Assessing 9/11 Evidence: A Reliable Source for a Media Under Pressure

318

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 19, 2011 — Increasingly the media is having to deal with evidence emerging against the official story of the 9/11 attacks.

For example, on October 10th, the New York Times revised its earlier reports on the source of the anthrax spores used in the frightening attacks on members of the media and the Senate, following 9/11.

The letters carrying the spores seemingly originated from a Muslim hand, and the spores were considered by the FBI to be low-tech.

The longest investigation in the FBI’s history finally traced the spores to a deranged “lone-nut” working in the Fort Dietrick, Maryland, bioweapons laboratory.

The alleged culprit, Dr. Bruce Ivins, apparently committed suicide in 2008 following intensive FBI allegations against him, and the FBI closed the case.

However, it transpired that Dr. Ivins was a respected vaccine researcher with many publications to his credit, and a following of loyal colleagues.

An 18-month National Academy of Science investigation into the case has recently found that the weaponized spores were far too high-tech for one person to have made, and is suggesting a new investigation to replace the inadequate FBI account.

In a different news story, on October 17th, Britain’s BBC’s Today Programme interviewed FBI whistleblower Ali Soufan,

Soufan revealed — as had White House former anti-terror chief Richard Clarke some weeks before him — that the CIA deliberately blocked FBI warnings of impending hijacker attacks — warnings that could have prevented the attacks.

These press reports lean towards evidence of domestic complicity in the attacks, long believed by independent researchers. But some pundits say that journalists are not qualified to challenge the government’s technical reports on the building collapses and the Pentagon attack — that expert opinion must be engaged if these reports are to be meaningfully challenged.

Such opinion is now available from the new 9/11 Consensus Panel, an international body of 21 experts in physics, engineering, chemistry, and other disciplines.

The Panel, in reviewing the evidence, selected the Delphi Method, which is used by medical panels to develop consensus statements that guide doctors towards “best-evidence” state-of-the-art treatment guidelines.

In a Delphi study, proposed statements are mailed to recipients who remain blind to one another and who rank and provide feedback on the statements being considered. When successive rounds of feedback have refined a statement to a high level of consensus, the statement is considered to be the “best evidence” on that topic.

The 9/11 Consensus Panel’s 21 experts spent nearly a year developing its first group of 13 Consensus Points of evidence relating to the official account of the events of September 11, 2001.

The Points achieved consensus of 90-100%, and are available at consensus911.org.

This truth is not a conspiracy theory or the speculation of uninformed people.

It is scientifically derived evidence and offers the media the confidence it needs to address the expanding cracks in the 9/11 narrative — which don’t seem likely to go away soon.

Source: The 9/11 Consensus Panel

Coordinator’s email: consensus911 [at} gmail {dot) com

Media Contacts: http://www.consensus911.org/media-contacts/

 

 

Previous articleCommander Who Pepper-Sprayed Protesters Faces Disciplinary Charge
Next articleSummary: London SCADs Conference, held October 15, 2011

Since 2004, 911Truth.Org has educated the public about the suppressed realities of the September 11 attacks.

We worked with the 9/11 Families to pressure the Bush administration to convene an investigation into the deadliest attacks on US soil since Pearl Harbor. We attended many of the commission hearings and questioned commissioners and bird-dogged elected officials to get answers to the Unanswered Questions that remain so to this day.

We reported the contradictions, lies and omissions on the public record. 911Truth.Org staff have given hundreds of interviews on radio and mainstream network TV.

We cover a wide range of 9/11-related issues in publishing academic papers, original research, and opinion pieces.

We wish to thank our donors who have kept us on the web since 2004! We appreciate your continued support!

We continue to update the website to make the nearly 3000 articles easier to find, read and share. Thanks for visiting us!