By Elizabeth Woodworth
With polls consistently showing that approximately 50% of Canadians and Americans doubt the official story of 9/11, the feat of keeping the lid on a public debate for over 12 years has been nothing short of miraculous.
This article presents a simple case study showing that this miracle is being performed with the assistance of Google and YouTube search engine interference.
By The 9/11 Consensus Panel
Terror judge Ferdinando Imposimato joins 911 Consensus Panel
NEW YORK, June 8, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Amidst growing doubts about its origins, the tragedy of September 11, 2001, continues to fuel the war on terror.
Meanwhile, disturbing evidence long suppressed in the media is surfacing through the 24-member 9/11 Consensus Panel’s scientific review of official claims that 19 diminutive Muslim hijackers defeated America’s defenses.
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.
By Consensus 9/11
Factual Evidence Contradicts the 9/11 Story
The official account of the events of September 11, 2001, has been used:
- to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; which have resulted in the deaths of millions of people;
- to authorize torture, military tribunals, and extraordinary rendition; and
- to suspend freedoms guaranteed by the American Constitution such as habeas corpus in the USA, and similar freedoms in Canada, the UK, and other countries.
The official claims regarding 9/11 are contradicted by facts that have been validated by a scientific consensus process, and which include the following points of “best evidence”:
By 9/11 Consensus Panel
Dear Sen. Graham, Michael Moore, and Amy Goodman:
Regarding your discussions on Democracy Now, September 15th and September 29th, including “Michael Moore Backs Call to Re-Open Investigation of 9/11 Attacks,” – the “best evidence” formulated by the new 9/11 Consensus Panel may be helpful in your quest.