Sep 102012
 

NEW YORK, September 10, 2012 – A Panel of 22 researchers into the history of 9/11 has uncovered evidence of fraud in the photographic images of Muslim hijackers prior to boarding the planes on 9/11.

Court exhibits state that leader Mohamed Atta took a commuter flight from Portland, Maine, to connect to AA Flight 11 out of Boston, which hit the North Tower.

The dubious images heighten the mystery of why Atta left Boston, where Flight 11 was to be hijacked, and risked the failure of his entire mission by driving to Portland September 10, staying overnight, and booking a tight connection back to Boston early September 11.

Atta’s bags, central to the story, failed to make the connection and were found in Boston’s Logan airport with incriminating evidence about the hijacking operation.

The Panel’s in-depth review shows the Portland story to be peppered with inconsistencies and revisions, placing the entire hijack theory in question.

Similarly, at Washington’s Dulles International Airport, five hijackers allegedly passed through security before flying AA Flight 77, carrying CNN correspondent Barbara Olson, into the Pentagon.

Yet no images were released from the 300+ security cameras at Dulles that morning, nor were Arabic men reported in FBI interviews of airport staff.

The 9/11 Consensus Panel’s lawyers, journalists, airline pilots and six PhD’s use a medical model employing three rounds of review and feedback to refine their evidence.

In its quest to provide credible resources to the media, the public, and future investigators, the Panel has produced 28 Consensus Points of “best evidence” regarding the official claims of 9/11 — the trigger event for the Middle East wars of the last decade.

Its investigations cover:
· explosives at the Twin Towers and Building WTC-7
· the inadequate flying skills of the alleged Pentagon pilot
· the missing debris from “Let’s Roll” Flight 93
· the massive annual (October) military drills coinciding on 9/11, and
· the allegedly absent political and military commanders.
The Panel’s educational work has been translated into French and Spanish, with Italian, German, and Dutch in preparation.

The Panel moderators recommend the PBS special, 9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out, in which 40 whistle-blowing experts present evidence of controlled demolition at the World trade Center.

Source: The 9/11 Consensus Panel

Contacts: Coordinator, consensus911@gmail.com, 250-889-4559

US, Canada, Europe: http://www.consensus911.org/media-contacts/

Jun 052012
 

Massive National War Games on September 11th Raise Further Questions

NEW YORK, June 5, 2012 — New evidence shows that the September 11th activities of former President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were falsely reported by official sources.

The 20-member 9/11 Consensus Panel analyzed evidence from press reports, FOIA requests, and archived 9/11 Commission file documents to produce eight new studies, released today.

The international Panel also discovered that four massive aerial practice exercises traditionally held in October were in full operation on 9/11. The largest, Global Guardian, held annually by NORAD and the US Strategic and Space Commands, had originally been scheduled for October 22-31 but was moved, along with Vigilant Guardian, to early September.

Although senior officials claimed no one could have predicted using hijacked planes as weapons, the military had been practicing similar exercises on 9/11 itself — and for years before it.

The Panel, discovering widespread reports of confusion and delays in the defense response, looked into who was overseeing the air defenses after the second Tower was hit at 9:03 AM.

Official sources claimed neither Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Joint Chiefs of Staff Acting Chairman General Richard Myers (filling in for General Hugh Shelton), nor war-room chief General Montague Winfield were available to take command until well after the Pentagon was struck about 9:37.

Yet emerging documents and memoirs show that top leaders were engaged earlier — and later discussed a shootdown of the “let’s roll” Flight 93 before debris was scattered widely around its alleged Shanksville, Pennsylvania crash site.

Most intriguing is the mystery of who was running the Pentagon’s war-room during the critical early hours.

These findings follow hard on the Kuala Lumpur Tribunal’s May 15th verdict that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were guilty of torture and war crimes.

The Consensus Panel has completed 25 educational studies (using a medical consensus model) offering the “best evidence” regarding specific official claims about 9/11.

Its goal is to “provide a ready source of evidence-based research to any investigation that may be undertaken by the public, the media, academia, or any other investigative body or institution.”

The website is being translated into French, Spanish, and other languages.

Media contacts for US, Canada, Europe: http://www.consensus911.org/media-contacts/

SOURCE The 9/11 Consensus Panel

http://www.consensus911.org

400 words

####

Mar 262012
 

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

Dec 132011
 

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

Nov 292011
 

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

Nov 252011
 

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

Oct 202011
 

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/