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

By The 9/11 Consensus Panel

Increasingly the media is having to deal with evidence emerging against the official story of the 9/11 attacks.

For example, on October 10th, the New York Times revised its earlier reports on the source of the anthrax spores used in the frightening attacks on members of the media and the Senate, following 9/11.  The letters carrying the spores seemingly originated from a Muslim hand, and the spores were considered by the FBI to be low-tech.

The longest investigation in the FBI’s history finally traced the spores to a deranged “lone-nut” working in the Fort Dietrick, Maryland, bioweapons laboratory.  The alleged culprit, Dr. Bruce Ivins, apparently committed suicide in 2008 following intensive FBI allegations against him, and the FBI closed the case.

However, it transpired that Dr. Ivins was a respected vaccine researcher with many publications to his credit, and a following of loyal colleagues. An 18-month National Academy of Science investigation into the case has recently found that the weaponized spores were far too high-tech for one person to have made, and is suggesting a new investigation to replace the inadequate FBI account.

In a different news story, on October 17th, Britain’s BBC’s Today Programme interviewed FBI whistleblower Ali Soufan, who revealed – as had White House former anti-terror chief Richard Clarke some weeks before him – that the CIA deliberately blocked FBI warnings of impending hijacker attacks – warnings that could have prevented the attacks.

These press reports lean towards evidence of domestic complicity in the attacks, long believed by independent researchers.  But some pundits say that journalists are not qualified to challenge the government’s technical reports on the building collapses and the Pentagon attack – that expert opinion must be engaged if these reports are to be meaningfully challenged.

Such opinion is now available from the new 9/11 Consensus Panel, an international body of 21 experts in physics, engineering, chemistry, and other disciplines.

The Panel, in reviewing the evidence, selected the Delphi Method, which is used by medical panels to develop consensus statements that guide doctors towards “best-evidence” state-of-the-art treatment guidelines. (More on this below)

The 9/11 Consensus Panel’s 21 experts spent nearly a year developing its first group of 13 Consensus Points of evidence relating to the official account of the events of September 11, 2001. The Points achieved consensus of 90-100%, and are available here.

This truth is not a conspiracy theory or the speculation of uninformed people.

It is scientifically derived evidence and offers the media the confidence it needs to address the expanding cracks in the 9/11 narrative – which don’t seem likely to go away soon.

The Delphi Method

Brian Burchill at Foreign Policy Journal explains:

There is a structured communication technique called the Delphi Method that draws upon the collective intelligence of a panel of experts to achieve consensus an issue/theory/proposition. Wikipedia has a thorough explanation of the technique and some of its variations.

Briefly, a facilitator provides a questionnaire to survey panelists on an issue, and then receives back the panelists’ responses, judgments and reasons. The facilitator then sends all of these replies to all panelists, and each panelist is invited to revise their own response in light of the responses of the other expert panelists. This process is repeated until the range of answers converges on a single answer with an accepted degree of agreement (consensus).

Typically, the identity of each panelist is hidden from the other panelists, and the authorship of each response is also hidden. This procedure overcomes issues of group dynamics that can be impediments to true consensus, and encourages unfettered expression of opinion and critique. The Delphi method has been used successfully since the 1950s to advance knowledge in such fields as social policy, medicine, and science and technology.

A contentious issue, which has persisted for a decade now, is whether or not US Government’s official narrative of the events of September 11, 2001, is substantially flawed.

The 9/11 Commission was supposed to provide a thorough account of those events, but has failed to quell the debate. Even members of the Commission, including the Chair and Vice-Chair, have publicly criticized the Commission’s proceedings and final report.

According  to Harry Levins, in his September 6, 2009 article in the St Louis Post-Dispatch, the Commission’s senior counsel, John Farmer,  stated that “what government and military officials had told Congress, the Commission, the media, and the public about who knew what when — was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue.” He also said that “At some level of the government, at some point in time … there was a decision not to tell the truth about what happened….”

To encourage further investigation of this issue, a Delphi survey of 22 expert panelists has been conducted regarding the “best evidence” that indicates flaws in the official narrative of 9/11. This Panel included professors of chemistry, physics, aeronautics, and engineering; air force and commercial pilots; journalists; authors and film makers; an aircraft accident investigator; a public health officer; a lawyer; and a politician.

This multi-disciplinary team of professionals has achieved consensus on 13 points of this evidence, and the degree of consensus was at least 90%, which means that there is a high degree of certainty that that evidence truly does refute the official narrative.

Meet the Consensus 9/11 Panel Members and Administration

Panel Members

Dr. Robert Bowman, former head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering at the US Air Force Institute of Technology, and the Director of Advanced Space Programs Development (“Star Wars”) under Presidents Ford and Carter.

David S. Chandler, BS in IPS (physics/engineering), Harvey Mudd College; MS in mathematics, California Polytechnic University; high school and junior college physics and math educator; formerly on editorial board of The Physics Teacher (AAPT journal); in 2008, played a central role in forcing NIST to concede that WTC 7 experienced a significant period of free fall.

Giulietto Chiesa, Italian journalist serving 19 years as Moscow correspondent; former member of the European Parliament; Fellow of the Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies; produced Zero, a documentary film about 9/11.

Dwain Deets, former Director for Research Engineering and Aerospace Projects at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center; received the NASA Exceptional Service Award and inclusion in “Who’s Who in Science and Engineering.”

Tod Fletcher, M.A., C.Phil., Geography, U.C. Berkeley; former geography and environmental science instructor at Berkeley, San Francisco State and Laney College; in 2010 and 2011 was host of the weekly internet radio show “9/11 In Context.”

Lt. Col. David Gapp, U.S. Air Force retired pilot with 3000 flying hours; qualified aircraft accident investigator; former President, Aircraft Accident Board; Chief of the Air Force’s Theatre Security Cooperation programs for all of Central and South America; 31 years in the USAF.

Dr. Niels Harrit, Associate Professor of Chemistry at the Nano-Science Center, University of Copenhagen; first author of “Active Thermitic Material Observed in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal in 2009.

Dr. Steven E. Jones, former Professor of Physics at Brigham Young University; initiator of the research for the peer-reviewed paper, “Active Thermitic Material Observed in Dust from the 9/11World Trade Center Catastrophe,” published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal.

Commander Ralph Kolstad, is a retired US Navy fighter pilot, and for 27 years was an airline pilot for two major carriers, with 23,000 hours total flying time.

Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, retired from a 20-year career in the US Marine Corps; fighter pilot with over 300 combat missions; recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross and 32 Air Medals; and over 10,000 hours of flying.

Dr Graeme MacQueen, PhD; lecturer in Buddhism and Peace Studies at McMaster University in Canada; and founder of McMaster’s Centre of Peace Studies, and its War and Health programme. His 9/11 research includes “The Fictional Basis For The War On Terror” and oral testimonies of Fire Department of New York Members.

Massimo Mazzucco, award-winning filmmaker, screenwriter, and journalist. Editor of, dedicated to 9/11 research. His 2006 9/11 documentary “Inganno Globale” was broadcast on Italian TV (Berlusconi’s Canale 5), sparking a national debate. His documentary “The New American Century” appeared in film festivals worldwide. Mazzucco is currently preparing his third documentary, which will rebut the counter-claims against the 9/11 Movement.

Dennis P. McMahon, JD from Western New England Law School, LLM from NYU. A member of the New York and Massachusetts bars, he in 2009 served as attorney for 9/11 family members in Burke v McSweeney, as part of the NYCCAN petition effort to have NYC voters decide whether New York City should have its own 9/11 investigation. He was instrumental in introducing the “Building What?” campaign, later rebranded as “Remember Building 7.”

Rowland Morgan, with a Cambridge Honors Degree and a teaching certificate, is an independent journalist and the co-author of 9/11 Revealed. In the 1990s he was a weekly columnist in London, for the Independent on Sunday and the Guardian. He also co-authored, with Ian Henshall, Flight 93 Revealed (Carol and Graf, 2006).

Frances Shure is a retired business owner, a Licensed Professional Counselor specializing in depth psychology, and an adjunct instructor at Naropa University. She has long been a peace and environmental activist, is co-founder of Colorado 9/11 Visibility, and is listed with Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth.

Lou Stolzenberg is a retired Physical Therapist (BS, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1974). Her 26-year career, using evidence-based patient care, combined with her faith and her concern for social justice, drew her to 9/11 Truth activism in 2006. She is Coordinator for Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth (

Daniel Sunjata, American actor in film, television and theater; performed in a Tony award-winning Broadway play, “Take Me Out;” also featured in the TV series Rescue Me, where a sub-plot has included 9/11 as a false-flag operation; more recently featured in ABC’s “Grey’s Anatomy.”

Matthew Witt is Associate Professor of Public Administration at the University of La Verne, CA. He has published work, since 2008, with Lance deHaven-Smith and other scholars, showing that shadow governing entities and state crimes against democracy undermine U.S. governing legitimacy and the US founding doctrine. This work appears in Administration & Society, American Behavioral Scientist, and Public Integrity.

Dr. Jonathan B. Weisbuch (M.D.,M.P.H.), formerly Chief Health Officer, Maricopa County, AZ; Medical Director, LA County Dept. of Health Services; Director, Department of Health and Social Services, Wyoming; President of the American Association of Public Health Physicians (AAPHP); editorial consultant, American Journal of Public Health. Author of over 40 academic articles.

Dr. Paul Zarembka is Professor of Economics, SUNY at Buffalo, editor since 1977 of Research in Political Economy (an annual hardback from Elsevier Press); editor of “The Hidden History of 9-11” (first edition by Elsevier Press [2006], expanded edition by Seven Stories Press [2008]), editor of Frontiers in Econometrics (1974), and co-editor of Revitalizing Marxist Theory for Today’s Capitalism (2011).

Barrie Zwicker, formerly a reporter for the Detroit News, the Toronto Star, and the Globe and Mail, and a commentator for Vision TV in Toronto and a journalism lecturer at Ryerson University. In 2006, Zwicker published Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9/11. He lectures widely and was featured in “The Unofficial Story,” a 2009 TV program produced by the CBC’s award-winning Fifth Estate.

Administration of the 9/11 Consensus Panel

Co-founder of the 9/11 Consensus Panel Dr. David Ray Griffin: Emeritus professor of philosophy of religion and theology at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University; has published 37 books, mostly in the philosophy of science and religion, but ten are about 9/11. The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé, was named “Pick of the Week” by Publishers Weekly in November 2008; he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his 9/11 work in both 2008 and 2009, and he was named one of “The 50 People Who Matter Today” by the New Statesman in 2009.

Mr. William Veale, attorney; graduated from University of Maryland Law School. Instructor of Criminal Trial Practice for 11 years at Boalt Hall School of Law, Berkeley; former Chief Assistant Public Defender, Contra Costa County, CA, where he had a 31-year career. Has worked for several years, through court appearances and his Vealetruth blog, to expose the facts about 9/11. He is serving pro bono as the legal spokesperson for the 9/11 Consensus Panel.

Elizabeth Woodworth, retired health sciences librarian and author of “’What Can I Do?’ Citizen Strategies for Nuclear Disarmament,” which was carried by UN bookstores, has been researching 9/11 evidence, editing books, and writing articles on the topic since 2006. She is co-founder and Coordinator of the 9/11 Consensus Panel.

Burchill continues:

The diverse knowledge and expertise of the panelists, and the methodology used, give this 9/11 Consensus Panel a high degree of distinction, integrity, authority and credibility.

This, along with the professional videos and documented references that accompany each of the 13 consensus points, provides the mainstream media with opportunity to confidently promote serious discussion, even challenge the official narrative, about this world-changing event with its continuing fallout.

One response to “Assessing 9/11 Evidence: A Reliable Source for a Media Under Pressure


    The 9/11 Solution: The Big Clue Everyone Missed
    The 9/11 Solution: The Big Clue Everyone Missed

    How the key 9/11 myths were implanted

    Two major 9/11 anomalies have been thoroughly documented, specifically:

    1) The stand down of US air defense on the morning of 9/11 that permitted commercial jet aircraft to fly erratically and in restricted air space without challenge

    2) Overwhelming physical evidence that World Trade Center buildings #1, #2, and #7 were brought down by controlled demolition

    A third significant anomaly has not been discussed, let alone acknowledged: the reporting by the major US TV news networks in the first hours few hours immediately after the attacks.


    1. MSNBC presented an elaborately detailed story about the lifestyle and anti-US philosophy of Osama bin Laden – while both towers were still burning and long before Bin Laden had been accused by anyone.

    2. Fox News featured a “man in the street” eye witness who explained in strangely formal language the science behind why the towers collapsed when most engineers and firemen were utterly baffled and in shock by what had just taken place.

    3. CBS featured a Bush administration insider (and not identified as such) as a guest who actively worked to dissuade Dan Rather (and viewers) from speculating that there must have been explosive charges placed in the buildings for them to have collapsed the way they did.

    How was it that these stories – based on no fact, no research and no inquirry – appeared in full blown form so quickly on US news networks and then became part of the core myths of what happened on 9/11?

    Were these stories prepared in advance?

    There’s an old intelligence saying that “once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, but three times is enemy action.”

    Because most of these clips ran only once and were not repeated after they’d done their job, it made it difficult, if not impossible, for viewers to analyze them critically.

    Now, thanks to the magic of video tape and a few people who immediately started taping the news after the attacks, we have this important evidence that at the very least these attacks appear to have been anticipated and prepared for by forces that have the ability to exert strong influence over the output of the newsrooms of major US news networks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s