"9/11: A decade of deception" - On the tenth anniversary of the Attacks of September 11th, 2001, expert witnesses gathered at Ryerson University in Toronto, Canada to provide evidence-based research that called into question the official story of 9/11. This was known as The Toronto Hearings on 9/11. Over a period of four days, these experts in Structural Engineering, Physics, Chemistry, and History gave researched and professional testimony to an international panel of distinguished judges. The panel of judges, in conjunction with the steering committee would go on to publish their final analysis of the evidence provided, which called for a new investigation into the Attacks of September 11th, 2001. This film is a summary of the strongest evidence given over the four days of hearings. To see the hearings in their entirety please visit torontohearings.org or read the final report available on the aforementioned website.

Related: 1. 20 Years After 9/11. - 2. A 20 años del atentado terrorista del 11-S. - 3. THE ANATOMY OF A GREAT DECEPTION. - 4. FIRE DID NOT CAUSE BUILDING 7’S COLLAPSE ON 9/11 - Related: 21 Years A… - 5. The Parallels Between 9/11 & COVID | Richard Gage & Dr. Madhava Setty

Sources: 1. 911 Decade of Deception - 2. scribd.com/document/326861525/The-9-11-Toronto-Report

From the back cover of the final report:

This volume is the final report issued from the International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001, held in Toronto, Canada. Over the four days of the Toronto Hearings, noted authors and scientific experts presented the best evidence gathered in the previous decade to a panel of distinguished individuals whose opinion on the strength of the evidence should carry considerable weight in the public sphere.

The four panelists were: Ferdinando Imposimato, former Senior Judge and Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy; Herbert Jenkins, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at McMaster University, educated at Oberlin College and Harvard University; Richard Lee, Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at the University of Toronto and Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, previously positions at Harvard, Rutgers and Columbia University; and David Johnson, Professor Emeritus of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Tennessee and former President of the U.S. Fulbright Association, educated at Yale and Cornell.

Much of the evidence these panelists heard and questioned during the Toronto Hearings is presented in the opening chapters of this report. Following the evidence, each panelist has presented his findings, conclusions and recommendations based on the evidence.

Panelist David Johnson noted that much of the evidence, “ignored by the mainstream media, cries out for a wider audience and a rigorous but fair review by independent authorities,” and that a “new, honest investigation conducted with subpoena powers should be empanelled to look into whether such crimes might have been committed.”

Herbert Jenkins found that previous U.S. government investigations of 9/11 “were designed not to understand what actually happened, but rather to defend the official account, which they did by selective omissions and distortions of the evidence” and believes that “without a more open government, [there is] no way to repair the profound distrust of government that now cripples democracy in America.”

Richard Lee said that the Toronto Hearings were “extraordinarily effective in presenting carefully compiled scientific evidence that casts serious doubt on the veracity of the official story” and was “impressed by the seriousness of the witnesses, their willingness to submit their evidence to scientific scrutiny and evaluation, and their challenging the authors of the official story to refute the evidence presented.”

Ferdinando Imposimato held that the best course forward to achieve justice is to “submit the best evidence concerning the involvement in 9/11 of specific individuals to the International Criminal Court Prosecutor and ask him to investigate” and names potential targets of the ICC investigation. The opinions of the Toronto Hearings panelists 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.

Sources:

1. The 9/11 Toronto Report - 2. Amazon.com

The truthers are out there: Toronto Hearings on the events of September 11.

As people across Canada and the United States publicly remembered the tenth anniversary of 9/11 this week, a small group at Ryerson University were examining another angle altogether: the “myth” of 9/11. The four-day Toronto Hearings kicked off Thursday with a trio of experts and academics offering their opinions on why the official narrative of 9/11 as a terrorist attack is flawed. The Post’s Megan O’Toole looks at the day’s highlights.

Though the Toronto Hearings have so far played out more like a conference than a legal hearing, organizers referred to each of the three experts who took to the podium as “witnesses.” No lawyers were there to cross-examine them; instead, a panel of three academics and an Italian judge peppered the speakers with friendly questions. The panel, which will ultimately draft a report on the matter, may address the question of whether another state-sponsored inquiry is needed to help answer all the lingering questions about 9/11. “We know that the official story does not fly,” organizer Graeme MacQueen said. “It’s full of holes.”

CONSPIRACIES ABOUND

Florida State University professor Lance deHaven-Smith, who addressed the panel first, came right out and said it: “Maybe [9/11] was an inside job to advance a war agenda.” He cited evidence that the collapse of New York’s twin towers resulted from controlled demolition, a theory popular among the so-called 9/11 Truth movement. “What is more disconcerting in some ways is that this was not investigated,” Mr. deHaven-Smith told the mostly older crowd of about 100 people. By labelling such views as conspiracy theory, the U.S. political elite “silences and stigmatizes” legitimate questions, Mr. deHaven-Smith said. He drew a parallel between 9/11 and a host of other historical U.S. “state crimes against democracy” — or SCADs, for short — including the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy, the 2001 anthrax scare and the disputed presidential elections that put George W. Bush in the White House for two successive terms.

SUPPRESSING THE TRUTH, PART I

The official report from the 9/11 commission is replete with glaring omissions, said speaker David Ray Griffin, who wrote the book 9/11 Ten Years Later: When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed. “There were continuing signs the Bush administration didn’t want the truth of 9/11 to be discussed,” Mr. Griffin said, pointing to the appointment of Bush crony Philip Zelikow as the commission’s executive director. “The commission was the White House investigating itself.” The resulting report failed to include relevant information about the alleged hijackers, including the revelation that some were still alive after the attacks, he said. In addition, Mr. Griffin questioned the discovery of alleged ringleader Mohamed Atta’s will in a suitcase that was supposed to be on the plane with him. Why put your will in a plane destined to crash, Mr. Griffin asked.

SUPPRESSING THE TRUTH, PART II

Kevin Ryan, co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies, was similarly critical of a report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) into how and why the twin towers, and a third building in the World Trade Center complex that was not hit by any plane, collapsed in the fashion they did. “A steel structure does not collapse suddenly when attacked by fire,” Mr. Ryan said, noting the NIST report “distorted many important facts.” The fires raging in either tower were not hot enough to melt the steel structure, he said, nor would the plane crash have created sufficient force to pull the building’s exterior columns inward, as the NIST report suggested had occurred. “This is the opposite of science,” Mr. Ryan fumed.

THE AUDIENCE

In addition to dozens of guests, speakers and experts, a number of amateur filmmakers were on scene to record the Toronto Hearings, while security posted outside the door ensured anyone entering had an appropriate badge. Critics have questioned the timing of the hearings, coming when so many people are grieving their losses. Mr. MacQueen, however, said the goal was not to delegitimize their mourning, but rather to sift through the “myth and deception” surrounding 9/11. Attendee Bruce Sinclair, a member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, said the purpose of the event was not to point fingers. “I would hardly describe us as conspiracy theorists in the pejorative sense,” he said. “What we’re trying to do is find the facts.”

Source: The truthers are out there: Toronto Hearings on the events of September 11