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?
One of the main reasons I wrote so much about 9/11 is that I feared that the official lie about the attacks, told by the Bush-Cheney administration, would lead to endless war and preoccupation with “terrorism.” Besides being horrible in themselves, this war and preoccupation would distract the United States and the world in general from the issue on which they should be primarily focused: global warming and the climate change it causes.
Unfortunately, this fear has come true. One resulting absurdity is that, in recent days, my 9/11 books have been selling better than my “Unprecedented: Can Civilization Survive the CO2 Crisis?”
David Ray Griffin, 21 May 2015
As a result of the three-organization Parliamentary Press Conference below (Dec. 10, 2014), the 9/11 Petition, which has been recently tabled in Parliament and which calls for a review of The 9/11 Commission Report, received national coverage on Global TV:
Global TV covered 9/11 Consensus Panelist Dr. Graeme MacQueen discussing the Panel’s 44 Points of evidence against The 9/11 Commission Report.
|FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE||December 10, 2014|
Press Conference, Wednesday December 10, 11 AM, Charles Lynch Room, 130-S, Centre Block Parliament Hill, Ottawa
Three Professional Organizations Offer Evidence-Based 9/11 Statements As Helping Hand to Families of US Victims
Ottawa ON – The government of Canada now has a petition calling for a Parliamentary review of new forensic evidence regarding the events of September 11, 2001.
The parliamentary petition process requires the government to respond within 45 calendar days.
This petition was recently submitted by citizens across Canada, and is supported by three professional organizations who have been digging into 9/11 evidence for years.
ReThink911.ca, based in Ottawa, emphasizes the undying role of US family members in calling for an independent inquiry into 9/11. In honoring their dead, they want the truth to be known, and the value of those lost to it respected.
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (ae911truth.org), which has 2300 architects and engineers calling for a new investigation based on the evidence for controlled demolition. This organization produced the in-depth documentary “9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out,” in which 40 technical and building professionals explain their conclusion of “controlled demolition”. The film rose to “most watched” video nationally on PBS.org in September 2012, and is available in a 15-minute version narrated by actor Ed Asner.
The 9/11 Consensus Panel (consensus911.org): 24 expert members of the international three-year-old 9/11 Consensus Panel have developed 44 Consensus Points of “best evidence” opposing the official account of 9/11. The Panel respondents remain blind to one another throughout a rigorous reviewing process. Included in their studies are the surprising activities of the military and political leaders that day. The consensus process has yielded an unprecedented degree of credibility for specific points of evidence relating to 9/11.
A parallel problem existed in medicine during the years when there were contradictory, unranked approaches to diagnosis and treatment.
This problem was greatly reduced by the introduction of “evidence-based” medicine.
Using widely accepted rigorous reviewing methods, medicine has now developed hundreds of standard Consensus Statements to guide physicians worldwide in diagnosis and treatment.
Similarly, 24 expert members of the three-year-old 9/11 Consensus Panel have now developed 44 Consensus Points of “best evidence” opposing the official account of 9/11.
The respondents, who remained blind to one another throughout the process, have provided three rounds of review and feedback that has been refined into 44 Points of “Best Evidence”.
This scientific process has yielded an unprecedented degree of credibility for specific points of evidence relating to 9/11.
The German version of the 9/11 Consensus Website can be found at www.consensus911.org/de/
Thomas (“Tod”) Christopher Fletcher was born in Alameda County, California, February 27, 1952. In 1980, while at Berkeley, Tod married Susan Elizabeth Peabody, a graduate student and later a teacher of English Literature.
Tod enrolled in the Berkeley Masters program in Geography, where he completed his thesis in 1982 (“The Mono Basin in the Nineteenth Century: Discovery, Settlement, Land Use,” 1982).
He then worked for several years towards his doctorate and completed all but his dissertation. But then a chronic illness, known as hypersensitivity to the environment, with which Susan had become afflicted, became so bad that she became bedridden. Wanting to take care of her himself, he could search for teaching positions only close to home. He taught at UC Berkeley until funding for the university was slashed, after which he taught at some junior colleges.
Tod published a book, “Paiute, Prospector, Pioneer: A History of the Bodie-Mono Lake Area in the Nineteenth Century” (Artemisia Press, 1987). In 2014, he was invited to give a lecture about this book at a conference to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the historic decision to protect Mono Lake. When he explained that he would not be able to attend, because he could not leave Susan for such a long period, the organizers told him that if he wrote the lecture, they would read it aloud, and this worked out.
In the years before 9/11, Tod wrote articles about the ecological crisis and the anti-globalization movement. These can be found at the Daily Battle website under his name or that of Max Kolskegg, Will Guest, and I. Berg.
Having sensed earlier than most of us the falsity of the government’s explanation of what had happened on 9/11, he said: “I never fell for the official explanation. I’ve been researching and writing about 9/11 since 9/12.”
Tod first contacted me about 9/11 in 2005 or 2006 and wrote the first Amazon review of my “Christian Faith and the Truth behind 9/11,” which he called “Griffin’s Best Book on 9/11.” He then wrote Amazon reviews for all of my subsequent books, both those on 9/11 and those on other topics, all of which were excellent. For example, although he was not a philosophy major, he wrote one of the two best reviews of my “Unsnarling the World-Knot: Consciousness Freedom, and the Mind-Body Problem.”
He also volunteered to critique all of my essays and lectures, providing always-helpful suggestions for improvement. I first met him face to face a few years later, when we had a 2 or 3 hour conversation. I then met him again in 2011 when he participated in the conference in Claremont about my thought. There he presented a paper entitled “An Appreciation of Dr. David Ray Griffin’s Contribution to 9/11 Research,” which was then included in the resulting book, “Reason and Reenchantment: The Philosophical, Religious, and Political Thought of David Ray Griffin.” Although he normally would not do anything that required him to be away from home overnight, he made an exception in this case (which was possible then, before Susan’s illness had become so much worse). I greatly appreciated his making this exception.
In addition, after I decided following an illness in 2010 not to do more radio interviews, Tod, who had for awhile had his own radio show, helped to do many of the interviews that I had been invited to give.
Tod’s other projects included helping Fred Burks with PEERS and the Want To Know website; conducting interviews published on KPFA’s Guns and Butter program with Bonnie Faulkner; and writing essays for the Journal of 9/11 Studies and for the well-known news-site, Global Research, run by Canadian economist Michel Chossudovsky.
Since 2011, Tod has been a participant in the work of the panel for Consensus 9/11, which presents evidence contradicting the official account of 9/11. This September, the Consensus 9/11 website featured Tod’s recent KPFA interview, “The Pentagon Attack in Context.”
Many of us will miss Tod, I especially, as Tod, in addition to all his previous help, aided me the past 3 years working on a book on global warming (“Unprecedented: Can Civilization Survive the CO2 Crisis”), spending many hours a week on the task. Besides being a great proof-reader, he seemed to know almost everything. I was greatly looking forward to sending the book to Tod so that he could see the fruits of our labors in final form.
Tod’s final act was as selfless as the rest of his life. After 28 years of suffering, Susan’s hypersensitivity had escalated to an intolerable degree, as she was made sick by everything in her environment, including her own clothes. Being in agony all the time, Susan needed help to end her life, and Tod did not wish to live on without her.
With elegant simplicity, he wrote two other friends and me by regular mail, telling us that by the time the letters were received, he and Susan would be in a better place. Then on September 30, he took Susan to Point Reyes National Seashore, where they moved on together.
I will miss Tod terribly – as an assistant, a colleague, and a friend. He was one of the finest human beings I have been blessed to know.
October 7 , 2014
9/11 Consensus Panel Member Tod Fletcher has written an appreciation of Dr. David Ray Griffin’s massive contribution to the 9/11 truth community, “Championing Truth and Justice: Griffin on 9/11,” from the new book of essays, Reason and Reenchantment: The Philosophical, Religious, and Political Thought of David Ray Griffin (2014).
Dr. Griffin is co-founder and moderator of the 9/11 Consensus Panel, along with Elizabeth Woodworth, co-founder and coordinator of the Panel.
Mr. Fletcher’s essay is available online and provides a good history of both Dr. Griffin’s work, and the development of evidence-based knowledge in the 9/11 research community.
NEW YORK, September 10, 2014 – As disappearing airliners continue to dominate the headlines, new evidence is surfacing to negate official claims that the “black boxes” from the 9/11 planes were never found.
Firemen working at the Ground Zero in October 2001 claim to have found three of the four virtually indestructible boxes. The telltale flight recorder “pinging” had earlier been reported by the director of the New York State Emergency Management Office, and was confirmed by radio frequency detectors.
This information is presented by the 24-member 9/11 Consensus Panel, which uses a rigorous medical model to establish its evidence. The Panel has produced, over a three-year period, 44 peer-reviewed Consensus Points refuting official claims concerning the events of September 11, 2001.
Although 19 Muslim hijackers allegedly broke into the cockpits and commandeered four aircraft on 9/11, none of the eight pilots “squawked” the 7500 hijack code.
Nor is there any proof that the lost radar signals (which made NORAD interception difficult) resulted because alleged hijackers turned off the cockpit transponders.
This lack of proof is compounded by the fact that NORAD’s traditional procedures to intercept aircraft that deviate from course, or lose radar and radio contact, were not followed on 9/11.
Strangely, NORAD’s commander-in-chief, General Ralph Eberhart, had scheduled for the morning of 9/11 an unprecedented number of annual military air drills that involved most of the U.S. Air Force.
After being informed of the real-world attacks, Eberhart’s bewildering activities and decisions caused critical delays that led to an utterly failed military response.
His accounting of these delays, published in NORAD’s September 18, 2001, timeline, was reversed when he testified before the 9/11 Commission in 2003.
Further questions regarding official behavior arise in Point MC-10: “The Activities of NYC Mayor Giuliani on September 11, 2001.”
Giuliani told ABC’s Peter Jennings in the morning that while he and his Emergency Management team – who were in a building at 75 Barclay Street where they had set up temporary headquarters after the Twin Towers were struck – had been warned that the World Trade Center was going to collapse.
Giuliani failed to warn others of this notification. How he knew that the Twin Towers were going to collapse and why he did not pass this on requires intensive investigation under oath.
Source: The 9/11 Consensus Panel – @consensus911
Contact list: www.consensus911.org/media-contacts/
Coordinator: Elizabeth Woodworth, email@example.com
“The Pentagon Attack In Context” with Tod Fletcher, on KFPA’s “Guns and Butter.”
Tod Fletcher, one of 22 researchers on the 9/11 Consensus Panel, explains how the Consensus Panel works, and presents a contextual approach to analyzing events at the Pentagon, about which there has been a great deal of confusion.
Fletcher also discusses the lack of evidence to support the official claims regarding the hijacker story and the telephone calls from the planes. He then presents a cogent analysis of eyewitness reports, the physical debris, the photographic and video evidence, and the missing black boxes.
This evidence-packed interview, originally broadcast September 3, 2014 at 1:00 PM Pacific time, is now available online.
Editor’s Note: Although individual Panel Members may have their own views about what impacted the Pentagon, the 9/11 Consensus Panel has not yet undertaken a full 22-member review of this controversial subject.
The studies scientifically refute the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) claim that, for the first time in history, fire caused the sudden and complete collapse of a large, fire-protected, steel-framed building on 9/11.
The first Panel study deals with the NIST computer simulations, which purported to show that fire-induced thermal expansion caused a girder to be pushed off its seat at Column 79, thereby initiating a global collapse of the entire 47-storey building at 5:21 in the afternoon.
However, a recent FOIA request has produced WTC 7 architectural drawings showing that the NIST simulations omitted basic structural supports that would have made this girder failure impossible.
The second Consensus Panel study deals with NIST’s claim that it did not recover any steel from this massive steel-frame skyscraper.
This is extraordinary, given the need to understand why a steel-frame building would have completely collapsed for the first time in history from fire alone, and to thereby prevent a recurrence.
We know now that some of the steel was recovered. Photographs recently obtained by researchers show the strange curled-up paper-thin WTC 7 steel, with a NIST investigator pointing it out.
The third Panel study shows that on September 11, 2001, many people were told hours in advance that WTC 7 was going to collapse.
MSNBC reporter Ashleigh Banfield said early in the afternoon: “I’ve heard several reports from several different officers now that that is the building that is going to go down next.”
Many members of the New York Fire Department were confidently waiting for the building to come down:
Firefighter Thomas Donato: “We were standing, waiting for seven to come down. We were there for quite a while, a couple hours.”
Assistant Commissioner James Drury: “I must have lingered there. There were hundreds of firefighters waiting to — they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down.”
Chief Thomas McCarthy: “So when I get to the command post, they just had a flood of guys standing there. They were just waiting for 7 to come down.”
In addition, CNN and the BBC made premature announcements.
This foreknowledge corroborates the evidence presented in previous Consensus Points (WTC7-1 to WTC7-5) that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition.
Source: The 9/11 Consensus Panel firstname.lastname@example.org @Consensus911
Contact List: www.consensus911.org/media-contacts/
- Home (Latest News)
- 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
- Building WTC 7 ↓
- Point WTC7-1
- Point WTC7-2
- Point WTC7-3
- Point WTC7-4
- Point WTC7-5
- Point WTC7-6
- Point WTC7-7
- 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 ↓
- Phone Calls ↓
- Point PC-1
- Point PC-1A
- Point PC-2
- Point PC-3
- Point PC-4
- Video Evidence ↓
- Press Releases
- References, Evidence-Based
Donate to Consensus 911