The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 – Graeme MacQueen

In 2011, experts and scientists from around the world gathered in Toronto, Canada to present new and established evidence that questions the official story of 9/11. This evidence was presented to a distinguished panel of experts over a 4 day period. Through their analysis and scientific investigations, they hope to spark a new investigation into the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Press for Truth have made condensed highlights of these proceedings available online for free. We suggest anyone pursuing full understanding of what happened on September 11 201 takes time to watch these videos

This segment features Dr Graeme MacQueen on the eye-witness testimony of explosions in the towers before collapse.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
joey racano
Reader

Emergency Nine Eleven Nine one one nine one one Do you have a problem or are you causing one? Guliani Rudy Tutti Made the heroes do their duty Helping get the nation scared Knowing there were bombs upstairs Like a serpent with forked tongue Killed them praised them all as one Cordite charges experts smelled Bush and Cheney made it hell Twisted up the smokey fact Just to pass the patriot act More security no more entry *Project for a New American Century Fifteen years have passed and still First responders falling ill Cottage industry it seems Selling world trade… Read more »

John Brigham
Reader
John Brigham

Everyone gained from the 9/11 attacks, except the families of the diseased. I agree with the reopening of the investigation, but I am an optimist .

Arrby
Reader

This is a strange video. The quality is high, but we are not allowed to see any of the visuals presented by the presenter. As for the now discredited theory of the pancaking of the floors, When did that get discredited? This presenter, Graeme McQueen, doesn’t say. How was it discredited, because I’d be interested in the discrediting of a theory that to my mind would explain the booms. All those bombs planted and none ever discovered? Really? I nevertheless like the careful examination of the eyewitness statements that McQueen undertakes. That’s evidence. But so is the physical matter and… Read more »

Rhisiart Gwilym
Reader
Rhisiart Gwilym

Keep educating yourself about it Arrby. You’re clearly not up to speed yet. Bombs? Who said anything about bombs. It was mainly nanothermite, of which large residues have indeed been found in the WTC dust. And ask yourself: how did all that dust get pulverised so small? By gravitational energy – which was at least an order of magnitude to small to do all the necessary work? And that’s aside from all the work done to cut up the structural steel into nice conveniently-transportable lengths. Keep educating yourself about it, Arrby…

Kurt
Reader
Kurt

So how did ‘all that dust get pulverised so small’, was it the nanothermite ?

Norman Pilon
Reader

Hi Kurt, Do see my last comment to Arrby, above. The short answer to your question is, “nobody knows for sure.” It is known that “free fall,” by itself, is overwhelming proof that explosives were used, and “free fall” has been incontrovertibly established. Add to that the “fact,” established by Harrit et al. and as corroborated by Chemical Engineer, Mark Basile, and we “know” by implication that the concrete was pulverized by explosives. Furthermore, I’ll go out on a limb, here, since I can’t remember exactly where I might have read this, but I do remember reading something (if I… Read more »

Norman Pilon
Reader

A paper by Jim Hoffman, October 16, 2003
http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3_1.html
Not the one I read, but similar.
His conclusion reads:
Quote begins:
“The amount of energy required to expand the North Tower’s dust cloud was many times the entire potential energy of the tower’s elevated mass due to gravity. The over 10-fold disparity between the most conservative estimate and the gravitational energy is not easily dismissed as reflecting uncertainties in quantitative assessments.
The official explanation that the Twin Tower collapses were gravity-driven events appears insufficient to account for the documented energy flows. ”
Quote ends.
And some pertinent visuals and soundbites from qualified analysts:

Kurt
Reader
Kurt

Thanks Norman. So explosives and nanothermite were used to demolish the towers ? Anyone done any calculations on how much explosives would be needed to make up this order of magnitude deficit in energy required to render the concrete into dust ? What kind of seismic profile would such an amount of explosives have I wonder ? So not just the floors where the planes hit would have had to have been ‘wired’ but also every floor in the building in order to transform the concrete into dust and make up the energy shortfall between what gravity provided and the… Read more »

Norman Pilon
Reader

BTW: a link to an interview with Mark Basile that I wanted to leave behind but forgot:

Norman Pilon
Reader

The “pancake theory” is both inconsistent with a) the onset of rapid and total collapse (what NIST could not deny and the reason it discarded the theory) and b), as Greg Bacon puts it in “9/11: perspective of a retired firefighter” (the title of a post, here, at OffG), “. . .pulverized contents hundreds of feet high and blocks long, making it look like a volcano exploded. . .” together with ejections like that of a 20 ton steel beam over 400 feet with enough energy to impale it into another building. https://www.nist.gov/engineering-laboratory/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation Quote begins: NIST’s findings do not support… Read more »

Arrby
Reader

I have never delved too deeply into this. But I didn’t want to right away. Let facts be gathered, I thought. I just had a look at the NIST report you link to. It pretty much says what I understood to be the case. Heat caused by fire from the jet fuel weaked supporting beams and initiated collapse. But for the life of me, while the report rules out a pancaking, I can only visualize what ‘is’ being described as a pancaking. Are we looking at details? I haven’t read all of the report (but will when I get some… Read more »

Norman Pilon
Reader

Hey, Arrby,
You are asking the right questions. Consider engaging the treasure trove of ‘scientific’ evidence archived at the website, “Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth,” URL: http://www.ae911truth.org/ .
In particular, you will want to pick over the section titled “EVIDENCE,” under the tab titled, “ARTICLES & INFORMATION.” The URL for the “EVIDENCE” is: http://www.ae911truth.org/news/evidence.html

Husq
Reader
Husq

For over 120 years, the Statue of liberty has been well known all over the world & it is especially impressive to those who approach New York by ship. To many thousands of immigrants who were landed at the neighbouring Ellis Island, she was a symbol of freedom & new opportunity. But many don’t realise its Masonic origin & connection. Indeed, its full & proper title is “The Statue of Liberty & Freemasonry” http://www.pglel.co.uk/Education&Development/materials/miscellaneous/the_statue_of_liberty_and_freemasonry.pdf Freemasonry and Fraternalism in the Middle East https://www.academia.edu/756549/Freemasonry_and_fraternalism_in_the_Middle_East

Husq
Reader
Husq

Haaretz Investigation: Secret Flight Operating Between Israel and Gulf State
http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/1.629457#!

leonaleecully
Reader

Reblogged this on leonaleecully and commented:
#NeverForget