The Toronto Hearings 9/11 Most Amazing Compilation of Evidence (How to Convience Non Believers)

If anyone hasn't watched the multiple videos of the Toronto Hearings on 9/11, it's a must! It doesn't matter if you're an avid 9/11 conspiracy believer or think it's crazy talk. This conference brings in every type of evidence and presented in a very professional manner. I've always been a huge fan of architects and engineers for 9/11 truth. They do presentations here also, with many many other people. It's a 4 day conference, so yeah... it's a lot of video to watch, but this is a huge part of history.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

There are many more videos than just these, but this should get anyone started. I personally like the second one a lot. It's shorter and only on eye witnesses and the best compilation that i've seen. These events might have happened 10 years ago, but the effects of it still haven't been fully felt. Enjoy, if your a skeptic then please take the time to watch

only three buildings have ever globally collapsed due to fires:

- all on the same day

- in the same place

- and all leased by the same person

the same person that rushed to PULL IT as it was already rigged to blow.

in the aftermath, 7 billion dollars blood money richer Larry Silverstein complements of Israeli Mossad, CIA, et al.

A lot of info out there from this conference, I'm still watching some of the videos. For those really into the scientific side of nano-thermite or for those insomniacs that need to watch something to put them to sleep.

www.youtube.com...,

reply to post by cbvh27


I haven't heard of these hearings, so I will be interested to see what's in them. Thanks.

Here you go:

reply to post by cbvh27


what on earth do you think people are going to use all their download allowance and then sit through a 3 hour video??????????/

Originally posted by learnatic
reply to post by cbvh27

 

what on earth do you think people are going to use all their download allowance and then sit through a 3 hour video??????????/

Why does the saying "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink" come to mind?

Originally posted by learnatic
what on earth do you think people are going to use all their download allowance and then sit through a 3 hour video??????????/

Or you can buy the DVD - remember, the purpose of the "hearings" was to make money for some people....

and the hearings were full of the standard truther lies

The fires raging in either tower were not hot enough to melt the steel structure

and they had "boxboy" Gage there, remember this demonstration he made?

Hearings without on site investigators, physical evidence or on scene witnesses?

Sounds like a dog and pony show.

reply to post by samkent


Did you watch the second video by any chance? It was full of eyewitness testimony and interviews and video clips from that day. I found it interesting.


OP, thank you for posting these. I was unaware of their existance until last night. I watched the second video and It gave me a renewed interest into the 911 conspiracies I guess I will fill the next few insomnia filled nights with some more of these videos. Again, thanks.

reply to post by learnatic


There are download allowances? I'm broke then
And yeah 3 hours.... you would actually have to turn the tv off. Or idk what you do all day..

reply to post by spoor
Am looking forward to your contributions to this thread. These vids represent the most current info available on that infamous day, and they will provide any newcomer with more than enough reasons to question the OS. What new information do you plan to bring to this thread? Let me answer that for you. Zero. Since every single one of you creeps that tout the OS have the job of stopping our quest for the truth, this thread should be job one for you losers. Bring it.

Originally posted by spoor
and the hearings were full of the standard truther lies

The fires raging in either tower were not hot enough to melt the steel structure

There is a difference between actually melting and being hot enough for structural weakening like the OS says.

There was molten metal at the bottom of all three collapsed towers indicative of actually melted steel. Not structurally weakened mangled scrap, actual molten metal that kept the site over 1000 degrees a week after the buildings fell.

The jet fuel would have burned off almost instantly and left just low temp combustibles like the office furniture. It would be literally impossible for the sustained fire to actually melt steel and make it flow like lava.

reply to post by JizzyMcButter

The jet fuel would have burned off almost instantly and left just low temp combustibles like the office furniture. It would be literally impossible for the sustained fire to actually melt steel and make it flow like lava.

Have you seen how they melt steel? They use electricity. All 3 buildings had large electricity demands.
WTC7 had 10 transformers at street level, 12 on the 5th floor and 2 on the 7th.
Molten metal is not surprising.

reply to post by samkent


And you explain the molten steel seen flowing out of the buildings how?

reply to post by BiggerPicture

nly three buildings have ever globally collapsed due to fires:

- all on the same day

- in the same place

- and all leased by the same person

the same person that rushed to PULL IT as it was already rigged to blow.

Aren't you forgetting that 2 jet airliners struck 2 of the buildings - causing massive structural damage and fires

Or that the 3rd building was struck by one of the other buildings which again caused masssive structural
damage and fires . The building was abandoned and fires allowed to burn unchecked

As for being leased by same person - it was an entire complex which he leased not just a single building

As for the 7 billion in insurance - that was result of lenders requiring he carry that much insurance
Silverstein wanted to insure each building for 1 billion. People fronting the money said 5 each, settled for
3.5 per building . As part of the contract Silverstein has to pay 10 million a month in rent for hole in ground
( 10 mil/month x 12 x 10 years = 1.2 billion and he still has to rebuild the site

One inject reality into the mix the conspiracy fantasy goes away..........

reply to post by cbvh27


Who said it was steel....?

what about aluminium, both from planes and from aluminium cladding covering each building

Or lead = used for storage batteries in UPS systems, which many of the business had

Both were abundant in each build, both melt at far lower temp (Aluminium 660 C, Lead 327 C)

Know from measurments that areas in the burning debris pile reached 1000 C (1800 f)

reply to post by thedman


Why would they flow out the sides of the buildings? Not down through the floor?

reply to post by thedman


Building 7 is the ONLY steel building to ever fall due to fire. Even if it came down due to fire / structural dmg from other buildings, It would NOT have came down symetrically.

One of the videos goes into how building 7 got reported by multiple people before it fell. The hypothesis being that it was intended to fall during the dust cloud of the second WTC building. This is the best explanation i've heard. B/c like everyone says, Building 7 is the smoking gun, why would they have let such an obvious red flag happen. It wasn't intended to be seen coming down. Because they knew anyone that saw it come down would know that it was a controlled demolition.

Originally posted by cbvh27
reply to post by thedman

 

Why would they flow out the sides of the buildings? Not down through the floor?

Why would it flow out the sides of the buildings if it were super nano thermite, or whatever you think it was? Why do you dismiss a much more plausible explanation and instead come with non-arguments?

reply to post by -PLB-


What makes my side a non-argument?
And what makes your side more plausible?