Flickr
Youtube
Facebook
Twitter
Es gibt leider keine Übersetzung.9/11 Consensus PanelBacks ReThink911 Global Ad CampaignSaturday, 06 July 2013 11:30
The purpose of the 9/11 Consensus Panel is to provide the world with a clear statement, based on expert independent opinion, of some of the “best evidence” that challenges the official narrative about 9/11. The “best evidence” related to 9/11 is founded on
On the Panel’s website, the Consensus Points are supported by a comprehensive list of documented references in the form of witness testimonies, media reports, technical publications, and scholarly books and articles. You can also read about the voting process that leads to the selection of each of the Consensus Points.
The March-April issue of the French journal Nexus, which appears on newsstands around France, carried a 12-page feature article on the 9/11 Consensus Points. In addition, the Panel’s May press release on the mysterious 9/11 phone calls was posted online in the Wall Street Journal and, in turn, was tweeted by actress Rosie O’Donnell to her 660,000 followers. 9/11 Consensus Panel MembersThe Panel membership has evolved over the course of two years. Currently, the Panel Members are Dr. Robert Bowman, former head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering at the U.S. 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. In 2008, Chandler 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. Jonathan Cole, Professional Civil Engineer with more than 28 years experience in civil engineering and construction management, including building, bridge, utility and infrastructure design. 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, MA, CPhil Geography, U.C. Berkeley; former geography and environmental science instructor at U.C. Berkeley, San Francesco State University, and Laney College. In 2010 and 2011, he hosted the weekly Internet radio show “9/11 In Context.” Dr. Daniele Ganser, Swiss historian. He heads the Swiss Institute for Peace and Energy Research (SIPER) in Basel and studies the global struggle for oil, covert warfare, resource wars and economic policy. Lt Col David Gapp, U.S. Air Force (retired) pilot with 3000 flying hours, 31 years in the USAF; qualified aircraft accident investigator; former President, Aircraft Accident Board; Chief of the USAF’s Theatre Security Cooperation programs for all of Central and South America. 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 Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal in 2009. Dr. Steven E. Jones, former Professor of Physics at Brigham Young University; conducted research for the peer-reviewed paper, “Active Thermitic Material Observed in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” published in the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal. Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy (retired) fighter pilot. For 27 years, he was a commercial airline pilot for two major carriers, with 23,000 hours of total flying time. Dr. Graeme MacQueen, Associate Professor (retired) in the Department of Religious Studies at McMaster University in Canada, and former Director of McMaster’s Centre for Peace Studies. His 9/11 research includes four peer-reviewed articles. Massimo Mazzucco, award-winning filmmaker, screenwriter, and journalist; Editor of luogocomune.net. 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. Dennis P. McMahon, attorney at law (and the author of this article). In 2009, he represented the 9/11 family members in Burke v McSweeney as part of the NYC CAN petition effort to have New York City voters decide whether the city should have its own 9/11 investigation. Aidan Monaghan, researcher who pursues Freedom of Information records on 9/11. Government 9/11 records he has obtained have been reported by the Beacon News Online of the Sun-Times News Group, KLAV AM in Las Vegas, NV, the documentary “Loose Change: An American Coup,” and several books. Rowland Morgan, independent British journalist and co-author of 9/11 Revealed. In the 1990s, he was a weekly columnist for the London Independent on Sunday and the Guardian. Frances Shure, Licensed Professional Counselor specializing in depth psychology; adjunct instructor at Naropa University; Co-founder of Colorado 9/11 Visibility. She is listed with Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth. Lou Stolzenberg, retired Physical Therapist; coordinator for Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth. 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. Daniel Sunjata, American actor in film, television, and theater, including major roles in The Dark Knight Rises, Law And Order: SVU, and All My Children. Starred in Tony award-winning Broadway play, Take Me Out. Also featured in the TV series Rescue Me, where a sub-plot included 9/11 as a “false-flag” operation, and narrated Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup. Currently stars in TV series Graceland on the USA Network. William Veale, former Chief Assistant Public Defender, Contra Costa County, CA, where he had a 31-year career. Veale has worked for several years, through court appearances and his Vealetruth blog, to expose the facts about 9/11. He serves pro bono as the legal spokesperson for the 9/11 Consensus Panel, in addition to his role as a voting Panelist. Dr. Matthew Witt, Associate Professor of Public Administration at the University of La Verne, CA. Since 2008, he has published work regarding State Crimes Against Democracy (SCADs) with Dr. Lance deHaven-Smith and other scholars. Dr. Jonathan B. Weisbuch, MD, MPH, formerly Chief Health Officer, Maricopa County, AZ; Medical Director, L.A. County Dept. of Health Services; Director, Wyoming Department of Health and Social Services; President of the American Association of Public Health Physicians (AAPHP).
The Panel’s honorary members areJames W. Douglass, Christian theologian and peace activist; best-selling author of many books, including JFK and the Unspeakable and Gandhi and the Unspeakable. Ferdinando Imposimato, Honorary President of the Italian Supreme Court; former Italian senior investigative judge; former legal consultant to the United Nations. He presided over several terrorism-related cases, including the kidnapping and assassination of President Aldo Moro and the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II. Mr. Mathieu Kassovitz, French director, screenwriter, producer, and actor who has won several awards for his films, including the Best Director award at the Cannes Film Festival for La Haine. Dr. Lynn Margulis (March 5, 1938 – November 22, 2011). The late Dr. Margulis was a Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geosciences at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. She was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1983, and received from President Clinton the Presidential Medal of Science in 1999. The Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., announced in 1998 that it will permanently archive her papers. The Rt. Hon. Michael Meacher, MP, British Parliament; Minister of State for the Environment from May 1997 to June 2003. William F. Pepper, English Barrister; Attorney at Law in the United States, specializing in international human rights. He represented the family of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in a 1999 civil case that revealed a conspiracy behind King’s assassination and exonerated King’s alleged murderer, the late James Earl Ray. Andreas von Bülow, German writer, lawyer, and politician. He served for 25 years in the German parliament and was State-secretary in the German Federal Ministry of Defense (1976–1980) and Minister of Research and Technology (1980–1982) under the administration of Chancellor Helmut Schmidt.
How the 9/11 Consensus Panel Was FormedElizabeth Woodworth, a Canadian-based writer who serves as the Panel’s Coordinator, and acclaimed 9/11 author Dr. David Ray Griffin came up with the idea to form the 9/11 Consensus Panel and worked on the details for a year before putting a plan into action. While covering a broad spectrum of the issues surrounding 9/11, the Panel necessarily focuses on a significant number of topics directly related to the mission of AE911Truth. Woodworth said that when she and Griffin were considering the idea for creating the Panel, Griffin was also involved in encouraging many of the professional 9/11 groups to organize themselves. He thought of forming an umbrella organization of groups that would together promote the truth about 9/11, Woodworth said. “About that time, Veale suggested that the Movement would benefit from a group that had a legal spokesman as a mouthpiece for a united organization,” Woodworth explained. It was then that Woodworth spoke to a former public health colleague who suggested using a consensus model that is used to generate medical consensus statements to guide medical practice. Her colleague recommended that she use the Delphi method, which medical review groups use to remain blind to one another during the reviewing evaluation process. Woodworth and Griffin met with Veale to discuss the idea of the Consensus Panel. “David and I started drafting Consensus Points,” Woodworth said. “We used a test group of 4–5 people for the first set of points, back in the spring of 2011. Then we invited 20 select individuals to become the first Consensus Panel members, and we sent them a kit of materials so they would understand the blind process and the general procedure the Panel follows.” Woodworth told us that many of the Points have been developed from the research that Griffin has done for his books. “David’s logic and point construction have been vital to gaining consensus,” she explained. “Some points have been based on my own original research of new documents coming out of scribd.com, and some have come from other Panel Members. But the one thing that all Points must be is capable of achieving consensus. We avoid controversies.” “The 9/11 Consensus Panel looks with a microscope at those roots to give the media a serious starting point for serious discussions of this world-changing event.” – Frances Shure, MA “We selected the Panel Members to represent a spectrum of expertise within the 9/11 Truth movement, Woodworth continued. “We recruited seven PhD’s, three attorneys, four journalists, several commercial pilots, and a couple of ex-NASA people from a spectrum of disciplines. And now we have Jon Cole, an engineer, and Daniele Ganser, a historian.” Woodworth pointed out that not everyone is comfortable with evaluating Points outside of his/her expertise. “Sometimes people abstain, which is fine. Everyone understands that the Panel will not publish Points that have not been rated highly by 85% of the Panel.” The Honorary Members help to make the Panel more robust. “We have recruited Honorary Members to give weight to the quality and importance of our work, and are very pleased to have the support of these people, and will invite more as we go along,” Woodworth said.
9/11 Consensus Panel’s Alignment with AE911TruthWhile covering a broad spectrum of the issues surrounding 9/11, the Panel necessarily focuses on a significant number of topics directly related to the mission of AE911Truth. Eight of the Panel’s current 32 Consensus Points (25%) relate to the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers on September 11, 2001. A synopsis of these points follows. The complete Points – with extensive documentation – can be found in the Consensus Points. 1. A Claim about the Destruction of the Twin Towers The Official Account: The Twin Towers were brought down by airplane impacts, jet fuel, and office fires. The Best Evidence: Experience, based on physical observation and scientific knowledge, shows that office fires, even with the aid of jet fuel, could not have reached temperatures greater than 1800 degrees Fahrenheit (1000 degrees Celsius). But multiple scientific reports show that metals in the Twin Towers melted. These metals included steel, iron, and molybdenum – which normally do not melt until they reach 2700°F (1482°C), 2800°F (1538° C), and 4753°F (2623°C), respectively. 2. A Claim about the Destruction of the Twin Towers: Impact, Fire, and Gravity Only
The Best Evidence: During the destruction of the Twin Towers, huge sections of the perimeter steel columns, weighing many tons, were ejected horizontally as far as 500 to 600 feet, as seen in multiple photographs and maps. These high-speed ejections of heavy structural members cannot be explained by the fires, the pull of gravity, or the airplane impacts (which had occurred about an hour earlier). Human bone fragments approximately 1 cm long were found in abundance on the roof of the Deutsche Bank following the Towers’ destruction, which further points to the use of explosives. Pancaking or tamping of floors from above would tend to trap bodies, not hurl splintered bones over 500 feet horizontally. 3. A Claim Excluding Explosions in the Twin Towers The Official Account: The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) wrote as if no one – including members of the Fire Department of New York – gave evidence of explosions in the Twin Towers. The Best Evidence: Over 100 of the roughly 500 members of the FDNY who were at the site that day reported what they described as explosions in the Twin Towers. Similar reports were given by journalists, police officers, and WTC employees. 4. A Second Claim Excluding Explosives in the Twin Towers The Official Account: On 9/11, the Twin Towers came down because of damage produced by the impact of the planes combined with fires ignited by the jet fuel. After burning for 101 and 56 minutes, respectively, the North and South Towers came down rapidly but without the aid of explosives. The Best Evidence: The Twin Towers were built to withstand the impacts of airliners having approximately the size and speed of those that struck them. And office fires, even if fed by jet fuel (which is essentially kerosene), could not have weakened the steel structure of these buildings sufficiently to collapse as suddenly as they did. Only the top sections of these buildings were damaged by the impacts and the resulting fires, whereas their steel structures, which were much heavier towards the base, were like pyramids in terms of strength. So the official account, which ruled out explosives, cannot explain why these buildings completely collapsed. 5. The Claim that the World Trade Center Dust Contained No Thermitic Materials
The Best Evidence: Un-reacted nanothermitic material, which can be tailored to behave as an incendiary (like ordinary thermite) or as an explosive, was found in four independently collected samples of the WTC dust as reported in the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal. 6. The Claim that WTC 7 Collapsed from Fire Alone The Official Account: NIST originally suggested that WTC 7 was brought down by structural damage combined with a raging fire fed by diesel fuel. However, in its 2008 Final Report, NIST declared that neither diesel fuel nor structural damage played a role in this building’s collapse, and that this building, which was not struck by a plane, was brought down by fire alone. The Best Evidence: Before or after 9/11, no steel-frame high-rise building had ever collapsed due to fire. If fire were to cause such a building to collapse, the onset would be gradual, whereas the videos show that WTC 7, after being completely stable, suddenly came down in virtual free fall. This building’s straight-down, mostly symmetrical collapse, with the roofline remaining essentially horizontal, shows that all 82 of WTC 7’s support columns had been eliminated by the time the top started to move down. 7. The Claim in NIST’s Draft Report that WTC 7 Did Not Come Down at Free-Fall Acceleration
The Best Evidence: Scientific analysis by mathematician David Chandler shows that WTC 7 came down in absolute free fall for a period of about 2.25 seconds. NIST’s Draft for Public Comment had been challenged by Chandler and Dr. Steven Jones in a public review, and NIST then re-analyzed the fall of WTC 7. In its Final Report, NIST provided a detailed analysis and graph that conceded that WTC 7 came down at free-fall acceleration for over 100 feet, or about 2.25 seconds, consistent with the findings of Chandler and Jones. 8. The Claim in NIST’s Final Report that WTC 7 Came Down in Free Fall Without Explosives The Official Account: In its Final Report on WTC 7, issued in November 2008, NIST finally acknowledged that WTC 7 had entered into free fall for more than two seconds. However, NIST continued to say that WTC 7 was brought down by fire, with no aid from explosives. The Best Evidence: Scientific analysis shows that a free-fall collapse of a steel-framed building could not be produced by fire, that is, without explosives (a fact that NIST’s lead investigator, Shyam Sunder, acknowledged in his discussions of NIST’s Draft Report for Public Comment in August 2008).
Why the 9/11 Consensus Panel’s Work is Important to 9/11 TruthWoodworth was kind enough to elicit comments for this article from Panel members, who wanted to comment on why they think the Panel is important to 9/11 Truth. Their statements follow. “If I can assist people in using their critical thinking skills in analyzing 9/11, and not just blindly trust what their government tells them to think, then my effort has been worthwhile.” – Lt Col David W. Gapp, USAF (Ret) “The 9/11 Truth Movement, consisting of members from across the political spectrum, is radical in that it attempts to expose the root cause of what has set our world on such a violently negative course. The 9/11 Consensus Panel looks with a microscope at those roots to give the media a serious starting point for serious discussions of this world changing event.” – Frances Shure “I serve the Consensus 9/11 inquiry because the incidents of September 11, 2001, were the crime of this century, for which there has been no inquiry of evidence that rises to the level of even the most basic forensic science. And so scientists, retired military personnel, artists and academic professionals have been pressed by conscience into service as [a] grand jury for vetting that evidence. I am honored to be among those called to serve.” – Matthew T. Witt “The apologists for the official story consistently pick up the weakest threads to use against us. Hopefully the Consensus Panel can bring our strongest lines of evidence to public view.” – David Chandler “September 11, 2001 was a watershed event for the USA. The results of this tragic event are numerous – the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the list goes on and on. None of it is good for the people of America. We see the bumper stickers “9/11 we will never forget.” That is a very true statement. However, I think it is critically important to have the facts in line with the story. Currently, we have to fit the facts to the story, and it is not a good fit. As we try to discover the facts, and throw out the fiction (official story), then we can get to the truth as to what really happened. Only with the real truth of what happened on that horrible day, will we be able to come to grips with the tragedy and to heal. It is very difficult to heal from a fabricated story that has caused more death, destruction, and damage than our healing from discovering the truth [would cause]. When we find the truth, then we can actually do something productive to prevent another event.” – Ralph Kolstad “[It’s] important to have objective assessment of 9/11 evidence, given that the official explanations have been widely erroneous, and apparently not based on evidence. Important because the official erroneous explanations have been such a major factor in justifying the wars in the Middle East and clamp down on personal liberties in the U.S. [Being a Panel member is] worth my time because of the intellectual intrigue that comes with trying to find fault in a proposed reasoning which ties together a set of possibly related evidence.” – Dwain Deets “My work on the 9/11 Consensus Panel gives me a chance to use my expertise as a military fighter pilot and accident investigator to show people that have an interest in investigating the events of 9/11 that the U.S. government’s version of what happened that sad day is full of inconsistencies and highly improbable actions. Average citizens around the world are pretty smart – and realize that their government often has a different agenda than what is public. If I can assist people in using their critical thinking skills in analyzing 9/11, and not just blindly trust what their government tells them to think, then my effort has been worthwhile.” – Lt Col David W. Gapp, USAF (Ret) “The 9/11 Truth Movement is a movement, not a top-down organization. It is clear that something is terribly wrong with the official story of 9/11, but the alternative scenarios are diverse and not of equal credibility. A few of the alternative threads are very strong indeed. It is important to single these out and focus our message because the apologists for the official story consistently pick up the weakest threads to use against us. Hopefully the Consensus Panel can bring our strongest lines of evidence to public view.” – David Chandler “Our Western civilization is doomed unless we confront the unanswered questions about 9/11…I contribute to this work because I am opposed to crime.” – Niels Harrit “Because so much of the official story with respect to the accused and their roles regarding the 9/11 flights is comprised of almost entirely unproven allegations, it’s important that history be provided with well researched alternatives to these claims.”– Aidan Monaghan
9/11 Consensus Panel’s Plan for the FutureWoodworth noted that the Panel is going to release videos in the near future that illustrate the evidence it has advanced. “We will be very careful in our selection of videos to make sure they do not make claims that we have not yet evaluated,” Woodworth stated. The possibility of expanding the Consensus Points is also being considered. “David and I have talked about going on to 50 Points or more, depending on how much emerges, and how long it takes to open things up some more,” Woodworth explained. “Also, we will be using the social media to bring our research into awareness for concerned people, as well as our reliance on paid press releases that go out to the mainstream media.” One thing that will not change is our focus on determining the best evidence regarding the 9/11 catastrophe and sharing this important information with the world – and that is why we hope that the ReThink911 campaign is a tremendous success. Every person that becomes aware of the need for a real 9/11 investigation has the potential to change the world for the better.
|
