September 6, 2011
As most readers will already know, “The International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001”, also known as “The Toronto Hearings”, will be taking place next week at Ryerson University. This will be a four day event, running from Thursday September 8, 2011 through Sunday, September 11. You can visit the official website here to read about The Toronto Hearings in the words of the organizers if you have not previously done so.
For weeks now, people have been asking us if we (Citizen Investigation Team) have been invited to make a presentation at the Toronto Hearings. It has become increasingly apparent that we ought to address this question publicly, especially in light of our recent announcement that we will be co-presenting at The Royal cinema in Toronto on the tenth anniversary of 9/11 -- Sunday, September 11, 2011.
The short answer is no, we have not been invited to the Toronto Hearings.
Before elaborating, we want to make a couple things very clear right from the start:
1) The stated objectives on the front page of the site are admirable on their face:
(1) To present evidence that the U.S. government’s official investigation into the events of September 11, 2001, as pursued by various government and government-appointed agencies, is seriously flawed and has failed to describe and account for the 9/11 events.
(2) To single out the most weighty evidence of the inadequacy of the U.S. government’s investigation; to organize and classify that evidence; to preserve that evidence; to make that evidence widely known to the public and to governmental, non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations.
(3) To submit a record and a summary of the Hearings, together with signed Statutory Declarations by witnesses, to relevant governments, groups and international agencies with the request that a full and impartial investigation be launched into the events of September 11, 2001, which have been used to initiate military invasions and to restrict the rights of citizens.
(4) To engage the attention of the public, the international community and the media through witness testimony as well as through media events broadcasted via the Internet during the four day event.
2) We are confident that much of the evidence presented will be credible and important.
With that said, it was apparent to us from early on that there would be another, not-at-all-admirable major objective behind the Toronto Hearings, and that would be to, in some way or another, marginalize the evidence that we have uncovered for a north side approach and flyover.
What this means is that the Toronto Hearings is, in our view, a double-edge sword. On one hand it may (and hopefully will) help draw attention to evidence that "the U.S. government’s official investigation into the events of September 11, 2001, as pursued by various government and government-appointed agencies, is seriously flawed and has failed to describe and account for the 9/11 events" (their wording). But, on the other hand, it has been and will be used by certain individuals in their quest to marginalize what many feel is arguably the strongest, most irrefutable, easy-to-understand evidence proving a "MIHOP"-style, false flag, black operation. The phrases "controlled opposition" and "limited hangout" are therefore entirely appropriate, we feel.
Let's pause again before proceeding to first make sure something else is clear from the outset: We do not feel that all, or even necessarily most, of the people involved with the Toronto Hearings are fully aware of this objective, or (would be) in agreement with it (if they truly and fully understood it). In other words, this is an agenda of at least one of the Steering committee members and some of his close associates, and they are using the Toronto Hearings as an instrument to that end.If you don't already know (and as noted here): There has for years now been a concerted campaign by a relatively small clique of individuals who purport to be members of the "9/11 truth movement" to marginalize and vilify Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) and dismiss our findings. It seems that the more evidence we obtain and publish proving that the official story is a farce and that the Pentagon attack was a black operation the more aggressive and brazen their campaign becomes.
Evidence presented at the Hearings will be chosen according to the following criteria: high degree of certainty; importance; and consensus. High degree of certainty means that the Hearings will concentrate not on speculation but on facts that can firmly be established. Importance means that the Hearings will concentrate on elements of the governmental explanation that are crucial to that explanation. Consensus means that evidence chosen will be that which is least controversial within the movement of dissent that is critical of the official explanation.
The AC [Advisory Committee] has never been consulted about anything substantial, not the governance, processes, selection of witnesses, moderators, panelists, topics, criteria for evidence, etc. We have been asked to help raise funds and try to find "societal change agents" who could be invited to the hearings for free. ... Someone, not me, said the TH invited me to be a member of this (window dressing) committee to avoid inviting me to be a witness, since the fix was in against CIT and I'm known as a CIT supporter. I must admit that this could be true.We (CIT) feel that it is clear that the Advisory Committee was and is only "window dressing" which, when beneficial, can be used to convey the convenient impression of widely diffused power and influence and thus inspires trust amongst the "rank and file" 9/11 skeptics, while masking the reality, which is that the event is controlled by only five individuals, each with effective veto power.
Speaking on behalf of the Steering Committee of the Toronto Hearings, I can tell you that we have never, once, been interested in including any presentations that focus on the issue of 'what hit the Pentagon.' [...] We have received "pressure" from all corners of the 9/11 truth movement to include presentations that address specific subjects, and we have never altered the schedule in response to any of it. This includes vociferous pressure from CIT supporters to include them in the Hearings. The Steering Committee has not wavered from its early decision to refrain from focusing on the question of what hit the Pentagon.As a side note, as we explicitly wrote in response to David Chandler seven months ago, and as Gourley surely knows if he has any familiarity with our work at all:
"[W]hat hit" is not a question that CIT has ever focused on or promoted. We have only found evidence for a single low-flying craft on the scene at the moment of the explosion: a large commercial-looking aircraft that was banking to its right on the north side of the gas station and therefore could not have hit the light poles or the building. The very question of "what hit" the Pentagon assumes that something did, while it is well known that we are convinced from our investigation that nothing (i.e. no airborne object/craft including the one seen by the witnesses) "hit" at all, and that the damage was caused by pre-planted explosives. We have been very explicit about this for years.We continued:
In fact, we feel that the Department of Defense purposely tried to lead 9/11 skeptics who were already correctly questioning the damage to the building down this incorrect "what hit" path. For example, we do not think that the alleged "leak" of the dubious five frames video was a real "leak" at all, but rather a deliberate disinformation campaign to get people to focus on missile and drone theories of "what hit". Likewise for Donald Rumsfeld's supposed slip of the tongue during an interview with Parade Magazine shortly after 9/11, where he is quoted as mentioning "the missile" which "damaged this building" (the Pentagon). The DoD itself mirrored a copy of this interview where Rumsfeld made this supposed gaff on their own website, and they have kept it online there for years, even to this day, helping to fuel the proliferation of missile theories.
We therefore find it telling that Gourley would falsely frame the issue in that way even while talking about us, especially given the fact that his associates Legge and Ryan are conspicuously fond of doing the same thing.
Note: We have offered to have a civil, thorough, on-camera debate/discussion with Gourley in Toronto, so if he thinks anything we are saying here or elsewhere is unfair he is welcome to take it up with us directly.)
Returning to the main topic of discussion, there are a few more things we want to note here.
Toward the beginning we explained that: "it was apparent to us from early on that there would be another, not-at-all-admirable major objective behind the Toronto Hearings, and that would be to, in some way or another, marginalize the evidence that we have uncovered for a north side approach and flyover."
The reason we said "in some way or another" is because we didn't know from the beginning exactly how this would play out. The most likely scenario seemed to be that they would simply not invite us and omit the evidence, all while claiming that the "best evidence" was represented. And indeed, this is what happened.
However, although we saw it as a less likely scenario, we felt early on that there was also the possibility that they would end up inviting us. We appreciate the sentiment of those who decided to lobby for us to be invited, but feel that it was misguided to think that this was necessarily going to make the situation okay (not that everyone who did this necessarily assumed that it would).
We have, for years, invited our most outspoken detractors from the anti-CIT cadre to debate us publicly on the subject. They have almost universally refused (the only one to accept conceded pretty much every major point and ultimately defeat), yet they have continued to launch dishonest attacks on websites where they know that we cannot respond directly.
Given this well-established history of our opposition's avoidance of honest, fair, unrestricted, direct debate, why, then, would anyone settle for a situation where our opponents can control every facet -- who participates, when they speak, how long they speak for, what they will talk about, what the "rules of engagement" are for any permitted "debate" will be, etc.? History and logic dictate that the only way they would invite us to an event like this would be if they were confident that they could sufficiently control the debate. (However, if they tried that, it may have ended up being too obvious, and thus could have backfired. Also, frankly, we don't think they want to debate us even with our arms tied behind our backs. The plane was on the north side, and most of them know it. The cat is out of the bag.)
Furthermore, remember that one of the primary stated objectives of the hearings all along has been to "single out the most weighty evidence". Remember also that, since day one, it was announced that the "final report" would be edited by James Gourley. So, even if we hypothetically were permitted to come and make a presentation, our dishonest opponents still had their close associate in there, making it easier for them to assure that, no matter what, the final judgment would be that it was not credible, or at least inferior. Then they could claim: "The evidence CIT presents was thoroughly evaluated at the most thorough, distinguished, objective, formal hearings to ever take place, which brought together some of the most well respected 9/11 researchers in all of the world, and it was determined to be fundamentally flawed, and certainly not even close to 'the most weighty' evidence the truth movement has.".
With that said, obviously they still stuck with Plan A.
See you in Toronto.
(Related article: "The Toronto Invitations")