News Release: The 9/11 Consensus Panel


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

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

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

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

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:*

*Media Contacts:*