The 9/11 Consensus Panel is greatly saddened by the April 25, 2023 passing of one of its most active researchers, Dr. Graeme MacQueen, of Dundas, Ontario, Canada.

Graeme MacQueenGraeme was a careful and conscientious contributor to the reviewing process for the 51 Consensus Points that were developed between 2011 and 2018. He is greatly missed by his colleagues.

Below is a comprehensive review of his original and remarkable contributions to our understanding of 9/11, written by Kevin Ryan, co-editor with Graeme of the Journal of 9/11 Studies:

Remembering Graeme MacQueen

In the summer of 2006, at the newly formed Journal of 9/11 Studies, we received a submission from a Canadian professor named Graeme MacQueen. The paper was entitled “118 Witnesses: The Firefighter’s Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers.” After peer-review comments were addressed, it was published and has become one of the most important articles in the 9/11 literature.

For the next seventeen years, Graeme went on to lead the 9/11 truth movement through his outstanding scholarship, his thoughtful approach, and his ability to instill trust in colleagues. Along with his remarkable intelligence and wide-ranging analytical skills, MacQueen’s dedication to peace and justice made him a force to be reckoned with. Although he became the leading expert on testimonies related to 9/11, including those from firefighters, first responders, and media sources, he contributed much more to the cause and his contributions will continue to light the way forward.

Our shared interests in 9/11 truth and Buddhism led us to become good friends. Graeme was an internationally recognized Buddhist scholar as I learned when reading random books on the subject at my local library. The text of a talk he gave at the University of Michigan in 1988, which he allowed me to publish on my blog years later, helped me to understand how he was different from other Buddhist leaders. He was the “unsmiling bodhisattva,” who did not act only with words—he put his whole life on the line for living beings.

In 2008, Graeme arrived in Bloomington, Indiana to give a presentation along with Canadian psychologist Laurie Manwell at the sold out Buskirk-Chumley Theater.  His presentation, called “The Fictional Basis for the War on Terror,” was well-received and our discussions with Laurie in Bloomington initiated planning for a larger event to take place on the tenth anniversary of 9/11. That later event became the Toronto Hearings, which the three of us organized together with Adnan Zuberi and James Gourley.

Graeme and I went on to work together at other events to raise awareness, but also at the Journal of 9/11 Studies, where he authored several more groundbreaking papers including two focused on physical evidence. These were “The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis,” with engineer Tony Szamboti, and “Did the Earth Shake Before the South Tower Hit the Ground?

A few years later Graeme became my co-editor at the Journal and served in that capacity for about five years. The deep respect people had for Graeme’s scholarship and his collaborative personality led to the submission of numerous excellent articles on various subjects.  Due to his influence, we received submissions from esteemed philosopher John McMurtry, sociologist Edward Curtin, political scientist Peter Dale Scott, and attorney Stephen J. Looney, among others.  

Graeme became recognized as a leading expert on 9/11 and, during this time, he published his highly influential book, The 2001 Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy. The book establishes through careful analysis that the anthrax attacks were crimes committed by a group of people associated with the U.S. executive branch who were linked to, or identical with, those who committed the 9/11 crimes. His continued 9/11 research included serving seven years on the 9/11 Consensus Panel, where co-founder Elizabeth Woodworth called him one of the most productive members.

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about Graeme, from my perspective, is that he worked for peace and justice until his dying day. As with David Ray Griffin, who thought very highly of Graeme, he was diligent and very productive throughout the illness that took his life. He authored yet another book, this time in free, digital format that pulls together many of his most compelling writings. He completed interviews for an upcoming film that brings to light his tremendous contributions and undying commitment to peace. And he helped found a new organization that will lead research into the 9/11 crimes for many years to come.   

Dr. Graeme MacQueen was a distinguished scholar and an exceptional human being long before I ever met him. Others who know more about his past will undoubtedly recount many remarkable aspects of his life. His founding of the Centre for Peace Studies at McMaster University is often cited as an accomplishment that represented his nature. I know that he authored or edited books on religion and non-violence and led peace initiatives in the war zones of Afghanistan, Croatia, Gaza, and Sri Lanka. He was also a dedicated husband and father and he often spoke of his wife and daughter.

Everyone who knew Graeme will miss him dearly. I’ll be forever grateful for his friendship and his leadership.

orig. published April 26, 2023 at digwithin.net/2023/04/26/remembering-graeme-macqueen

 

The Man and His Work: A Synopsis

by Elizabeth Woodworth
Dec 1, 2022

The 9/11 Consensus Panel mourns the loss of its co-founder, Dr. David Ray Griffin.

 

David Ray GriffinHow big can a mind be?

If we’re lucky, we have threescore and ten years — in a very big wide world, full of history — to experience as much as we can take in.

Threescore-ten is not nearly enough, but some extraordinary people manage to encompass and give order to a lot of it.

And some even more extraordinary people manage to rise above their own lives to interpret creation and the fabric of the universe as having consistent meaning across cultures and throughout the ages.

David Ray Griffin was Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Theology, at the Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University, from 1973-2004. With his senior, Dr. John Cobb Jr., he co-founded the Center for Process Studies in 1973.

Griffin has stated that “the task of a theologian is to look at the world from what we would imagine the divine perspective, one that would care about the good of the whole and would love all the parts.”

Not only was David an outstanding theologian and one of the two best-known living scholars of Alfred North Whitehead’s process theology (the other being John Cobb): His books also spanned the related fields of postmodernism, theodicy (defence of God against evil), primordial truth, panentheism, scientific naturalism, parapsychology, Buddhist thought, and the mind-body interaction.

About the time that he retired in 2004, he was approached by some people who admired his candor, and pointed to evidence that the 9/11 event was highly suspicious.

At first David thought that 9/11 was simply blowback from the way America had treated the Middle East — but upon researching it more deeply he realized that there was indeed a very serious likelihood that the US had contrived 9/11 as a false flag operation to manufacture consent to occupy Afghanistan and Iraq for their oil.

This injustice fired his energy to research in depth, then write a dozen scholarly books on 9/11 — books that were not acknowledged in the media but which engaged in a cat-and-mouse game with the purveyors of the official 9/11 narrative, who continually adapted their story to cover up the weaknesses that David tracked and revealed as their tattered narrative evolved.

The first and most famous of these books was The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11, published by his much-appreciated Interlink press in March 2004.

That best-seller was followed in 2005 by a devastating takedown of the Bush Administration’s whitewash Commission titled The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, which exposed 115 problems in “the 571-page lie”.

Following these early 9/11 works, David was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in both 2008 and 2009, and was named among “The 50 People Who Matter Today” by the New Statesman, on September 24, 2009.

In November, 2008, David’s seventh book about 9/11, The New Pearl Harbour Revisited, was one of only 51 books awarded as “pick of the week” that year by Publishers Weekly.

What followed was extraordinary.

As the foremost book reviewing tool in the English language, Publishers Weekly’s spotlight should have led to reviews in the New York Times, the Times Literary Supplement, Library Journal, and many other top reviewing sources — but the word was out in the narrative-controlled media to give it a pass.

In 2011, David and I founded an organization called the 9/11 Consensus Panel, comprised of more than 20 professionals expert in various aspects of the 9/11 attacks. In 2018, the 51 consensus points that were developed during this unique evidence-based reviewing project were published under the title 9/11 Unmasked: An International Review Panel Investigation (2018).

During that seven-year project, David addressed the existential crisis of climate change, penning his encyclopaedic 2015 reference, Unprecedented: Can Civilization Survive the CO2 Crisis? (I took that book to the COP21 Paris climate summit in 2015, and presented it there, following up with a YouTube documentary on that enormous gathering of humanity – the largest meeting since World War II.)

David then turned his attention to US imperialism – writing Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World in 2016, and producing the incredible work of scholarship, The American Trajectory: Divine or Demonic, in 2018.

David was at last able, in 2019, to turn to his long-planned The Christian Gospel for Americans: A Systematic Theology. It is a magnum opus of enormous breadth and depth.

In it, for example, he confronts the science vs religion issue, showing that some scientists – former atheists – have been overwhelmed by the extent of exceedingly precise ratios between the chemical elements of earth that are required for life, to now saying that the universe was “fine-tuned for life,” thus reflecting a “fine-tuner” (or divine creator).

In 2022, as he approached the end of his life, and following a long struggle with prostate cancer, David wrote the beautiful and crowning reflections of his maturing theology, James and Whitehead on Life after Death.

In the spirit of James and Whitehead, he explains that the universe is not separate from, but is within God, and is itself the very nature of God. This evolving world view requires a new understanding of the divine reality – panentheism, meaning “all in God”.

The causal principles of the universe exist naturally, being inherent in the nature of things, because they exist in the very nature of God.

This chapter on the infinitely fine-tuned nature of the universe to support life is a transporting gift.

But he was not done yet!

Forthcoming in March, 2023, from the publisher Clarity Press, is David’s America on the Brink: How the US Trajectory Led Fatefully to the Russia-Ukraine War – which was completed during the last days of his life.

In total David Ray Griffin has written 50 books and more than 200 essays. (He was once asked if he had ever had an unpublished thought!)

In all of his books – and most notably those on American imperialism – he read and cited recent scholarly investigations from top university presses, effectively overriding the propaganda that has passed down through many years.

Paul Craig Roberts wrote: “David has served truth to the hilt. He is a hero of our time.”

There is no question that his body of work will go down in history as providing some of the most elegant thinking our century has witnessed.

And at some point, his chronicling of historically suppressed truths must emerge into full daylight, to allow reality-based civilization to advance.

Let us keep his work alive, so that earth’s future peoples will inherit the great spectrum of wisdom he has left them: from a hopeful common-sense theology, to the exposés of imperialist propaganda and false flag operations, to the full extent of the climate crisis, to our evolving perception of the nature of the divine, to the evidence that our spirits will survive after death.

David Griffin stands with the greats – yet was quiet, humorous, down to earth, and unassuming.

 

 

The 9/11 Consensus Panel has lost a valued member, writer and journalist Rowland Morgan.

Rowland MorganRowland’s value to society was driven largely by his lifelong spirit of thumos:

“Thumos is our will to fight, our need to rebel against that which is intolerable. It is what makes us stand up and declare ‘I will not be silenced!’. It is what makes us dive headlong against the devastation of this world; what compels us to courageously fight the good fight.”

 

His lively spirit of outrage against injustice led him to write prolifically, including two published (and well-reviewed) books on 9/11:

Flight 93 Revealed: What Really Happened on the 9/11 Let’s Roll Flight?
by Rowland Morgan and Ian Henshall, Robinson Publishing, 2006

9/11 Revealed: The Unanswered Questions,
by Rowland Morgan and Ian Henshall, Carrol & Graf, 2005

There are two media obituaries (The Guardian and The Vancouver Sun) showing his productive life, and also the love and esteem in which he was held by his family and friends:

www.theguardian.com/media/2021/may/12/rowland-morgan-obituary

vancouversunandprovince.remembering.ca/obituary/rowland-morgan-1082366418

I was first introduced to Rowland by David Griffin, when David came to speak in Vancouver in May, 2007. This led to my happy friendship with Rowland and his family, who live close by on Vancouver Island, Canada. Rowland’s passing is indeed a great loss to us all.

 

Elizabeth Woodworth
Co-founder with David Ray Griffin, The 9/11 Consensus Panel

 

The 9/11 Consensus Panel mourns the loss of the great Italian journalist, Giulietto Chiesa, whose life was devoted to upholding the foundations of democracy, not just in his native Italy, but in Russia and worldwide.

The Consensus Panel was honoured to have Giulietto as a voluntary reviewing member of its evidence-based 9/11 research – from 2011 until its findings were published in 2018.

Giulietto ChiesaIn 1999-2000 Chiesa had founded the association Megachip – Democracy in Communications, which presents critical analysis of how the mainstream media actually works. By April 2009 its website had over 60 million hits, and by 2010 it had reached 100 million. On the website appeared the words:

A whisper was enough to create a wave.
A simple whisper,
Nothing compared to the incessant noise of the thousand media that surround us.
Yet it was enough.

 

From Megachip sprang the 2008 documentary Zero: An Investigation Into 9/11, which challenged many assumptions surrounding the 9/11 attacks. Featuring such luminaries as Gore Vidal and Nobel Prize winner Dario Fo, it has been seen by millions of people. The Italian daily newspaper, Il Corriere de da Sera described the “sequence of contradictions, gaps, and omissions of stunning gravity” that it exposed in the official story.

In 2003, just before the American invasion of Iraq, he promoted – together with a large group of volunteering journalists – the experimental independent satellite TV project, NoWar TV.

From the late 1990s onwards Chiesa had covered issues related to globalization, in particular how they affect the world media system. This led to his involvement in the foundation of the global think tank, the World Political Forum, based in Turin and chaired by Mikhail Gorbachev. In 2010 Gorbachev founded the New Policy Forum in Luxemburg, placing Chiesa on the Advisory Board.

Chiesa also served for 19 years as a Moscow correspondent, was a former member of the European Parliament, and was a Fellow of the Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies.
He was the Chief Editor of the web TV, Pandora TV. His blog Il Fatto Quotidiano was among the top ten political blogs in Italy. He was deeply mourned and honoured at Megachip.

Giulietto Chiesa was clearly a diverse man whose immense energy and compassion drove a lifelong quest for democracy. In the words of 9/11 Consensus Panelist Dr. Graeme MacQueen, co-founder of the Centre for Peace Studies at McMaster University, “I found him to be extremely kind and generous … it was a great honour to have known him; we have lost a brave companion. What a loss.”

 

 

Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford was a United States Marine for 20 years, a naval aviator with over 10,000 hours of flight time, and a Vietnam veteran with over 300 combat missions.

He was also a charter signatory of a petition calling for a new investigation into the events of September 11, 2001, and a member of Military Officers for 9/11 Truth.

In a 2010 letter to his local newspaper in Salisbury, Maryland, Lankford wrote:

“My mourning for the country I live in is not abstract, but real and very immediate. Since the unsolved crime of 9/11/01, I have seen our republic descend into darkness, as we used the lie of 9/11 to justify aggression abroad and repression at home. We have officially become a torture state. Accountability for egregious crimes at the highest levels is non-existent.”

Shelton Lankford In September 2010, Consensus Panel co-founders David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth organized a joint simultaneous 9/11 Press Conferences in Los Angeles & New York City to announce the launch of Actors and Artists for 9/11 Truth, Military Officers for 9/11 Truth, and Scientists for 9/11 Truth. On September 9, Mr. Lankford represented the military officers during the New York City press conference announcement.

In 2011, again at the invitation of Griffin and Woodworth, Lankford joined the evidence-based 9/11 Consensus Panel to work under an exacting protocol in which the 20 reviewing members were blind to one another. His three rounds of insightful analysis for the first 18 Consensus Points helped the Panel to achieve over 90% consensus.

During April 2012, following an internal Panel dispute over the Pentagon evidence, Lankford was persuaded to resign from the Panel, a decision for which he expressed earnest regret during a telephone call to the co-founders in late April, wishing his lucid statement to remain on the Panel’s website masthead:

“September 11, 2001 seems destined to be the watershed event of our lives and the greatest test for our democracy in our lifetimes. The evidence of government complicity in the lead-up to the events, the failure to respond during the event, and the astounding lack of any meaningful investigation afterwards, as well as the ignoring of evidence turned up by others that renders the official explanation impossible, may signal the end of the American experiment. It has been used to justify all manner of measures to legalize repression at home and as a pretext for behaving as an aggressive empire abroad. Until we demand an independent, honest, and thorough investigation and accountability for those whose action and inaction led to those events and the cover-up, our republic and our Constitution remain in the gravest danger.”

Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, US Marine Corps (ret.)

Rest in peace, Shelton Lankford. The world is a poorer place without you.

David Ray Griffin
Elizabeth Woodworth

 

 

Mazzucco introduces his video, “9/11 – TAKE THE QUIZ” (@IMDb), [1] with the oft-cited official story: “19 Islamic hijackers armed with box-cutters take over four passenger planes flying in the American skies. Two of these planes are crushed against the Twin Towers in New York, the third plane hits the Pentagon, and a fourth one is crashed intentionally by the passengers in an open field in Pennsylvania. The Twin Towers later collapse due to structural failures caused by the impacts and the ensuing fires, killing some 3,000 people. This is, by-and-large, the official version of the events of 9/11, as told every year by the mainstream media all around the world.”

Massimo Mazzucco, 2019He then asks: “But how much do you really know about what truly happened on September 11th? And I’m not talking conspiracy theories here. I’m talking about simple, verifiable facts that somehow seem to have gone unnoticed in the big narrative maelstrom that has been 9/11 ever since.

Next the viewer is presented with a multiple-choice series of 23 questions about what actually happened on 9/11. The correct answers, accompanied by evidence, are given as the 37 minutes unfolds.

For example, Question Nine asks: “How many policemen, firemen, and first responders have testified to the New York Times about hearing explosions just before and during the collapse of the Twin towers? – None? Just one? About a dozen? More than 100?

The answer to this question, which is given in the video, was never reported in the corporate media.

At the end Mazzucco summarizes:

If you scored less than 10 correct answers, I’m afraid, you’re somewhat ignorant on September 11th – or, rather than ignorant, you are a victim of the mainstream propaganda, which every year tells us the fairy-tale of the 19 hijackers armed with boxcutters, and the skyscrapers that totally collapsed on themselves simply due to fire.

So now it’s up to you to decide how important it is, for each and every one of us, to know what truly happened on September 11th … It’s never too late to inform those who are less knowledgeable about what truly happened on September 11th, given that the mainstream journalists blatantly refuse to do what is supposed to be their job.

###

Source: The 9/11 Consensus Panel   @consensus911
E-mail: consensus911@gmail.com

 

An unpublished manuscript investigating the alleged cell phone calls from the 9/11 flights has recently been released by the well-known British writer and Consensus911 panelist, Rowland Morgan.

Rowland Morgan, 2019Morgan, a former columnist for London’s The Guardian and The Independent, undertook an in-depth investigation of the 9/11 phone calls in his extraordinary manuscript, Voices, researched from 2008 to 2010. (He also co-authored, with Ian Henshall, Flight 93 Revealed, Carroll and Graf, 2006.)

Voices cites an Associated Press report on April 6th, 2006, that “much of what happened aboard Flight 93 is known because passengers used cell phones in flight to call their loved ones.”

However, the US government’s own telephone data presented at the Moussaoui trial in 2006 showed that Moussaoui prosecutor David Raskin “had not studied his own evidence, which claimed only two cellular telephone calls out of some 35 ostensibly heard from Flight 93.”

Morgan goes on to reveal:

“The telephone data contained more bombshells of which Moussaoui’s prosecutors apparently were unaware:

  • The world-famous 9/11 telephone calls from TV-pundit Barbara Olson to her husband Theodore Olson at his office in the Department of Justice had never occurred. The U.S government’s call data said she made a call but did not get through. This meant that the U.S. Solicitor-General, a key member of the Bush administration, had connived at, or been deluded about, a crucial deception, one that had placed ‘hijackers’ armed with ‘cardboard-cutters’ aboard Flight 77 ostensibly speeding towards the Pentagon.
  • The world-famous 9/11 in-flight telephone call from Todd Beamer, the one in which an Airfone operator heard him shout the Pentagon’s recruitment slogan ‘Let’s Roll’, had never occurred. The U.S. government’s fudged data said Beamer had made separate calls in the same second.

Because the existence of hijackers aboard the rogue planes partly relied on them, the collapse of these two vital telephone calls alone badly damaged the U.S. Government’s 9/11 conspiracy theory.”

The full manuscript for Rowland Morgan’s brilliant study of all the alleged 9/11 cell phone calls, Voices, is available on the 9/11 Consensus Panel’s website.

###

Source: The 9/11 Consensus Panel   @consensus911
E-mail: consensus911@gmail.com

 

In the fullness of time, much key evidence concerning the 9/11 attacks has disappeared from the Internet and even retroactively from the Wayback Machine, which respects requests from websites to block their materials.

In an effort to preserve important evidence that is not easily available on the Internet, the 9/11 Consensus Panel is now offering a home for selected evidence that is of value to researchers who are investigating the events of that world-changing day.

The group of links restored to the Internet today include nine interviews with senior political and military figures on the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, September 11, 2002:

Andrew Card, Karen Hughes, Norman Mineta, Robert Mueller, General Richard Myers, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Karl Rove, and Donald Rumsfeld.

These people were all involved in the response that day.

Please Note: If any persons in the 9/11 research community are looking for a place to post other important links that are no longer available on the Internet AND on the Wayback Machine, the Consensus Panel will consider including them on this website. We may be contacted at consensus911@gmail.com.

 

 

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: www.consensus911.org/media-contacts/
E-mail: consensus911@gmail.com

 

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: www.consensus911.org/media-contacts/
E-mail: consensus911@gmail.com

 

NEW YORK, September 8, 2017 – With the approaching 16th anniversary of September 11, 2001, and with the global war on terror still raging unabated, the 9/11 Consensus Panel continues its 7-year 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 its “best evidence” review model to analyse the official claims about 9/11. (The Panel has now reviewed 50 official claims and has found each to be a substantially flawed account.)

The first Point, “The Claim that the Hijackers were Devout Muslims,” cites many media reports that the hijackers were engaged in “decidedly un-Islamic sampling of prohibited pleasures,” including lap dancing in Las Vegas night clubs.

The second 2017 Consensus Point, “The Claim that Mohamed Atta Had Become a Fanatically Religious Muslim,” explores the question asked by a member of the press to 9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste: “If Atta belonged to the fundamentalist Muslim group, why was he snorting cocaine and frequenting strip bars?” Ben-Veniste replied: “You know, that’s a heck of a question.” But it was a question that the 9/11 Commission never addressed.

These two Points build upon the already overwhelming evidence that 9/11, which has been used to justify America’s imperialist agenda in the Middle East, 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.

Consensus panelist Dr. Niels Harrit, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, has published more than 60 peer-reviewed papers in the top chemistry journals and has given more than 300 presentations about the World Trade Center demolitions, speaking in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Holland, France, Switzerland, Spain, United Kingdom, Canada, USA, China, Australia, Russia and Iceland.

Frances Shure, a licensed professional counselor on the 9/11 Consensus Panel, was interviewed on Progressive Spirit in August, 2017 about the extraordinary denial that continues to surround the events of 9/11. The title of her interview was “Why Do Good People Become Silent—Or Worse—About 9/11?

Dr. Graeme MacQueen, Professor Emeritus of Peace Studies at McMaster University, has published a recent article with an entirely new slant, “9/11: The Pentagon’s B-Movie,” which re-awakens our sense of the horrific yet still-concealed nature of this world-changing deception.

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 2900-member Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Scientists for 9/11 Truth, is documented.

Panel co-founder, Dr. David Ray Griffin, has recently released his 11th scholarly book on 9/11, Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World, perhaps his best-selling title to date. David’s August 2017 interview with John Shuck may be heard here.

The Panel wishes to thank its fine team of voluntary translators, who continue to make best-evidence research about 9/11 much more widely available through other languages.

 

###

527 words

Source: The 9/11 Consensus Panel   @consensus911
Contact list: www.consensus911.org/media-contacts/
E-mail: consensus911@gmail.com