The 9/11 Consensus Panel
The 9/11 Consensus Panel is an initiative led by prominent 9/11 truth activists David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth. An impressive roster of experts from many different areas relevant to the 9/11 event was assembled to form the panel, which includes such figures as:
- Dr. Robert Bowman, former head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering at the US Air Force Institute of Technology, and the Director of Advanced Space Programs Development (“Star Wars”) under Presidents Ford and Carter;
- Giulietto Chiesa, Italian journalist serving 19 years as Moscow correspondent, former member of the European Parliament and Fellow of the Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies; and
- Dwain Deets, former Director for Research Engineering and Aerospace Projects at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award and inclusion in “Who’s Who in Science and Engineering.”
The full 23-member panel can be viewed here. The 9/11 Consensus Panel’s Twitter account can be viewed here.
The aim of this panel was to assemble the “best evidence” disproving each major claim made in the 9/11 Commission Report. This was done using a Delphi medical model, in which each piece of evidence considered was sent to each panel member independently for approval. If at least 90% of the panel approved any given piece of evidence, it was considered “best evidence” and listed on their website, consensus911.org, and in their recently published book 9/11 Unmasked: An International Panel Review Investigation, available from the publishers’ website, Amazon, and Amazon UK. Please note that many people ordering this book from Amazon have encountered difficulties and extremely long shipping times, myself included – see “Amazon Censorship of 9/11 Unmasked?” by Professor Edward Curtin. Note also that all of the information in 9/11 Unmasked is also available for free on their website, consensus911.org.
No attempt was made within this project to determine such difficult questions as “who did 9/11?”; rather, they have gone through each major claim made by the 9/11 Commission Report to make the best possible argument against it, using only the most credible sources available. For example: the claim in NIST’s final report that WTC 7 came down in free fall without explosives.
This book has made quite an impact since its publication on September 11, 2018. James Douglass, author the critically acclaimed and highly censored book JFK and the Unspeakable, is an honorary Panel member. His endorsement, printed on the back of the book, reads:
“Contemplate the truth of the gigantic criminal hoax which has betrayed the US and the world.”
JFK and the Unspeakable has itself been endorsed by such figures as Daniel Ellsberg, leaker of the Pentagon Papers, Marcus Raskin, JFK’s top nuclear advisor and co-founder for the Institute for Policy Studies, and many others, so Douglass’s endorsement of this 9/11 truth book holds much weight.
In their review of the book, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth called 9/11 Unmasked a “magnum opus”, saying that “9/11 Unmasked is destined to be the Bible, the foundation, the go-to source of future research. It belongs on the bookshelf of anyone who has nagging questions about what really happened on September 11, 2001. And it will surely be on the desk of each and every government official who might one day be tasked with reinvestigating that monumental event.”
Another significant endorsement came from Professor Piers Robinson, Chair in Politics, Society and Political Journalism at the University of Sheffield. His endorsement, printed on the back of the book, reads:
“9/11 ushered in a generation of war and destruction. And yet, despite its importance, much of the event remains poorly understood. 9/11 Unmasked provides an authoritative and carefully argued exposition of key problems with the official narrative. Nearly 20 years on, it is high time mainstream journalists and academics addressed these issues.”
Professor Robinson also gave the book a full review on September 10, 2018, in OffGuardian, which can be read here.
Robinson smeared by The Times
Professor Robinson first garnered the attention of the mainstream media in April 2018 as the founder of the academic Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media (SPM), when this group was attacked on the front page of the Times: Apologists for Assad working in British universities: Top academics claim chemical attacks were fake.
Senior British academics are spreading pro-Assad disinformation and conspiracy theories promoted by Russia, The Times can reveal. […] Members of the group, which includes four professors, have been spreading the slur, repeated by the Russian ambassador to Britain yesterday, that the White Helmets civilian volunteer force has fabricated video evidence of attacks by President Assad, who is backed by the Kremlin.
SPM’s advisers include an American who has challenged the US version of 9/11 as a conspiracy theory and an Australian who suggested that the CIA was behind last weekend’s chemical attack in Syria.”
Professor Tim Hayward of the University of Edinburgh, a member of the Working Group, has written a response and analysis of this article on his blog, which can be read here: Attacked by The Times and Academic Freedom and Setting an Example.
The Guardian on conspiracy theories
Following the publication of 9/11 Unmasked two intriguing articles have appeared in the mainstream press about “conspiracy theorists”. The first was published by the Guardian on 28th November 2018: Britons are swallowing conspiracy theories. Here’s how to stop the rot. An extract:
“Although mistrust in politicians and other leaders is at an all-time high, trust among friends (87%) and family members (89%) remains rock solid. This can be a double-edged sword: if conspiracy theorists are friends with other conspiracy theorists, then that’s likely to be mutually reinforcing. But conspiracy theorists will also listen to their friends and family who are not. So if you have a friend who starts sayings things about how the CIA was behind 9/11, try talking to them. You never know, they might come round to thinking it was al-Qaida who hijacked the planes, after all.”
This quote was part of a rather Orwellian ten-point list of instructions for how to stop your friends being taken in by conspiracy theories, including the following suggestions:
“Sadly journalists (distrusted by 77% of respondents) are no better trusted than government ministers or company bosses. Academics, however, fare better and retain the trust of 64% of the public. So academics should engage more with the public… Consider this column my own attempt to do so, too. […] Compulsory courses on online education – learning to tell fake news from real for instance – should be considered, too. […] Politicians should take a more active role in regulating the spread of fake news and conspiracy theories.”
This article was written by Hugo Drochon, who teaches politics the University of Nottingham, and is an affiliated lecturer at Faculty of History at the University of Cambridge. Drochon is also a researcher at a Cambridge University project funded by the Leverhulme Trust called “Conspiracy & Democracy”, which states on its website that:
“This ambitious, five-year, interdisciplinary research project aims to explore these and related questions. It sets out not to debunk particular theories but to provide a “natural history” of conspiracy theorising. To do that, the project combines the perspectives, investigative methods and insights of historians, political theorists, network engineers and other disciplines to produce what we hope will be a deeper and richer understanding of a fascinating and puzzling phenomenon.”
The claim that this project does not set out to debunk particular theories seems somewhat inconsistent with the tone and intention of Drochon’s Guardian article, which implies the falsity of a number of “conspiracy theories” and implies that the official story of 9/11 is beyond question.
At this point it is worth noting that the term “conspiracy theory” was heavily promoted by the CIA to discredit people questioning the Warren Commission following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. For more information on this please see “JFK, Mass Media, and the Origins of ‘Conspiracy Theory’” by Dr James Tracy and “In 1967, the CIA Created the Label “Conspiracy Theorists” … to Attack Anyone Who Challenges the “Official” Narrative” on ZeroHedge. The ZeroHedge article contains a CIA dispatch produced in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by the New York Times in 1976:
“The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments. […] To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.”
Huffington Post attacks Robinson for 9/11 truth.
On December 6th 2018 a direct attack on Professor Robinson was published by Chris York in the Huffington Post: This Professor Teaches Journalism At A Top UK University. He’s Also A 9/11 Truther. The sub-header reads: “It’s ridiculous that Piers Robinson is teaching propaganda.”
“An academic teaching journalism students at one of the UK’s top universities has publicly supported long-discredited conspiracy theories about the 9/11 terror attack, HuffPost UK can reveal. […] Robinson’s work has been described as ‘conspiracy-theory driven’, ‘completely insulting’ and of having ‘no interest in truth or justice’ by academics speaking to HuffPost UK.
A former head of MI6 and a former Supreme Commander of Nato have both told HuffPost UK that quotes they gave in public have been misinterpreted by Robinson in his lectures to journalism students. […] One of Robinson’s latest published works is a glowing review of a book titled ‘9/11 Unmasked’ by David Ray Griffin, a leading figure in the so-called 9/11 truther movement. The book rejects the established narrative that 19 al-Qaeda operatives hijacked four planes and flew them into the World Trade Centre and Pentagon in 2001, instead suggesting explosives were used to bring down the towers, and questioning whether the planes were even hijacked by terrorists.
These claims form the mainstay of the 9/11 truther movement. An extensive investigation by the The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the US Government science laboratory, debunked many of these claims in 2005. […] When asked by HuffPost UK if he agrees with the conclusions of 9/11 Unmasked, Robinson said in an email: ‘My position, as has been the case for some time, is that [conclusions detailed in 9/11 Unmasked] demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that significant parts of the official narrative are very likely to be incorrect.
‘It is no longer tenable for academics and journalists to avoid asking probing questions about the possible involvement of state actors in the 9/11 attacks. 9/11 requires further analysis and investigation and this is a position I share with many other academics.’
Lydia Wilson, an Oxford and Cambridge research fellow and editor of the Cambridge Literary Review, said this raises serious questions for the University of Sheffield. ‘It’s ridiculous that Piers Robinson is teaching propaganda,’ she told HuffPost UK. ‘The most troubling thing for me is how did he get this job? It’s not hard to uncover this man.
‘[The review of 9/11 Unmasked] is conspiracy-theory driven. There’s no academic who should write a post like – there’s no argument and there’s no evidence. It’s dangerous to students – he’s working in a journalism department and he can’t analyse journalism sources.’”
Chris York, Senior Editor at the Huffington Post, has a reputation for attacking those who question the official narrative of the Syrian war. For example, see his article on Professor Robinson and Professor Hayward from 19th April 2018: “‘Whitewashing War Crimes’: How UK Academics Promote Pro-Assad Conspiracy Theories About Syria”, or his article on Vanessa Beeley from 22nd April 2018: “How an Obscure British Blogger Became Russia’s Key Witness Against The White Helmets”.
Robinson responds
Following this article’s publication Professor Robinson, on his Twitter account, @piersrobinson1, has responded at length to this article and other critics. Other major figures, including people who have not engaged with the 9/11 truth movement in the past, have also commented. Some relevant tweets listed below.
Replying to Chris York and Jess Brammar (Head of News, Huffington Post UK):
“And please do refer your readers to https://lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/26-nov-2018-press-release-response-from-doj/ and http://www.wtc7evaluation.org. They will be very interested! Professor Piers Robinson”
[The first link is to the recent Department of Justice response to the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry.]
“And there are plenty more academics who share the same concerns, you be hearing a lot more from us in the coming months.”
– Piers Robinson @PiersRobinson1 6 Dec 2018
“For the record, two of the Times journalists who attacked academics in April have been linked to “Integrity Initiative”, and now their colleague Oliver Kamm of The Times links them to his endorsement of today’s Huffington Post attack.”
– Tim Hayward @Tim_Hayward_ 4 Dec 2018
[See this Moon of Alabama article for more information on the “Integrity Initiative”, a propaganda campaign run by the British government.]
“Pro-regime propagandist at @HuffPost, infuriated at & frustrated with those who disagree with his imperialist geopolitical fantasies which he sees slipping away in Syria, resorts to penning character assassination and personal attacks on Professor @PiersRobinson1 as “journalism””
– Mark Sleboda @MarkSleboda1 4 Dec 2018
“More quality responses in defence of @PiersRobinson1 after the smear attack by the @HuffPostPol (a subdivision of AOL TimeWarner in the meantime)” https://twitter.com/PiersRobinson1/status/1072379879138750464
– Kees van der Pijl @Keesv 3 Nov 2018
“Unsurprisingly, over at Wikipedia, even without our old friend X on the case, the editors are tussling behind the scenes on the page of @PiersRobinson1. Btw, what is a “truther”? The silly term seems to be a smear of choice for those comfortable with being seen as falsifiers?”
– Tim Hayward @Tim_Hayward_ 4 Dec 2018
Replying to the above Tim Hayward tweet:
“Anyone who questions the words of proven liars”
– George Galloway @georgegalloway 4 Dec 2018
“dear @ChrisDYork, when did questioning the official narrative become a thoughtcrime?@PiersRobinson1”
– Ian Fraser @Ian_Fraser 4 Dec 2018
Replying to the above Ian Fraser tweet:
“1/1 hi Ian, we do have a very real problem with state-led propaganda ops: myself and colleagues are currently researching the Integrity Initiative, https://twitter.com/DerbyChrisW/status/1069688095069614080. I’d be happy to share further info but I’d need to talk first with you.”
– Piers Robinson @PiersRobinson1 4 Dec 2018
“2/ @Brian_Whit has repeatedly attacked myself and other colleagues researching Syria; and @ScottLucas_EA has been investigated by @VanessaBeeley and she has some very interesting information I’m sure she would share with you.”
– Piers Robinson @PiersRobinson1 4 Dec 2018
“3/ I’m happy to talk anytime, on or off the record (07764763350). Brief bio showing experience etc can be found here https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/journalism/staff/piers-robinson, best Piers”
– Piers Robinson @PiersRobinson1 4 Dec 2018
“This is :-https://digwithin.net/2015/08/08/fourteen-facts/?fbclid=IwAR2kSg8iobCvq04fD6OCWQjOoy3wWD0J3JznsSQfP7h1_MNVwCj7uGFq61k.check out the background of the author, Kevin Ryan! And also this former employee of NIST:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvAv-114bwM.”
– Piers Robinson @PiersRobinson1 4 Dec 2018
Guardian journalist Carole Cadwalladr joins the fray
Carole Cadwalladr, Guardian journalist involved in breaking the Cambridge Analytica story, linked York’s article in response to being questioned about her links to “Integrity Initiative”.
“Oh, you’re *that* Piers Robinson. Nice @rtuknews work, Piers. https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/professor-piers-robinson-sheffield-university_uk_5bd70ffae4b0d38b5885c5c5?ncid=other_twitter_cooo9wqtham&utm_campaign=share_twitter”
– Carole Cadwalladr @carolecadwalla 16 Dec 2018
Replying to Cadwalladr:
“Dear Carole, Is that really the best that you can do? Repeating a shoddy smear piece from the HuffingtonPost? best, Piers https://twitter.com/Ian_Fraser/status/1070075352389701634 and”
– Piers Robinson @PiersRobinson1 16 Dec 2018
“Current debate over possible state involvement with 9/11 is based on careful, factual, analysis. I suggest you review and digest the following material http://www.wtc7evaluation.org, https://lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/26-nov-2018-press-release-response-from-doj/, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvAv-114bwM, best, Piers @KevinRyan911 @Consensus911”
– Piers Robinson @PiersRobinson1 18 Dec 2018
Cadwalladr did not respond to Robinson’s enquiries.
Responses in the alternative media
A number of excellent responses to this attack from the Huffington Post have since been published in the alternative media.
An Open Letter to the Huffington Post, by Elizabeth Woodworth, coauthor of 9/11 Unmasked, published in OffGuardian.
HuffPost’s Attack on Academic Integrity, Truth and Justice by Elias Davison, published in Global Research.
Huffington Post renews smear campaign against UK Professor Piers Robinson, by Julie Hyland, published on the World Socialist Web Site.
University of Sussex academic attacked for 9/11 truth
Kees van der Pijl, professor emeritus at the University of Sussex, and formerly the head of the university’s international relations department, has been the subject of similar attacks after posting the following tweet:
“Not Saudis, Israelis blew up Twin Towers with help from Zionists in US govt https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it”
– Kees van der Pijl @Keesv 3 Nov 2018
This prompted the following response from the Independent, two days later: Sussex University professor who claimed Israelis carried out 9/11 must have emeritus status removed, Jewish group says.
“A Jewish group has called on the University of Sussex to strip a professor of his emeritus status after he claimed Israelis were behind the 11 September attacks.
Professor Kees van der Pijl, who was formerly head of the university’s international relations department, tweeted to say: “Not Saudis, Israelis blew up Twin Towers with help from Zionists in US govt”.
The professor, who retired in 2012 and now lives in Amsterdam, included a link to an article titled “9-11/Israel did it” by the conspiracy theory website WikiSpooks.
The University of Sussex confirmed it was aware of Professor van der Pijl’s tweet.
A spokesman said: “As a general rule we don’t comment on the views of former members of staff – although of course it goes without saying these are his personal views and he is not representing the views of the University.”
He said the emeritus title is automatically bestowed upon any professor who retires, but said it was “too early to say” whether the university would take such action.”
A similar article was published in the Daily Mail: Sussex University investigates professor who claims Israel was behind 9/11 Twin Towers attacks ‘with help from Zionists in US government’.
Clearly these are interesting times for the 9/11 truth movement. Robinson responded to a journalist who tweeted York’s Huffington Post article in a rather intriguing way:
“Hi Janine, you might want to take a look at this material, before jumping to conclusions:- https://lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/26-nov-2018-press-release-response-from-doj/ and http://www.wtc7evaluation.org. best, Piers”
– Piers Robinson @PiersRobinson1 6 Dec 2018
And there are plenty more academics who share the same concerns, you be hearing a lot more from us in the coming months.”
– Piers Robinson @PiersRobinson1 6 Dec 2018
Anyone wishing to follow this situation further might wish to follow Robinson and van der Pijl on Twitter.
