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.


Dr. David Ray Griffin is co-founder (along with Elizabeth Woodworth) of the 9/11 Consensus Panel, which was established in 2011.

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.”

The article has been posted online under the title David Ray Griffin Examines 911 and Global Warming, and is also available as a downloadable pdf on this website.


Nueva York, Setiembre 9 de 2015 – Catorce años después de los eventos del 11-S que cambiaron el mundo, surge nueva evidencia refutando la historia oficial desenterrada por un Panel de 23 investigadores.

En esa fecha el Panel de Consenso para el 11-S dio a conocer dos nuevos Puntos de Consenso presentando evidencia de conocimiento oficial previo sobre los ataques.

El primer Punto trata sobre “Able Danger (Peligro Posible)”, nombre del código utilizado para una operación de inteligencia de alto nivel co-fundada por los Generales Hugh Shelton y Peter Schoomaker, Comandantes en Jefe de las Operaciones Comando de los Departamentos Especiales de Defensa (SOCOM).

“Peligro Posible” indicaba que el hombre identificado como “Mohamed Atta” se encontraba en Estados Unidos desde Enero-Febrero de 2.000, 18 meses antes de los ataques del 11-S, mientras que la historia oficial afirmó que arribó en Junio de 2.000.

Oficialmente se dice que la Inteligencia de Estados Unidos no sabía que Atta estaba en el país antes del 11-S, mientras que este brazo vital de la Inteligencia Estadounidense supo de su presencia desde Enero-Febrero de 2000.

Sin Embargo: la evidencia de “Peligro Posible” fue repetidamente ignorada por los oficiales gubernamentales antes de los ataques del 11-S; luego la Comisión del 11-S evitó mencionar esa evidencia; y el Inspector de los Departamentos de la Defensa, General Later, encubrió este hecho.

Luis Freeh, Ex-Director del FBI afirma que esta evidencia no era históricamente significante “sorprendentemente”.

El segundo Punto de Consenso revela que el ataque al Pentágono era aguardado en varios cuarteles antes del evento. Varios ejercicios militares pre-11-S involucrando aviones volando al Pentágono sugieren que semejante ataque no fue inesperado

Adicionalmente, reportes de noticias contenían advertencias de fuentes de seguridad al Pentágono y a otros oficiales para que no volaran el 11-S.

En la mañana del 11-S, el Secretario de Defensa Donald Rumsfeld predijo el ataque al Pentágono. En su oficina, mientras miraba la cobertura televisiva de Nueva York dijo: “Créanme, esto no está terminado. Va a producirse otro ataque y podemos ser nosotros”.

Mientras tanto, a minutos del ataque, y en medio de “condiciones extremas de congestión de tránsito” se reportó que el FBI llegaba al lugar para confiscar las grabaciones de video de las cámaras de seguridad que desde distintas ubicaciones enfocaban a la sección del Pentágono recién colisionada.

Jim Miklaszewski, corresponsal de la NBC en el Pentágono, fue advertido previamente por un oficial de inteligencia militar de EEUU, dijo según se reportó: “Estaré fuera del Círculo E (el círculo externo del Pentágono, donde se hallaba la oficina de la NBC) por el resto del día porque seguimos nosotros”.

Puntos anteriores sobre conocimiento previo de los hechos incluyen el colapso de la Torre 7, evidencias de uso de información privilegiada y los roles del Vicepresidente Dick Chenney y el Alcalde de Nueva York Rudy Giuliani.

El Panel emplea metodología usada en medicina para generar instancias de consenso de evidencia revisada disponible en temas específicos. Durante el proceso de evaluación las respuestas de los expertos se mantienen ocultas entre ellos a lo largo de tres ruedas de revisión y crítica.

En un periodo de cuatro años el Panel de Consenso publicó 46 puntos de evidencia refutando la historia oficial.

Fuente: The 9/11 Consensus Panel   @consensus911
Lista de Contacto: www.consensus911.org/es/contactos-para-los-medios … /
Correo: consensus911@gmail.com


Tower exploding, for Donald E. Stahl review by EMW 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?


D.R.GriffinMayo 21 de 2015, Santa Barbara

Una de las principales razones por la que escribí tanto sobre el 11 de Setiembre fue porque temía que la mentira oficial sobre los ataques instalada por la Administración Bush-Chenney conduciría a una guerra y obsesión sin fin con el “terrorismo”. Amén de ser horrible en si misma, esta guerra u obsesión distraerían a los Estados Unidos y al mundo en relación al tema primordial en que debiera focalizarse: el calentamiento global y los cambios climáticos que causa.

Desafortunadamente este temor se volvió realidad. Una absurda resultante fue que en días recientes mis libros sobre el 11-S se vendieron más que mi obra “Unprecedented: Can Civilization Survive the CO2 Crisis?

David Ray Griffin, Mayo 21 de 2015


Dr. MacQueen and Architect Bill Brinnier, Dec. 10 2014 Press Conference, Parliamentary Press GalleryComo consecuencia de la Conferencia de Prensa Parlamentaria de las tres organizaciones abajo mencionadas (Dic. 10, 2014), la Petición por el 11-S, que fuera recientemente presentada ante el Parlamento y que exige una profunda revisión del Reporte confeccionado por la Comisión del 11-S, tuvo cobertura nacional en la TV Global :

Peticionan al gobierno de Canadá revisar la evidencia del 11-S

La TV Global presenta al Panelista de Consenso del 11-S Dr. Graeme Mac Queen discutiendo los 44 Puntos del Panel de evidencia, confrontando el Reporte elaborado por la Comisión del 11- S.


Conferencia de Prensa, Miércoles 10 de diciembre, 11 AM,
Sala Charles Lynch, 130-S, Centro Block Parliament Hill, Ottawa.

Tres Organizaciones Profesionales Ofrecen Evidencia Basada en los testimonios
Como Ayuda Solidaria a las familias de las víctimas de los Norteamericanos.

Ottawa ON – El gobierno de Canadá tiene ahora una petición reclamando una profunda revisión Parlamentaria de las evidencias forenses en lo que respecta a los eventos del 11 de septiembre de 2001.

El proceso de peticionamiento parlamentario exige al gobierno una respuesta dentro de los 45 días calendario de presentada la petición.

La petición recientemente presentada por los ciudadanos a lo largo y lo ancho del Canadá está avalada por tres organizaciones de profesionales quienes recabaron información de las evidencias del 11-S durante años.

ReThink911.ca, con base en Otawa, hace hincapié en el rol imperecedero que les corresponde a los miembros de las familias Norteamericanas las que por respeto a las valiosas vidas perdidas y para honra de sus muertos reclaman hacer conocer la verdad por medio de una investigación independiente sobre el 11-S.

Arquitectos e Ingenieros para la Verdad del 11-S (ae911truth.org), Organización integrada por 2300 arquitectos e ingenieros que exigen una nueva investigación basada en la evidencia de demolición controlada. Esta organización produjo el detallado documental 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out (9/11 Evidencia Explosiva – Hablan Los Expertos)”, en el cual 40 técnicos y profesionales de la construcción explican sus conclusiones acerca de “la demolición controlada”. Este film se consagró como el video “más visto” a nivel nacional en PBS.org en septiembre de 2012, y se encuentra disponible en una versión de 15 minutos narrada por el actor Ed. Asner.

El Panel de Consenso 9/11 (consensus911.org): 24 miembros expertos de la organización internacional de tres años de antigüedad denominada “Panel de Consenso para el 9/11” han desarrollado 44 Puntos de Consenso sobre “evidencia revisada” confrontando el informe oficial del 11-S. Los panelistas encuestados permanecen a ciegas unos con otros a través de un riguroso proceso de revisión. Incluye su análisis las sorprendentes actividades de los militares y los líderes políticos ese día. El proceso de consenso ha sentado un descrédito sin precedentes en relación a puntos específicos de evidencia relacionada al 11-S.


drapeau_AllemandThe media has claimed for more than a decade that it is unable to evaluate the technical evidence being presented against the official story of 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/


Tod FletcherThomas (“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


Dr. David Ray Griffin9/11 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.



Black Box ImageNEW 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.

The 9/11 Consensus Panel joins such people as its Honorary Members, and more recently, 30-year career NSA official and whistleblower William Binney, in calling for a new investigation into 9/11.


Source:              The 9/11 Consensus Panel – @consensus911

Contact list:           www.consensus911.org/media-contacts/

Coordinator:     Elizabeth Woodworth, emwoodworth@gmail.com


“The Pentagon Attack In Context” with Tod Fletcher, on KFPA’s “Guns and Butter.”

Circular Hole in Pentagon Inner WallTod 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.


imagesHG6PVD28Junio 2, 2014 – Los 24 miembros del Panel de Consenso para el 11 S – que incluye físicos, químicos, ingenieros, pilotos comerciales, abogados y hombres de derecho, dieron a conocer hoy tres nuevos estudios que confirman la demolición controlada del edificio 7 del World Trade Center.
Los estudios refutan cientificamente la afirmación del Instituto Nacional de Stándares y Tecnología que, por primera vez en la historia el fuego causo el súbito y completo colapso de un enorme edificio con estructura de acero y con dispositivos contra incendios el 11 S.

(Nótese que mientras el Panel de Consenso utiliza metodología científica verificada por pares, el Reporte del INST carece de revisión por pares.)

El primer estudio del Panel aborda las simulaciones computarizadas del INST, que pretenden demostrar que una expansión térmica inducida por el fuego causó el desplazamiento de una viga en la Columna 79, iniciando en consecuencia el colapso global de todo el edificio de 47 pisos a las 5:21 de la tarde.

De todas formas, atento a una reciente solicitud de FOIA se realizaron dibujos arquitectónicos evidenciando que las simulaciones del INST omiten la estructura básica de soporte que hubiera hecho imposible el desplazamiento de esa viga.

El Segundo estudio del Panel de Consenso involucra la afirmación del INST de que no se recuperó acero alguno de esta masiva estructura metálica del rascacielo.

Esto es extraordinario, dado la necesidad de entender porqué por primera vez en la historia un edificio con estructura de acero hubo de colapsar completamente solo por el fuego y a los efectos de prevenir una recurrencia.

Ahora sabemos que se recuperaron fragmentos de acero. Fotografías encontradas recientemente por investigadores muestran una lámina de acero del WTC 7 extrañamente enroscada y un investigador del INST señalándola.

El tercer estudio del Panel muestra que el 11 de Setiembre de 2001, mucha gente fue informada horas antes que el edificio 7 del WTC iba a colapsar.
Ashleigh Banfield, reportero de MSNBC, dijo temprano en la tarde: “Escuché varios reportes de diferentes oficiales que ahora es este el edificio que se va a venir abajo a continuación”.

Muchos miembros del Departamento de Bomberos de Nueva York confidencialmente aguardaban que el edificio se viniera abajo :

El Bombero Thomas Donato dijo : “Estábamos parados, esperando al siete que se viniera abajo. Permanecimos allí en silencio un buen rato, un par de horas”.

El Asistente del Comisionado James Drury: “Debo haberme detenido allï. Había cientos de bomberos esperando–ellos estaban esperando que el 7 del World Trade Center se viniera abajo.”

El Jefe Thomas McCarthy: “Así que cuando llegué al puesto de comando, había una masiva concurrencia parada allí. Estaban esperando que el 7 se viniera abajo.”

Además, CNN y la BBC hicieron anuncios prematuros.

Este conocimiento de antemano corrobora la evidencia presentada previamente en los Puntos de Consenso (WTC7-1 to WTC7-5) de que el WTC edificio 7 fué derribado por demolición controlada.

Fuente: El Panel de Consenso para el 11 S consensus911@gmail.com @Consensus911

Lista de Contacto: http://www.consensus911.org/media-contacts/

Co-fundadores: David Ray Griffin, Elizabeth Woodworth


DutchFlagNoviember 26, 2013 — El Panel de Consenso para el 11 S se complace en anunciar la traducción al idioma Holandés de todo su sitio web, incluido los 37 Puntos de Consenso  desarrollados hasta la fecha

Tagged with:

JFK_UnspeakableNueva York, Noviembre 20 de 2013 – Este año, aniversario número 50 del asesinato de JFK, vio como Eduardo Snowden y Glenn Greenwald desnudaron con gran despliegue el “Estado Profundo” de generalizada ilegalidad con que se espía a ciudadanos de los Estados Unidos y sus aliados.

El conocimiento público de estos “Crímenes de Estado contra la Democracia” significa un cambio de juego que habilita tanto la reapertura del pasado como del presente.
Para honrar la vida de JFK, el Panel de Consenso para el 11 S destaca el trabajo de los eruditos que meticulosamente exponen el encubrimiento por parte de la Comisión Warren del crimen de estado en el asesinato de JFK.

Oliver Stone escribió :

“JFK y lo Indecible : Porqué Murió y Porqué importa” de James W. Douglass :
“Es el mejor relato que he leido de esta tragedia … .merece la atención de todos los Americanos; es uno de esos raros libros que facilitando la comprensión de nuestra historia, tiene a la vez el poder para cambiarla”

James Douglass, cuyo trabajo con lo “indecible” nos ayuda a comprender la despiadada naturaleza de este “Estado Profundo”, escribió :

“Dallas sentó las bases para el 11 S. Si entiendes el asesinato de JFK, entenderás todo- incluyendo la obvia verdad de que los edificios no ‘se cayeron simplemente’ de la forma en que señaló el Gobierno de los EEUU. La Historia de JFK es una lupa de la verdad a través de la cual podemos observar nuestro mundo y como cambiarlo”.

El erudito en JFK Craig Ciccone compara los eventos:

“Cuanto más profundizo en el 11 S, más me enfermo. Las similaritudes entre ambos casos – tanto de los eventos actuales como de la investigación oficial– meten miedo. Como en el caso de JFK, el 11 S alardéa de una descarada ignorancia de las leyes de la física y la aerodinamia; de la destrucción de evidencia; de innumerables intentos para adecuar dicha evidencia a una historia predeterminada; de la existencia de incontestables conflictos de intereses por parte de quienes instruyeron la investigación ; y de una disparatada manipulación tanto de los testigos visuales como auditivos”

En el mismo sentido el erudito Dr. David Ray Griffin devela que 38 años después el “Estado Profundo” o permitió que pase o fué el causante del 11 S.

El Reporte de la Comisión del 11S (descripto por la Revista Harper’s como una “fachada” que defrauda a la nación ) forzó un encubrimiento que fué ruidosamente refutado por numerosos estudios de ingeniería, física y química revisado por pares.

El 2013, asistió también al lanzamiento del emblemático y acabado documental de Mázzimo Mazzuco, repleto de testimonios presenciales del 11 S, que ahora se une al clásico de ingeniería “9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out (Hablan Los Expertos)”.

La evidencia revisada por pares de los 23 miembros del Panel de Consenso para el 11 S está disponible en Alemán, Español, Italiano, Francés e Inglés.

Fuente :       Panel de Consenso para el 11 S
Contacto:       consensus911(@)gmail.com


DulesAirportHabía alrededor de 300 cámaras de seguridad en el Aeropuerto Internacional de Dulles el 11 de setiembre de 2001, que retuvieron sus  imágenes por 30 días, siendo meticulosamente examinadas por sistemas de información computarizados y monitoreados por agentes federales. El gobierno de los Estados Unidos no liberó un solo video o imagen de estas 300 cámaras de seguridad.
Lea más…
(en inglès)


El Consenso para el 11 S se complace en darle la bienvenida a Fernando Imposimato como miembro Honorario. :

Consensus Panel PhotoEl Sr Ferdinando Imposimato es el Presidente Honorario de la Corte Suprema Italiana y Juez de instrucción retirado. Tuvo a su cargo la instrucción de varios casos relacionados al terrorismo, incluido el secuestro y asesinato del Primer Ministro Aldo Moro y el intento de asesinato al Papa Juan Pablo II. Fue Consultor Legal de Naciones Unidas. Ha declarado publicamente que el 11 S fue una operación de falsa bandera, recomendando su esclarecimiento en la Corte Criminal Internacional, creada para proteger al mundo de los actos criminales de guerra. Además es autor de los siguientes libros , “La Gran Mentira”, “Terrorismo Internacional”, y “Los 55 días que cambiarón a Italia” relacionado al caso de Aldo Moro.

Más información de los Miembros Honorarios del Consenso para el 11 S aqui.

Tagged with:

El 9/11 Consensus Panel se complace en dar la bienvenida a dos nuevos miembros:

Daniele Ganser, 2012-2Dr. Daniele Ganser, historiador Suizo, cabeza del Instituto Suizo para la Paz y la Investigación Enérgetica (SIPER) en Basilea, estudia la lucha global por el petróleo, la guerra encubierta, la guerra por recursos y su política económica. Enseña Historia y Sistemas Energéticos del Futuro en la Universidad de San Gallen (HSG) y Análisis del Conflicto en Relación a la Pelea Global por Petróleo, en la Universidad de Basilea.

Jonathan ColeJonathan Cole, Ingeniero Civil Profesional matriculado en Conn., Florida, y N.H., graduado en 1979, más de 28 años de trayectoria en construcción y gerenciamiento, incluido edificios, puentes, servicios públicos, infraestructura y diseño.


Más información acerca de los miembros del Grupo 11/9 Consenso aquí


El Consenso para el 11 S se complace en darle la bienvenida al Sr. James W. Douglass como Miembro Honorario :

Jim Douglass sized for consensus911El Sr. Douglas, es un Teólogo Cristiano activista por la paz, y autor de numerosa literatura, incluido “JFK y lo indecible ” y “Ghandi y lo innombrable”. Activista por la desobediencia civil hacia la Guerra de Vietnam, las Armas Atómicas y la Guerra de Iraq. El y su mujer Shelley son co-fundadores del Centro “Ground Zero” para la Acción No Violenta en Poulsbo, Washington, y de “La Casa de María”, hospedaje para trabajadores Católicos en Birmingham, Alabama. Su libro “JFK y lo indecible” fue descripto por Oliver Stone como “el mejor relato que leí sobre esta tragedia y su significado”.
Más información de los Miembros Honorarios del Consenso para el 11 S aqui.

Tagged with:

NXSMAG085 El número de Marzo-Abril de 2013 de la Revista Francesa, Nexus, incluye un artículo de 12 páginas con un Sumario de los 28 Puntos de Consenso del Panel de Consenso para el 9/11 elaborados a la fecha. Incluye una cobertura del Colapso de la Torre 7 del WTC, y una encuesta nacional organizada por la “Asociación Francesa para la Reapertura del 9/11” en ocasión del Décimo Aniversario de los eventos. El artículo fue escrito por el Periodista Kim-Anh Lim y se titula “11/9, Un Caso Cerrado ? ”
Nexus se vende en Kioscos de Revistas en Francia y está disponible en las salas de prensa de todo el mundo. El artículo puede estar disposición on line en la próxima publicación. Para obtener una copia del ejemplar, escribir a abonnement@nexus.fr

El archivo en PDF disponible aquí