An Open Letter to the 9/11 Truth Community: The Vancouver Hearings Revised

NOVANEWS 

By Kevin Barrett, Joshua Blakeney, and Jim Fetzer

The “collapse” was not a collapse

 

After considering mixed feedback from prominent members of the 9/11 Truth community, we have decided to revise our proposal for The Vancouver Hearings, to be held at Vancouver’s Denman Theater on 15-17 June 2012. Upon reflection, we believe that our preliminary proposal, which called The Toronto Hearings “acutely disappointing,” was a mistake.

Our aim in holding the Vancouver Hearings is not to belittle The Toronto Hearings. On the contrary, we appreciate the efforts of those who organized The Toronto Hearings and agree that the overall evidence presented there does amount to a convincing case against the US government’s version of what happened on 9/11.

The purpose of The Vancouver Hearings instead is to critique and supplement the Toronto Hearings, not undermine or dismiss them. The Vancouver Hearings will feature experts who will analyze and question certain aspects of the evidence presented at The Toronto Hearings—as well as other experts who will argue in favor of The Toronto Hearings’ evidence.  We are open to and would welcome additional speakers from A&E911, for example, to insure that we have a balanced panel to confront the controversial aspects of 9/11 in an effort to contribute to greater unity within the 9/11 movement.

The Vancouver Hearings is designed to expand the range of inquiry in relation to the issues addressed at The Toronto Hearings. Those hearings limited themselves to presenting what the organizers considered the “best evidence” against the official version of 9/11, without considering questions of who actually perpetrated the attacks and why.  Only limited attention was given to the Pentagon charade, for example, while problems related to the planes and the passengers were not confronted.  It was not intended to address the more controversial aspects of 9/11 research.

Plane in Pentagon frame is not a Boeing 757

We, the organizers of The Vancouver Hearings, do not completely agree with the organizers of The Toronto Hearings about which evidence is the best evidence against the official story of 9/11. For example, like the majority of the 9/11 truth community, we believe that the evidence contradicting the government’s contention that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon is just as compelling as evidence for the “demolitions under control” of the World Trade Center skyscrapers. In our view, The Toronto Hearings did not do justice to the importance of the Pentagon issue—though we applaud the excellent presentation by Barbara Honegger.

We believe that the fabrication of the attack on the Pentagon affords a proof of governmental duplicity at least as persuasive as what we all agree was the classic “controlled demolition” of WTC-7.  But we also believe that the absence of any proof that the alleged hijackers were aboard any of the planes, the presence of proof that all of the phone calls from the planes were faked, and the absence of debris from bona fide airplane crashes in Shanksville, at the Pentagon and in New York all deserve more attention and dissection to establish what happened and how it was done.

Likewise, we do not agree with those who believe the entire 9/11 truth movement should limit itself to debunking the official account without considering the question of who actually perpetrated the attacks and for what motive. If there is evidence that neo-cons in the Department of Defense were involved, we should present it.  If there is evidence of complicity by the Mossad, we should pursue it.  We think enough evidence already exists to bring a many criminal indictments in any honest judicial system and to construct a reliable historical narrative concerning the perpetrators and motives behind the 9/11 attacks.

Special effects at the Pentagon

The five areas in which we believe a supplemental conference of this kind can make a constructive contribution include especially these:

(1) how the Twin Towers were destroyed through a comparison of the explanatory power of alternative theories of conventional explosives, exotic accelerants including nano-thermite, mini-nukes and directed energy devices;

(2) the role of the planes in these events, where there is a noticeable absence of debris of the kinds and quantities expected at all four of the alleged “crash sites”–and where there are even indications that some kind of video fakery may have occurred in New York;

(3) the absence of proof that the alleged “hijackers” were aboard any of the planes, that the purported “phone calls” were faked, and that even the passenger manifests are suspect and cannot be taken to be authentic;

(4) who was responsible and why it was done, including an evaluation of evidence that implicates neo-cons in the Department of Defense and other—surprisingly extensive—indications that the Mossad had an important role in this; and,

(5) the role of the media in collaboration with the intelligence agencies in covering up what really happened, typified by Jane Standley’s early report that WTC-7 had collapsed, when the building was visible over her shoulder and would not occur for nearly 30 minutes more.

For these and other reasons, we believe that a follow-up conference like this one, which addresses both the accomplishments and the limitations of The Toronto Hearings, will be a worthwhile exercise. We invite those who disagree with us on any of these issues to submit suggestions of names for potential speakers at The Vancouver Hearings. We have a tentative line-up representing alternative positions, but we are open to additional participants representing alternative points of view.

The South Tower “tipping”

Some of us have been down this road before.  In arranging for the Madison Conference on “The Science and Politics of 9/11”, Jim Fetzer made it a point of inviting Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, and others to speak, but they either declined or did not respond.  Others who had accepted our invitation withdrew and, as a consequence, a meeting that was intended to deal with controversial aspects of 9/11 was, very much like The Toronto Hearings, only a mixed success.

Here is the chance to overcome the shortcomings and limitations of those past events.  We cannot resolve the differences that divide us unless we confront them.  Our commitment to reason and 9/11 Truth should be more than sufficient to motivate us as a 9/11 community to share our expertise in order to establish mutual understanding and a greater degree of unity.  This is an opportunity that we should exploit for the benefit of rational inquiry and to advance 9/11 Truth.

Indeed, as a token of our sincerity in seeking the truth about these issues and in respect for their contributions to 9/11 Truth, we hereby invite Richard Gage, AIA, and Niels Harrit of Copenhagen University to be roving commentators, who may not only speak at any session but have the first opportunity to raise questions after other speakers have been heard. We will provide them with transportation as well as accommodations for insuring that we are on the “straight and narrow” regarding such issues as the explosive capabilities of nano-thermite.

Proposals from those who presented at The Toronto Hearings and wish to respond to any prospective critics at the Vancouver Hearings will be welcomed and an effort will be made to accommodate them. We would also be glad to arrange panel discussions and debates between experts holding opposing perspectives on the issues we are addressing.  Indeed, each session is being organized with that objective in mind. Further feedback on this project is welcome and we encourage suggestions to be submitted to any of the authors.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *