Will Toronto 9/11 Hearings ignore Pentagon to avoid ‘controversy’?


By: Craig McKee
Date: 2011-07-04

While most eyes will be on New York City on the 10th anniversary of 9/11 in September, the real news could be made north of the border.

To coincide with the anniversary, the International Centre for 9/11 Studies is organizing The International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001 in Toronto, Canada. These hearings, to be held at Ryerson University Sept. 8-11, will address the evidence from 9/11 and will produce a final report that could become a very valuable document in getting the truth out to the world.

Some of the most prominent names in the 9/11 Truth movement will be participating. Notable are author David Ray Griffin (who has written more books on the subject that anyone), Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and physicist Steven Jones. Other familiar Truth movement names include Peter Dale Scott, David Chandler, Jonathan Cole, Kevin Ryan, and Niels Harrit. Check out their bios on the Hearings site here.

But there could be a problem. And that problem could arise because not everyone agrees on what constitutes the weakest link in the official government story of 9/11 – and what constitutes strong evidence.

The concern is whether an important point of view – that no commercial airliner hit the Pentagon – will be excluded from serious discussion at the Hearings. Already, a boycott of the event has been called for by the web site 911newscentral.com. The site’s operator, Jeff Jacobucci, says he fears that researchers who don’t believe the official story of what happened at the Pentagon won’t be included. He suggests that it might be necessary to organize a parallel event that would allow the Pentagon evidence to be fully debated.

Laurie Manwell, one of the Toronto Hearings’ organizers (she’s also one of the witnesses presenting evidence), says the fear that this point of view won’t be represented is groundless because the guest list for the four-day event has not yet been finalized.

While that is certainly true, there is something on the web site for the Hearings (http://torontohearings.org) that makes me nervous. That is a paragraph describing the type of evidence that will be addressed:

“Evidence presented at the Hearings will be chosen according to the following criteria: high degree of certainty; importance; and consensus. High degree of certainty means that the Hearings will concentrate not on speculation but on facts that can firmly be established. Importance means that the Hearings will concentrate on elements of the governmental explanation that are crucial to that explanation. Consensus means that evidence chosen will be that which is least controversial within the movement of dissent that is critical of the official explanation.”

I have no problem with certainty, nor do I have a problem with importance (although both are subjective). It’s the consensus part I’m worried about. Is it fair that important evidence is considered “controversial” simply because there are loud voices dismissing it? If someone gets a bunch of people together to claim the Holocaust never happened does this make the existence of the Holocaust a controversial question?

There are some very loud voices that have been attacking the research of Citizen Investigation Team, which contends that no commercial airliner hit the Pentagon. These voices – many of whom voice their opinions at 911Blogger – have ridiculed the idea that no plane hit. They have called CIT all kinds of names: divisive liars and disinfo agents among them. 911Blogger has routinely banned those who support CIT, continuing to attack them when they can’t defend themselves.

In the past few months, prominent Truthers Gage, Chandler, and Cole have denounced or withdrawn support from CIT (although they have been much more civil than most CIT critics). Among their claims is that it is too hard to establish what happened at the Pentagon so it’s much more productive to go after controlled demolition at the World Trade Center.

I think this is dead wrong. A look at the clear evidence from the Pentagon event suggests the official story could not be true. There is the small hole in the building, the lack of significant pieces of wreckage (certainly none that can be tied positively to Flight 77), and the refusal of the Pentagon to release the many videos of the event that would answer all the questions. There are also the claims of Pilots for 9/11 Truth that the alleged approach of Flight 77 defies the laws of physics and common sense.

I’m not going to make the detailed case here; I’d rather see evidence about the Pentagon – even if some consider it controversial – being presented at the Toronto Hearings. One supporter who is not among those who are confirmed is 9/11 researcher Barrie Zwicker. He is both a Torontonian and a supporter of CIT.
David Ray Griffin stands apart from others who have confirmed in the sense that he doesn’t believe the evidence supports the idea that a Boeing 757 hit the building. He agrees with CIT that the fallen light pole evidence appears to have been staged. If he’s right, the whole official story crumbles.

I believe ignoring the Pentagon squanders a critical opportunity to show the official story for the complete fraud that it is. We’ll see over the next few days whether the organizers of the Toronto Hearings agree with me.

The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

1 comment:

American Action Report said...

I essentially agree with the writer's position on certainty, importance, and consensus. Any reasonable person would want to confine presentations to provable facts. Given that time is limited, it's understandable that they'd want to limit the investigate to crucial points. The word "crucial" means that a position stands or falls on a certain point. The organizers of the event, however, completely distort the meaning of the word "consensus." The word implies that discussion has already been made and that the conferees have arrived at basic agreement. Nothing of the kind has occurred.
If they can distort the meaning of "consensus," they also can distort the meaning of "crucial" and even "facts." The whole thing looks like a trap.