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.
The 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. 
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.” 
“Well it did look like a movie. It looked like a movie poster. It looked like one of my movie posters.” 
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.  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.
Official 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.”  The Army’s Institute for Creative Technologies was the lead organization.  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”). 
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. 
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.  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. 
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  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.” 
The hypothesis became more or less official when it was adopted by the 9/11 Commission in its report on the attacks. 
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.” 
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.” 
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. 
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: 
- 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
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. 
- “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.” 
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.
“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) 
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. 
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.  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. 
The FDNY World Trade Center Task Force interviews give a lively sense of what it felt like to be trapped in this debris cloud. 
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)
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.  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.  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.  The comment by the FDNY’s Terranova, quoted earlier–“you wouldn’t expect debris to do that–” is an understatement.
We 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.
In the 1958 trailer for the B-movie, The Blob, film-goers are shown sitting in a theatre as a horror movie begins.  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.
“World Trade Center Task Force Interviews.” See note 18.
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.
“World Trade Center Task Force Interviews.” See note 18.
The earliest attempt I know of is by Jim Hoffman. See “The North Tower’s Dust Cloud: Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center, Version 3.1,” 9-11 Research, October 16, 2003.
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). Full references to Korol’s articles are given in Adnan Zuberi’s compilation accompanying “9/11 in the Academic Community: Academia’s Treatment of Critical Perspectives on 9/11—Documentary” [which is available on YouTube – editor’s note].
Trailer, The Blob, 1958, YouTube.
Images in this article are from the author.
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.
Title: Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World
Author: David Ray Griffin
Publisher: Olive Branch Pr (August 16, 2017)
NEW YORK, SEPTEMBER 10, 2016 – Italian film-maker Massimo Mazzucco, a member of the 9/11 Consensus Panel, has just released an elegant summary of his classic 5-hour 2013 documentary, September 11: The New Pearl Harbor.
Mazzucco writes, “The original film contains the entire history of the debate on 9/11, seen from both sides of the aisle – the 9/11 Truth Movement and the ‘Debunkers’ worldwide. This summary is intended only as an introduction to the complete film, and not as a stand-alone piece on 9/11.”
To show the quality of the original film, we include parts of a 2013 review by Dr. David Ray Griffin, co-founder of the 9/11 Consensus Panel:
For those of us who have been working on 9/11 for a long time, this is the film we have been waiting for.
Whereas there are excellent films treating the falsity of particular parts of the official account, such as the Twin Towers or WTC 7, Mazzucco has given us a comprehensive documentary treatment of 9/11, dealing with virtually all of the issues.
Because of his intent at completeness, Mazzucco has given us a 5-hour film. It is so fascinating and fast-paced that many will want to watch it in one sitting. But this is not necessary, as the film, which fills 3 DVDs, consists of 7 parts, each of which is divided into many short chapters.
These 7 parts treat Air Defence, The Hijackers, The Airplanes, The Pentagon, Flight 93, The Twin Towers, and Building 7. In each part, after presenting facts that contradict the official story, Mazzucco deals with the claims of the debunkers (meaning those who try to debunk the evidence provided by the 9/11 research community).
The Introduction, reflecting the film’s title, deals with 12 uncanny parallels between Pearl Harbor and September 11.
The film can educate people who know nothing about 9/11 (beyond the official story), those with a moderate amount of knowledge about the various problems with the official story, and even by experts. (I myself learned many things.)
Mazzucco points out that his film covers 12 years of public debate about 9/11. People who have been promoting 9/11 truth for many of these years will see that their labors have been well-rewarded: There is now a high-quality, carefully-documented film that dramatically shows the official story about 9/11 to be a fabrication through and through.
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.
The 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.
Elizabeth 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.
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.
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.
NEW YORK, June 15, 2016 – Fifteen years after the world-changing events of 9/11, new evidence refuting the official story continues to be unearthed by a Panel of 23 professional researchers.
Today the 9/11 Consensus Panel releases two new Consensus Points presenting further evidence of serious contradictions concerning the collapses of the South Tower and World Trade Center 7.
The first Point is titled, “The Claim of Widespread Infernos in the South Tower vs the FDNY Radio Transcript.”
The importance of this Consensus Point is that a little-known Fire Department of New York radio transcript unmistakably refutes the claim that there were widespread fires in World Trade Center 2 (the South Tower) the morning of 9/11.
The evidence of firefighter teams operating calmly, methodically, and with confidence that they could easily defeat the fires in the South Tower refutes the official claim that floors in the vicinity of the airplane strike were all “infernos,” and that the building was unstable and about to collapse.
The second new 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.
The statements of these two men support evidence presented elsewhere by the Consensus Panel showing that WTC 7 did not fall from fire alone but was brought down through demolition.
The Panel employs a methodology used in medicine to generate consensus statements of the best available evidence on specific topics. During the survey process, the expert respondents remain blind to one another through three rounds of revision and feedback.
Over a five-year period the Consensus Panel has published 48 Points of evidence refuting the official story.
|Source:||The 9/11 Consensus Panel @consensus911|
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:
- The Consensus Panel reviewed and published two new Consensus Points: one on Able Danger, and the other on foreknowledge of the Pentagon events.
- 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?”
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 Agoravox.fr, (awk) “one of the most prominent European examples of a citizen journalism site,” and is the 1,392 ranking website in France.
- 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.
- 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.
- Consensus911.org statistics for 2015:
- There were 314,000 visits to the website, involving 141,446 unique visitors (99% of last year’s figures).
- 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.
- 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.
Editor’s Note: We would like to draw the attention of our readers to this op-ed article by Dr. John Wyndham (PhD Physics, Cambridge), Coordinator of Scientists for 9/11 Truth. It was published in the Keene Sentinel, September 11, 2015.
Iranian deal opponents seek oil, not peace
Right wing war hawks want to torpedo President Obama’s Iran deal as part of their plan for war. This plan, a military takeover of the Middle East, has been in full public view for many years. Obama’s Iran deal, supported by the UK, France, China, Russia and Germany, would block the planned path to war. This plan made its most visible debut with the September 11, 2001 (9/11) false flag event, a.k.a the “New Pearl Harbor” envisaged by neoconservatives who supported the “Project for a New American Century (PNAC).” An incredulous public has been slow to catch on.
General Wesley Clark, a 2004 Presidential contender, explained the plan to Amy Goodman of Democracy Now in an interview on March 2, 2007. As related by Clark, some weeks after 9/11 when the US was bombing Afghanistan, an unnamed Pentagon general, a member of the Joint Staff who used to work for him, told Clark this: “ … we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”
Clark understood that oil was central to the Middle East wars. In a 2012 interview with Mike Gray, Clark “explicitly lays out the central role of oil in American military strategy” (Business Insider). Other notables who have pointed to oil as the main reason for the Iraq war include former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, former Senator and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and General John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq.
The PNAC’s goal was “to promote American global leadership,” a task likely to be a long one “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.” PNAC signatories include Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. According to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld “routinely handed out or recommended” Roberta Wohlstetter’s 1962 book, Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision in the months before 9/11.
During the 9/11 Pentagon attack Rumsfeld was photographed out on the Pentagon lawn helping to carry the wounded. Rumsfeld’s absence from his command post in the middle of the attacks supports the findings of thousands of highly-credentialed engineers, scientists, architects and scholars that the 9/11 “attacks” were a false flag operation carried out by elements in our own government and military together with support from foreign governments. Two bills in Congress, H. Res. 14 and S. 1471, aim to release from a Congressional inquiry the 28 redacted pages that point to foreign government involvement in 9/11.
From solid physical and eyewitness evidence, independent scientists have concluded that the Twin Towers and Building 7 (WTC7) in New York City were destroyed by explosives using some form of controlled demolition. The buildings were NOT destroyed by planes hitting them, and jet fuel and office fires. Almost 3000 innocent people died on 9/11 in NYC, more than a thousand exposed to the dust have already died, and thousands more (3,700 according to the NY Post, 08/09/15) are sick and dying from the toxic dust or powder. The powder consists of finely dispersed concrete, asbestos, glass, thermite and its by-products, and computer innards fragmented by explosive force.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) reports on the New York Towers’ destructions are fraudulent as shown by this author and others in a 2014 scientific paper published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). The IEEE is the largest organization of its kind with almost 500,000 members worldwide. The paper, Ethics and the Official Reports, can be seen at scientistsfor911truth.org. From the start, the Middle East wars have been driven by falsehoods.
US and Iran relations today are the direct outcome of the overthrow in 1953, by the CIA and British MI6 intelligence operatives, of Mohammad Mosaddegh, the democratically elected prime minister of Iran. Mosaddegh nationalized the Iranian oil industry which had been under British control since 1913. The Iraq war was based on lies about weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s), but, as later admitted, the real goal was oil. Iran, by some estimates, has more oil reserves than Iraq. Iran is also perceived as a threat to Israel whose influence in Congress, as witnessed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address (03/03/15) opposing Obama’s Iran deal, is substantial.
The same war advocates who led us into the Iraq quagmire now oppose Obama’s Iran deal. Their arguments are once again based on fear, a well-known technique for getting public support for wars. Six days after Netanyahu’s address, 47 Republican senators, including New Hampshire’s Kelly Ayotte, sent an email letter to the “Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” intended to derail American foreign policy and the Iran deal. These 47 senators seem to have an agenda of their own, distinct from the system of government established in the U.S. Constitution. This agenda appears to be foreign domination and resource acquisition through preemptive war.
The neoconservative plan for American hegemony in the Middle East with its vast Muslim population seems as unrealistic as Great Britain’s attempt to rule India with a few hundred thousand troops. These wars of aggression violate traditional international law and have cost many thousands of lives. We are now experiencing the blow-back from the US invasion of Iraq in the form of ISIS. With 32 million people in Iraq and 76 million in Iran, what will be the blow-back from a war with Iran? Can anyone in their right mind reasonably argue for war rather than diplomacy that may lead to peace and friendship? It is high time for Congress and the People to identify the forces driving us to war, bring them to a halt, and restore sanity, lawfulness and justice.
John D. Wyndham
Peterborough, NH 03458
Dr. John D. Wyndham is the Coordinator of Scientists for 9/11 Truth.
At that time, Griffin had written ten scholarly books on 9/11.
This year he has published a comprehensive new book on climate change: Unprecedented: Can Civilization Survive the CO2 Crisis? This complete field guide to the subject of climate change has been reviewed as “a great service to humanity.”
Griffin has just completed a new article, “9/11 and Global Warming: Are They Both False Conspiracy Theories?”
Concerning this article he writes:
“This essay is addressed to members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, who believe that the 9/11 attacks were a false-flag operation, orchestrated by the Bush-Cheney administration so as to appear to be an attack by Muslims. Some members of this movement believe that, given the way in which people have been deceived by the official account of 9/11, we should suspect that the global warming theory is another false conspiracy theory. I argue that the conclusion that the official account of 9/11 is false provides no reason to suspect the global warming theory to be another hoax. Written to challenge a view of some members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, this essay makes no effort to evaluate this movement’s beliefs.”
NEW YORK, September 9, 2015 – Fourteen years after the world-changing events of 9/11, new evidence refuting the official story continues to be unearthed by a Panel of 23 professional researchers.
Today the 9/11 Consensus Panel releases two new Consensus Points presenting evidence of official foreknowledge of the attacks.
The first Point deals with Able Danger, the code name for a high-level intelligence operation co-founded by Generals Hugh Shelton and Peter Schoomaker, Commanders in Chief of the Defence Department’s Special Operations Command (SOCOM).
Able Danger indicated that the man identified as “Mohamed Atta” had been in the United States in January-February 2000, about 18 months before the 9/11 attacks, whereas the official story said he arrived in June, 2000.
Officials also claimed that US intelligence didn’t know Atta was in the country before 9/11, whereas this vital arm of US intelligence knew he had been there since Jan-Feb, 2000.
Nevertheless: Able Danger’s evidence was consistently ignored by government officials before the attacks; the 9/11 Commission failed to mention its evidence afterwards; and the Defence Department’s Inspector General later covered this up.
Louis Freeh, the former director of the FBI, called the 9/11 Commission’s claim that this evidence was not historically significant “astounding.”
The second new Consensus Point shows that the attack on the Pentagon was expected in several quarters before the event. Several pre-911 military exercises involving planes flown into the Pentagon suggest that such an attack was not unexpected.
In addition, news reports contained warnings from security sources to Pentagon and other officials not to fly on September 11.
On the morning of 9/11, Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld predicted a Pentagon attack. In his office, as he watched the TV coverage from New York, he reportedly said: “Believe me, this isn’t over yet. There’s going to be another attack, and it could be us.”
Meanwhile, within minutes of the attack, and during “extremely congested traffic conditions,” the FBI was reportedly arriving to confiscate security camera videotapes from several locations that overlooked the section of the Pentagon that had just been hit.
NBC’s Pentagon correspondent, Jim Miklaszewski, was warned in advance by a US military intelligence official, who reportedly said, “I would stay off the E Ring [the outer ring of the Pentagon, where the NBC office was] for the rest of the day, because we’re next.”
The Panel employs a methodology used in medicine to generate consensus statements of the best available evidence on specific topics. During the survey process, the expert respondents remain blind to one another through three rounds of revision and feedback.
Over a four-year period the Consensus Panel has published 46 Points of evidence refuting the official story.
|Source:||The 9/11 Consensus Panel @consensus911|
Evolution of the 9/11 Controversy: From Conspiracy Theories to Conspiracy Photographs
Presented to the American Mensa Annual Gathering, Louisville, KY, July 3, 2015, by Donald E. Stahl
Review by Elizabeth Woodworth, co-founder, consensus911.org
This may well become recognized as a landmark article in the literature of 9/11.
Stahl places 9/11, “a story too big to cover” in the evolving context of Eisenhower’s “military industrial complex,” which has now grown into the “military-industrial-media-academic complex: MIMAC.”
The media has for some decades abandoned its traditional surveillance post by failing to question evidence of government conspiracies. Now academia has joined the media.
The academy has been so silent on the issue of 9/11 that those labeled “conspiracy theorists” may now be “considered more traditionally academic than the academicians.”
The result is that “conspiracists” (or “conspiracy theorists”) overwhelmingly talk about the issues, while conventionalists (or “coincidence theorists”) talk about those who talk about the issues; that is, they “report holders of beliefs and omit the reasons they hold them.”
Although both the government’s account and the accounts that deny it stipulate a conspiracy, it is only the side that thinks ill of the government that is branded a “conspiracy theorist” — as if it were a thoughtcrime needing to be criminalized by the government, as suggested by Cass Sunstein.
As the epitome of the disagreement, Stahl selects the contention that the Twin Towers were blown up or exploded (for which the government denies all evidence), versus the official account that they collapsed.
The spreadsheets and computer simulations backing the NIST Report of the “collapses” were afforded secrecy by new legislation (October 1, 2002) just as NIST was starting its investigation. The Director could withhold them if “public safety” was threatened.
Yet the stated purpose of the Report was to study “improvements in the way buildings are designed, constructed, maintained, and used.”
Asks Stahl: “If facts about building construction could jeopardize public safety, wouldn’t they be dangerous only if they weren’t known? Why keep them secret from the building industry?”
The secret computer simulations modeled only the narrowly defined collapse initiations and not the collapses themselves. Stahl ridicules as unhinged an examination that analyses a cause without studying its effects, asking, “How do you determine the cause of an event, if you do not look at the event?”
Then he moves towards sanity by simply looking at what visibly happened: the photographic evidence of the actual collapses deemed so irrelevant by NIST.
The photographs of the explosions are extraordinary. In this section Stahl decimates NIST’s artful use of the word “collapse” – which means something that loses integrity internally, contracts, and falls down — while pointing to photographs of the massive skyward ejections of beams, aluminum cladding and roiling clouds of dust that did anything but contract.
The obvious stares you in the face: “Collapses are down and in, and explosions are up and out.”
“Has there ever before been anything like this on Earth?” Stahl asks in reference to one of the photographs. “A skyscraper has turned into a dust fountain. This dust is not obscuring a building behind it. When it blows away, there is no building there. The dust is the building.”
It’s a crystal clear open-and-shut demonstration of how brazenly (and stupidly) NIST lied. But these lies cannot be subjected to legal discovery or FOIA requests. Their secret components may be released only at the discretion of one person (NIST’S Director).
This is outrageous, given that NIST is not in any way a security agency. It is a standards agency for the safety of public structures. The media, and indeed academia, should have been all over this fraudulent behavior from day one.
It’s not too late. Does a compelling and thoroughly documented presentation to a Mensa annual gathering qualify as being newsworthy?
- About us ↓
- What is “Best Evidence?”
- The 9/11 Consensus Points ↓
- General Points ↓
- Twin Towers ↓
- Point TT-1
- Point TT-2
- Point TT-3
- Point TT-4
- Point TT-5
- Point TT-6
- Point TT-7
- Point TT-8
- Point TT-9
- Building WTC 7 ↓
- Point WTC7-1
- Point WTC7-2
- Point WTC7-3
- Point WTC7-4
- Point WTC7-5
- Point WTC7-6
- Point WTC7-7
- Point WTC7-8
- Pentagon ↓
- Point Pent-1
- Point Pent-2
- Point Pent-3
- Point Pent-4
- Flights ↓
- Military Exercises ↓
- Military and Political Commands ↓
- Point MC-Intro
- Point MC-1
- Point MC-2
- Point MC-3
- Point MC-4
- Point MC-5
- Point MC-6
- Point MC-7
- Point MC-8
- Point MC-9
- Point MC-10
- Hijackers ↓
- Point H-1
- Point H-2
- Point H-3
- Point H-4
- Phone Calls ↓
- Point PC-1
- Point PC-1A
- Point PC-2
- Point PC-3
- Point PC-4
- Video Evidence ↓
- Archived News
- Press Releases
- References, Evidence-Based
search in current language:
Donate to Consensus 911