Pushing the boundaries of truth: 9/11 Vancouver Hearings embrace controversy

In Toronto, we saw the conservative approach to examining 9/11 evidence. In Vancouver we’re going to see something quite different.

In stark contrast to last September’s Toronto Hearings into the Events of September 11, 2001, the 9/11 Vancouver Hearings will pursue the truth wherever that leads, according to co-organizer Joshua Blakeney. The stated mission of the hearings, which start tomorrow, is to “push the boundaries of 9/11 truth.”

In an interview this week, Blakeney, Canadian correspondent for Press TV and staff writer at Veterans Today, said the Vancouver Hearings will explore a number of areas that Toronto wouldn’t touch or only briefly addressed.

One is the question of whether a plane crash was faked at the Pentagon. Another is whether there is merit in some of the more controversial areas of 9/11 research, namely the possibility of video fakery and the use of directed energy weapons. The role of the media in the deception of 9/11 will also be explored.

Some in the Truth movement are dismissing these hearings on the basis that some highly contentious (some would say discredited) areas will be explored. The thinking seems to be that if some of these angles are acknowledged let alone addressed it will invite criticism and ridicule from the media and public.

I know truthers who feel this way, and very strongly so. And I understand their concern, up to a point. I have to say, though, that I don’t buy the idea that we have to avoid controversial positions to gain credibility. I’m looking forward to the hearings and what we’ll learn. That doesn’t mean I’ll be happy with each of the 19 presentations; I may absolutely reject some of them. But I’m not afraid of having the discussion, and I don’t think the Truth movement should be afraid of it either.

“Unless we entertain all hypotheses, how can we come to a truthful conclusion?” Blakeney asks. “Are we going to be a cult or deal with compelling issues?”

Blakeney explains that a fundamental difference in the philosophy of these hearings as compared to Toronto is that getting the approval of the mainstream press isn’t an objective. In Toronto, he says, organizers were pleased that the Canadian newspaper the National Post wrote something that wasn’t a “hit piece.” He suggests that this was because the hearings had tried so hard to be respectable and non-threatening.

“The mainstream media is allowing this false paradigm to seep in the public consciousness and is therefore complicit,” Blakeney says. “We should only care about media in so far as we’re exposing them.”

A key question the hearings will consider is who was responsible for the false flag operation and why. Blakeney himself will make a presentation on what he believes was the role of Israel’s Mossad in planning and carrying out the crimes of 9/11. He says it’s not enough to simply show that the official story is false; you have to go much deeper to really understand what was done and what the objectives were.

The Toronto 9/11 Hearings addressed the “least controversial” 9/11 evidence (its own web site specified this). Most of the time was spent on the science of what brought the twin towers down, and it stayed mostly away from the question of who was behind the crimes. The hearings also devoted very little time to discussing the Pentagon and Shanksville events.

Blakeney and co-organizer Jim Fetzer, the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, approached a number of 9/11 researchers who declined to speak at these hearings. Blakeney says invitations were extended to Richard Gage, Niels Harrit, Judy Wood, Barrie Zwicker, Citizen Investigation Team, and others.

“I would like CIT to have come but unfortunately they don’t like Jim Fetzer for some reason.”

Following the keynote address by Canadian activist Splitting the Sky (who attempted a citizens’ arrest of former U.S. president George W. Bush in Calgary in 2009), we’ll see six sessions and 19 presenters (only Barbara Honegger also spoke in Toronto).

Here is the program (for bio information on each speaker, check http://www.911vancouverhearings.com):

Session 1: The Pentagon, the Witnesses, and the Passengers

Enver Masud, “What didn’t happen at the Pentagon”
Barbara Honegger, “Behind the Smoking Curtain: The Pentagon attacked Itself”
Dean Hartwell, “Planes and passengers: What became of them?”

Session 2: How were the Twin Towers destroyed? Part 1

Nicholas Kollerstrom, “The Nine Keys to 9/11”
Charles Boldwyn, “Why the Twin Towers could not have collapsed”
Jeff Prager, “Proof of Ternary Fission in New York City on 9/11″

Session 3: How were the Twin Towers destroyed? Part 2

Donald Fox, “Mini-nukes used at the WTC and the real ‘untold story’”
Clare Kuehn, “Were DEWs used to decimate the Twin Towers?”
Dwain Deets, “Assessing Alternative Theories about the Twin Towers”

Session 4: Who was Responsible for 9/11 and Why?

Susan Lindauer, “Confessions of a CIA Asset”
Kevin Barrett, “9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda”
Alan Sabrosky, “Genesis of Deception: Israel and Its Friends on 9/11″
Joshua Blakeney, “The Likudnik Origins of 9/11”

Session 5: The Fabrication of the Atrocities of 9/11

Christopher Holmes, “Fabled Airplanes and Scripted Witnesses”
Dennis Cimino, “The ‘official account’ of flights on 9/11 is a fantasy”
Jim Fetzer, “Fakery and Fraud in the ‘Official Account’ of 9/11”

Session 6: The Media, the 9/11 Myth, and the Message

John McCarthy, “US government involvement in 9/11 is no surprise”
Webster Tarpley, “From 9/11 to WIKILEAKS and ‘The Arab Spring’: Covert ops in our time”
Anthony Hall, “How the Media have Failed us All”

One the two judges is Connie Fogel, former leader of the Canadian Action Party (which challenges the official story of 9/11) and currently a lawyer with the Defence of Canadian Liberty Committee. The other is Alfred Lambremont Webre, who was a judge on the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal and who submitted a memorandum to the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee calling for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate 9/11.

The Vancouver Hearings have a similar structure to Toronto in that each “witness” makes a presentation to these judges who will then ask questions. Later, they’ll produce a written report evaluating the evidence they heard.

One advantage of these hearings for anyone wanting to attend is that a pass for the whole weekend is just $50 ($25 for one day). And there’s lots of seating, as the event is being held in the 552-seat Denman Theatre. Toronto charged $200 for the full conference and seating was limited (in fact it sold out weeks before the hearings started). Toronto recently released a five-hour DVD package of testimony.

As with Toronto, the Vancouver Hearings will be streamed live on the Internet. Blakeney said he wasn’t sure whether the sessions would be available for later viewing as well.

For all the details on the program and the link for live streaming, go to the Vancouver Hearings web site, http://www.911vancouverhearings.com.