Assessing 9/11 Evidence: A Reliable Source for a Media Under Pressure

Assessing 9/11 Evidence: A Reliable Source for a Media Under Pressure

HUNTINGTON, WV (HNN)  — 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 Detrick, 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.

 HERE IS THE EARLIER PRESS RELEASE

For ten years independent scholars and researchers have been investigating the troubling anomalies of the 9/11 official account.

One such scholar, Dr. David Ray Griffin, has written ten encyclopedic books documenting fundamental problems with the government account. For this work he has been nominated twice for the Nobel Peace Prize (2008 and 2009), and his "The New Pearl Harbor Revisited" was named "pick of the week" by Publisher's Weekly in November 2009.

Although 9/11 has been the seminal event of this century, none of the research by Dr. Griffin and other critics has been reported by the North American media.

Today, the formation of the 9/11 Consensus Panel, involving 22 investigators of the September 11th events, is being announced at consensus911.org.

The 13 Consensus Points issued by the Panel were derived from a Delphi survey modeled on consensus statements developed by expert panels in medicine to guide diagnosis and treatment.

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.

In this way the "best evidence" is identified and legitimized.

The 9/11 Consensus Panel, co-founded by Dr. David Ray Griffin and medical librarian Elizabeth Woodworth, 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.

The survey points, backed by 81 literature references, include failures of the government to explain:  massive explosions in the Twin Towers reported by 100+ firefighters;  the free fall collapse of the 47-story steel-frame WTC 7;  pervasive high-tech nanothermite (an incendiary explosive) in the WTC dust;  the horizontal ejections of huge sections of the towers as far as 600 feet; the airliner strike on the Pentagon by incompetent al-Qaeda pilot Hani Hanjour.

Members of the 9/11 Consensus Panel include two former NASA engineers, six professors, one physician, two lawyers, four journalists, and three pilots.

The Consensus Panel offers the media and the public the scientifically validated information needed to address this seminal issue with the confidence that has been lacking.

Comments powered by Disqus