Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle Reading App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your email address or mobile phone number.
(Disclosure: I participated in the event.) I expect this collection of reviews will grow to contain a lot of 5's and 1's. (The detractor community is well entrenched.) It is definitely not a 3. The Toronto Hearings brought together some of the most articulate researchers into all aspects of 9/11. Videos of most of the talks themselves are available online and a condensed collection is available as a DVD. If you want to know why so many in the scholarly and professional community believe government agencies were involved in the events of 9/11 and the government's story is a coverup, this is a good place to start.
"The Toronto Hearings" was the name of an excellent conference on 9/11, the best I have attended. It had reports by several of the best-known scholars of 9/11, including Kevin Ryan, Peter Dale Scott, Graeme MacQueen, David Chandler, Barbara Honegger, Richard Gage, and myself. Of special interest to people familiar with these scholars are excellent presentations by some less well-known scholars, including Jon Cole, Laurie Manwell, and Lance deHaven-Smith (who introduced the term SCADs [State Crimes against Democracy] as a type of crime exemplified by 9/11). The conference began with moving statements by Lorie Van Auken and Bob McIlvaine, who lost loved ones in the destruction of the World Trade Center. Finally, there were reflections on the conference by a prestigious four-member panel, including Italy's most famous judge, Ferdinando Imposimato. Attorney James Gourley of the International Center for 9/11 Studies turned these presentations into a first-rate book.
This book is the report and summary of a hearing held in Toronto on the tenth year anniversary of the attack on the twin towers. Sixteen specialists presented their research to a panel of four scholars who were to examine how this research fit with the popular assumptions of what happened that day. I attended all four days of the hearing which was held at Ryerson University.
The evidence was summarized by one of the panel, distinguished Italian jurist Ferdinando Imposimato (a published author on terrorism and state corruption and a Grand Officer of the Italian Order of Merit).
There is an abundance of scientific data that is at odds with popular assumptions of the facts of that event. One example; in the huge dust cloud that fell over New York micro analyisis of the dust reveals an unprecedented level of particles of micro thermite, a volatile explosive. This fact and others like it (why did World Trade Centre Building number 7 also implode?) led the panel to state that there is enough evidence to warrant an investigation by the International Criminal Court. As the Judge states, that court exists to hear trials on criminal activity that affect the peace and security of the world. The events of 9/11 certainly qualify.
Much of the detail of the book can be viewed from the links on the Toronto Hearings web site [...] The published record is essential reading for those who want to understand the world today.
Was this review helpful to you?
Building 7 was a 47-story skyscraper and was part of the World Trade Center complex. Built in 1984, it would have been the tallest high-rise in 33 states in the United States. It collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11, 2001. It was not hit by an airplane and suffered minimal damage compared to other buildings much closer to the Twin Towers.
7 Facts about Building 7
1) If fire caused Building 7 to collapse, it would be the first ever fire-induced collapse of a steel-frame high-rise.
2) Building 7's collapse was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.
3) According to a Zogby poll in 2006, 43% of Americans did not know about Building 7.
4) It took the federal government seven years to conduct an investigation and issue a report for Building 7.
5) 1,700+ architects and engineers have signed a petition calling for a new investigation into the destruction of Building 7, specifying that it should include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives.
6) Numerous witnesses say the possibility of demolishing Building 7 was widely discussed by emergency personnel at the scene and advocated by the building's owner.
7) Building 7 housed several intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and the NYC Office of Emergency Management's Emergency Operations Center, more commonly known as "Giuliani's Bunker".
"the process of transformation.. is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." -- PNAC document "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (Sept. 2000)
Thomas H. Kean, Chairman of the 9/11 Commission: "FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue...Read more ›