Month: June 2012

Free form 9/11: diverse voices make Vancouver Hearings messy but intriguing

By Craig McKee

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 (more…)

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

By Craig McKee

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 (more…)

The Judy Wood enigma: a discussion of the most controversial figure in 9/11 research

By Craig McKee

For some time, I’ve been thinking about creating a post where the comment thread is the focus and the article more of an introduction to the discussion. That’s what I’ve decided to do here with what I hope will be an open, substantive discussion on the research of Dr. Judy Wood.

Rather than just having comments about her pop up in other discussions and other threads (usually involving name calling and ridicule), I’ve decided to create a post where her research can be rationally debated; at least I hope it’ll be rational and that the discussion focuses on science rather than hearsay.

I understand some of the regular readers of Truth and Shadows may think I’m off base by addressing Wood’s work at all, but I hope there aren’t too many who feel that way. I believe that any discussion that involves the pursuit of the (more…)