Humint Events Online: 9/11 Vancouver Hearings

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

9/11 Vancouver Hearings

A good overview of the conference that finished about 10 days ago, here.
There was definitely no “party line” at the 9/11 Vancouver Hearings. The opinions offered by 19 presenters over three days were diverse, with some openly disagreeing with each other both in their presentations and in question-and-answer sessions. Some may feel that the lack of a common front at these hearings was a problem; I don’t think that’s true. One thing that was clear from the outset was that organizers Jim Fetzer (pictured above) and Joshua Blakeney were making no effort to emulate last September’s Toronto 9/11 Hearings – apart from the quasi-judicial structure. Where Toronto was safe and controlled, Vancouver was unpredictable and, at times, combative. The journalist part of me loved the volatility and excitement of it while the 9/11 truther part felt guilty about loving it. The things that stood out most for me from what I saw (which wasn’t everything):
Dwain Deets offering an assessment of limited evidence at the twin towers that pointed to a nuclear component in the destruction. He added that those pushing nanothermite might be “bragging more than they should.”
The clash between Fetzer and presenter Barbara Honegger over her claim that there was an impact at the Pentagon near the heliport
The confrontation between Fetzer and speaker Webster Tarpley over whether Israel played a role in 9/11.
All the 9/11 issues that would never have been mentioned at the Toronto Hearings: Israel’s role, alternative theories about the destruction of the towers (including nuclear and DEW), video fakery, burned vehicles, what happened to the passengers, etc.
Tarpley contending that George W. Bush may have had very little advance knowledge of 9/11, but that he “surrendered” the government to the plotters, likely under threat of being deposed
In the too good to be true category, a video presented by Fetzer (which he says came from Veterans Today chairman of the board Gordon Duff) which appears to show a missile hitting the Pentagon
Fetzer praised Judy Wood for “the most brilliant analysis of effects that have to be explained.” He added that he can’t understand why she has cut off communication with him.
Fetzer also praised the research of Citizen Investigation Team.
The thing that blew me away more than anything else over the weekend was the presentation by former NASA executive Deets who looked at what might have brought down the twin towers. He chose nine areas of evidence relating to the destruction of the twin towers, and he then looked at four theories about what could have done it. 1) Runaway open office space destruction (ROOSD) 2) Explosive demolition 3) Nuclear devices 4) Directed energy weapons ROOSD, I learned, means that floors in the towers were detached somehow from the inner and outer steel columns and then fell on the floors below, which would not be able to support the weight. Deets says this isn’t the same as the pancake theory because of the floors being entirely detached – and deliberately. This doesn’t support the official story, he adds. The evidence he looked at (he points out that this is a partial list, and his conclusions can’t be taken as his final answer on the subject) included the debris pattern, hot spots, why the crush down rate was different on different sides of the buildings, nanothermite, the temperature during the event, vehicle anomalies, the presence of tritium, basement explosions, and the presence of radionuclides. I’ll be following up on this.
Debate is good, and it's nice to see some of these topics being discussed out in the open after so many years. Especially nukes at the WTC! It sounds like not a lot of progress was made towards agreement, but that's the nature of the beast. I hope they keep these conferences going, frankly. This alternate piece on the conference, mentions they will be issuing indictments for the 9/11 perps.  Sounds good to me.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Haha, this is like 9/11 truth group dynamics in a nutshell:

"Fetzer praised Judy Wood for 'the most brilliant analysis of effects that have to be explained.' He added that he can’t understand why she has cut off communication with him."

I'm laughing but the divisiveness is tragic from another angle. Yet isn't it also simply inevitable because (1) that's just the way group dynamics tend to be, especially when it comes to groups organized around ideas (religions, philosophies, political groups, schools of psychology, etc.) and (2) we may not know which individuals have been planted to disrupt things, but we can be pretty sure that someone or other has been.

Incidentally, I admire both Fetzer and Wood. Wood has some annoying quirks, but I personally think she is genuine and not disinfo. (But we're all going to have different opinions on that, obviously.)

1:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

(Or think of your own dealings with the Anonymous Physicist as a similar example.)

1:15 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger