Here’s the trailer for the new comprehensive DVD covering the Toronto Hearings on 9/11 from this past September, which brought together expert witnesses to present evidence contrary to the official story to a distinguished panel, who will draft a report based on the evidence submitted
Trailer:
Preview:
Pre-order your DVD here:
http://pressfortruth.ca/dvd_dtls.php?rid=11
This week our guest is retired medical librarian Elizabeth Woodworth, who coordinates a newly formed panel calling itself “Consensus 9/11″ — which recently announced the release of statements constituting 13 Consensus Points challenging the official government account of the events of September 11, 2001. Co-chaired by Elizabeth and scholar David Ray Griffin, the points were produced using a version of a methodology designed to identify best evidence known as the Delphi method. According to Woodworth, “The strength and credibility of the Delphi method is based on the fact that respondents are blind to one another through several rounds of review, during which feedback is continually refined until consensus is reached.” The Consensus 9/11 panel conducted “three survey rounds with 22 respondents, and reached an average consensus of 94% on 13 points of evidence that directly contradict the fundamental claims of the official account of September 11th.”
Watch interview here
November 28, 2011
Dr. Paul Rea
911Truth.org
Dr. Lynn Margulis was always an iconoclast–and now, even after her tragic passing, she continues to teach us a great deal. While many know that Lynn Margulis was once married to astronomer Carl Sagan, in scientific circles she was best known for her theory of symbiogenesis. This theory proposes that inherited variation does not come from random mutations in genes but from long-lasting interaction between organisms.
Read editorial here
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-11-23/lynn-margulis-1938-2011
The family of Lynn Margulis has announced that she died at home on Tuesday, November 22, at the age of 73. She had suffered a serious hemorrhagic stroke on Friday, November 18 – so serious that there was no chance of recovery.
Having authored dozens of books and scientific papers, Margulis was awarded the National Medal of Science in 1999.
In 2004, she began looking into the evidence against the official account of 9/11. She not only accepted it but also – always known for her courage – announced her views, writing in 2007:
“Whoever is responsible for bringing to grisly fruition this new false-flag operation, which has been used to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as unprecedented assaults on research, education, and civil liberties, must be perversely proud of their efficient handiwork. Certainly, 19 young Arab men and a man in a cave 7,000 miles away, no matter the level of their anger, could not have masterminded and carried out 9/11: the most effective television commercial in the history of Western civilization. I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken.”
In early 2010, she wrote an article on WTC 7 entitled “Two Hit, Three Down – The Biggest Lie.” Asking: “Why did three World Trade Center buildings (#1,#2 and #7) collapse on 9/11, after two (and only two) of them were hit by ‘hijacked airplanes’?”, she gave the scientific answer:
“Because . . . the steel columns were selectively melted in a brilliantly-timed controlled demolition. Two 110-story buildings (towers 1&2), plus one 47-floor building (WTC 7), were induced to collapse at gravitationally accelerated rates in an operation planned and carried out by insiders. The apparent hijacking of airliners and the crashing of them into the Twin Towers were intrinsic parts of the operation, which together provided a basis for claiming that the buildings were brought down by Muslim terrorists. The buildings’ steel columns, which would have provided irrefutable physical evidence of the use of explosives, were quickly removed from the scene of the crime.”
But much more difficult than the scientific question, she said, is the “science-education problem”:
“The persistent problem is how to wake up public awareness, especially in the global scientifically literate public, of the overwhelming evidence that the three buildings collapsed by controlled demolition. . . . We, on the basis of hard evidence, must conclude that the petroleum fires related to the aircraft crashes were irrelevant (except perhaps as a cover story).”
The scientific world, including the 9/11 Truth Community – she was a member of Scientists for 9/11 Truth – has lost one of our noblest, most courageous fighters for the Earth and the Truth.
-David Ray Griffin
NEWS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 19, 2011 – Increasingly the media is having to deal with evidence emerging against the official story of the 9/11 attacks.
For example, on October 10th, the New York Times revised its earlier reports on the source of the anthrax spores used in the frightening attacks on members of the media and the Senate, following 9/11.
The letters carrying the spores seemingly originated from a Muslim hand, and the spores were considered by the FBI to be low-tech.
The longest investigation in the FBI’s history finally traced the spores to a deranged “lone-nut” working in the Fort Dietrick, Maryland, bioweapons laboratory.
The alleged culprit, Dr. Bruce Ivins, apparently committed suicide in 2008 following intensive FBI allegations against him, and the FBI closed the case.
However, it transpired that Dr. Ivins was a respected vaccine researcher with many publications to his credit, and a following of loyal colleagues.
An 18-month National Academy of Science investigation into the case has recently found that the weaponized spores were far too high-tech for one person to have made, and is suggesting a new investigation to replace the inadequate FBI account.
In a different news story, on October 17th, Britain’s BBC’s Today Programme interviewed FBI whistleblower Ali Soufan,
Soufan revealed – as had White House former anti-terror chief Richard Clarke some weeks before him – that the CIA deliberately blocked FBI warnings of impending hijacker attacks – warnings that could have prevented the attacks.
These press reports lean towards evidence of domestic complicity in the attacks, long believed by independent researchers. But some pundits say that journalists are not qualified to challenge the government’s technical reports on the building collapses and the Pentagon attack – that expert opinion must be engaged if these reports are to be meaningfully challenged.
Such opinion is now available from the new 9/11 Consensus Panel, an international body of 21 experts in physics, engineering, chemistry, and other disciplines.
The Panel, in reviewing the evidence, selected the Delphi Method, which is used by medical panels to develop consensus statements that guide doctors towards “best-evidence” state-of-the-art treatment guidelines.
In a Delphi study, proposed statements are mailed to recipients who remain blind to one another and who rank and provide feedback on the statements being considered. When successive rounds of feedback have refined a statement to a high level of consensus, the statement is considered to be the “best evidence” on that topic.
The 9/11 Consensus Panel’s 21 experts spent nearly a year developing its first group of 13 Consensus Points of evidence relating to the official account of the events of September 11, 2001.
The Points achieved consensus of 90-100%, and are available at consensus911.org.
This truth is not a conspiracy theory or the speculation of uninformed people.
It is scientifically derived evidence and offers the media the confidence it needs to address the expanding cracks in the 9/11 narrative – which don’t seem likely to go away soon.
Source: The 9/11 Consensus Panel
Coordinator’s email: consensus911@gmail.com
Media Contacts: http://www.consensus911.org/media-contacts/