International “Hearings” in
Andrew Johnson (ad.johnson@ntlworld….) 11 Aug 2011
As we approach the anniversary of the terrible events of 9/11, some anticipation and chatter seems to be building up in relation to what have been described as “International Hearings” regarding the events of 9/11. Although "news" of these hearings seems to have been posted in February 2011 (torontohearings.org/), a couple of people have re-posted information about them recently.
Dr Judy Wood and myself have already received a number of messages either telling us about these “hearings” or asking if we have heard about them. I have therefore put together this short article to confirm that I certainly have heard about them – and so has Dr Wood. Here I provide some information which should give you a more balanced view of what these hearings will be about and what outcome they may have.
I couldn’t help wondering exactly what will be "heard" at these hearings. They almost sound like a re-run of the "911 Omission Hearings" in 2004 – 911truthedmonton.blo… ).
Another person apparently involved with these hearings is James Gourley. According to this page
the final report [from the hearings] will be edited by American attorney James Gourley.
In a phone call from Ralph Winterrowd to Mr Gourley on 08 August 2011, Mr Gourley confirmed Dr Judy Wood had not been invited. When asked for the reason, Gourley stated that the “steering committee” had decided not to invite her and Mr Gourley stated that “she is absolutely wrong on every point she makes.” Gourley then stated he has written a paper about Dr Wood’s research and so had Greg Jenkins and that Dr Wood “had never answered either one of them”. Sadly, Gourley is mistaken or he is lying. A response to points Jenkins makes was posted on 02 July 2007 (and an earlier response was posted by Andrew Johnson). A response to the Hit Pieces in JONES was also posted on the same date.
For the hearings themselves, when I looked at the guest list (a more appropriate description than "witness" list, in my view), I wondered if we would hear Richard Gage accuse the only person who has done a forensic investigation into the destruction of the WTC – Dr Judy Wood – of practising "witchcraft"?
or would he suggest we resolve the truth about 9/11 by counting the number of google search results?
And would Dr Griffin mention that for his book, "A New Pearl Harbour" (first edition) Richard Falk wrote the foreword?
Would he mention that Falk is a CFR member?
Would we hear Steven E Jones say it was safe to dip your fingers in Molten Metal?
Perhaps Dr Jones will suggest that Paint on Thermite was used in the destruction of the WTC:
I wonder if the "truth troops" – especially Gage, Gourley, Jones and Harrit will mention Thermite a lot – like they usually do. Will they be honest and report how they "passed" on the opportunity to submit their "conclusive" evidence to NIST?
Will Kevin Ryan draw a comparison between the submission he made to NIST regarding the WTC 7 draft report and the submission by Dr Judy Wood?
With that said, I feel I am able to hazard a guess at what would NOT be heard. I doubt the "hearings" will mention how the principle of operation of the weapon which destroyed the WTC is now known:
I doubt the hearings will mention Hurricane Erin moving towards NYC for 4 days before 9/11 and making a right hand turn on 9/12.
I doubt the hearings will mention that a legal case started by Dr Wood in 2007 included a proportion of this evidence in submissions made to the court and in the appeal:
Mind you, as long as the subjects covered at the "hearings" are "popular" it doesn’t matter about the truth does it? 🙂
The hearings also seem to have an associated website here 9-11cc.org/:
I posted a comment on their “contact us” page, advising them of Dr Judy Wood’s research, conclusions and court case. Predictably, someone posted a response thus:
Although Judy Wood is nuttier than squirrel ***** and has eye pupils the size of
For additional information, please see tinyurl.com/911ftb and 911thermitefree.blog… .
For my own part in this, around the time of the anniversary, I will be giving a number of talks which will include some of the information referenced – this is thanks to a number of courageous people around the UK who are not bothered about “popularity” – rather, they want to study the evidence – and follow it to the conclusion however unpalatable it may be.
Further Discussion in
Further Discussion inthis audio.
Ralph Winterrowd Show –