Consensus 9/11: Challenging The Official Story

This week our guest is retired medical librarian Elizabeth Woodworth, who coordinates a newly formed panel calling itself “Consensus 9/11″ — which recently announced the release of statements constituting 13 Consensus Points challenging the official government account of the events of September 11, 2001. Co-chaired by Elizabeth and scholar David Ray Griffin, the points were produced using a version of a methodology designed to identify best evidence known as the Delphi method.

According to Woodworth, “The strength and credibility of the Delphi method is based on the fact that respondents are blind to one another through several rounds of review, during which feedback is continually refined until consensus is reached.” The Consensus 9/11 panel conducted “three survey rounds with 22 respondents, and reached an average consensus of 94% on 13 points of evidence that directly contradict the fundamental claims of the official account of September 11th.”

The survey points, backed by 81 literature references, include failures of the government to explain massive explosions in the Twin Towers reported by 100+ firefighters; the free fall collapse of the 47-story steel-frame WTC 7; pervasive high-tech nanothermite (an incendiary explosive) in the WTC dust; the horizontal ejections of huge sections of the towers as far as 600 feet; the airliner strike on the Pentagon by incompetent al-Qaeda pilot Hani Hanjour and the incongruous and unlikely story of Flight 93…

©2011 Lazarus Productions

Fair Use Notice: This post 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 environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, 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: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. 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