THE ORONTO REPORT The 9/11 Toronto Report ISSUED FROM THE INTERNATIONAL HEARINGS ON THE EVENTS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 Edited By: James Gourley Published By: International Centerfor 9/11 Studies www. ic911 studies. org Cover Design By: Mark Dotzler Copyright© 2012James Gourley All rights reserved. ISBN-I 0: 1478369205 EAN-13: 9781478369202 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction. 1 Chapter 1: Testimony of Lorie Van Auken and Bob Mcilvaine . 9 Chapter 2: Anomalies in the 9/11 Commission Report By: David Ray Griffin............................. 29 Chapter 3: Why the NIST World Trade Center Reports are False By: Kevin Ryan .................................45 Chapter 4: Seeing 9/11 from Above: A Comparative Analysis of State Crimes Against Democracy By: Lance deHaven-Smith ..........................67 Chapter 5: 9/11 as a Deep Event: How CIA Personnel Helped Allow It to Happen By: Peter Dale Scott .............................. 109 Chapter 6: Evidence of Insider Trading before September 11th Re-examined By: Paul Zarembka ........ ......................129 Chapter 7: Anomalies in the Official Accounts of American 77 and United 93 By: David Ray Griffin... .........................151 Chapter 8: Eyewitness Evidence of Explosions in the Twin Towers By: Graeme MacQueen ...........................171 Chapter 9: WTC 7: A Refutation of NIST's Analysis By: David Chandler .............................193 Chapter 10: Evidence for Extreme Temperatures at the World Trade Center By: Kevin Ryan ................................209 Chapter 11: The Official Collapse Narrative and the Experimental Method By: Jon Cole ...................................225 Chapter 12: Advanced Pyrotechnic or Explosive Material Discovered in WTC Dust By: Richard Gage, Gregg Roberts and Andrea Dreger . .. .2 41 Chapter 13: Evidence of Explosives at the Pentagon By: Barbara Honegger ............................245 Chapter 14: In Denial of Democracy: Social Psychological Implications for Public Discourse on State Crimes Against Democracy Post-9/11 By: Laurie Manwell .............................271 Chapter 15: Reflections on the Toronto Hearings By: David Johnson ..............................305 Chapter 16: Strengths and Weaknesses of the Toronto 9/11 Hearings in Advancing the Case for a New Investigation By: Herbert Jenkins ..............................323 Chapter 17: Remarks on the Toronto Hearings By: Richard B. Lee ..............................353 Chapter 18: Report on the Toronto Hearings By: Ferdinanda Imposimato ........................361 Appendix . .. 387 Endnotes.. .. .. .. .. .. 387 INTRODUCTION BY:jAMES GOURLEY This report is issued from the International Hearings on the Events of September II, 200I, which were held in Toronto, Canada over the Tenth Anniversary of the 9111 attacks. We present it, and the recommendations that flow from it, to the President of the United States, the United States Congress, the American People, and any other domestic or international interested parties for their consideration. The Toronto Hearings, held at Ryerson University, con­ stituted a four-day event that ran from September 8-11, 20Il. The mandate of the Toronto Hearings was to bring to light the most substantial evidence which has accumulated over the past ten years - evidence that the 9 I II Commission Report and the various reports issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology failed to adequately address - demonstrating that there is the need for a new, independent and interna­ tional investigation into the events of 9 I II. The Hearings were not a new investigation in themselves, but provided a succinct summary of the strongest evidence that a new investigation is immediately warranted and that the international community cannot abdicate this responsibility any longer. The 9/11 Toronto Report The format and conduct of the Hearings was analogous to - though not exactly the same as - a legal proceeding that is known in the United States as a grand jury hearing. Other legal jurisdictions have similar mechanisms known as prelimi­ nary hearings or committal procedures. One common thread among all of these proceedings is that, after a crime has been investigated, a prosecutor presents his best evidence that the defendant or suspect committed the crime in question. Typically, the suspect or defendant does not have the opportu­ nity to present counter-evidence to a grand jury, but sometimes is invited by the prosecutor to do so. Indeed, neither the National Institute of Standards and Technology nor the 9/11 Commission- the U.S. government bodies that have promulgated what are referred to as the offi­ cial government version of 9/11 - testified at the Toronto Hearings. These parties were invited several times to partici­ pate in the Hearings, but declined to do so. We cannot help but conclude that these entities will continue to hide behind their reports until a body with subpoena power, or sufficient political clout, forces them to appear and defend their work. In a grand jury proceeding, the grand jury simply decides whether there is a primafacie case that can be made against the defendant. A prima facie case has been made when evidence has been presented that- unless rebutted- would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact. If the grand jury does find that a prima facie case has been made, then, at a separate proceeding known as a trial, which the defendant is required to attend, the case is presented to an adjudicator, usually a judge or jury. At the trial, the defendant has the opportunity to rebut the case with counter-evidence. Again, the analogy between the Toronto Hearings and a grand jury proceeding is not perfect, because there are 2 James R. Gourley some differences in format and product of the Toronto Hearings. The Hearings were not conducted according to any spe­ cific laws or legal procedures, and the outcome does not have the force of law. Also, unlike a grand jury, the evidence was not presented to citizens chosen at random, due to obvious logisti­ cal problems. Governments can force citizens to show up for jury duty, but the organizers of the Toronto Hearings did not have that ability. Instead of convening a traditional jury panel, we decided to gather together an international panel of prominent indi­ viduals, who agreed to do what governments and major media outlets around the world have so far refused to do: look at the evidence objectively and decide whether it deserves wider con­ sideration. In selecting panelists, we looked for two qualifica­ tions in an individual: someone who is ( 1) highly credible and (2) open to objectively assessing the evidence. We certainly found four such individuals, and we are grateful to have had such distinguished gentlemen participating in their important role in these Hearings. Ferdinando Imposimato is the Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy. As a former Senior Investigative Judge, he presided over several major terrorism-related cases, including cases involving the kidnapping and assassina­ tion of President Aldo Moro, the attempted assassination of PopeJohn Paul II, and the Mafia assassination of Carabinieri General Carlo Alberto Della Chiesa. In 1984 the French journal Le Point named him "Man of the Year: Courageous Judge," and in 1985 the London Times devoted a full page to his work as "scourge of the Mafia," while a book published by the United Nations described him as "the symbol ofJustice." Ferdinanda Imposimato is also a former Senator who served 3 The 9/11 Toronto Report on the Anti-Mafia Commission in three administrations, a for­ mer legal consultant to the United Nations on drug trafficking, the author or co-author of seven books on international terror­ ism, state corruption, and related matters, and a Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Italy. Herbert Jenkins is a Professor Emeritus of Psychology at McMaster University. Educated at Oberlin College and Harvard University, he held positions at the Lincoln Laboratories in Massachusetts, at MIT, and at the Bell Telephone Laboratories before coming to McMaster in 1963. Herbert Jenkins helped create McMaster's interdisciplinary Arts and Science Program and its Engineering and Society Program, and served as Director of both. In 2009 Professor Jenkins was awarded an honorary doctorate by McMaster University in recognition of his influen­ tial contributions to the psychology of learning and judgment, as well as his leadership in developing models of inquiry-based, interdisciplinary, and socially responsible undergraduate edu­ cation that have had a significant impact on current thinking about curriculum development in Canadian universities. Richard B. Lee is University Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at the University of Toronto. Internationally rec­ ognized for his ethnographic studies, he has held academic appointments at Harvard, Rutgers, and Columbia University. The author of books that have had a major influence in the dis­ cipline, and of more than a hundred articles and book chap­ ters, he is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, a Foreign Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a Foreign Associate of the National Academy of Sciences. Professor Lee has served as President of the Canadian Anthropological Society, and holds honorary doctorates from the UniversityofAlaskaFairbanks and the UniversityofGuelph. The journal American Scientist has listed his 1979 book on the 4 james R. Gourley �Kung San people as standing among the hundred greatest sci­ entific works of the