WATCH: 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.


If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.

For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Colin Doran
Colin Doran
Apr 19, 2021 1:32 PM

Why do structural investigations when buildings collapse? All you need to do is get people’s impressions of what happened. Then of course you call them ‘testimonies’. That gives them the apparent stamp of being irrefutable fact. I always thought controlled demolition was a process, a process that started with weeks and weeks of preparatory work in an empty building and weeks of cutting steel columns and planting explosives. It seems though that it is just a phrase; ‘controlled demolition’. Magic words. Someone just pushes a button and ‘hey presto’ the building comes down. Graeme MacQueen obviously thinks that’s what is involved. What do you have after controlled demolition? Evidence of controlled demolition. What do you when you cut steel columns? Steel columns that have been cut. Any evidence for that? None. Oh well. Let’s just listen to people’s impressions and ignore the fact that there is no evidence to support those impressions.

joey racano
joey racano
Sep 12, 2016 6:37 PM

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 center beams
Waterboarding at Guantanamo
North Dakota shades of Geronimo
Clinton stole the last election
Copied Cheney to perfection
Two years old indoctrination starts
Hold those little hands on hearts
Monotone they drone the pledge
Climate future at the edge
So we say to nine eleven
Day Allendez went to Heaven
Look it up and you will see
*Chile’ 1973
Wolfowitz and Bush and Cheney
Rumsfeld Ashcroft Condi Zany
All of them should be in prison
Is Manning Free? Not yet she isn’t
Nine one one Nine one one
Do you have a problem
or are you causing one?
joey racano

John Brigham
John Brigham
Sep 12, 2016 4:35 PM

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 .

Sep 12, 2016 1:52 AM

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 items on the scene, which the mayor, criminally, immediately began to remove from the site, as the Corbett Report reveals: https://www.corbettreport.com/911-suspects-rudy-giuliani/

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Sep 12, 2016 3:17 AM
Reply to  Arrby

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.
Quote begins:
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
Quote ends.
For Greg Bacon’s testimony: https://off-guardian.org/2016/09/11/911-perspective-of-a-retired-firefighter/

Sep 12, 2016 5:21 AM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

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 sleep), but it’s noteworthy that it also rules out what Mr MacQueen would have us believe, namely that controlled demolition had taken place. But then, this is all so technical that I can imagine Mr MacQueen positing that controlled demolition didn’t take place, but evidence that bombs had been used was overwhelming. I was quite struck by the video report (The Corbett Report) showing the frantic efforts of a dishonest Rudolph Guiliani to get rid of the wreckage/evidence at the scene, which firefighters were not happy about, once they absorbed the enormity of the crime.
I wish MacQueen had bothered to explain why he thinks it was proper that the pancake theory was dismissed. I wish he had explained the differences between what the NIST report says did happen and that theory, because I’m lost.
And is everyone (besides the firefighters) saying that they are okay with the degree to which evidence was preserved at the site of the catastrophe? Do Mr MacQueen and others feel comfortable with the amount of evidence available, which isn’t to say that what is and could be available can’t keep researchers busy for a long time.

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Sep 12, 2016 8:25 PM
Reply to  Arrby

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

Rhisiart Gwilym
Rhisiart Gwilym
Sep 12, 2016 7:35 AM
Reply to  Arrby

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…

Sep 12, 2016 1:21 PM

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

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Sep 12, 2016 8:44 PM
Reply to  Kurt

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 search for it, I’ll probably be able to find again), but I think it was over at AE9/11 — well, I am pretty sure that if you search the extensive archive at the website “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth,” you will find an academic paper “proving” by calculation that there was by far and away too insufficient gravitational potential in the buildings as a whole to pulverize all that concrete to the degree that it was. The missing quantity of energy is significant, if a vague recollection may serve, and the author concludes, I think, that it could only have been supplied by explosives.
Should I decide to search for the paper and have the good luck of finding it, I’ll return with the link . . .

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Sep 12, 2016 8:47 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

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

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Sep 12, 2016 9:21 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

A paper by Jim Hoffman, October 16, 2003
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:

Sep 13, 2016 8:16 AM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

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 amount needed to turn the concrete into dust ?

Sep 11, 2016 9:08 PM

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”
Freemasonry and Fraternalism in the Middle East

Sep 11, 2016 9:10 PM
Reply to  Husq

Haaretz Investigation: Secret Flight Operating Between Israel and Gulf State

Sep 11, 2016 11:53 AM

Reblogged this on leonaleecully and commented: