave very good talks with some new details, very interesting to see.


Note that wikipedia editors are still frantic to scrub any mention of 9/11 off of the nanothermite page -- they are on it to remove any mention within 5 minutes. By all of 4 minutes they are already posting arguments on the discussion page.

I've been blocked, so can't add it anymore.

Here is the section that, if you see removed, you can add again --

== Controversy ==
In 2009, the use of nano-thermite was described in a paper by several independent scientists studying dust from the collapse+of+the+World+Trade+Center. {{cite journal|title=Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe|journal=The Open Chemical Physics Journal|date=February 2009|first=Niels H.|last=Harrit|coauthors=et al|volume=2|issue=|pages=|id= {{doi|10.2174/1874412500902010007}}|url=|format=|accessdate=2010-02-03 }} Informed of the findings, NIST, the government agency charged with investigating the collapses, countered that there was no "clear chain of custody" proving that the dust came from the WTC site. Dr. Steven E. Jones, one of the researchers involved in the study, invited NIST to conduct its own studies with dust under custody by NIST itself.{{cite news|last1=Levin|first1=Jay|last2=McKenzie|first2=Tom|title=The Elements of a Great Scientific and Technical Dispute|journal=Santa Barbara Independent|date=September 17, 2009|url=|accessdate=February 2, 2010}}

no "clear chain of custody" [BS]

Whatever bit of agnosticism I've held about whether 9/11 involved controlled demolitions has evaporated. When NIST claims no clear chain of custody, they are dancing a danse macabre around the truth.

This is a very long story, but thankfully there are heroes. I'm forever grateful for the work of Kevin, Niels, Jim Hoffman, Steve Jones, and numerous others. Without them, this horror story would never end. Whatever happens, they have allowed us to see deeper than others who have refused to look.

I'm tempted to go back to school and study chemistry, so I can conduct my own experiments a few years from now. But hopefully the truth comes out fully, before such a time arrives.

Revisiting Rather's commentary

As today is the anniversary, there could be an increase in first-time visitors to the site today. And many of them may not have yet the CBS coverage of building 7 coming down, with Dan Rather's commentary. Here's a link (the tape of the 'collapse' begins about 1:20 into this clip, and is recapped towards the end):

Nor was building 7 the only instance that day when he mentioned a resemblance to controlled demolition:

Edit: And, while we're at it, why not also include Peter Jennings' comments on the need to get at the 'under infrastructure' of a building:

Indeed and we cannot forget Mark Haines commentary that day

This commentary hits the nail on the head..

from the article:

from the article:

Q: Do you accept that planes hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?

Graham MacQueen: Large planes obviously hit the World Trade Center. We have them on video. We have many eyewitnesses. The Pentagon is very complicated – let’s not even go there right now.

It sounds like he thinks it was a small plane? And not "many eyewitnesses" at the Pentagon?

Not a good answer.

MacQueen Answered The Questions Well

The WTC large plane comment does not necessarily imply something else at the Pentagon.


Or could his reluctance to touch on the Pentagon subject have anything to do with the fact that MacQueen was harassed at his house?

I think it could.

Difficult to see...

... how that would only be reflected in his comments on the Pentagon - or perhaps I'm missing something.


You're definitely missing something.

ETA: I find it ironic, since I suspect Graeme isn't convinced a 757 hit the Pentagon, that he would be targeted. Anyways, he refers to the situation as follows: “I’m not sure I’ve seen anyone stoop this low, it's disheartening"

When I asked the author (a CIT supporter) of the piece that mentioned this, who did it, he said:

"Mr. MacQueen just begged me to print the names and addresses of all the people who harassed him, but I lacked the “journalistic” instincts to agree. Have you ever asked Richard Gage for the names of those who he said were harassing him to denounce CIT? Of course you didn’t; you already knew them."

Neglecting, of course, that I didn't ask for "names and addresses", and Richard Gage being urged by his board of directors to withdraw a bad endorsement is something different from Graeme MacQueen being harassed by strangers on his doorstep.

Anyways, he posts here, and I can't speak for him.

>>MacQueen Answered The

>>MacQueen Answered The Questions Well

Overall, yes, I was only referencing the one about the Pentagon.