September 13, 2011
By Craig McKee
While TV offers us solemn ceremonies paying tribute to the victims of 9/11, the real story continues in the fight for truth about why those people died and who really killed them.
While our corporate media continue to show us the sadness and loss from this catastrophic day, they also continue to block any of the facts. And these facts show categorically that the official narrative is an elaborate cover story for the largest and most spectacular false flag attack in our lifetimes.
On the 10th anniversary of 9/11, I was in Toronto, Canada to see the long-awaited and much-argued-over International Hearings into the Events of Sept. 11, 2001. This fascinating weekend gave me the opportunity to meet some of the most impressive researchers and thinkers in the 9/11 Truth movement. Some I agree with, some I strongly disagree with. Interviews with many of these researchers will appear on this blog in the days to come. So, please keep checking for new posts; I learned some VERY interesting things.
Here are some of the highlights of the weekend, which finished with a “non-sanctioned” event that focused on the Pentagon issue, which is being increasingly marginalized by the “mainstream” of the 9/11 Truth movement. That event, which I will also write about in detail in the days to come, was a screening of the Citizen Investigation Team film National Security Alert. The non-invitation of CIT or anyone relating their research was perhaps the most contentious element of the Toronto hearings.
The four-day hearings did an incredibly thorough job of analysing the evidence that the World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, and 7 were brought down by explosives and not by fire as the government studies contend.
We heard a strong introduction to the subject in the presentation Friday by Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Gage showed clearly and graphically how the so-called collapses did not have any of the characteristics of a gravitational collapse while they had ALL of the signs of a controlled demolition.
Saturday was all WTC, all the time. We heard from Graeme MacQueen, David Chandler, Jonathan Cole, Kevin Ryan, and Niels Harrit. Sometimes it was a bit technical, but much of the time it was fascinating. And whether all of the positions taken prove true or not, there was overwhelming evidence that the three buildings were blown up.
The least technical presentation was by MacQueen about the more than 150 firefighters who talked about bombs, explosions, blasts and other things not compatible with the official explanation.
There were other interesting aspects of the 9/11 event that I learned a lot about from the speakers. Insider trading from Paul Zarembka, what we know about the alleged hijackers from Jay Kolar, and the real nature of the “war on terror” from Michel Chossudovsky. Of course, the most impressive and prolific of all the 9/11 truthers, David Ray Griffin, was there to explain the many inadequacies of the 9/11 Commission Report.
Griffin also reported on the “anomalies” concerning flights 77 and 93, while Barbara Honegger made an abbreviated presentation on the subject of “explosives in the Pentagon.” The very short time spent on the Pentagon and Shanksville (two places that clearly did NOT feature plane crashes) is one of the problematic aspects of the weekend event. I will get into these in detail in other posts that will feature interviews with Griffin, Honegger, Jonathan Cole, Craig Ranke (of Citizen Investigation Team) and others I met in Toronto.
We also got details of an important political initiative by former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel. Again, you’ll hear more about this very soon. Former U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney also spoke, adding a strong political perspective to the one offered by Gravel.
I have taken some shots at the organizers of the Toronto hearings in recent weeks based on the battle over who would and would not be invited to speak. If those assigned to media inquiries were unhappy with the concerns I raised, perhaps they should have responded to my numerous requests for comment. Instead, my requests were ignored for three months. Perhaps having a blog isn’t considered important enough to devote any time to? I can only guess. The idea that organizers of an event designed to gain the attention of the media would not even answer requests from a journalist is incredible to me.
I must say, though, that steering committee member Graeme MacQueen was a gracious exception to this. After three months of sending mails to fellow committee member Laurie Manwell (her third and last response to me was June 29) it was evident that I was getting the brush off. My questions about accreditation, interviews and comments were ignored – in fact the questions were not even acknowledged in her brief responses.
But when I wrote the general contact page of the hearings’ web site in early September, MacQueen answered promptly and agreed to a phone interview. We had a very productive and cordial talk (and had another brief one in person at the hearings). On the phone he told me he had passed on my interview requests to the media committee, which, of course, didn’t respond again. It’s just as well, because I got all the interviews I needed myself on the scene.
Even though I was not allowed to enter the hearings without a ticket (by the time I had given up on getting in as a journalist the tickets were sold out), MacQueen invited me in for the Saturday morning session. The day before, speaker Barbara Honegger had brought me in with her to hear her presentation.
The rest of the time I sat in the lobby and watched the live stream, which was fine. But it was only fine because I managed to find out the password for using the Ryerson wi-fi, which no one official offered me. The first two days I had to walk six blocks to Starbucks to watch and then run back at breaks to grab comments. The hearings people couldn’t have helped with that?
When I showed up Friday morning (I’d been in transit Thursday), I was told by the Ryerson University security guard assigned to guard the hearings room that the hearings were “somewhere in the building” but he wouldn’t confirm what I already knew –that they were just a few feet away.
The guard – seemingly continuing to wonder what I was doing there – sent out one of the organizers who asked me who I was and told me that the university would not allow any interviews to be done inside the building, and that I’d have to go across the street instead. Of course, I ignored this rule the whole time I was there – as any reasonable person should.
Senator Gravel was doing an interview in the corner of the almost empty lounge area outside the meeting room when the same security guard interrupted and told him he and his party couldn’t continue. The Senator wasn’t pleased, and he didn’t hesitate to say so, chastising the guard for blindly carrying out such ridiculous orders. We could all learn something from this man.