9/11 (Truth)

The celebrated 9/11 anniversary has passed, and left in its wake further alienation for some of us, and, for others, entrenched justification for dismal foreign policy and ponzi-economania.  However, the balance continues to shift in favor of those demanding 9/11 truth and justice.   A major milestone came this past weekend with the Toronto Hearings, where experts from numerous fields gathered to submit evidence in support of finding the truth as to what really happened on the day of September 11, 2001.

Here's the schedule:

TORONTO HEARINGS: SCHEDULE
(Subject to Changes)

Thursday, September 8, 2011
9:00 – 9:30 Moderators: Opening Remarks
9:30 – 9:45 James Gourley: Introduction to the Hearings and the Panel
9:45 – 10:15 Lorie Van Auken (Video): Statement by a Jersey Widow
10:30 – 12:00 Lance deHaven-Smith: 9/11 & State Crimes Against Democracy
1:00 – 2:30 David Ray Griffin: Inadequacies of the 9/11 Commission’s Report
2:45 – 4:15 Kevin Ryan: Inadequacies of the Reports by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology
4:15 – 5:00 Audience Question and Answer
Friday, September 9, 2011
9:00 – 9:15 Moderators: Overview of the Day’s Testimony
9:15 – 10:30 Jay Kolar: The Alleged 9/11 Hijackers
10:45 – 12:00 Paul Zarembka: Evidence of Insider Trading Before 9/11
1:00 – 1:35 Barbara Honegger: Eyewitnesses and Evidence of Explosions at the
Pentagon
1:35 – 3:10 Richard Gage: Evidence of the Demolition of WTC:
An Overview
3:30 – 4:45 Michel Chossudovsky: Global Consequences of 9/11
4:45 – 5:25 Cynthia McKinney: Attempts to Raise Questions about 9/11
5:25- 5:50 Audience Question and Answer
Saturday, September 10, 2011
9:00 – 9:15 Moderators: Overview of the Day’s Testimony
9:15 – 10:30 Graeme MacQueen: Eyewitness Evidence of Explosions at WTC
10:45 – 12:00 David Chandler: WTC 7:  A Refutation of the Official Account
1:00 – 2:15 Jon Cole: The Official Account and the Experimental Method
2:15 – 3:30 Kevin Ryan: Extreme Temperatures
3:45 – 5:00 Niels Harrit: Incendiary/Explosive Residue in the WTC Dust
5:00 – 5:30 Audience Question and Answer
Sunday, September 11, 2011
9:00 – 9:15 Moderators: Opening remarks and Moment of Silence
9:15 – 10:45 David Ray Griffin: Anomalies of Flights 77 and 93
10:45 – 12:00 Peter Dale Scott: 9/11 and Deep State Politics
1:00 – 2:00 Laurie Manwell: SCADs and Psychological Resistance to
Alternative Accounts
2:00 – 3:15 Senator Mike Gravel: State Deception in the Past and Today
3:30 – 4:15 Audience Question and Answer
  
A cursory glance at the schedule reads "Inadequacies..., Questions..., Explosions..., Demolition..., Deep State Politics."  The hearings included testimony from chemists, physicists, engineers, doctors, and scholars and I highly recommend watching some of the testimony here.

Laurie Manwell's presentation on State Crimes Against Democracy and Psychological Resistance to Alternative Accounts of 9/11 couldn't have been a better late than never introduction to the live hearings.  Having struggled with family and friends over 9/11 (truth), any insight into what makes it such a difficult topic to address is helpful.  For those who support 9/11 truth, there is plight in having to address the confounding subject.  
  
A question, though:  is addressing 9/11 (truth) the most effective means for treating our current socio-political dysfunctionality?  9/11 (truth) has some nasty implications (i.e. political violence, graft, fraud), which makes me ask (duh), what kind of larger, more treasonous threats do we face if 9/11 is someone's debut, inauguration, opus, if you will?   Are there motives which have yet to be uncovered behind the 9/11 facade, the obtrusiveness of which supersede any of our, what become, attempts to influence culture with the perhaps dim glow of 9/11 (truth).  Is 9/11 (truth) just in the past?  Is 9/11 (truth) a distraction from what is happening now?  

I saw James Wolfensohn speak at a promotional event for his book at the Center for the Arts a few weeks ago.  During the question and answer session of the talk, some young guy in the rear upper section of the auditorium stood up and asked, accusingly, how Bush and Obama were running free having been involved in egregious international crimes such as kidnapping and torture.  Wolfensohn's response; "I don't think anyone is going to drag them to the Hague."  Well, looks like no one Wolfensohn knows is dragging them to the pen.  Any other questions?