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.

Ferdinando Imposimato, 2016Dedicated 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.

By Petra Liverani
Off-Guardian, February 27, 2018

Ifind 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:

  1. The Twin Towers and WTC 7 were the only steel-framed high-rise buildings ever to come down without explosives or incendiaries.

  2. The Twin Towers, each of which had 287 steel columns, were brought down solely by a combination of airplane strikes and jet-fuel fires.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. The South Tower’s upper 30-floor block changed its angular momentum in midair.

  8. This 30 floor block then disintegrated in midair.

  9. With regard to the North Tower, some of its steel columns were ejected out horizontally for at least 500 feet.

  10. The fires in the debris from the WTC buildings could not be extinguished for many months.

  11. 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°).

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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 article 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?

WTC7 collapsing
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:

  1. 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.
  2. These differences of opinion can be justifiable until there is a theory that can take account of all the indisputable evidence.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.


295 words

Source: The 9/11 Consensus Panel   @consensus911
Contact list:


New York, December 7, 2017 – The 9/11 Consensus Panel was impressed by the imagination and resourcefulness of a new 4-minute video song created by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

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.


144 words

Source: The 9/11 Consensus Panel   @consensus911
Contact list:


NEW YORK, 8 SEPTEMBER 2017 – Met het naderen van de 16de verjaardag van 11 september 2001, en een wereldwijde oorlog tegen het terrorisme die nog steeds onverminderd voortraast, houdt het Consensuspanel 11 September vast aan zijn toezegging te voorzien in een bron van op bewijzen gebaseerd onderzoek, beschikbaar voor elk onderzoek dat kan worden ondernomen door het publiek, de media, academici, of elk ander onderzoeksteam of instituut.

Dit jaar publiceerde het 23-hoofdig panel twee nieuwe Consensuspunten, gebruikmakend van het “beste bewijs” herzieningsmodel, om de offici?le beweringen rond 11 September te analyseren. (Het panel heeft nu 50 offici?le beweringen onderzocht en bevonden dat elke bewering substantieel ondeugdelijk is.)

Het eerste Punt, “De bewering dat de kapers toegewijde moslims waren”, vermeldt vele mediaberichten dat de kapers zich tegoed deden aan “beslist onislamitische verboden geneugten,” waaronder schootdansen in nachtclubs in Las Vegas.

Het tweede Punt van 2017, “De bewering dat Mohamed Atta een fanatiek religieuze moslim was geworden”, onderzoekt een vraag die werd gesteld door een journalist aan lid van de Onderzoekscommissie 11 September Richard Ben-Veniste: “Als Atta deel uitmaakte van die fundamentalistische moslimgroep, waarom snoof hij dan coca?ne en bezocht hij stripclubs?” Het antwoord van Ben-Veniste: “Weet u, dat is een hele goede vraag.” Maar het was een vraag die door de Commissie nooit werd besproken.

Deze twee punten zijn slechts een voortzetting van het reeds overweldigende bewijs dat 11 September, gebruikt voor het rechtvaardigen van de imperialistische agenda in het Midden Oosten, een compleet bedrog was; het World Trade Center, het Pentagon, de kapers, de telefoontjes vanuit de vliegtuigen, de nepvideo’s van bewakingscamera’s en waar politieke en militaire kopstukken zich bevonden.

Lid van het panel Dr. Niels Harrit, Professor Emeritus Scheikunde aan de Universiteit van Kopenhagen, heeft meer dan 60 collegiaal getoetste studies gepubliceerd in de meest vooraanstaande scheikundeperiodieken en meer dan 300 voordrachten gehouden over de verwoesting van het World Trade Center in Denemarken, Zweden, Noorwegen, Duitsland, Nederland, Frankrijk, Zwitserland, Spanje, het Verenigd Koninkrijk, Canada, de Verenigde Staten, China, Australi?, Rusland en IJsland.

Frances Shure, gediplomeerd beroepstherapeut en lid van het Consensuspanel 11 September, werd in augustus van dit jaar ge?nterviewd door Progressive Spirit over de buitengewone ontkenning waarmee de gebeurtenissen van 11 September nog steeds zijn omgeven. De titel van haar interview was: “Why Do Good People Become Silent – Or Worse – bout 9/11? [zowat: Waarom houden goede mensen zich stil over 11 September – of erger?]”

Dr. Graeme MacQueen, Professor Emeritus Vredesstudies aan de McMasters Universiteit heeft onlangs een artikel gepubliceerd met een geheel nieuwe benadering, “9/11: The Pentagon’s B-Movie [zowat: 11 September, de B-film van het Pentagon”, wat onze ogen opnieuw opent voor de verschrikkelijke, doch immer nog verborgen aard van dit alles veranderende bedrog.

Nog twee andere panelleden, natuurkundeleraar David Chandler en ingenieur Jonathan Cole, onderhouden een afzonderlijke website waar hun onafhankelijk onderzoek, ook verbonden met het 2.900 leden tellende Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth [Architecten en Ingenieurs voor waarheid 11 September] en Scientists for 9/11 Truth [Wetenschappers voor waarheid 11 September], is gedocumenteerd.

Medeoprichter van het panel Dr. David Ray Griffin heeft onlangs zijn 11de academische boek over 11 September uitgebracht, “Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World [Bush en Cheney: Hoe ze Amerika en de wereld kapot maakten]”, misschien wel zijn best verkopende titel tot nu toe. U kunt hier luisteren naar Davids interview uit augustus 2017 met John Shuck.

Het panel wil graag het geweldige vertaalteam van vrijwilligers bedanken dat het mogelijk maakt deze op bewijzen gebaseerde informatie over 11 September middels andere talen verder te verspreiden.


Bron: The 9/11 Consensus Panel   @consensus911
Contact voor media:


By Graeme MacQueen
Global Research, August 31, 2017

south tower hitThe 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. [1]

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.” [2]

Steve De Souza (screenwriter, Die Hard and Die Hard 2) has said:

“Well it did look like a movie. It looked like a movie poster. It looked like one of my movie posters.” [3]

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. [4] 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.

DIE HARD movieposterOfficial 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.” [5] The Army’s Institute for Creative Technologies was the lead organization. [6] 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”). [7]

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. [8]

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. [9] 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. [10]

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 [11] 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.” [12]

The hypothesis became more or less official when it was adopted by the 9/11 Commission in its report on the attacks. [13]

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.” [14]

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.” [15]

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. [16]

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: [17]

  • 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

WTC-2 exploding
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. [18]

  • “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.” [19]

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.

“I’ve worked in Manhattan my whole career in high rises and everything else … you looked back, all you see–you know how fast those buildings came down … it just doesn’t click that these buildings can come down … you just couldn’t believe that those buildings could come down … there’s no history of these buildings falling down.” (Lieutenant Warren Smith[20]

“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[21]

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. [22]

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. [23] 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. [24]

The FDNY World Trade Center Task Force interviews give a lively sense of what it felt like to be trapped in this debris cloud. [25]

“I’m about ten feet in front of it, running, actually sprinting because I’m an athlete and I’m running … Ash came around another building in front of me, and it caught me in front of me and in back of me, and everything was pitch-black. Where it hit me from the front and the back, it actually lifted me off the ground and threw me. It was like someone picked me up and just threw me on the ground.
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)

Flucht vor der 'Staub'-Wolke
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. [26] 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. [27] 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. [28] The comment by the FDNY’s Terranova, quoted earlier–“you wouldn’t expect debris to do that–” is an understatement.

GODZILLA movie posterWe 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.

Our Challenge

In the 1958 trailer for the B-movie, The Blob, film-goers are shown sitting in a theatre as a horror movie begins. [29] 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.
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.
Trailer, The Blob, 1958, YouTube.


Images in this article are from the author.

The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright ? Graeme MacQueen, Global Research, 2017


Bush & Cheney ... cover image

Review of Prof. David Ray Griffin’s Book by Elizabeth Woodworth, co-founder, nhà cái tặng tiền cược miễn phí tháng 2019; originally published on


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.


Bush & Cheney ... cover image

Title: Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World

Author: David Ray Griffin

Publisher: Olive Branch Pr (August 16, 2017)

ISBN-10: 1566560616

ISBN-13: 978-1566560610

Click here to order.

Image is from Amazon.

The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright ? Elizabeth Woodworth, Global Research, 2017


NEW YORK, 10 SEPTEMBER 2016 – De Italiaanse filmmaker Massimo Mazzucco, lid van het Consensuspanel, heeft zojuist een elegante samenvatting van zijn klassieke 5 uur durende documentaire, September 11: The New Pearl Harbor (2013) in omloop gebracht.

MM's New Pearl HarborMazzucco schrijft: “De originele film omvat het complete debat rondom 9/11, van beide kanten gezien – de waarheidsbeweging en de ‘Debunkers’ wereldwijd. Deze samenvatting is slechts als introductie voor de complete film bedoeld en niet als zelfstandig document met betrekking tot 9/11.”

Om de kwaliteit van de originele film te tonen hebben we delen van de filmbespreking van Dr. David Ray Griffin, medeoprichter van het Consensuspanel, opgenomen:

Er bestaan verschillende goede films en video’s over 9/11. Maar de film van Massimo Mazzucco, die in 2013 gepubliceerd werd, is een klasse op zich.

Voor alle mensen die zich al lange tijd met 9/11 bezig houden is dit de film waarop we gewacht hebben.

Er bestaan uitmuntende filmen die zich op specifieke onwaarheden van de offici?le lezing, zoals de Twin Towers of WTC 7, concentreren. Mazzucco heeft ons een omvattende documentaire geschonken die praktisch alle facetten van 9/11 behandelt.

Omdat hij ernaar streefde een compleet beeld te schapen, duurt Mazzucco’s film 5 uur. De materie wordt zo fascinerend en in een dusdanig snel tempo gepresenteerd, dat velen de film in één ruk zullen willen bekijken. Dat is echter niet nodig, want de film, die 3 Dvd’s vult, bestaat uit 7 delen die elk op zich weer in vele korte hoofdstukken verdeeld zijn.

Deze 7 delen behandelen de luchtverdediging, de kapers, die vliegtuigen, het Pentagon, vlucht nr. 93, de Twin Towers en Gebouw 7. In ieder deel worden eerst feiten gepresenteerd die de offici?le lezing tegenspreken. Daarna behandelt Mazzucco de beweringen van de debunkers (d.w.z. degenen die proberen de bewijzen te weerleggen die uit het onderzoek van de waarheidsbeweging zijn voortgevloeid).

De inleiding van de film weerspiegelt ook de titel: getoond worden 12 beangstigende parallellen tussen Pearl Harbor en 11 September.

De film kan mensen informeren die, afgezien van de offici?le lezing, niets over 9/11 weten, maar heeft ook voor mensen die al meer over de verschillende problemen met de offici?le lezing weten, of zelfs voor experts, veel te bieden (ik heb er zelf veel van bijgeleerd).

Mazzucco wijst erop dat de film 12 jaren publieke discussie over 9/11 afbeeldt. Mensen die zich gedurende deze tijd voor de waarheidsbeweging ingezet hebben zullen zien dat hun bemoeienissen beloond worden. Nu hebben we een zorgvuldig gedocumenteerde film die op dramatische wijze laat zien dat de offici?le lezing van 9/11 door en door een verzinsel is.



Bron: The 9/11 Consensus Panel   @consensus911
Contact voor media:


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.

NYT: Tale of the TapeThe 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.

by E.W., Aug. 9 at WSF 2016Elizabeth 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.


651 words

Source: The 9/11 Consensus Panel   @consensus911
Contact list:


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.


Members of the 9/11 Consensus Panel who will speak at the World Social Forum: Elizabeth Woodworth, Graeme MacQueen & Niels Harrit.

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.


download flyer (~8 MB pdf)

Speaking the whole truth to power: Why We Need to Uncover the 9/11 Deception – Weds, August 10th 2016 – 9:00 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. – Université McGill – Pavillon Bronfman (Local 151), 1001, rue Sherbrooke Ouest Montréal QC Canada — World Social Forum — Another World is Needed: Together, It’s Possible! — 9/11 ‘Best Evidence’ Proves the Official Story is Not True – Fifteen years of research conducted by both reputable organizations and individual scientists and specialists has shown that there is no credible evidence to support the claim that nineteen hijackers led by Osama Bin Laden were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The idea that fires caused by ignited jet fuel weakened the structure of the Twin Towers and led to a total destruction of both buildings is groundless. On the afternoon of 9/11, World Trade Center 7 – an enormous forty-seven story steel-framed building located near the towers – completely collapsed at free fall acceleration even though it had not been hit by an airplane. The collapse has been attributed to “office fires” – even though a steel-framed skyscraper has never collapsed as the result of fires alone.


NEW YORK, June 14, 2016 – Vijftien jaar na de wereldschokkende gebeurtenissen van 11 September blijft via een panel van 23 professionele onderzoekers nieuw bewijs naar boven komen dat de offici?le lezing tegenspreekt.

Vandaag presenteert het Consensuspanel 11 September verder bewijs van ernstige tegenstrijdigheden betreffende het instorten van de zuidelijke toren en World Trade Center 7.

Het eerste punt draagt de titel “De bewering van wijdverspreide vuurzee?n in de zuidelijke toren versus het radiotranscript van de New Yorkse brandweer.”

NYT: Tale of the TapeHet belang van dit punt is dat een weinig bekend transcript van een radio-opname van de New Yorkse brandweer onmiskenbaar de bewering weerlegt dat er op de ochtend van 11 September in World Trade Center 2 (de zuidelijke toren) sprake was van wijdverspreide branden.

Dit bewijs van brandweerlieden, die rustig en methodisch hun werk doen, vol zelfvertrouwen dat ze met gemak de branden in de zuidelijke toren onder controle kunnen krijgen, weerspreekt de offici?le bewering dat de verdiepingen in de buurt van de vliegtuiginslag allen “inferno’s” waren, en dat het gebouw instabiel was geworden en op het punt van instorten stond.

Het tweede nieuwe Consensuspunt betreft het weglaten van bewijs uit het offici?le verhaal dat twee hooggeplaatste ambtenaren van de stad New York berichtten over een enorme explosie diep in World Trade Center (WTC)?7 op de ochtend van 11 September, waardoor zij 90?minuten vast kwamen te zitten in een trappenhuis.

De verklaringen van de twee mannen geven steun aan bewijs dat elders door het Consensuspanel is gepresenteerd, dat WTC?7 niet neerkwam als gevolg van brand alleen maar werd neergehaald in een gecontroleerde sloop.

Het Panel hanteert een werkwijze die in de medische wetenschap wordt toegepast om te komen tot eensluidende verklaringen aangaande het beste bewijs met betrekking tot een specifiek onderwerp. Tijdens het onderzoek blijven de deelnemende experts blind ten opzichte van elkaar gedurende drie ronden van terugkoppeling en herziening.

Over een periode van vijf jaar heeft het Consensuspanel 48 punten van bewijs gepubliceerd die de offici?le lezing weerleggen.

Bron: The 9/11 Consensus Panel @consensus911
Contact voor media:



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:

  1. The Consensus Panel reviewed and published two new Consensus Points: one on Able Danger, and the other on foreknowledge of the Pentagon events.
  2. 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?
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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, (awk) “one of the most prominent European examples of a citizen journalism site,” and is the 1,392 ranking website in France.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. nhà cái tặng tiền cược miễn phí tháng 2019 statistics for 2015:
    1. There were 314,000 visits to the website, involving 141,446 unique visitors (99% of last year’s figures).
    2. 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.
    3. The consensus911 Twitter account had 3,783 followers as of January 20, 2016.


October 22, 2015 – It was with considerable sadness that the 9/11 Consensus Panel learned of the brief illness and passing of one of its most respected Honorary Members, British Labour Member of Parliament, the Rt. Hon. Michael Meacher, who joined the Panel in September 2011.

Mr. Meacher died on October 21 at age 75, after having served as MP for Oldham West and Royton for 45 years. He was one of 36 Labour MP’s to nominate Jeremy Corbyn as a candidate in the Labour leadership election this year.

The BBC obituary reported an outpouring of tributes for this decent, hard-working man of unusual integrity.

Mr. Meacher was openly critical of the US failure to prevent 9/11, which, as he told The Guardian in September 2003, “offered an extremely convenient context” for military action in Afghanistan and Iraq – actions which had clearly been planned before 9/11.

In his first 9/11 book, The New Pearl Harbor, Dr. David Ray Griffin (co-founder of the 9/11 Consensus Panel) devoted several pages to the controversy sparked by Meacher in 2003.

Dr. Griffin and Mr. Meacher met in 2005 when they were both being interviewed for a TV program, and between tapings they had “a brief but very friendly conversation.”

In May 2005, Meacher introduced a motion on climate change into Parliament, calling upon the government to commit to yearly CO2 emission reductions of 3%.

We at the Consensus Panel offer our condolences to the many people in Great Britain and the world who will miss the active, intelligent, and constructive participation of this long-serving elder statesman.


New York, 8 september 2015 – Veertien jaar na de wereldschokkende gebeurtenissen van 11 september 2001 heeft een panel van 23 professionele onderzoekers nieuw bewijs boven water gehaald dat de offici?le lezing betwist.

Vandaag publiceert het Consensuspanel 11 September twee nieuwe Consensuspunten waarin bewijs wordt overlegd dat er sprake was van voorkennis van de aanvallen.

Het eerste punt, Punt H-2, gaat over Able Danger, codenaam voor een hoog niveau inlichtingenoperatie, opgezet door de generaals Hugh Shelton en Peter Schoonmaker, Opperbevelhebbers van het Commando Bijzondere Operaties van het Ministerie van Defensie (SOCOM).

Able Danger bracht naar voren dat de man die werd ge?dentificeerd als “Mohamed Atta” al sinds januari/februari in het land was, ongeveer 18 maanden voor de aanslagen van 11 September, terwijl de offici?le lezing zegt dat hij in juni 2000 aankwam.

Hoe dan ook: Het bewijs dat Able Danger opleverde werd voor het plaatsvinden van de aanvallen stelselmatig door overheidsambtenaren genegeerd; de Commissie 11 September zwijgt er achteraf over in hun Eindverslag; en de Inspecteur Generaal van het Ministerie van Defensie stopte het later in de doofpot.

Voormalig directeur van de FBI noemde de bewering van de Commissie 11 September, dat dit bewijs historisch niet van belang was, “verbijsterend.”

Het tweede nieuwe Consensuspunt, Punt Pent-4, toont aan dat de aanval door een aantal mensen werd verwacht voor deze plaatsvond. Een aantal militaire oefeningen, gehouden voor 11 September, waar virtueel vliegtuigen in het Pentagon werden gevlogen, suggereren dat een dergelijke aanval niet onverwacht was.

Verder verschenen er nieuwsberichten dat veiligheidsbronnen ambtenaren van het Pentagon en andere overheidsdienaren waarschuwden niet vliegen op 11 September.

Op de ochtend van 11 September voorspelde Minister van Defensie Donald Rumsfeld een aanval op het Pentagon. Er werd bericht dat hij, gezeten in zijn kantoor en kijkend naar een televisieverslag vanuit New York, zei: “Geloof me, dit is nog niet voorbij. Er komt nog een aanval, misschien wel hier.”

Dan, binnen minuten na de aanval, en ondanks zwaar verstopte verkeersaders, arriveerde de FBI om op verschillende locaties videobanden van beveiligingscamera’s in beslag te nemen, camera’s gericht op het deel van het Pentagon dat net daarvoor was geraakt.

Pentagon-correspondent van NBC Jim Miklaszewski werd werd vooraf gewaarschuwd door een official van de militaire inlichtingendienst, die zei: “Ik zou de rest van de dag wegblijven van de E-ring [de buitenste ring van het Pentagon, waar het kantoor van NBC was gevestigd], want nu zijn wij aan de beurt.”

Eerdere Consensuspunten die betrekking hebben op voorkennis gaan onder andere over het instorten van Gebouw 7, over handel met voorkennis, en over de rollen van Vice President Dick Cheney en burgemeester van New York Rudy Giuliani.

Het Consensuspanel maakt gebruik van een methode die in de medische wetenschap wordt gebruikt om te komen tot consensusverklaringen van het beste bewijs aangaande specifieke onderwerpen. Tijdens het onderzoek blijven de deelnemende experts blind van elkaar, dit gedurende drie ronden van herziening en terugkoppeling.

Over een periode van vier jaar heeft het panel 46 bewijspunten gepubliceerd die de offici?le lezing van 11 September betwisten.

Bron: The 9/11 Consensus Panel ? @consensus911
Contact voor media:



Tower exploding, for Donald E. Stahl review by EMW De evolutie van de 11 September Controverse: Van complottheorie tot complotfoto’s
Een presentatie van Donald E Stahl tijdens de jaarlijkse bijeenkomst van American Mensa, Louisville, Kentucky, VS op 3 juli 2015

(Engels origineel gepubliceerd 6 juli 2015) – Review door Elizabeth Woodworth, medeoprichtster van nhà cái tặng tiền cược miễn phí tháng 2019


De kans bestaat dat dit artikel zal worden gezien als een mijlpaal in de literatuur rond 11 September.

Stahl plaatst 11 September, “een verhaal, te groot om te vertellen” binnen de zich nog steeds ontwikkelende context van Eisenhower’s “militair industrieel complex,” inmiddels uitgegroeid tot het “militair-industrieel-media-academisch complex: MIMAC.”

De media hebben al tientallen jaren geleden hun post van traditionele observatie verlaten door na te laten bewijs van overheidscomplotten te onderzoeken. De academische gemeenschap heeft zich nu bij de media gevoegd.

Zo stil heeft de academische gemeenschap zich met betrekking tot 11 September gehouden dat degenen met het label “complottheoreticus” nu beschouwd kunnen worden als “meer traditioneel academisch dan de academici.”

Het resultaat is dat “conspirasisten” (complotdenkers) het voornamelijk hebben over de kwesties ter zake, terwijl conventionalisten (of “toevalsdenkers”) het hebben over degenen die het over de kwesties hebben; ofwel, ze “geven af op mensen die in iets geloven en verdonkeremanen de redenen waarom deze mensen erin geloven.”

Hoewel er in zowel de offici?le lezing als in de lezingen die deze ontkennen sprake is van een complottheorie, worden alleen degenen die slecht denken over de overheid gebrandmerkt als “complotdenkers” – als ware het een gedachtemisdaad die door de overheid strafbaar moet worden gesteld, zoals gesuggereerd door Cass Sunstein

Als de belichaming van het meningsverschil kiest Stahl voor de bewering dat de Twin Towers werden opgeblazen of explodeerden (alle bewijs hiervoor wordt door de overheid ontkend), tegenover de offici?le lezing dat de torens zijn ingestort.

De spreadsheets en computersimulaties, welke de onderbouwing vormden voor het rapport van NIST (Nationaal Instituut voor Waarden en Technologie) over de “instortingen” werden geheimhouding toegekend door nieuwe wetgeving (1 oktober 2002), net op het moment dat NIST begon met hun onderzoek. De directeur van NIST kon deze gegevens achterhouden wanneer de publieke veiligheid in het geding was.

Toch werd gesteld dat het doel van het rapport was het bestuderen van “verbetering in de manier waarop gebouwen worden ontworpen, gebouwd, onderhouden en gebruikt.”

Stahl stelt de vraag: “Als feiten over de constructie van gebouwen de publieke veiligheid in gevaar zouden kunnen brengen, zou het dan niet gevaarlijk zijn als deze feiten niet bekend zouden zijn? Waarom moet dat een geheim blijven voor de bouwindustrie?”

De geheime computersimulaties modelleerden slechts het nauw gedefinieerde begin van het instorten, niet het instorten zelf. Stahl ridiculiseert het losgeslagen onderzoek dat de oorzaak analyseert zonder de gevolgen te bestuderen en vraagt zich af: “Hoe kun je de oorzaak van een gebeurtenis bepalen als je niet kijkt naar de gebeurtenis zelf?”

Dan beweegt hij zich richting gezond verstand door eenvoudigweg te kijken naar wat er zichtbaar gebeurde: het fotografisch bewijs van de daadwerkelijke ineenstorting dat door NIST wordt beschouwd als zo irrelevant.

De foto’s van de explosies zijn buitengewoon. In dit deel maakt Stahl korte metten met NIST ‘s stijlvolle gebruik van het woord “ineenstorting” – wat betekent dat iets van binnenuit zijn samenhang verliest, samentrekt en naar beneden valt – door te wijzen op foto’s van de enorme, naar boven weggeschoten balken, aluminium dekplaten en boosaardige stofwolken die alles deden behalve samentrekken.

Het is een open deur: “Instorting gaat naar binnen en naar beneden, en explosies gaan naar boven en naar buiten.”

“Heeft er ooit eerder op aarde zoiets plaatsgevonden,” vraagt Stahl zich af, wijzend op één van de foto’s? “Een wolkenkrabber is veranderd in een stoffontein. Dit stof verhult niet een gebouw erachter. Als het wegwaait dan is er geen gebouw meer. Het stof IS het gebouw.”

Het is een kristalheldere, onmiskenbare demonstratie van hoe brutaal (en stupide) NIST heeft gelogen. Maar deze leugens kunnen niet worden onderworpen aan gedegen onderzoek of WOB-verzoeken. Hun geheime onderdelen mogen slechts worden vrijgegeven naar believen van één man, de directeur van NIST.

Dit is verbijsterend gezien NIST op geen enkele mogelijke manier een veiligheidsdienst is. Het is een instituut voor waarden met betrekking tot de veiligheid van openbare gebouwen. De media, en zeker de academische gemeenschap, hadden hier vanaf het eerste begin bovenop moeten zitten.

Het is nog niet te laat. Geldt een samenhangende en zorgvuldig gedocumenteerde presentatie tijdens de jaarvergadering van de Mensa als zijnde nieuwswaardig?


D.R.Griffin (Engels origineel gepubliceerd 21 mei 2015, Santa Barbara) — Eén van de belangrijkste redenen dat ik zo veel heb geschreven over 11 September is dat ik bang was dat de offici?le leugen over de aanvallen, als verteld door de regering Bush-Cheney, zou leiden tot eindeloze oorlogen en een in beslag genomen worden door “terrorisme.” Naast het feit dat dit al verschrikkelijk genoeg is zouden deze oorlogen en preoccupatie de aandacht van de Verenigde Staten en de rest van de wereld afleiden van de kwestie die werkelijk zou moeten worden belicht: de opwarming van de aarde en de navenante klimaatveranderingen.

Helaas is deze angst bewaarheid. Eén hieruit voortvloeiende absurditeit is dat, in de afgelopen tijd, mijn boeken over 11 September beter zijn verkocht dan mijn boek “Unprecedented: Can Civilization Survive the CO2 Crisis?

David Ray Griffin, 21 mei 2015


Circular Hole in Pentagon Inner WallTod Fletcher, één van de 22 onderzoekers van het Consensuspanel 11 September, legt uit hoe het panel werkt en presenteert een contextuele aanpak om de gebeurtenissen bij het Pentagon te analyseren, gebeurtenissen waar grote verwarring over bestaat.

Fletcher praat ook over het gebrek aan bewijs om de offici?le beweringen te ondersteunen met betrekking tot het kapersverhaal en de telefoongesprekken vanuit de vliegtuigen. Vervolgens geeft hij een overtuigende analyse van ooggetuigenverslagen, het fysieke puin, het fotografisch en videobewijs en de ontbrekende zwarte dozen.

Dit interview, barstensvol bewijs, werd oorspronkelijk uitgezonden op 3 september 2014 om 13,00 uur Pacific Time. Het is nu hier online beschikbaar.

Noot van de redactie; Hoewel het de individuele leden van het panel is toegestaan er hun eigen mening op na te houden over wat er bij het Pentagon is gebeurt, het Consensuspanel 11 September heeft over dit controversi?le onderwerp op dit moment nog geen herzieningsrondes gehouden onder haar 22 leden.


imagesHG6PVD28NEW YORK, 2 June 2014 – Het 24 leden tellende Consensuspanel 11 September – onder wie zich natuurkundigen, scheikundigen, ingenieurs, commerci?le piloten, advocaten en juristen bevinden – heeft vandaag drie nieuwe studies aangekondigd die de gecontroleerde sloop van World Trade Center Gebouw 7 bevestigen.

De studies weerleggen op wetenschappelijke wijze de bewering van NIST, het Nationaal Instituut Waarden en Technologie, dat, voor het eerst in de geschiedenis, brand de oorzaak was voor het volledig instorten van een groot, tegen brand beveiligd gebouw met een stalen skelet op 11 september.

(Noot: In tegenstelling tot het het Consensuspanel, dat een wetenschappelijke methode ebruikt om hun werk collegiaal te toetsen, werd het rapport van NIST niet collegiaal getoetst.)

De eerste studie van het panel gaat over de computersimulaties van NIST, die aan zouden moeten tonen dat door brand veroorzaakte uitzetting door hitte er voor zorgde dat een steunbalk van zijn zadel schoof bij kolom 79, wat de aanzet vormde tot het volledig instorten van het 46 verdiepingen tellende gebouw om 17:21 uur.
Een WOB-verzoek heeft onlangs echter architectonische tekeningen van Gebouw 7 opgeleverd die laten zien dat de simulaties van NIST fundamentele structurele steunpunten hebben weggelaten die het falen van deze steunbalk onmogelijk zouden hebben gemaakt.

De tweede studie van het Consensuspanel gaat over de bewering van NIST dat zij geen enkel staalmonster hadden van deze enorme wolkenkrabber met een stalen skelet.

Dat is buitengewoon, gezien de noodzaak te begrijpen waarom een gebouw met een stalen skelet voor het eerst in de geschiedenis volledig kon instorten als gevolg van brand alleen, en zodoende een herhaling in de toekomst te voorkomen.

We weten dat er monsters zijn genomen. Foto’s die onlangs in handen van onderzoekers zijn gekomen laten de vreemde, opgekrulde en flinterdunne staaldelen van WTC 7 zien, met een onderzoeker van NIST erbij die er naar wijst.

De derde studie toont aan dat veel mensen op 11 september 2001 uren van tevoren werd verteld dat WTC 7 in zou gaan storten.

Verslaggever van MSNBC Asleigh Banfield zei vroeg in de middag: “Ik heb van verschillende agenten nu verschillende berichten gehoord dat dat het volgende gebouw is dat in zal gaan storten.”
Veel leden van de brandweer van New York wachtten met zekerheid op het moment dat het gebouw zou gaan vallen:

Brandweerman Thomas Donato: “We stonden daar te wachten tot Zeven naar beneden zou komen. We waren daar een hele tijd, een paar uur.”

Assistent commandant James Drury: “Ik moet daar een tijd zijn blijven hangen. Er waren daar honderden brandweerlieden die wachten om – ze wachtten tot World Trade Center 7 zou vallen.”

Commandant Thomas McCarthy: “Toen ik aankwam bij de commandopost stonden daar veel jongens. Ze stonden gewoon te wachten op het instorten van Gebouw 7.”

En verder verkondigden CNN en de BBC de gebeurtenissen voordat ze waren voorgevallen.
Deze voorkennis onderschrijft het bewijs dat in de vorige Consensuspunten (WTC7-1 to WTC7-5) naar voren is gebracht, dat Gebouw 7 is neergehaald door middel van gecontroleerde sloop.

Bron: The 9/11 Consensus Panel@consensus911
Contact voor media:


Het Consensuspanel 11 September is verheugd met de komst van Mr. Tony Szamboti als nieuw lid.

Tony Szamboti is een mechanisch ingenieur met 28 jaar ervaring in het ontwerpen binnen de luchtvaartindustrie. Hij is lid van Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice en van Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Hij verscheen in de bejubelde documentaire van AE911Truth, “9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out” (ondertitelde versie).

Meer informatie over de panelleden vindt u hier.


Dr. MacQueen and Architect Bill Brinnier, Dec. 10 2014 Press Conference, Parliamentary Press GalleryAls gevolg van de door drie organisaties gehouden Parlementaire persconferentie op 10 december heeft de Petitie 11 September, welke vraagt om een herziening van het Eindverslag Commissie 11 September en onlangs ter tafel werd gebracht in het Parlement, nationale aandacht gekregen via Global TV:

Petitie vraagt Canadees parlement om herziening bewijs 11 September.

Global TV zond een reportage uit waarin lid van het Consensuspanel 11 September Dr. Graeme MacQueen de 44 punten van bewijs tegen het Eindverslag Commissie 11 September bespreekt.


Persconferentie, woensdag 10 december, 11.00 uur, Charles Lynch Room, 130-S, Centre Block Parliament Hill, Ottawa

Drie professionele organisaties leveren op bewijs gebaseerde verklaringen over 11 September als hart onder de riem voor nabestaanden van Amerikaanse slachtoffers

Ottawa, Ontario – De Canadese overheid is een petitie aangeboden welke vraagt om een parlementaire herziening van nieuw forensisch bewijs met betrekking tot de gebeurtenissen van 11 september 2001.

Volgens de spelregels van het parlementaire petitieproces is de overheid verplicht binnen 45 kalenderdagen te komen met een antwoord.

Deze petitie is onlangs ingediend door burgers uit alle windstreken van Canada en wordt ondersteund door drie professionele organisaties die al jaren graven in de berg bewijsmateriaal aangaande 11 September., met hun basis in Ottawa, benadrukt de onvergankelijke rol van de Amerikaanse nabestaanden in hun roep om een onafhankelijk onderzoek naar 11 September. Als eerbetoon aan de gevallenen willen zij dat de waarheid boven tafel komt en willen dat de waarde van de slachtoffers wordt gerespecteerd.

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (, waar de teller staat op zo’n 2300 architecten en ingenieurs die vragen om een nieuw onderzoek, gebaseerd op het bewijs voor gecontroleerde sloop. Deze organisatie heeft een diepgravende documentaire uitgebracht, “9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out (ondertitelde versie),” waarin professionals uit de techniek en de bouwwereld hun conclusies aangaande “gecontroleerde sloop” uiteenzetten. De video steeg in september 2012 naar de eerste plaats als nationaal “meest bekeken” op en is ook beschikbaar als een video van 15 minuten, gepresenteerd door acteur Ed Asner.

Het Consensuspanel 11 September ( De 24 experts van het internationale Consensuspanel 11 September, dat sinds drie jaar bestaat, hebben 44 Consensuspunten van “beste bewijs” ontwikkeld die haaks staan op de offici?le lezing van 11 September. Gedurende het rigoureuze herzieningsproces blijven de deelnemers blind ten opzichte van elkaar. Onderdeel van hun onderzoeken zijn bijvoorbeeld de verrassende activiteiten van militaire en politieke leidinggevenden op die dag. Het consensusproces heeft een ongekende graad van geloofwaardigheid opgeleverd voor specifieke punten van bewijs met betrekking tot 11 September.


drapeau_AllemandIn de afgelopen meer dan 10 jaar hebben de media beweerd dat het voor hen niet mogelijk is om het technisch bewijs tegen de offici?le lezing aangaande 11 september te evalueren.

In de geneeskunde bestond een vergelijkbaar probleem in de jaren dat er tegengestelde en ongeordende benaderingen waren voor het stellen van een diagnose en voor behandeling.

Dit probleem werd in grote mate teruggedrongen met de invoering van “op bewijs gebaseerde” geneeskunde.

Door gebruik te maken van breed geaccepteerde, rigoureuze herzieningsmethoden heeft de geneeskunde inmiddels honderden standaard consensusverklaringen ontwikkeld om wereldwijd artsen bij te staan in het vaststellen van diagnoses en behandelingen.

Op een vergelijkbare manier heeft het Consensuspanel 11 September nu 44 Consensuspunten ontwikkeld met het “beste bewijs” die haaks staan op de offici?le lezing betreffende 11 september.

De deelnemers, die gedurende het proces blind blijven ten opzichte van elkaar, hebben na telkens drie rondes van herziening en terugkoppeling de informatie verfijnd tot 44 punten van “beste bewijs.”

Dit wetenschappelijk proces heeft een ongekende graad van betrouwbaarheid opgeleverd voor specifieke stukken bewijs die zijn gerelateerd aan 11 september.

De Duitse versie van de website van het Consensuspanel 11 September kan worden gevonden op


Dr. David Ray GriffinLid van het Consensuspanel 11 September Tod Fletcher heeft een woord van dank geschreven voor Dr. David Ray Griffin’s enorme bijdrage aan de gemeenschap voor waarheidsvinding betreffende 11 september, “nhà cái tặng tiền cược miễn phí tháng 2019Championing Truth and Justice: Griffin on 9/11,” uit het nieuwe boek Reason and Reenchantment: The Philosophical, Religious, and Political Thought of David Ray Griffin (2014).

Dr. Griffin is medeoprichter en eindverantwoordelijke van het Consensuspanel 11 September, samen met Elizabeth Woodworth, medeoprichter en co?rdinator van het Panel.

De verhandeling van Mr. Fletcher is online beschikbaar en geeft een goed historisch overzicht van zowel het werk van Dr. Griffin als de ontwikkeling van op bewijzen gebaseerde kennis binnen de gemeenschap van onderzoekers naar 11 september.


Black Box ImageNEW YORK, 10 september 2014 – Nu de krantenkoppen worden gedomineerd door verdwijnende vliegtuigen is er nieuw bewijs opgedoken dat de offici?le bewering, dat er nooit “zwarte dozen” zijn gevonden van de vliegtuigen van 11 september, teniet doet.

Brandweerlieden die in oktober 2001 werkzaam waren op de rampplek in New York beweren dat ze drie van de vier nagenoeg onverwoestbare dozen gevonden hebben. Eerder al was verslag gedaan van het onmiskenbare “pingen” van de vluchtrecorder door het hoofd van het Kantoor Crisismanagement van de Staat New York, en dit werd bevestigd door radiofrequentiedetectoren.

Deze informatie wordt voorgelegd door het 24 leden tellende Consensuspanel 11 September wat gebruik maakt van een rigoureuze medische methode om tot hun bewijsvoering te komen. In een periode van drie jaar is het panel gekomen tot 44 collegiaal getoetste Consensuspunten die de offici?le beweringen betreffende 11 september 2001 aanvechten.

Hoewel naar verluidt op 11 september 19 moslims zich toegang verschaften tot de cockpits en zich vier vliegtuigen toe-eigenden, geen van de acht piloten “squawkte” de code 7500 voor vliegtuigkapingen.

Ook is er geen bewijs dat de verloren radarsignalen (die de onderschepping door NORAD moeilijk maakten) het gevolg waren van het uitzetten van de transponders in de cockpit.

Dit gebrek aan bewijs wordt nog verergerd door het feit dat NORAD’s traditionele procedures, om toestellen te onderscheppen die van hun koers afwijken, of waarmee radar en radiocontact verloren gaat, niet werden nagevolgd.

Vreemd genoeg had het hoofd van NORAD, generaal Ralph Eberhart, voor de ochtend van 11 september een ongekend aantal militaire luchtoefeningen gepland waarbij een groot deel van de Amerikaanse luchtmacht betrokken was.

Nadat hij op de hoogte was gebracht van de daadwerkelijke aanvallen zorgden Eberhart’s verbijsterende bewegingen en beslissingen voor kritieke vertragingen welke leidden tot een compleet falende militaire reactie.

Zijn verantwoording voor deze vertragingen, gepubliceerd in de tijdlijn van NORAD van 18 september 2001, werd ongedaan gemaakt toen hij in 2003 getuigde voor de Commissie 11 September.

Punt MC-10: “De bewegingen van burgemeester Giuliani van New York op 11 september 2001” roept verdere vragen op ten aanzien van het gedrag van gezagsdragers.

Giuliani vertelde Peter Jennings van ABC ‘s ochtends dat hij en zijn crisisteam – die zich bevonden in een gebouw aan Berkeley Street 75, waar ze hun tijdelijke hoofdkwartier hadden gevestigd nadat de Twin Towers waren geraakt – waren gewaarschuwd dat het World Trade Center in zou gaan storten.

Giuliani liet na anderen te waarschuwen. Hoe hij wist dat de Twin Towers in zouden gaan storten en waarom hij deze informatie niet deelde behoeft een diepgaand onderzoek onder ede.

The Het Consensuspanel 11 September schaart zich achter mensen als haar Ereleden en, meer recentelijk, klokkenluider William Binney, een ambtenaar van de NSA die daar 30 jaar werkte, in een roep om een nieuw onderzoek naar 11 september.


Bron:            Het Consensuspanel 11 September – @consensus911


Co?rdinator:     Elizabeth Woodworth,