And, while the iron is hot, in what way is this so-called Toronto Hearing "international"? It is as "international" as the "international" House of Pancakes. Where is Italian film maker Massimo Mazzucco? French author Thierry Meyssan? Japanese member of Parliament Yukihisa Fujita? Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko? Italian Nobel Prize-winner Dario Fo? Italian Europarlementarian Guilietto Chiesa? And, Canadian author Barrie Zwicker? Just to name a few.
What the so-called International 9/11 Hearings are NOT:
• "international" - they in no way represent 9/11 truth researchers of the world
• about 9/11 Truth in general. It is only about the WTC in particular. And, at that, does not even include the P4911T evidence which does pertain to the WTC. The Pentagon evidence is omitted, apparently.
• A body capable of producing an informed opinion, in the form of a report, to any organization or government for the purpose of recommending which 9/11 evidence is strongest.
What the so-called International 9/11 Hearings ARE:
• A decent-sized 9/11 gathering which would, in all fairness, rank "up there" with several other "good sized" 9/11 gatherings held over the last ten years.
• It will include several notable speakers.
It is, in effect, just another 9/11 event, no different from any other. Griffin, Gage, et al. have presented dozens of times, probably to far larger crowds.
So, what really is the problem with the so-called Toronto Hearings?
I suspect an agenda and foul play here:
• I suspect that the true purpose of these so-called hearing is to create a kangaroo court not unlike other famous kangaroo courts held throughout history for the purpose of carrying out an agenda. (Think, perhaps: Salem, massechussetts witch trials.)
I suspect that the real purpose of the so-called hearings is to:
• Hold a kangaroo court
• Omit Pentagon Truth evidence
• Conclude, in the most official-sounding manner possible, that "an unbiased panel of 9/11 experts, representing the worldwide 9/11 Truth movement unanimously agree that the best and strongest evidence is..."
and then list some weak evidence which omits:
• Pentagon Truth evidence
and, in my experience:
• evidence linking Israeli involvement in the crimes
Finally, to then publish the findings of the kangaroo court in an official-looking report. It will be:
• Hailed by its own members and their affiliates such as 911Blogger who endorse the kangaroo court
• Used to put down Pentagon Truth
• Likely also, IMO, be used to put down efforts to prove Israeli involvment in the 9/11 crimes
To me, the kangaroo court reminds me of "damage control." "Acceptable losses" is a military term that comes to mind. That is, you hold a kangaroo court. Convince people that it is legitimate. Then, and importantly, you have to give the people a little something to make it seem real. (e.g., you must hang a witch.) Then, you let everyone go home, happy.
To make the analagy more clear: You organize these so-called Toronto Hearings. You try to make them seem worldwide, comprehensive, and legit. You hold your kangaroo court. Acceptable losses: you concede a few points, such as, perhaps, Building 7 freefall. This makes the people happy, and can be used to suppress criticism of the kangaroo court later. However, the kangaroo court will not under any circumstances allow certain other key pieces of evidence be heard. In fact, quite the opposite, it will arrange, like a script stage performance, for key individuals to make key statements at key times which limit the damage ("damage control"). These key statements, sound bites if you will, will of course appear in the kangaroo court's final report. The final report of the kangaroo court will cement into perpetuity the damage control boundaries established by the kangaroo court's organizers. Thus, the job done, the court held, the report made, the damage is controlled.
Let us keep in mind that for the last ten years, the US has been occupying Middle Eastern countries using 9/11 as a pretext. For the criminals, "victory" can simply be keeping the US Congress, authorities, and public arguing for ten more years over what "really happened" on 9/11. A stalemate can thus be like a victory, sometimes. (The war overseas keeps going on.) Thus, we see how a "damage control" strategy can be the perfect thing if one doesn't require an outright victory, but on a statemate in order to maintain the status quo.
I am not accusing the organizers of the so-called Toronto Hearings of deliberately trying to lie to the American people, impede the justice process, and perpetuate ongoing illegal US occupations overseas. However, coincidentally, it appears that their actions will lead to that same result.
We need not accuse anyone of anything. All we need do is:
• Help educate the public about what the so-called Toronto Hearings ARE, and what they AREN'T.
• Challenge the conclusions of the final report of the so-called Toronto Hearings as soon as it is released; and, relentlessly, just as we have done regarding the official 9/11 Commission's Ommission Report.
• Continue advancing Pentagon Truth by encouraging Pentagon Truth researches and leaders such as Barrie Zwicker, CIT, P4911T, and many others to further their important work; continue to hold more Pentagon Truth events such as the screening that Barrie Zwicker bravely is holding. He has put a flag in the ground for Pentagon Truth, and we must honor him and never forget his bravery for what he has done.
• I personally do not respond to the nay-sayers, although others do. It is a personal choice, to be sure. But, I do not recommend arguing with the nay-sayers. For example, why suffer mistreatment at 911Blogger, when anyone can simply start their own 911 news website and print whatever truth you like? (I proved that it can be done and anyone can do it.
Sorry for the length. Please also support Craig's blog at TruthandShadows.wordpress.com
. He is another brave Pentagon Truther.
Half a Truth is a Lie
No 9/11 Truth without Pentagon Truth!