http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/09/05/quest-for-consensus-toronto-911-hearings-navigate-pentagon-minefield/
By: Craig McKee
Date: 2011-09-05
For Graeme MacQueen, the word is – or should be – consensus.
MacQueen, a member of the steering committee for the Toronto 9/11 Hearings (Sept. 8-11), says the event was conceived as an opportunity to reach people who are not yet convinced that 9/11 was an inside job, and to show how the evidence does not support the official story. He says the fight over whether a 757 did or did not hit the Pentagon should be put on the back burner so that the hearings can succeed in raising awareness with the public and the media.
“The movement has been tearing itself apart with respect to what hit the Pentagon,” MacQueen said in an interview. “It doesn’t make sense.”
For this reason, he says he prefers the “consensus approach” that David Ray Griffin has advocated in his most recent book, “9/11 Ten Years Later: When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed.” Griffin devotes a chapter in the book to the position that it’s not important what hit the building, but what is important is that it was not Flight 77 piloted by al-Qaeda.
Some have pointed out that the danger in taking this approach is that some of the strongest evidence (that the physical damage and lack of wreckage don’t support an airliner crash at the Pentagon) would be left aside.
MacQueen says he would favour a conference that focuses on the Pentagon alone, as long as an evidence-based approach is used.
The question of what Pentagon evidence would be presented in Toronto, and which witnesses would appear, has dominated debate about the hearings since mid-summer. It became clear fairly early on that no one from Citizen Investigation Team (which contends that a large airliner flew over the Pentagon, not into it) would be invited, nor would CIT supporter and Toronto 9/11 researcher Barrie Zwicker (He was on the advisory committee for the hearings, but this appeared to offer little opportunity to influence decisions).
Fears expressed in this blog and elsewhere that pressure from CIT opponents would result in a speaker being invited to attack the CIT position have turned out to be unfounded.
April Gallop, who was injured in the Pentagon on 9/11 and who doesn’t believe a 757 hit the building, was to appear in video form, but this idea was dropped, apparently at her request.
“April really values her own privacy,” MacQueen says. “We tried hard to respect her wishes.”
He adds that the removal of her name from the list had nothing to do with pressure from the anti-CIT group. Oddly, that group and another source close to the hearings were talking about a major change to the line-up being imminent, but nothing like that has happened. Laurie Manwell, also on the steering committee, did not respond to requests for comment that, frankly, might have helped avoid misperceptions.
The only recent changes of note involve the unexpected unavailability of Dr. Steven Jones (Kevin Ryan will do double duty as a result). Also, former U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney was taken off the list, but now appears to be back on. MacQueen said that her attendance has been uncertain, but organizers remained hopeful she would attend.
Keeping all members of the 9/11 Truth movement happy with the roster of witnesses is clearly an impossible job. But even though the CIT position isn’t directly being represented, there are positives that need to be emphasized.
First, Barrie Zwicker has organized a screening of CIT’s film National Security Alert for Sunday night, Sept. 11. This does not conflict with any part of the hearings, which conclude that afternoon. The new Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth film will also be screened in Toronto on Wednesday night.
At the hearings, Barbara Honegger is slated to make a presentation on the subject of explosives inside the Pentagon on 9/11, while David Ray Griffin (who has been supportive of the idea that a 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon) will address anomalies of flights 77 and 93. He will also give a talk on the failings of the 9/11 Commission Report.
There is a full complement of witnesses who will cover the evidence of controlled demolition at the World Trade Center:
Peter Dale Scott will talk about 9/11 and the deep state, while former Senator Mike Gravel will discuss state deception, past and present. Laurie Manwell will give a talk on state crimes against democracy and psychological resistance to alternative accounts. Lance deHaven-Smith will talk about state crimes against democracy and Michel Chossudovsky will tackle the global consequences of 9/11.
MacQueen says his one regret is that there will be no pilots testifying. He says at least three were invited (including members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth), and all were unable to attend. While MacQueen says he won’t release names of witnesses who declined invitations, it is already public that one of those was Ted Muga of San Diegans for 9/11 Truth. Muga is a CIT supporter.
As efforts to select and get commitments from witnesses have proceeded, the organizers of the hearings have been coping with attacks from all sides, MacQueen says. He adds that it even got to the point where he and his wife were harassed at home by individuals who were unhappy with decisions that hearings’ organizers had made.
“I’m not sure I’ve seen anyone stoop this low,” MacQueen says. “It’s very disheartening.”
With just three days to go before the event gets under way, the focus is shifting to the hearings themselves rather than who is going to be invited. It’s perhaps time to step back and consider the good that can come from the examination of so many important topics related to the 9/11 false flag operation.
We can always go back to fighting next week.
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.
By: Craig McKee
Date: 2011-09-05
For Graeme MacQueen, the word is – or should be – consensus.
MacQueen, a member of the steering committee for the Toronto 9/11 Hearings (Sept. 8-11), says the event was conceived as an opportunity to reach people who are not yet convinced that 9/11 was an inside job, and to show how the evidence does not support the official story. He says the fight over whether a 757 did or did not hit the Pentagon should be put on the back burner so that the hearings can succeed in raising awareness with the public and the media.
“The movement has been tearing itself apart with respect to what hit the Pentagon,” MacQueen said in an interview. “It doesn’t make sense.”
For this reason, he says he prefers the “consensus approach” that David Ray Griffin has advocated in his most recent book, “9/11 Ten Years Later: When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed.” Griffin devotes a chapter in the book to the position that it’s not important what hit the building, but what is important is that it was not Flight 77 piloted by al-Qaeda.
Some have pointed out that the danger in taking this approach is that some of the strongest evidence (that the physical damage and lack of wreckage don’t support an airliner crash at the Pentagon) would be left aside.
MacQueen says he would favour a conference that focuses on the Pentagon alone, as long as an evidence-based approach is used.
The question of what Pentagon evidence would be presented in Toronto, and which witnesses would appear, has dominated debate about the hearings since mid-summer. It became clear fairly early on that no one from Citizen Investigation Team (which contends that a large airliner flew over the Pentagon, not into it) would be invited, nor would CIT supporter and Toronto 9/11 researcher Barrie Zwicker (He was on the advisory committee for the hearings, but this appeared to offer little opportunity to influence decisions).
Fears expressed in this blog and elsewhere that pressure from CIT opponents would result in a speaker being invited to attack the CIT position have turned out to be unfounded.
April Gallop, who was injured in the Pentagon on 9/11 and who doesn’t believe a 757 hit the building, was to appear in video form, but this idea was dropped, apparently at her request.
“April really values her own privacy,” MacQueen says. “We tried hard to respect her wishes.”
He adds that the removal of her name from the list had nothing to do with pressure from the anti-CIT group. Oddly, that group and another source close to the hearings were talking about a major change to the line-up being imminent, but nothing like that has happened. Laurie Manwell, also on the steering committee, did not respond to requests for comment that, frankly, might have helped avoid misperceptions.
The only recent changes of note involve the unexpected unavailability of Dr. Steven Jones (Kevin Ryan will do double duty as a result). Also, former U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney was taken off the list, but now appears to be back on. MacQueen said that her attendance has been uncertain, but organizers remained hopeful she would attend.
Keeping all members of the 9/11 Truth movement happy with the roster of witnesses is clearly an impossible job. But even though the CIT position isn’t directly being represented, there are positives that need to be emphasized.
First, Barrie Zwicker has organized a screening of CIT’s film National Security Alert for Sunday night, Sept. 11. This does not conflict with any part of the hearings, which conclude that afternoon. The new Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth film will also be screened in Toronto on Wednesday night.
At the hearings, Barbara Honegger is slated to make a presentation on the subject of explosives inside the Pentagon on 9/11, while David Ray Griffin (who has been supportive of the idea that a 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon) will address anomalies of flights 77 and 93. He will also give a talk on the failings of the 9/11 Commission Report.
There is a full complement of witnesses who will cover the evidence of controlled demolition at the World Trade Center:
- Richard Gage will discuss the evidence of a controlled demolition at the WTC
- David Chandler will refute the official version of the Building 7 destruction
- Kevin Ryan will handle the inadequacies of the NIST reports as well as the question of extreme temperatures
- Niels Harrit will talk about incendiary/explosive residue in the WTC dust
- Graeme MacQueen will discuss eyewitness evidence of explosions in the towers
- Jon Cole will address the official account and the experimental method
Peter Dale Scott will talk about 9/11 and the deep state, while former Senator Mike Gravel will discuss state deception, past and present. Laurie Manwell will give a talk on state crimes against democracy and psychological resistance to alternative accounts. Lance deHaven-Smith will talk about state crimes against democracy and Michel Chossudovsky will tackle the global consequences of 9/11.
MacQueen says his one regret is that there will be no pilots testifying. He says at least three were invited (including members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth), and all were unable to attend. While MacQueen says he won’t release names of witnesses who declined invitations, it is already public that one of those was Ted Muga of San Diegans for 9/11 Truth. Muga is a CIT supporter.
As efforts to select and get commitments from witnesses have proceeded, the organizers of the hearings have been coping with attacks from all sides, MacQueen says. He adds that it even got to the point where he and his wife were harassed at home by individuals who were unhappy with decisions that hearings’ organizers had made.
“I’m not sure I’ve seen anyone stoop this low,” MacQueen says. “It’s very disheartening.”
With just three days to go before the event gets under way, the focus is shifting to the hearings themselves rather than who is going to be invited. It’s perhaps time to step back and consider the good that can come from the examination of so many important topics related to the 9/11 false flag operation.
We can always go back to fighting next week.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment