It is with great excitement that I announce the release of the Final Report of the Toronto Hearings, which is titled The 9/11 Toronto Report. It is now available for purchase on Amazon.com, for a reduced introductory price of $12.76. I encourage you to review the content of the book using Amazon's "Look Inside" feature, and if you like the book, leave a positive five-star review. The book has already received a one-star review from someone who has not read the book, and we need to counteract these kinds of reviews.
The 9/11 Toronto Report is a collection of essays submitted by the witnesses who presented at the International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001, which were held in Toronto, Canada over the 10th Anniversary of the attacks. I collected the essays, edited them, and arranged them into the chapters you find in the book. I believe it is the most succinct, comprehensive, and persuasive written treatment of the best evidence against the official story for 9/11 that has been produced to date. Those experts who contributed chapters include David Ray Griffin, Kevin Ryan, Peter Dale Scott, Graeme MacQueen, David Chandler, Barbara Honegger, Richard Gage and many others.
The 9/11 Toronto Report also contains a written report and recommendation from each of the four distinguished panelists who heard the evidence presented over the four days of hearings and questioned the witnesses. The panelists include two eminent Canadian academics, an American civil engineer and academic, and the most famous and influential judge in Italy and honorary president of the Italian Supreme Court, Ferdinando Imposimato. As you will read in the final chapters of the Report, the opinions of these four individuals, each of which carries credibility and weight that cannot be disputed, make a clear and unmistakable case that the official account of 9/11 is false, and that the only way to realize truth and accountability is to tear down the wall of secrecy and lies that has been erected by the United States government around the events of 9/11.
On this episode of Breaking the Set, Abby Martin talks to NYU professor and author of 'Fooled Again', Mark Crispin Miller about voting fraud, 911 and how the term 'Conspiracy Theory' shuts down objective debates. Abby then speaks with Kurt Haskell, Congressional Candidate for Michigan's 7th District, about his experience on the flight with the Christmas day Underwear Bomber that completely contradicts the government's narrative. BTS wraps up the show with a look at the intertwined relationship between the Japanese Yakuza crime syndicate and the nuclear energy industry in Japan.
LIKE Breaking the Set @ http://fb.me/BreakingTheSet
FOLLOW Abby Martin @ http://twitter.com/AbbyMartin
November 1, 2012
BUILDING EXPERTS WANT WORLD TRADE CENTER LAWSUIT TO CONSIDER CONTROLLED DEMOLITION EVIDENCE
New York, NY - “Evidence of the explosive controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 should be considered in court”, according to Richard Gage, AIA, founder of the group Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth). Gage’s comment was in response to a Reuters news story on October 18 “Judge questions WTC blame of United Airlines in September 11 case”. World Trade Center Properties (WTCP) blames the airlines for negligent behavior resulting in fires that caused the complete destruction of three World Trade Center skyscrapers on September 11, 2001. At issue is the extent of liability held by the airlines for lapses in security at Boston’s Logan Airport and the Portland, Maine, Jetport that day. The trial will determine the amount of compensation owed World Trade Center Properties for the destruction of the buildings themselves and the subsequent loss of income to WTCP.
“The building did not come down as a result of the fires.. Fire cannot pulverize concrete into dust and small pieces in mid-air.
Brutal 9/11 ad takes center stage in Wisconsin Senate race
By Aaron Blake , Updated: October 23, 2012
Eleven years after Sept. 11, 2001, that day’s terrorist attacks are rearing their head in a major way in one of the hottest Senate races in the country.
Former Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson’s (R) campaign today launched a brutal new ad attacking Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D) for voting against a 2006 bill commemorating the fifth anniversary of 9/11.
“It’s a slap in the face to every one of their families and anyone who has ever served in the United States military,” a retired Navy veteran says in the ad. The man adds: “What would you do if these were your children? How would you feel?”
Baldwin did, in fact, vote against the bill. But as her campaign noted Tuesday, it was because the bill also paid tribute to more controversial and contentious things like the Patriot Act — a piece of legislation that Baldwin and many Democrats opposed.
Defense lawyers aren't told what evidence is classified, need the prosecution's approval to call witnesses, and have to defend their clients in a commission that may have been unlawfully influenced by senior U.S. officials hungry for a conviction, they told the Guantanamo court on Friday.
Those were just some of the many frustrations defense attorneys expressed at the military commission hearings in the case of September 11 terrorist attacks this week at Guantanamo Bay. Other concerns were whether the U.S. Constitution applies at Guantanamo and whether the government can classify the memories and experiences of the five accused men and thereby silence them.
James Connell, a lawyer for Ammar al-Baluchi, one of the five men accused of plotting the September 11 attacks, on Friday insisted he doesn't know how to handle information pertaining to his client because the government won't explain what's classified. He could be prosecuted for mishandling classified evidence, he said, so "I treat everything at the highest classification level and drive my IT folks crazy." It also makes it extremely difficult for him to prepare his case. Connell said the National Security Agency created a document specifically explaining the classification of evidence in military commissions, but the government has refused to provide it to the defense. "It stuns me that no one will give us this information," he said.
Prosecutors at the hearing claimed they're just following the rules, although the chief prosecutor, General Mark Martins, has repeatedly emphasized the importance of "transparency" in these "reformed" military commissions.
The defense request "is not relevant as a matter of law," Joanna Baltes, a Justice Department lawyer for the prosecution, told the court on Friday. "The defense is required to treat classified information as classified. If the government marks it classified, that's the end of the inquiry."
October 19, 2012
This is the print preview: Back to normal view »
Battles Over Government Secrecy Dominate 9/11 Hearings
Posted: 10/17/2012 1:49 pm
The definition and use of classified information, and the public's right to hear it, is proving to be one of the most important issues arising in pre-trial hearings in this historic September 11th terrorism prosecution. With only two of the defendants actually in the courtroom on Wednesday (the others elected not to come), lawyers from the government, defense, ACLU and 14 media organizations over the last two days have argued vehemently over whether the government is properly classifying information -- particularly the memories and experiences of the defendants, who were subjected to the CIA's classified "enhanced interrogation" program. Even if it is deemed classified, argue the ACLU and news organizations, it still has to meet a strict First Amendment standard for the court to lawfully prevent the public from hearing it.
The First Amendment only allows the closing of a courtroom, argued ACLU lawyer Hina Shamsi and media lawyer David Schulz, if it will "cause grave harm to national security."
"The government fails utterly to explain how it has a legitimate interest, let alone a compelling one, in suppressing information about a CIA coercive interrogation and detention program that was illegal and has been banned by the president," the ACLU says in its brief to the court.
The issue is important, both for the public's right to know what its government did and for the legitimacy of this historic trial. As Schulz told the court yesterday: "Nothing is likely to shape the public perception of the fairness of these proceedings more significantly than the way the court handles this request for a protective order."
The current proposed order, he said, "covers things that quite clearly can't credibly constitute a threat to our national security."