kinh nghiệm chơi baccarat_các thế bài baccarat_365bong
The 9/11 Consensus Panel mourns the loss of one of its most respected Honorary Panel Members, Ferdinando Imposimato, Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy, former Senator and presidential candidate (2015), and Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic, who died in Rome on December 31, 2017.
Dedicated to the fight against corruption, he became one of Italy’s most respected judges. He served on the Anti-Mafia Commission in three administrations and for over two decades investigated many important cases, among these the kidnapping of former PM Aldo Moro and the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II.
Besides contributing numerous articles to other publications, he authored several books dealing with international terrorism, and not only participated in the “9/11 Toronto Hearings” (2011) but contributed a chapter to the “9/11 Toronto Report.”
Judge Imposimato became involved in 9/11 matters soon after the attacks, assisting in counseling families of victims from Italy. He then became an outspoken critic of the official 9/11 story, and in a 2012 letter to “The Journal of 9/11 Studies” stated that
“The 9/11 attacks were a global state terror operation permitted by the administration of the USA, which had foreknowledge of the operation yet remained intentionally unresponsive in order to make war against Afghanistan and Iraq [and] the 9/11 events were an instance of the strategy of tension enacted by political and economic powers in the USA to seek advantages for the oil and arms industries.”
He repeatedly suggested that the only possibility for achieving justice is to submit the case to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.
The Consensus Panel – and many more – will miss this rare promoter of justice and truth. We are dedicated to carrying on his quest for justice for the thousands of victims of the attacks themselves, and the millions of the resulting global war on terror.
Off-Guardian, February 27, 2018
find it such an interesting phenomenon that of all the self-styled skeptics I have corresponded with or whose opinions are aired online, every single one swallows the miracles, told to us by NIST, of the three high rise steel frame building collapses on 9/11 being caused by fire when the evidence clearly shows that the collapses were caused by controlled demolition. Moreover, the $5,000 10-point Occam’s Razor challenge on the cause of collapse of the third building, WTC-7, that I’ve issued personally to a significant number of these self-styled skeptics, has been very loudly ignored.
As Australian politician, Pauline Hanson, infamously said when asked if she were xenophobic, “Please explain”.
Please explain why it is that the most prolific scholar – by far – on 9/11 is a Christian and Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies, David Ray Griffin, and why this scholar, highly-esteemed within and without his own academic field, does not swallow the collapse-by-fire miracles? He has written over 10 books on the subject of 9/11, his latest being Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World. He has also recently authored and co-authored two books on climate change. So he’s on the same page as most of the self-styled skeptics (in no way referring to the so-called climate skeptics, of course) with climate change but not with 9/11.
As summarised by Edward Curtin in his review of Griffin’s book, here are the 15 miracles that Griffin identified that the self-styled skeptics have swallowed:
The Twin Towers and WTC 7 were the only steel-framed high-rise buildings ever to come down without explosives or incendiaries.
The Twin Towers, each of which had 287 steel columns, were brought down solely by a combination of airplane strikes and jet-fuel fires.
WTC 7 was not even hit by a plane, so it was the first steel-framed high-rise to be brought down solely by ordinary building fires.
These World Trade Center buildings also came down in free fall – the Twin Towers in virtual free fall, WTC 7 in absolute free fall – for over two seconds.
Although the collapses of the of the WTC buildings were not aided by explosives, the collapses imitated the kinds of implosions that can be induced only by demolition companies.
In the case of WTC 7, the structure came down symmetrically (straight down, with an almost perfectly horizontal roofline), which meant that all 82 of the steel support columns had to fall simultaneously, although the building’s fires had a very asymmetrical pattern.
The South Tower’s upper 30-floor block changed its angular momentum in midair.
This 30 floor block then disintegrated in midair.
With regard to the North Tower, some of its steel columns were ejected out horizontally for at least 500 feet.
The fires in the debris from the WTC buildings could not be extinguished for many months.
Although the WTC fires, based on ordinary building fires, could not have produced temperatures above 1,800°, the fires inexplicably melted metals with much higher melting points, such as iron (2,800°) and even molybdenum (4,753°).
Some of the steel in the debris had been sulfidized, resulting in Swiss-cheese-appearing steel, even though ordinary building fires could not have resulted in the sulfidation.
As a passenger on AA Flight 77, Barbara Olson called her husband, telling him about hijackers on her plane, even though this plane had no onboard phones and its altitude was too high for a cell phone call to get through.
Hijacker pilot Hani Hanjour could not possibly have flown the trajectory of AA 77 to strike Wedge 1 of the Pentagon, and yet he did.
Besides going through an unbelievable personal transformation, ringleader Mohamed Atta also underwent an impossible physical transformation.
Now could it be that self-styled skeptics all over the Anglo world (Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins and Richard Saunders being notable examples) are suffering from a severe case of skeptic groupthink? You’d think one of them would deviate from the flock in their concept of truth, wouldn’t you?
An example of the faulty reasoning used by skeptics is displayed by Michael Shermer in this interview where he employs a common logical fallacy of 9/11 argument, argumentum ad speculum, by putting forward the seemingly great implausibility of the conspirators’ ability to lay explosives in the twin towers.
This hypothesis ignores the reality of how the buildings collapsed and also displays ignorance of information indicating how the task of laying explosives could have been achieved, as in Jeremy Rys’s 45 minute film, Conspiracy Solved!
There is much study in social psychology on why people believe things and what approaches to take to help them out of their entrenched beliefs (see presentation In Denial of Democracy: Social Psychological Implications for Public Discourse on State Crimes Against Democracy Post-9/11, by neuroscientist, Laurie Manwell) but it truly baffles me that when you ask a self-styled skeptic to provide even just a single point to justify their belief and they fail, this stark confrontation with their inability to support their belief has no impact.
It truly astounds me. I’m not talking here about aggressive confrontation, in which case one can comprehend a psychological resistance. I’m talking about asking someone, with pretensions to operate in a realm of reason and logic, simply to provide support for their belief.
Occam’s Razor is a tool of logic that can be applied in different ways. In my appplication I take the approach: what hypothesis fits the piece of evidence in question with the fewest questions and assumptions. It works like magic. If a self-styled skeptic cannot use the tool to support their belief nor poke a hole in the points provided for the opposing view, surely reason and logic dictate that the skeptic must change their mind. If not, their claim to skepticism is utterly fraudulent.
Interestingly, Griffin divides the world into three types of people:
Those guided by evidence,
Those guided by their paradigms of how the world is thus if 9/11 being a false flag does not fit into their paradigms of how the world works they simply will not consider the evidence,
Those guided by wishful-and-fearful thinking thus if the idea of their own government perpetrating an horrific crime on their own people is too awful to bear they simply will not believe the evidence.
Shouldn’t self-styled skeptics, by definition, be of the first type? Apparently, not a one is. They seem to be all of the second type or possibly third.
The Australian Skeptics association defines skepticism as follows:
Skepticism is a dynamic attitude to the world around us. It is not a dogmatic approach restricted by “accepted wisdom”, but a serious and sincere appraisal of claims of how the world works.
In response to my perfectly-reasoned emails, however, a leading Australian skeptic, (we’ll call him “R”), simply dismissed me, without evidence or debate, as a “conspiracy theorist.” Sadly, in his discourteous emails, “R” displays the opposite of genuine skepticism. He displays, only, that he could not be more indoctrinated by the most successful propaganda weapon of all time, the “conspiracy theory,” meme promulgated by the CIA after the JFK assassination to silence and discredit those who questioned the lone gunman explanation.
From an nhà cái tặng tiền cược miễn phí tháng 2019article in the Observer about NYU Professor of Media Studies, Mark Crispin Miller:
The outspoken voice of public dissent considers [the term “conspiracy theory”] a “meme” used to “discredit people engaged in really necessary kinds of investigation and inquiry.”
For Miller, those investigations include, among others: did the U.S. government have foreknowledge of the 9/11 terror attacks and choose to do nothing? Were Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others surreptitiously trying to dismantle the republic envisioned by the founding fathers? And is the CDC concealing links between the MMR vaccine and autism?
“It’s one that you run into time and time again,” Miller said on an October 11 episode of CounterPunch Radio. “To the point that I now believe that anyone who uses that phrase in a pejorative sense is a witting or unwitting CIA asset.” [My emphasis.]
What sort of world do we live in when so many self-styled skeptics can watch the 6.5 second, beautifully symmetrical collapse of WTC-7 into its own footprint and accept the government report stating that it was caused by fire?
the collapse of WTC7 now acknowledged by NIST to be at free-fall
Unincinerated terrorist passport fluttering to the ground at the World Trade Centre and being handed in by anonymous passerby? BBC journalist stating that WTC-7 collapsed 20 minutes before it did? Owner of WTC-7, Larry Silverstein, speaking of how he suggested that perhaps the smartest thing to do was to “pull it” (term used originally for demolition by pulling a building down but now also used for controlled demolition using explosives)?
Do none of these puzzles excite even the barest curiosity in these so-called seekers after truth?
New York, December 16, 2017 – The co-founders of the 9/11 Consensus Panel, authors Dr. David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth, today release the following statement regarding disputed evidence within the 9/11 research community.
Addressing Controversy Within the 9/11 Truth Community:
A Statement of Constructive Principles
Serious students of 9/11 tend to agree that the official story raises too many problems to hold together as a credible account.
However and unfortunately, there are areas of disagreement, especially with regard to the Pentagon, that threaten to undermine good will and mutual trust.
As co-founders of the 9/11 Consensus Panel, we offer the following observations and principles for consideration:
- At the four alleged airliner crash sites, odd phenomena and anomalies continue to cause speculation and disagreement. Some scholars can justifiably take one set of data as most important, while playing down the importance of another set, while other scholars can justifiably take the second set of data as most important.
- These differences of opinion can be justifiable until there is a theory that can take account of all the indisputable evidence.
- Based on an understanding that there are valid reasons for disagreement, the 9/11 research community can best be unified by respect and tolerance for contrary theories.
- Contributions seeking to solve contentious issues can only be made by assembling reliable evidence and by applying critical thinking and peer review according to the standard scientific process. This is the strength of science and the way it has progressed over centuries.
- In conclusion, we offer the “agree to differ” approach: to end an argument amicably while maintaining differences of opinion until there is an explanation that does justice to all the various types of evidence.
The song was inspired by 9/11 Consensus Panel co-founder David Ray Griffin’s recent book, “Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World,” (Interlink, 2017).
The song, a take-off on “I believe in Miracles,” is titled, “I believe in 9/11 Miracles.” Its sometimes hilarious content reflects and illustrates Griffin’s statement:
“If journalists continue to endorse the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Center, they should begin their articles by saying: ‘I believe in miracles—lots of them.’”
This snappy little song has been picked up the The Centre for Research on Globalization and may be heard here.
NEW YORK 8 settembre 2017 – Con l’avvicinarsi del 16o anniversario dell’11 settembre 2001, e con la guerra globale al terrorismo che ancora infuria senza controllo, il Consensus Panel prosegue nel suo impegno settennale di offrire una fonte di ricerca basata su prove tangibili per qualunque indagine che voglia essere intrapresa dal pubblico, dai media, dagli accademici, o da qualunque altra entità di ricerca.
Capo quest’anno il Comitato di 23 membri ha pubblicato due nuovi punti di consenso, usando il metodo delle migliori prove per analizzare le dichiarazioni ufficiali sull’11 settembre. Ad oggi il comitato ha analizzato 51 dichiarazioni ufficiali e ha trovato che ciascuna di esse è fondamentalmente errata.
Il primo Punto, “L’affermazione che i dirottatori erano devoti musulmani”, cita molteplici articoli secondo i quali i dirottatori si dilettavano in piaceri decisamente proibiti e non-islamici, incluso la lap-dance nei night-club di Las Vegas.
Il secondo Punto del 2017, “L’affermazione che Mohamed Atta era diventato un fanatico religioso musulmano”, approfondisce la domanda posta da un rappresentante della stampa al membro della commissione 11 settembre Richard Ben-Veniste: “Se è vero che Atta apparteneva ad un gruppo di fondamentalisti islamici, come mai tirava cocaina e frequentava i locali di strip-tease?” Ben-Veniste ha risposto: “Questa è proprio una bella domanda.” Ma è una domanda che la Commissione 11 settembre non ha mai affrontato.
Questi due punti vanno ad aggiungersi alle già abbondanti prove che l’11 settembre, che è stato usato per giustificare l’agenda imperialista in medio oriente, sia stato un inganno colossale: il World Trade Center, il Pentagono, i dirottatori, le telefonate degli aerei, i falsi video delle telecamere di sicurezza, e i movimenti dei più alti comandi politici e militari.
Il membro del Consensus Panel Dr. Niels Harrit, Professore Emeritus di Chimica all’Università di Copenhagen, ha pubblicato oltre 60 ricerche scientificamente verificate sulle più importanti riviste di chimica, e ha fatto oltre 300 conferenze sulle demolizioni del World Trade Center in Danimarca, Svezia, Norvegia, Germania, Olanda, Francia, Svizzera, Spagna, Regno Unito, Canada, Stati Uniti, Cina, Australia, Russia e Islanda.
Frances Shure, una consulente professionista membro del Consensus Panel, è stata intervistata da Progressive Spirit nell’agosto 2017 sullo straordinario meccanismo di diniego che continua a circondare i fatti dell’11 settembre. Il titolo della sua intervista era “Why Do Good People Become Silent – Or Worse – About 9/11? [Perché le persone perbene diventano silenziose – o ancora peggio – sull’11 settembre?]”.
Il dott. Graeme MacQueen, Professore emerito di studi per la pace alla McMaster University, ha pubblicato un recente articolo con un’angolazione completamente diversa: “9/11: The Pentagon’s B-Movie”, che risveglia il senso della orripilante ma ancora nascosta natura di questo inganno di natura globale.
Altri due membri del Consensus Panel, il professore di fisica David Chandler e l’ingegnere Jonathan Cole, mantengono un sito separato nel quale presentano la loro ricerca indipendente, che rimane affiliata ai 2900 membri di Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth e a quelli di Scientists for 9/11 Truth.
Il Cofondatore del Consensus Panel, Dott. David Ray Griffin, ha recentemente pubblicato il suo 11o libro di ricerca sull’11 settembre, “Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World”, forse fino ad oggi il suo bestseller. Qui si può ascoltare l’intervista di David con John Shuck dell’agosto 2017.
Il Consensus Panel desidera ringraziare la sua ottima squadra di traduttori volontari, che continuano a rendere disponibile in modo molto ampio le prove migliori sull’11 settembre in molti altri altre lingue.
The events that took place in the United States on September 11, 2001 were real and they were extremely violent. As David Griffin has recently shown in detail, they also had catastrophic real-life consequences for both the United States and the world. 
But these events were also deeply filmic (like a film) and they were presented to us through a narrative we now know to be fictional. This “9/11 movie” reveals itself to careful investigators as scripted, directed and produced by the U.S. national security state. The movie does not represent the real world. It violates the rules operative in the real world, including the laws of physics. Audiences will remain in thrall to the spectacle and violence of the War on Terror only as long as they remain mesmerized by the B-movie of 9/11.
The Filmic Nature of the September 11 Events
Many people caught a whiff of Hollywood on September 11, 2001. According to Lawrence Wright (screenwriter of The Siege),
“It was about an hour after the first trade centre came down that I began to make the connection with the movie, this haunting feeling at the beginning this looks like a movie, and then I thought it looks like my movie.” 
“Well it did look like a movie. It looked like a movie poster. It looked like one of my movie posters.” 
The 9/11 attacks were filmic in at least the following ways
- Given the complex and coordinated nature of these attacks, they had been scripted and given a timeline in advance;
- given the need to make decisions as the attacks progressed (for example, when an aircraft went off course or was delayed), it is clear that there was a director;
- given the overall vision, the need for funds, resources and international coordination over a period of years, it is obvious that there had been a producer;
- given the numerous roles played in this event (for example, by the “hijackers”), there were undoubtedly actors.
In addition, the event included the key dramatic elements of conflict, violence and spectacle.  The entire production was filmed from several angles, and the films, sometimes in the rough and sometimes cleverly edited, were shown many, many times all over the world.
Official U.S. sources rapidly acknowledged the remarkably filmic nature of these events. In October, 2001 some two dozen Hollywood writers and directors were assembled “to brainstorm with Pentagon advisers and officials in an anonymous building in L.A.”  The Army’s Institute for Creative Technologies was the lead organization.  The assembled group was assumed to have relevant expertise and was asked to brainstorm about what future attacks might look like so that the Pentagon could be prepared. (“We want some left-field, off-the-wall ideas; say the craziest thing that comes into your mind”). 
While the bare fact of this consultation was widely reported by news media, further details about the three-day consultation have been hard to come by. Reporters have had their FOIA requests denied. 
Beneath this consultation lay the “failure of imagination” hypothesis. Although the hypothesis emerged almost immediately after September 11, it was given especially clear expression in a BBC Panorama programme aired on March 24, 2002.  Steve Bradshaw interviewed representatives of Hollywood and of national security institutions. The Pentagon, we were supposed to believe, is a typical large bureaucracy characterized by inertia. It is unable to imagine, and to rapidly respond to, new and emerging threats. It is stuck in the past. It is also afraid to irritate the general population by appearing to be politically incorrect–by looking, in this case, at Islam as a threat. Fortunately, there are two sets of people with imagination and courage: a small number of people within the national security apparatus who were trying to warn the Pentagon but were ignored, and Hollywood screenwriters and directors, who had imagination, who had some contact with the national security dissidents, and who had the courage to risk being called Islamophobic. 
So the planes of September 11, when they burst on the scene, confirmed the imaginative prescience of Hollywood, supported the courageous faction of the national security apparatus, and embarrassed the national security bureaucracy, which had to lower itself in October, 2001 to meet with the purveyors of fiction in order to stimulate its sclerotic brain.
This failure of imagination hypothesis was supported by statements by George W. Bush  and, even more famously, by Condoleeza Rice:
“I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile.” 
The hypothesis became more or less official when it was adopted by the 9/11 Commission in its report on the attacks. 
Of course, given the filmic nature of 9/11, it is clear that, according to these official U.S. sources, there was another group–beyond Hollywood and a few national security malcontents–that had imagination, namely al-Qaeda.
Robert Altman (director of MASH, McCabe and Mrs. Miller and many other films) said in 2002 that Hollywood was to blame for the 9/11 events.
“The movies set the pattern, and these people have copied the movies … Nobody would have thought to commit an atrocity like that unless they’d seen it in a movie.” 
Presumably, by “these people” Altman meant al-Qaeda. Perhaps it was while munching popcorn and watching a Hollywood movie that Osama bin Laden and his high-level companions got the idea for 9/11? This is possible. But would it not make sense to ask if it is true that the Pentagon has no imagination, and that it was incapable of picturing attacks like those of the fall of 2001?
Collaboration between Hollywood and U.S. government agencies goes back at least as far as WW II. Indeed, a 1943 memo from the OSS (forerunner of the CIA) noted that,
“The motion picture is one of the most powerful propaganda weapons at the disposal of the United States.” 
Many Hollywood films and TV programs have, therefore, been supported by the Pentagon, and some have been supported by the CIA. Such support can be crucial for films that require U.S. military assets such as planes and helicopters. But support is not automatic. The script must first be approved, and emendations may be demanded by the national security agency in question. In a recent book on this subject (National Security Cinema: The Shocking New Evidence of Government Control in Hollywood), authors Tom Secker and Matthew Alford list 814 films and 1133 TV titles that received DOD support. 
Since many of these films are highly imaginative constructions, how can it be that the national security agencies that have helped bring them to fruition have remained trapped in their grey, unimaginative world? Presumably, we are to believe that it is the nature of a bureaucracy to restrict these imaginative insights to one part of the organization–say, the Army’s Institute for Creative Technologies–while neglecting to disseminate them to other parts of the national security state. But is this true?
Those familiar with the History Commons research project on 9/11 will know that it is not true at all. Here are 16 titles from that project (selected from a much longer list) that refer to pre-9/11 exercises and simulations by U.S. government agencies: 
- November 7, 1982: Port Authority Practices for Plane Crashing into the WTC
- (1998-September 10, 2001): NORAD Operations Center Runs Five ‘Hijack Training Events’ Each Month
- 1998-2001: Secret Service Simulates Planes Crashing into the White House
- October 14, 1998: ‘Poised Response’ Exercise Prepares for Bin Laden Attack on Washington
- Between 1999 and September 11, 2001: NORAD Practices Live-Fly Mock Shootdown of a Poison-Filled Jet
- Between September 1999 and September 10, 2001: NORAD Exercises Simulate Plane Crashes into US Buildings; One of Them Is the World Trade Center
- November 6, 1999: NORAD Conducts Exercise Scenario Based around Hijackers Planning to Crash Plane into UN Headquarters in New York
- June 5, 2000: NORAD Exercise Simulates Hijackers Planning to Crash Planes into White House and Statue of Liberty
- October 16-23, 2000: NORAD Exercise Includes Scenarios of Attempted Suicide Plane Crashes into UN Headquarters in New York
- May 2001: Medics Train for Airplane Hitting Pentagon
- June 1-2, 2001: Military Conducts Exercises Based on Scenario in which Cruise Missiles Are Launched against US [“Osama bin Laden is pictured on the cover of the proposal for the exercise”]
- July 2001: NORAD Plans a Mock Simultaneous Hijacking Threat from inside the US
- Early August 2001: Mass Casualty Exercise at the Pentagon Includes a Plane Hitting the Building
- August 4, 2001: Air Defense Exercise Involves the Scenario of Bin Laden Using a Drone Aircraft to Attack Washington
- September 6, 2001: NORAD Exercise Includes Terrorist Hijackers Threatening to Blow Up Airliner
- September 9, 2001: NEADS Exercise Includes Scenario with Terrorist Hijackers Targeting New York
It is not necessary to find an exercise here that perfectly matches the attacks of the fall of 2001. The point is that there is far too much imagination and far too much similarity to the actual attacks of the fall of 2001 to support the “failure of imagination” hypothesis. Hollywood participants in the October, 2001 brainstorming exercise, who thought they were being tapped for their imagination, were conned.
Who was better prepared, through both imagination and logistical capacity, to carry out the attacks of the fall of 2001–Bin Laden’s group or the U.S. national security state? The latter had been practising steadily, in relevant scripted training operations, for years, and it had the power and resources to bring the imaginative scenarios to reality. Al-Qaeda was not remotely its match.
Not Just Filmic, But Exclusively Filmic
The violent destruction of the North Tower
If this business of the filmic nature of the September 11 attacks involved only Hollywood scriptwriters we might be tempted to regard it as nothing but a minor distraction. But what we find is that even members of the Fire Department of New York, risking their lives at the scene, were shocked by the filmic nature of what they witnessed. 
- “I thought I was at an event at Universal Studios, on the side, watching a movie being taped.” (EMS Chief Walter Kowalczyk)
- “I remembered hearing Lieutenant D’Avila coming over the radio and saying Central be advised, a second plane just went into the second tower. We ran out and we saw the second plane. It was like watching a movie. It really was.” (EMT Peter Cachia)
- “I looked over my shoulder and you could see the whole top of the south tower leaning towards us. It looked like it was coming over. You could see the windows pop out just like in the picture, looked like a movie. I saw one floor of windows pop out, like poof, poof. I saw one and a half floors pop out.” (Chief Steve Grabher)
- “The building started collapsing, the north tower started collapsing. It tipped down first and then the thing fell within itself. It was an amazing sight to see. It was really unbelievable. I thought I was watching a movie with special effects.” (EMT Michael Mejias)
- “As I’m looking up at this stuff that’s going on up there now, I just like — I’m saying to myself I’ve seen this in a movie. My whole recollection is going back to a movie or something I saw. I just saw this before.” (Fire Marshal Steven Mosiello)
- “ … it looked like a bomb, of course, had gone off, almost like a nuclear bomb. That’s all I could think of. I’ve never been at war. I equated it to being like when I saw something like when I was a kid and I saw Godzilla in the movies or something, when he crushes those buildings and stuff like that, that’s what it looked like to me.” (Firefighter Edward Kennedy)
- “I’m standing on top of the rig between the bucket and the cab, between the ladder and the cab. People were blessing themselves in this gloominess of going down. It was like out of a movie. I couldn’t believe what was going on.” (Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy)
- “I just recall that those first — those first minutes from the time that sound started, the rumbling started to occur and the dust started to fall and then stopped to get gear and equipment from the fire truck and then continue down to West Street and getting there and seeing the crushed fire trucks, crushed cars, vehicles on fire. It was like a movie set.” (Firefighter Daniel Lynch)
- “Then like a Godzilla movie, everybody that had been standing in that little park there across from One Liberty Plaza and had been just looking up and watching the north tower burn just started running eastbound like they were being chased by someone.” (Battalion Chief Brian Dixon)
- “Then, you started to run, your [sic] helping people, helping them run. You saw it, it was amazing … like out of a movie, you know, the cloud’s just chasing you. As you look back, you see it engulf people.” (EMP Peter Constantine)
- “ … as I turned on Albany I looked over my shoulder and I saw the big cloud of dust that was already on the ground like just making its way down the block, just like a movie.” (EMS Captain Frank D’Amato)
- “The first thing came in my mind was the movie Armageddon, and this was reality, with the black smoke 30 floors high, debris falling everywhere … .Because I have never seen anything like that in 21 years of emergency work.” (EMT Russell Harris)
- “Then as soon as we got over there, as soon as we got off of the Brooklyn Bridge, the people were running like it was a Godzilla movie, and we had to stop there for a while. People were overcome, were shaken, were scared … ” (EMT Christopher Kagenaar)
- “But I ran and ran, and finally I could see the light. When I got to where the tunnel was, I’m looking everywhere. It was just like that movie the day after with the atomic bomb. They drop it and nobody’s left and I’m the only one.” (Paramedic Robert Ruiz)
- “I remember seeing the rubble, seeing the rubble fall and actually start to chase down the street, and, you know, it’s strange because you wouldn’t expect — you wouldn’t expect debris to do that, but it literally traveled, like, you would see these movies with like a tidal wave that flows through the streets and hits down any path it can.” (Rosario Terranova)
These comments, selected from a wider set of similar comments, are intriguing, but what is their significance? As we examine them closely we recognize that the September 11 event was not just filmic but exclusively filmic. By this I mean that the narrative presented to us by authorities could not have unfolded outside of a film.
Since at least as early as 1902, when the French film A Trip to the Moon (Le Voyage dans la Lune) took its viewers into space, audiences have been enjoying the ability of movies to deliver dramatic action through special effects, and especially by suspending, fictionally, the laws of physics. This is part of the power of film and there is nothing inherently wrong with it. But it is important to know when we are in the theatre and when we are not.
In the original 1933 film, King Kong, director Merian Cooper was determined to make the appearance of his monster dramatically powerful, and to this end was prepared to change the monster’s size repeatedly to fit particular scenes.
“I was a great believer in constantly changing Kong’s height to fit the settings and the illusions. He’s different in almost every shot; sometimes he’s only 18 feet (5.5 m) tall and sometimes 60 feet (18.3 m) or larger … but I felt confident that if the scenes moved with excitement and beauty, the audience would accept any height that fitted into the scene.” 
Cooper understood what mattered in a movie. But imagine what would happen if audiences remained convinced by the suspension of the laws of physics after they left the theatre? This, it seems to me, is what has happened with the events of September 11, 2001. Many people are still deceived by the special effects. They are still captured by the movie of 9/11.
Consider two of the most traumatizing elements in the attacks, the disappearance of the Twin Towers and the ensuing debris cloud.
The destruction of the Twin Towers stunned first responders. Their previous experiences, including experiences with high-rise fires, did not lead them to suspect these buildings would come down.
“Whoever in their right mind would have thought that the World Trade Center would ever fall down … Nobody in the world, nobody ever would ever have thought those buildings were coming down.” (EMS Captain Mark Stone) 
Investigations over the last 16 years have demonstrated that the first responders’ surprise was justified. The explanations offered by official U.S. agencies have been shown to violate basic laws of physics. 
Awed by the spectacle of the Twin Towers coming down, and by the later fall of World Trade 7, we are supposed to forget our high school physics. We are not supposed to notice that the official explanations given to us leave these spectacles every bit as peculiar as King Kong’s ever-changing size.
So this central dramatic element, as edited for TV, interpreted by ponderous official voices, and played repeatedly for a world audience, belonged to the 9/11 movie. Behind the scenes the director had ordered that explosive charges be set in the buildings.
Well over one hundred members of the Fire Department of New York witnessed explosions at the beginning of the so-called collapses of the Twin Towers.  Their testimony fits with the controlled demolition hypothesis and does not fit with the script of the 9/11 movie. Since promotion of the government’s movie would have been difficult if these voices were heard, they were suppressed.
The second deeply impressive event of September 11, which appears repeatedly in the FDNY musings about the filmic nature of what they witnessed, was the cloud of material that rushed through the streets of Manhattan in the wake of the destruction of each of the Towers. Several films are mentioned by name in this connection, including those featuring Godzilla, King of Monsters, created for Japanese films less than ten years after the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a deliberately provocative meditation on the forces of the nuclear age. 
The FDNY World Trade Center Task Force interviews give a lively sense of what it felt like to be trapped in this debris cloud. 
Everything was pitch-black. You couldn’t see anything. All I saw was big bolts of fire, fire balls. I could feel the heat around me. It was pitch-black. I couldn’t see anything at all. My lungs, my airways, everything filled up with ash. I couldn’t breathe.” (EMT Renae O’Carroll)
“All of a sudden the noises stopped, the sound of the building falling stopped. We all turned around and it was dark now. We really couldn’t see … The cloud was in there. All eating the cloud, whatever it was like, very thick. I keep saying it was like a 3 dimensional object. It wasn’t smoke. It was like everything. It was like a sand storm.” (Firefighter Timothy Burke)
“So I’m running, and people are running in front of me. They stop. They turn around. I think everything’s over with. So I stop, all of a sudden the thing is coming at us. It was like in dark hell, like a nuclear blizzard. I couldn’t explain it. You couldn’t see in front of you. You couldn’t breathe. You’re inhaling. You’re coughing. You’re running. You can’t see anything.” (EMT Mary Merced)
“You still can’t see it because it’s dark as a mother. You can’t breathe. It’s so heavy with smoke and dust and ash.
I can’t breathe. I have, for lack of a better term, dust impaction in my ears, in my nose. I was coughing it out of my mouth. It felt like I had a baseball in my mouth. I was just picking it out with my fingers.” (Paramedic Louis Cook)
People on 9/11 running from the debris cloud
As is clear from these testimonies, words like “smoke” and “dust” do not do justice to the cloud in which people were trapped. That is because the clouds were the Towers. Each Tower was converted in less than 20 seconds from a powerful, massive structure over 415 metres (1362 feet) high into cut steel and pulverized matter. While the steel lay on the ground, much of the remainder was rapidly propelled through the streets of Manhattan.
Just as the dramatic tale of building destruction involved deception, so did the equally dramatic tale of this engulfing cloud. This cloud was not the result of a gravitational collapse caused by Muslim terrorists flying planes into buildings. It was the result of an explosive building demolition.
That this cloud could not have been caused in the manner claimed by the official narrative has been argued several times, beginning at least as early as 2003.  The demonstrations are independent of the proofs of explosive destruction of the buildings.
Credible scientists have calculated the amount of potential gravitational energy in the Twin Towers–the only major form of energy available, according to the official narrative, at the time of the “collapse” since the energy contributed at that point by the fires was minimal and indirect–and have compared it to the amount of energy that would have been required to create the pulverized debris cloud.
Professor emeritus of civil engineering, Robert Korol has recently discussed this issue.  He has calculated the gravitational potential energy of each of the Towers at 508.4 x 109 joules. He has calculated the energy required to pulverize the concrete of each Tower at 857.5 x 109 joules; the energy to destroy the perimeter columns at 219 x 109 joules; and the energy to destroy the core columns at 178 x 109 joules. The total energy required for the concrete and columns is 1,254.5 x 109 joules.
Simply put, these figures suggest that it would have taken about two and a half times the amount of energy available through gravity to have destroyed the Towers as witnessed.
Professor Korol’s calculations are based on experimental work he has done in the laboratory, the results of which have been published in peer-reviewed journals. He has pulverized concrete. He has buckled and crushed columns. He has measured the force required in each case. His calculations with respect to the Twin Towers are extremely conservative in that they do not attempt to include all forms of destruction attested, such as pulverizing of walls, furniture and human bodies.
If, moreover, we were to add to his calculations the energy required to propel the pulverized buildings in all directions through the streets of Manhattan, as some authors have done, we would find the impossibility of the official narrative even more striking.  The comment by the FDNY’s Terranova, quoted earlier–“you wouldn’t expect debris to do that–” is an understatement.
We cannot avoid the conclusion that the gravity-caused debris cloud was exclusively filmic just like King Kong’s fluctuating height. Both honoured the rules of dramatic action by violating the laws of physics.
The apparently fanciful references to Godzilla by first responders are actually perceptive. Gravity was aided by an extremely muscular destructive force. But in Godzilla movies the monster is visible, while the monster of the 9/11 movie was invisible and must be made visible through investigation.
In the 1958 trailer for the B-movie, The Blob, film-goers are shown sitting in a theatre as a horror movie begins.  They are frightened, but only in the distant way that film audiences allow themselves to feel frightened by fictional representations. Then we notice the monster (“the Blob”) oozing into the theatre itself. As the movie-goers wake up to this reality and sense the real danger, they tear their eyes from the screen and run from the theatre.
As audiences today watch the War on Terror, hypnotized by the extremist evil-doers, a pitiless oligarchy creeps unseen into the room. Our challenge is to break the spell of the B-movie of 9/11. Only when people sense the genuine danger and leave behind fiction and special effects will they be in a position to deal with the real monster that confronts us.
Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World (Northampton, MA: Olive Branch Press, 2017)
“September 11: A Warning from Hollywood,” BBC Panorama (BBC, March 24, 2002).)
Spectacle, the visual aspect of dramatic action, was included in Aristotle’s Poetics as an essential element of drama. As for conflict and violence, see Lew Hunter, Lew Hunter’s Screenwriting 434 (New York: Perigee, 1993), pp. 19, 22 ff.
“Hollywood: The Pentagon’s New Advisor,” BBC Panorama (BBC, 2002); Sharon Weinberger, “Hollywood’s Secret Meet,” Wired, March 16, 2007.
Weinberger, “Hollywood’s Secret Meet.”
“Hollywood: The Pentagon’s New Advisor.”
Weinberger, “Hollywood’s Secret Meet.”
George W. Bush, “President Addresses the Nation in Prime Time Press Conference,” (U.S. government archives, April 13, 2004).
Condoleezza Rice, “Press Briefing by National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice,” (U.S. government archives, May 16, 2002).
Alec Russell, “9/11 Report Condemns ‘failure of Imagination,’” Telegraphly 23, 2004. [The 9/11 Commission Report credits Rumsfeld with this phrase (on p. 336, pdf: 353), giving the “DOD memo Wolfowitz to Rumsfeld, ‘Were We Asleep?’” of Sept. 18, 2001 as souce. – editor’s note]
Sean Alfano, “Iconic Director Robert Altman Dead At 81,” CBS/AP, November 21, 2006.
“The Motion Picture As A Weapon of Psychological Warfare.” Matthew Alford, National Security Cinema: The Shocking New Evidence of Government Control in Hollywood (Drum Roll Books, 2017), p. 31.
The New York Times, having obtained the World Trade Center Task Force Interviews from the City of New York through a lawsuit, hosts the documents on its website. The interviews are in the form of separate PDF files. Each file is identified by the interviewee’s name.
“World Trade Center Task Force Interviews” (City of New York, 2002 2001)
From an interview with Cooper quoted in “King Kong,” Wikipedia, accessed August 6, 2017.
“World Trade Center Task Force Interviews.” See note 18.
Ibid. See note 18.
The best summary in recent years is Ted Walter, BEYOND MISINFORMATION: What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7 (Berkeley, California: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Inc., 2015) (free pdf; free e-version).
Graeme MacQueen, “118 Witnesses: The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers,” Journal of 9/11 Studies, August 2006.
Tim Martin, “Godzilla: Why the Japanese Original Is No Joke,” The Telegraph, May 15, 2014.
“World Trade Center Task Force Interviews.” See note 18.
The earliest attempt I know of is by Jim Hoffman. See “The North Tower’s Dust Cloud: Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center, Version 3.1,” 9-11 Research, October 16, 2003.
Ted Walter, BEYOND MISINFORMATION: What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7 (Berkeley, California: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Inc., 2015) (free pdf; free e-version). Full references to Korol’s articles are given in Adnan Zuberi’s compilation accompanying “9/11 in the Academic Community: Academia’s Treatment of Critical Perspectives on 9/11—Documentary” [which is available on YouTube – editor’s note].
Trailer, The Blob, 1958, YouTube.
Images in this article are from the author.
As a prominent Whitehead process theologian, scholar David Ray Griffin attracted much attention when the first of his ten books about 9/11 came out (“The New Pearl Harbor,” 2004).
Since the appearance of that book – which built on the work of several scholars and analysts – a worldwide movement has grown up challenging the official account of 9/11 and its tragic sequelae, Islamophobia and the all-consuming “war on terror.”
In his new book, Griffin updates the evidence from his last book (“9/11 Ten Years Later,” 2011), and points to extensive new research on the Twin Towers from a large body of architects and engineers, and also to the investigations of the international 22-member 9/11 Consensus Panel.
From 2012-2014, Griffin turned to a full analysis of the climate crisis. His 2015 book, “Unprecedented: Can Civilization Survive the CO2 Crisis?” was described by an expert reviewer from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as “the best book today on the issue of all issues of all time.”
Griffin’s new book on the Bush-Cheney administration shows that both 9/11 and the climate crisis derive from the neoconservatives who came to power in 2000 as the Bush-Cheney administration.
Using the great lie of 9/11, and never ceasing to drill into the pubic the fear of terrorism, the neocons and their media have metastacized into a full-blown “neoconservative movement” that has gradually come to dominate both the Republican and Democratic parties.
Looking more deeply than the captured media, Griffin shows that the neoconservatives have been “the major source of the violence, illegal regime change, killings, and dislocations of millions of people since the attacks of September 11, 2001” – including the destruction of Iraq and Libya.
Yet for more than 15 years, the 9/11 attacks have enabled a primitive neocon/media drumbeat telling us that we should fear the aggression of Iran and the Muslim world. Most recently we are urged to fear the “unsubstantiated claims that Putin interfered in the US presidential election.”
This is all propaganda serving America’s war for the “greater Middle East,” which began in 1953 and has led to global chaos.
The public needs protection from the increasingly incoherent media lies so that democracy can once again stand on a platform of truth.
Dr. Griffin’s new book is a reliable and readable tool for people who want to base their thinking on solid evidence and lucid scholarship.
Title: Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World
Author: David Ray Griffin
Publisher: Olive Branch Pr (August 16, 2017)
NEW YORK, SEPTEMBER 10, 2016 – Italian film-maker Massimo Mazzucco, a member of the 9/11 Consensus Panel, has just released an elegant summary of his classic 5-hour 2013 documentary, September 11: The New Pearl Harbor.
Mazzucco writes, “The original film contains the entire history of the debate on 9/11, seen from both sides of the aisle – the 9/11 Truth Movement and the ‘Debunkers’ worldwide. This summary is intended only as an introduction to the complete film, and not as a stand-alone piece on 9/11.”
To show the quality of the original film, we include parts of a 2013 review by Dr. David Ray Griffin, co-founder of the 9/11 Consensus Panel:
For those of us who have been working on 9/11 for a long time, this is the film we have been waiting for.
Whereas there are excellent films treating the falsity of particular parts of the official account, such as the Twin Towers or WTC 7, Mazzucco has given us a comprehensive documentary treatment of 9/11, dealing with virtually all of the issues.
Because of his intent at completeness, Mazzucco has given us a 5-hour film. It is so fascinating and fast-paced that many will want to watch it in one sitting. But this is not necessary, as the film, which fills 3 DVDs, consists of 7 parts, each of which is divided into many short chapters.
These 7 parts treat Air Defence, The Hijackers, The Airplanes, The Pentagon, Flight 93, The Twin Towers, and Building 7. In each part, after presenting facts that contradict the official story, Mazzucco deals with the claims of the debunkers (meaning those who try to debunk the evidence provided by the 9/11 research community).
The Introduction, reflecting the film’s title, deals with 12 uncanny parallels between Pearl Harbor and September 11.
The film can educate people who know nothing about 9/11 (beyond the official story), those with a moderate amount of knowledge about the various problems with the official story, and even by experts. (I myself learned many things.)
Mazzucco points out that his film covers 12 years of public debate about 9/11. People who have been promoting 9/11 truth for many of these years will see that their labors have been well-rewarded: There is now a high-quality, carefully-documented film that dramatically shows the official story about 9/11 to be a fabrication through and through.
NEW YORK, September 8, 2016 – With the approaching fifteenth anniversary of September 11, 2001, and with 9/11 wars and terrorism continuing unabated, the 9/11 Consensus Panel redoubles its commitment “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.”
This year the 23-member Panel published two new Consensus Points, using a “best evidence” medical reviewing model.
The first Point, “The Claim of Widespread Infernos in the South Tower vs the FDNY Radio Transcript,” refutes the official claim that the floors in the area where the plane hit were “infernos,” allegedly causing the melting of steel and the collapse of the Tower.
The second 2016 Consensus Point concerns the omission of evidence in the official narrative that two senior New York City employees reported a massive explosion deep inside World Trade Center (WTC) 7 on the morning of 9/11, which trapped them in a stairwell for 90 minutes.
These two Points build upon the already overwhelming evidence that 9/11, which has been used to promote a “clash of civilizations” with the Muslim world, was a deception across the board: the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the hijackers, the phone calls from the planes, the fake security video exhibits, and the whereabouts of the political and military commands.
Once this imperialistic 9/11 strategy is understood, many people, including academics, find that they cannot continue to live in its illusory matrix, and devote their time to the task of educating others. Accordingly, some members of the Consensus Panel have promoted the facts about 9/11.
For example, Dr. Niels Harrit, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, had published more than 60 peer-reviewed papers in the top chemistry journals when he learned, in 2007, of the uncanny collapse of World Trade Center 7. He has since given more than 300 presentations about the World Trade Center, speaking in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Holland, France, Switzerland, Spain, United Kingdom, Canada, USA, China, Australia, Russia and Iceland. In May, 2016, he spoke in London, and in August, 2016, at the World Social Forum in Montreal.
Frances Shure, a licensed professional counselor with a specialty in “depth psychology,” explained on Colorado Public Television in August, 2016, the substance of her groundbreaking series, “Why Do Good People Become Silent—Or Worse—About 9/11?”
Dr. Graeme MacQueen, Professor Emeritus of Peace Studies at McMaster University, has published an analysis of the anthrax scare following 9/11 entitled The Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy. During 2016, he gave lectures on 9/11 in Montreal, San Francisco, and NYC.
Two other Panelists, physics teacher David Chandler and engineer Jonathan Cole, maintain a separate website, in which their independent research, which is also affiliated with the 2600-member Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Scientists for 9/11 Truth, is documented.
Panel co-founder, Dr. David Ray Griffin, has written an eleventh book on 9/11, Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World, which will be out in November. In the first part of the book, he lays out many ways in which the Bush-Cheney administration has weakened the U.S. Constitution and caused havoc in the Greater Middle East, which has spilled over into Europe. In the second part, he explains that the official account of 9/11 cannot possibly be true, because it entails at least 13 miracles – things that violate the laws of physics.
Elizabeth Woodworth, the other Panel co-founder, gave a PowerPoint presentation to August’s World Social Forum in Montreal, discussing the development of the Consensus Panel, and some of its lesser-known – albeit shocking – evidence. An hour will be given to this evidence on cable TV this September in British Columbia.
The Panel wishes to thank its fine team of voluntary translators, who have made its scrupulous evidence available in six languages.
Who planned and conducted the attacks that took place on 9/11?
New evidence tells us that the official explanation cannot possibly be true.
Unveiling the truth about 9/11 will shatter the pretext that plunged the world into ‘endless war.’ It could be a ‘game changer’ in the fight against existing and future interventions, militarism, and the progressive curtailment of civil and human rights. Establishing the truth about 9/11 will give enormous impetus to the global fight for social, economic and environmental justice for years to come.
Speaking the whole truth to power will showcase the work of three key members of the 9/11 Consensus Panel, a 23-person team of science academics, engineers, attorneys, commercial pilots, journalists, and others. In some of its 48 Consensus Points, the Consensus Panel has unearthed new evidence refuting the official claims about 9/11.
Elizabeth Woodworth is the Coordinator and co-founder of the 9/11 Consensus Project and has been researching 9/11 evidence since 2006. A retired health science librarian, Elizabeth has coordinated the ‘best evidence’ medical methodology to refute 48 of the official claims made regarding the events of 9/11.
Graeme MacQueen is the former director of the Centre for Peace Studies at McMaster University. He is known for having collected more than 150 eyewitness accounts suggesting the Twin Towers were demolished with explosions on 9/11. He is the co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies and author of The 2001 Anthrax Deception.
Niels Harrit was the lead researcher in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2009 that described the detection of active thermitic material in the dust of the Twin Towers and World Trade Center 7. Harrit is emeritus professor at the University of Copenhagen’s Department of Chemistry. Since 2007 he has been actively involved in the global movement for 911-truth, and has made more than 300 presentations on 9/11 in 15 countries.
The session will be moderated by Sean Sweeney, labor educator and activist, based in New York.
NEW YORK, June 15, 2016 – Fifteen years after the world-changing events of 9/11, new evidence refuting the official story continues to be unearthed by a Panel of 23 professional researchers.
Today the 9/11 Consensus Panel releases two new Consensus Points presenting further evidence of serious contradictions concerning the collapses of the South Tower and World Trade Center 7.
The first Point is titled, “The Claim of Widespread Infernos in the South Tower vs the FDNY Radio Transcript.”
The importance of this Consensus Point is that a little-known Fire Department of New York radio transcript unmistakably refutes the claim that there were widespread fires in World Trade Center 2 (the South Tower) the morning of 9/11.
The evidence of firefighter teams operating calmly, methodically, and with confidence that they could easily defeat the fires in the South Tower refutes the official claim that floors in the vicinity of the airplane strike were all “infernos,” and that the building was unstable and about to collapse.
The second new Consensus Point concerns the omission of evidence in the official narrative that two senior New York City employees reported a massive explosion deep inside World Trade Center (WTC) 7 on the morning of 9/11, which trapped them in a stairwell for 90 minutes.
The statements of these two men support evidence presented elsewhere by the Consensus Panel showing that WTC 7 did not fall from fire alone but was brought down through demolition.
The Panel employs a methodology used in medicine to generate consensus statements of the best available evidence on specific topics. During the survey process, the expert respondents remain blind to one another through three rounds of revision and feedback.
Over a five-year period the Consensus Panel has published 48 Points of evidence refuting the official story.
|Source:||The 9/11 Consensus Panel @consensus911|
The 9/11 Consensus Panel has now published 46 points of evidence refuting official claims about 9/11, and hopes to reach 50 by September 2016 – the fifteenth anniversary – at which point the Panel may decide to publish them.
Significant events for 2015 include:
- The Consensus Panel reviewed and published two new Consensus Points: one on Able Danger, and the other on foreknowledge of the Pentagon events.
- 9/11 Consensus Panelist Frances Shure continued to add insightful new publications to her series, “Why Do Good People Become Silent – or worse – about 9/11?”
- On October, 15, 2015, Consensus Panelist Dr. Graeme MacQueen published an article, “One Year After Canada’s October 22nd Shootings: We Need a Public Inquiry,” based on his longer, intensively researched report of September 30.
- David Griffin’s article, “9/11 and Global Warming: Are They Both False Conspiracy Theories?” was published on September 15, by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts.
- David Griffin’s 2015 book, “Unprecedented: Can Civilization Survive the CO2 Crisis?” was reviewed as “a great service to humanity,” and was taken to the Paris climate summit in December by Panel co-founder, Elizabeth Woodworth, who has just made, with a professional film producer, a 2016 video entitled “A Climate Revolution For All. COP21: An Inside View.” Griffin’s book is featured for its section on mobilization.
Elizabeth found her inside view of how 195 countries reached the first unanimous climate agreement in history, at the biggest meeting of nations in France since the UN Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 (COP was attended by 40,000 people), to be inspirational. The indigenous indaba consensus method holds promise for future global cooperation.
- On January 4, 2016, Panel member Massimo Mazzucco published an article on the continuing effects of 9/11 on the world terror agenda in 2015. It was translated by Consensus Panel translator, Christophe, in Agoravox.fr, (awk) “one of the most prominent European examples of a citizen journalism site,” and is the 1,392 ranking website in France.
- In October, a 2-hour German video closely documented the way that Wikipedia interlopers have systematically manipulated information about Consensus Panelist Dr. Daniele Ganser, a Swiss professor and historian who works to educate people about 9/11. The video shows what the truth is up against.
- AE911Truth has partnered with the team of Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey, an engineering professor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), to undertake a two-year study that will virtually reconstruct WTC 7 and evaluate the range of possible causes of its collapse. AE911Truth believes the UAF study will be a turning point in how the destruction of WTC 7 is viewed — both within the engineering community and by the general public.
- nhà cái tặng tiền cược miễn phí tháng 2019 www.ibzmart.com statistics for 2015:
- There were 314,000 visits to the website, involving 141,446 unique visitors (99% of last year’s figures).
- In 2015 there were many citings of Consensus Panel evidence on external websites in the six languages representing the Panel’s work. Among them are new people questioning 9/11, like NSA whistleblower William Binney, and award-winning Danish Journalist Jens Nauntofte.
- The consensus911 Twitter account had 3,783 followers as of January 20, 2016.
Con grande tristezza il 9/11 Consensus Panel ha saputo della breve malattia e della morte di uno dei suoi membri onorari più rispettati, il membro laburista del parlamento inglese, onorevole Michael Meacher, che era entrato a far parte del Panel nel settembre 2011.
Il signor Meacher è morto il 21 ottobre, all’età di 75 anni, dopo essere stato parlamentare per l’elettorato di Oldham West and Royton per 45 anni. E’ stato uno dei 36 parlamentari laburisti ad aver nominato Jeremy Corbyn come candidato alla leadership laburista quest’anno.
Il necrologio della BBC ha riportato una valanga di tributi per questa onorevole e dedicata persona, nota per una integrità fuori dal comune.
Il signor Meacher aveva apertamente criticato il fallimento degli Stati Uniti nel prevenire l’11 settembre, cosa che – come dichiarò al Guardian nel settembre 2003 – “offriva una scusa estremamente comoda” per portare l’azione militare in Afghanistan e Iraq, azione che era stata chiaramente pianificata prima dell’11 settembre.
Nel suo primo libro sull’11 settembre, “La nuova Pearl Harbor”, David Ray Griffin (cofondatore del Consensus Panel) aveva dedicato diverse pagine alla controversia scatenata da Meacher del 2003.
Griffin e Meacher si erano conosciuti nel 2005, durante un’intervista per un programma televisivo, e fra una ripresa e l’altra trovarono il tempo per una “breve ma molto amichevole conversazione”.
Nel maggio 2005, Meacher aveva introdotto in Parlamento una proposta sul cambiamento climatico, che chiedeva al proprio governo di impegnarsi ad una riduzione del 3% delle emissioni annuali di CO2.
Il Consensus Panel esprime le sue condoglianze alle molte persone, in Gran Bretagna e nel mondo, che sentiranno la mancanza del contributo attivo, intelligente e costruttivo di questo anziano uomo di Stato.
NEW YORK 9 settembre 2015 – Quattordici anni dopo gli eventi dell’ 11-9 che hanno cambiato il mondo, nuove prove che contestano la versione ufficiale vengono evidenziate da un comitato di 23 ricercatori ed esperti internazionali.
Oggi’, il “Comitato del Consenso sull’11/9” rende pubblici due nuovi punti di consenso che dimostrano una conoscenza anticipata degli attentati da parte degli organi di governo US.
Il primo punto di consenso tratta di “Able Danger”, il nome in codice per un’operazione di Intelligence di alto livello montata dai generali Hugh Shelton e Peter Schoomaker, comandanti supremi del Dipartimento delle operazioni speciali (SOCOM) della Difesa.
Able Danger aveva scoperto che l’uomo identificato come Mohamed Atta si trovava sul territorio degli Stati-Uniti fin dal gennaio-febbraio 2000, cioe’ 18 mesi prima degli attentati, mentre la versione ufficiale data il suo arrivo al giugno 2000.
Gli ufficiali hanno anche affermato che i servizi segreti non sapevano che Mohamed Atta fosse nel paese prima del 11-9, mentre una ramo essenziale dei servizi segreti statunitensi sapeva perfettamente che era negli USA da gennaio-febbraio 2000.
Malgrado questo, Able Danger e’ stata costantemente ignorata dai responsabili del governo prima degli attentati; la Commissione sul 11-9 non parla di questi elementi nel suo rapporto; e l’Ispettore generale della Difesa ha messo nel cassetto l’intera faccenda.
Louis Freeh, ex-direttore dell’FBI, definisce “stupefacente” l’affermazione della Commissione sul 11-9, la quale aveva definito queste circostanze come “storicamente insignificanti”.
Il secondo punto di consenso evidenzia il fatto che l’attacco contro il Pentagono era atteso in certi ambienti. Diverse esercitazioni militari coinvolgevano aerei che avrebbero dovuto schiantarsi contro il Pentagono, il che mostra che questo tipo di attacco non fosse affatto inatteso.
Inoltre, esistono rapporti pubblicati da diversi giornali, che fanno riferimento a numerose fonti dei servizi di sicurezza che avvertivano alti ufficiali del Pentagono e altri funzionari affinché non volassero esattamente in quel giorno 11 Settembre.
La mattina dell’11-9 il segretario della Difesa Donald Rumsfeld predisse un attacco al Pentagono. Mentre guardava le notizie dei media da New York avrebbe detto: “Credetemi , non è ancora finita. Un altro attacco è in arrivo e potremmo essere noi.”
Nel frattempo, pochi minuti dopo l’attacco e in “condizioni di traffico estremamente congestionate” l’ FBI sarebbe riuscito a confiscare registrazioni delle videocamere di sicurezza di diverse postazioni sovrastanti la sezione del Pentagono appena colpita.
Il corrispondente NBC dal Pentagono, Jim Miklaszewski, era stato avvisato da un ufficiale dei servizi segreti militari che avrebbe detto: “Se fossi in voi starei lontano dall’anello E (quello esterno del Pentagono, in cui si trovava l’ufficio della NBC) per tutto il giorno, perché siamo noi i prossimi.”
Ricordiamo che diversi punti pubblicati in precedenza da “Consensus 9/11” in merito alla conoscenza anticipata degli avvenimenti includono : il crollo del WTC?7, le prove di abuso di informazioni privilegiate, e il ruolo del Vice Presidente Dick Cheney e quello del sindaco di New York, Rudy Giuliani.
Il Comitato utilizza lo stesso metodo usato in medicina per ottenere dichiarazioni di consenso su argomenti specifici partendo dalle migliori prove disponibili. Durante questo procedimento di elaborazione, composto di 3 cicli di revisione e di feedback, gli esperti convenuti sono all’oscuro dei pareri degli altri.
In quattro anni, il Comitato del 9/11 Consensus ha pubblicato un totale di 46 Punti di prova che contraddicono la? storia ufficiale.
Recensione scritta da Elizabeth Woodworth, co-fondatrice del nhà cái tặng tiền cược miễn phí tháng 2019 www.ibzmart.com, sulla presentazione fatta da Donald E. Stahl alla riunione annuale del MENSA Institute a Louisville nel Kentucky, il 3 luglio 2015
La presentazione di Stahl potrebbe diventare una pietra miliare nella letteratura sull’11 settembre.
Stahl colloca l’11 settembre, “una storia troppo grande per essere indagata”, nell’evoluzione del contesto del “complesso militare industriale” di Eisenhower, che nel frattempo è diventato il complesso militare-industriale-mediatico-accademico: MIMAC.
I media infatti hanno ormai abbandonato da qualche decennio il loro ruolo tradizionale, dimenticandosi di indagare sulle prove dei complotti governativi. E ora gli accademici si sono uniti a loro.
Gli accademici sono rimasti talmente silenziosi sulla questione dell’11 settembre che oggi coloro che vengono etichettati come “complottisti” possono in realtà essere considerati più accademici degli accademici stessi.
Ne consegue che i “complottisti” discutono la questione in abbondanza, mentre i “convenzionalisti” (o “teorici delle coincidenze”) parlano solo di coloro che discutono la questione. In altre parole, “professano un certo credo, dimenticandosi di spiegare il motivo per cui ci credono”. […]
Per quanto sia la versione governativa sia la versione alternativa sottendano ad un complotto, è soltanto la parte che critica il governo ad essere definita “complottista”, come se fosse un reato di opinione che deve essere criminalizzato da parte del governo – come ha suggerito Cass Sunstein.
Come quintessenza della controversia, Stahl identifica la discussione sul fatto che le Torri Gemelle siano state fatte saltare in aria, contrapposta alla versione ufficiale, secondo la quale sarebbero crollate [da sole].
Proprio quando il NIST iniziava le proprie indagini venne emanata una nuova legge (1 ottobre 2002) secondo cui i tabulati e le simulazioni al computer utilizzati nel rapporto NIST potevano rimanere segrete. Il direttore del NIST poteva mantenerle riservate se fosse stata messa a rischio “la sicurezza pubblica”.
Questo nonostante il fatto che l’intento dichiarato del rapporto NIST fosse di studiare “migliorie nel modo in cui gli edifici sono progettati, costruiti, mantenuti e utilizzati”.
Stahl si domanda: “Se le informazioni riguardanti la costruzione di edifici possono mettere a rischio la sicurezza pubblica, come possono mai diventare pericolose restando sconosciute? Perché mantenerne all’oscuro l’intera industria edilizia?”
Le simulazioni segrete al computer, inoltre, hanno rappresentato solo quello che è stato definito, in modo molto ristretto, “la causa iniziale dei crolli”, e non i crolli stessi.
Stahl ridicolizza e definisce “pazzesca” una indagine che analizzi le cause senza studiarne anche gli effetti, e si domanda: “Come puoi determinare la causa di un evento, se non studi l’evento stesso?”
Dopodiché Stahl passa a ragionare seriamente, prendendo in considerazione quello che si è visto succedere: le prove fotografiche dei crolli che il NIST aveva ritenuto così poco importanti.
Le immagini delle esplosioni sono straordinarie. In questo segmento Stahl fa a pezzi l’utilizzo ambiguo da parte del NIST della parola “crollo”- che significa qualcosa che perde integrità al suo interno, si contrae e cade verso il basso – mentre mostra le fotografie dei poderosi getti verso l’alto delle travi d’acciaio e delle coperture di alluminio, con le poderose nuvole di polvere che fanno di tutto meno che contrarsi.
L’ovvietà è sotto i nostri occhi: “I crolli solo verso il basso e all’interno, le esplosioni sono verso l’alto e all’infuori”.
“E’ mai successo qualcosa del genere prima sulla terra?” si domanda Stahl mostrando una delle fotografie. “Un grattacielo si trasforma in una fontana di polvere. Questa polvere non sta coprendo l’edificio che c’è dietro. Quando il vento la porta via, l’edificio non c’è più. La polvere è l’edificio”.
Questa è una dimostrazione lampante di come il NIST abbia mentito in modo spudorato (e stupido). Queste bugie però non possono essere sottoposte ad una indagine giuridica o a una richiesta FOIA. Le parti considerate segrete possono essere rese pubbliche solo per volontà di un’unica persona (il direttore del NIST).
Questo è vergognoso, visto che il NIST non è in alcun modo una agenzia di security. è una agenzia che si occupa degli standard di sicurezza delle strutture pubbliche. I media, esattamente come gli accademici, avrebbero dovuto ribellarsi a questo comportamento ingannevole fin dal primo giorno.
Ma non è troppo tardi. Una convincente e pienamente documentata presentazione alla riunione annuale del MENSA non rappresenta forse un fatto degno di notizia?
Qui la presentazione completa di Stahl al Mensa Institute.
26 novembre 2013 — Il 9/11 Consensus Panel e’ lieto di annunciare la messa a disposizione del suo sito Web? in olandese, incluso i 37 Punti di consenso elaborati fino ad oggi’.
*** COMUNICATO STAMPA ***
New York, 20 Novembre 2013: Questo anno, 50.mo anniversario del assassinio del Presidente Kennedy, ha visto Edward Snowden e Glenn Greenwald svelare al mondo le attività illegali di spionaggio contro cittadini americani e di Paesi alleati da parte dello “Stato nascosto” degli Stati-Uniti.
Prendere globalmente coscienza di questo vero e proprio “crimine di Stato contro la democrazia” deve portare a cambiare le cose e a riconsiderare sia il passato che il presente.
Per rendere omaggio alla vita di John Fitzgerald Kennedy, il “9/11 Consensus Panel”, il gruppo di verifica sui fatti dell’11 settembre, ha deciso di segnalare un libro di livello scientifico che porta alla luce puntigliosamente l’operazione di copertura compiuta dalla Commissione Warren sull’omicidio di Stato commesso ai danni di JFK.
“JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters” (JFK e l’Indicibile: perché fu ucciso e perché è importante), di James W. Douglass, è – come ha scritto Oliver Stone – “il migliore resoconto che io abbia letto su questa tragedia. Merita l’attenzione di tutti gli americani perché è uno di quei rari libri che ci aiutano a capire la nostra storia e quindi hanno il potere di cambiarla”.
Jim Douglass, il cui lavoro sull’“Unspeakable” ci rivela la mancanza di scrupoli dello Stato nascosto, scrive:
“Dallas ha gettato le basi dell’11 settembre. Capire l’assassinio di Dallas vuol dire capire tutto il resto, compreso il fatto ovvio che i grattacieli non crollano nel modo in cui il governo americano dice che sono crollati. La storia di JFK è lo specchio della verità su cui possiamo vedere il nostro mondo e il modo di cambiarlo”.
Lo studioso del caso Kennedy, Craig Ciccone, fa il paragone tra i due eventi:
“Più mi addentravo nelle ricerche sull’11 settembre e più avevo il voltastomaco. La somiglianza tra i due casi, da come si sono svolti i fatti alle cosiddette ‘inchieste ufficiali’, è impressionante. Come nel caso Kennedy, anche nell’11 settembre le leggi della fisica e dell’aerodinamica sono state disinvoltamente ignorate. Sono state distrutte le prove. Si è tentato continuamente di piegare l’evidenza a una versione dei fatti già pre-confezionata. Si sono avuti palesi conflitti d’interesse nell’ente investigativo. E le testimonianze di chi ha visto e sentito sono state gestite in modo vergognoso.”
Gli studi scientifici del prof. David Ray Griffin hanno dimostrato che, 38 anni dopo Dallas, lo stesso “Stato nascosto” ha attuato l’11 settembre o consentito che si verificasse.
Il rapporto della Commissione sull’11 settembre (definito dal giornale Harper’s un “insabbiamento scandaloso” ai danni della nazione) è un’operazione di copertura che viene sonoramente bocciata dai molti gruppi di verifica formatisi in ambito accademico e scientifico nei campi dell’ingegneria, della fisica e della chimica.
L’anno 2013 vede anche l’uscita dell’esauriente e approfondito documentario di Massimo Mazzucco: “9/11: The New Pearl Harbour”, disponibile anche in Italiano (11 settembre: La Nuova Pearl Harbour), pieno di clamorose testimonianze, che va ad aggiungersi al film in Inglese “Experts Speak Out” (La parola agli esperti), che approfondisce soprattutto gli aspetti tecnico-ingegneristici dell’evento.
Le conclusioni validate dei 23 membri del “9/11 Consensus Panel” (il gruppo di verifica che studia l’11 settembre a livello accademico-scientifico) sono adesso disponibili, oltre che in Inglese, anche in Italiano, Francese, Spagnolo e Olandese.
Fonte: 9/11 Consensus Panel
Contatto: consensus911 (@) gmail.com
In questa trasmissione di 12 minuti su Russia Today, intitolata 9/11 and Operation Gladio, il canale moscovita intervista quattro membri del 9/11 Consensus Panel: il Dr. Daniele Ganser, autore del libro NATO’s Secret Armies, il Dr. Graeme MacQueen, co-editore del Journal of 9/11 Studies, l’ingegnere e ricercatore sull’11/9 Jonathan Cole, ed Elizabeth Woodworth, co-fondatrice con il Dr. David Ray Griffin – ed anche coordinatrice – del 9/11 Consensus Panel.
Russia Today ha mandato in onda la trasmissione ben 5 volte, prima di metterla sul suo sito Web, dove e’ gia’ stata vista da 100 000 persone nelle prime 24 ore.
Il regista Massimo Mazzucco, membro del 9/11 Consensus Panel, pubblica oggi il suo documentario “11 settembre – La nuova Pearl Harbor“. Questo film educativo di quasi 5 ore ha richiesto 3 anni per essere realizzato. Si divide in 7 capitoli, che riassumono 12 anni di dibattito sull’11/9.
Mazzucco scrive : “Nonostante il film sia indirizzato soprattutto ad un pubblico generico, che sa poco o nulla dell’11 settembre, ci sono anche diverse novità che possono interessare i ricercatori più esperti.” Il film, disponibile anche in formato DVD, sarà messo integralmente in rete in 3 lingue diverse (italiano, inglese e francese).
Un indice del contenuto del documentario e’? disponibile sul sito Web di Massimo Mazzucco per facilitarne l’accesso ai diversi capitoli.
In caso di dirottamento, i piloti professionisti sono addestrati a digitare (sqwak in inglese) sul loro transponder il codice universale di dirottamento (7500), per avvertire i controllori della Federal Aviation Agency (aviazione civile) a terra.
Per quanto ci vogliano soltanto 2-3 secondi, il fatto che nessuno degli 8 piloti abbia compiuto questa azione obbligatoria mette in serio dubbio la storia dei dirottatori.??Continua a leggere… (in Inglese)
Il 9/11 Consensus Panel e’ lieto di accogliere un nuovo membro onorario :
Mathieu Kassovitz è un regista francese, sceneggiatore, produttore e attore. Il suo lavoro è ben noto sia in Francia che all’estero. Ha vinto numerosi premi per i suoi film, tra cui miglior regista al Festival di Cannes per La Haine, per cui è stato salutato come l’erede di Truffaut. E’ stato nominato come miglior regista per I fiumi di porpora, che ha vinto anche il Gold Start per la miglior regia. Ha vinto tre premi César per la sua maestria nel cinema. Il suo ultimo film è La ribellione. Kassovitz ha sollevato interrogativi alla televisione francese sull’ 11/9 come complotto US.
Altre informazioni sui membri honorari del 9/11 Consensus qui
C’erano più di 300 telecamere di sorveglianza all’aeroporto Dulles di Washington l’11 settembre 2001. Queste telecamere conservavano le immagini per 30 giorni, e sono state minuziosamente passate al vaglio dei tecnici informatici sotto il controllo degli agenti federali. Ma il governo americano non ha rilasciato una sola ripresa datata e stampigliata, né una sola immagine, di queste trecento telecamere di sorveglianza.
Continua a leggere… (in Inglese)
Ferdinando Imposimato è un ex-magistrato italiano e presidente onorario della Suprema Corte di Cassazione. E’ stato il giudice istruttore di alcuni importanti casi di terrorismo, come il rapimento e l’assassinio di Aldo Moro, o il tentato assassinio di Papa Giovanni Paolo II. E’ stato anche consulente legale per le Nazioni Unite. Ha dichiarato pubblicamente di ritenere l’undici settembre una operazione sotto falsa bandiera, e propone che il caso venga sottoposto alla Corte Criminale Internazionale, che fu istituita per proteggere le nazioni da atti di guerra criminali. ha anche scritto “La grande menzogna”, “Terrorismo internazionale. La verità nascosta”, “La Repubblica delle stragi impunite”, e “I 55 giorni che hanno cambiato l’Italia. Perché Aldo Moro doveva morire?”, sul caso Moro.
Altre informazioni sui membri honorari del 9/11 Consensus qui
Secondo la caposquadra della società telefonica GTE, Lisa Jefferson, che ha preso la telefonata di Todd Beamer, il telefono e’ rimasto collegato a lungo dopo lo schianto del volo UA 93. “Mai sentito un crash”. Spiegando che dopo che Todd Beamer ebbe pronunciato la famosa frase “Let’s roll” e poi lasciato l’apparecchio telefonico, Lisa Jefferson ha scritto che la linea era “semplicemente rimasta silenziosa”. E benché lei fosse rimasta ad ascoltare per “probabilmente 15 minuti”, ha poi aggiunto : “Non ho spiegazioni. Non abbiamo perso il collegamento, perche se no, utilizzano un suono diverso. C’e’ una specie si strillo stridente quando la linea cade. Non ho mai perso la communicazione, ma è semplicemente diventata silenziosa.”
Read more… (in Inglese)
- Chi siamo ↓
- Cosa sono “le prove migliori” ?
- Metodologia e risultati
- I punti di consenso sull’11 settembre ↓
- nhà cái tặng tiền cược miễn phí tháng 2019Punto G-1
- Punto G-2
- Punto TT-1
- Punto TT-2
- Punto TT-3
- Punto TT-4
- Punto TT-5
- Punto TT-9
- Punto WTC7-1
- Punto WTC7-2
- Punto WTC7-3
- Punto WTC7-8
- Punto Pent-1
- Punto Pent-2
- Punto Pent-3
- Punto Flt-1
- Punto Flt-2
- Punto ME-1
- Punto ME-2
- Punto MC-Intro
- Punto MC-3
- Punto MC-4
- Punto MC-5
- Punto MC-6
- Punto MC-7
- Punto MC-8
- Punto H-3
- Punto H-4
- Articoli nei media
- Notizie archiviate
- Fonti documentali
- nhà cái tặng tiền cược miễn phí tháng 2019
search in current language:
Donate to Consensus 911