Notice: Use of undefined constant ROOT - assumed 'ROOT' in /home1/improba1/public_html/911truth/911_config.php on line 8

Notice: Use of undefined constant DB_BACKUPS - assumed 'DB_BACKUPS' in /home1/improba1/public_html/911truth/911_config.php on line 9

Notice: Use of undefined constant SITE_ROOT - assumed 'SITE_ROOT' in /home1/improba1/public_html/911truth/911_config.php on line 10

Notice: Use of undefined constant INCLUDES - assumed 'INCLUDES' in /home1/improba1/public_html/911truth/911_config.php on line 11

Notice: Use of undefined constant ADMIN - assumed 'ADMIN' in /home1/improba1/public_html/911truth/911_config.php on line 12

Notice: Use of undefined constant ADMIN_INC - assumed 'ADMIN_INC' in /home1/improba1/public_html/911truth/911_config.php on line 13

Notice: Use of undefined constant WEB_ROOT - assumed 'WEB_ROOT' in /home1/improba1/public_html/911truth/911_config.php on line 14

Notice: Use of undefined constant CSS - assumed 'CSS' in /home1/improba1/public_html/911truth/911_config.php on line 15

Notice: Use of undefined constant TITLE - assumed 'TITLE' in /home1/improba1/public_html/911truth/911_config.php on line 16

Notice: Use of undefined constant LIMIT - assumed 'LIMIT' in /home1/improba1/public_html/911truth/911_config.php on line 17

Notice: Use of undefined constant DB_HOST - assumed 'DB_HOST' in /home1/improba1/public_html/911truth/911_config.php on line 30

Notice: Use of undefined constant DB_NAME - assumed 'DB_NAME' in /home1/improba1/public_html/911truth/911_config.php on line 31

Notice: Use of undefined constant DB_USER - assumed 'DB_USER' in /home1/improba1/public_html/911truth/911_config.php on line 32

Notice: Use of undefined constant DB_PASSWORD - assumed 'DB_PASSWORD' in /home1/improba1/public_html/911truth/911_config.php on line 33
The 9/11 Consensus Panel -

Notice: Use of undefined constant DISCLAIMER - assumed 'DISCLAIMER' in /home1/improba1/public_html/911truth/includes/fair_social.php on line 3

Notice: Use of undefined constant FAIR_USE - assumed 'FAIR_USE' in /home1/improba1/public_html/911truth/includes/fair_social.php on line 10
The 9/11 Consensus Panel

by Brian A. Burchill
October 26, 2011
Foreign Policy Journal

There is a structured communication technique called the Delphi Method that draws upon the collective intelligence of a panel of experts to achieve consensus on an issue/theory/proposition. Wikipedia has a thorough explanation of the technique and some of its variations. Briefly, a facilitator provides a questionnaire to survey panelists on an issue, and then receives back the panelists' responses, judgments and reasons. The facilitator then sends all of these replies to all panelists, and each panelist is invited to revise their own response in light of the responses of the other expert panelists. This process is repeated until the range of answers converges on a single answer with an accepted degree of agreement (consensus).

Typically, the identity of each panelist is hidden from the other panelists, and the authorship of each response is also hidden. This procedure overcomes issues of group dynamics that can be impediments to true consensus, and encourages unfettered expression of opinion and critique. The Delphi method has been used successfully since the 1950s to advance knowledge in such fields as social policy, medicine, and science and technology.

A contentious issue, which has persisted for a decade now, is whether or not US Government's official narrative of the events of September 11, 2001, is substantially flawed. The 9/11 Commission was supposed to provide a thorough account of those events, but has failed to quell the debate. Even members of the Commission, including the Chair and Vice-Chair, have publicly criticized the Commission's proceedings and final report. According to Harry Levins, in his September 6, 2009 article in the St Louis Post-Dispatch, the Commission's senior counsel, John Farmer, stated that "what government and military officials had told Congress, the Commission, the media, and the public about who knew what when -- was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue." He also said that "At some level of the government, at some point in time ... there was a decision not to tell the truth about what happened... ."

To encourage further investigation of this issue, a Delphi survey of 22 expert panelists has been conducted regarding the "best evidence" that indicates flaws in the official narrative of 9/11. This Panel included professors of chemistry, physics, aeronautics, and engineering; air force and commercial pilots; journalists; authors and film makers; an aircraft accident investigator; a public health officer; a lawyer; and a politician. This multi-disciplinary team of professionals has achieved consensus on 13 points of this evidence, and the degree of consensus was at least 90%, which means that there is a high degree of certainty that that evidence truly does refute the official narrative.

The diverse knowledge and expertise of the panelists, and the methodology used, give this 9/11 Consensus Panel a high degree of distinction, integrity, authority and credibility. This, along with the professional videos and documented references that accompany each of the 13 consensus points, provides the mainstream media with opportunity to confidently promote serious discussion, even challenge the official narrative, about this world-changing event with its continuing fallout. The 13 Points developed by the Panel are available at

Brian A. Burchill is a Mechanical Engineer and Certified Traffic Accident Reconstructionist. He was a campaign manager in Canada's 1993 federal election, and was a candidate himself in the 1997 and 2000 federal elections. He currently manages a business that recycles scrap plastics into products. Read more articles by Brian A. Burchill.

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author, who is solely responsible for its content, and do not necessarily reflect those of will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.
Fair Use Notice
This page contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political issues relating to alternative views of the 9/11 events, etc. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.