Methodology and Results
A full account of the 9/11 Consensus statements is presented below.
A simplified Delphi method was used over a six-month period to arrive at the Panel’s Consensus Points regarding the official account of the events of September 11 2001.
The Delphi technique is used in medicine and other applied sciences to generate consensus statements of the best available evidence for treatment protocols, using a series of surveys in which the expert respondents are blind to one another.
Starting with Set One in 2011, to establish the best evidence with regard to the alleged events of 9/11, a group of proposed Consensus Points (formulated by Dr. David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth) were initially evaluated by four persons expert in 9/11 evidence – persons who remained blind to one another during the process.
Their feedback was incorporated into the Points, which were then forwarded to a further 19 people with expertise in 9/11 evidence – also blind to one another.
The larger group rankings and feedback were in turn incorporated into the formulations, and two further rounds of review were conducted, again blind, for all participants who still had reservations about any of the Points or their supporting references.
As of March 2017, the Consensus Panel has published 11 sets of Consensus Points, for a total of 50 Points to date.
Ranking Methodology
The members of the Panel were asked to rate the validity of the points as follows:
1. strongly agree
2. agree
3. agree, but with (stated) reservations
4. disagree
5. strongly disagree
6. uncertain
If points were rated 4 (disagree) or 5 (strongly disagree), they were either dropped or modified until rankings of 1 (strongly agree) or 2 (agree) were reached by at least 85% of respondents.
If points were rated 3 (agree with reservations) or 6 (uncertain), they were, whenever possible, modified as suggested.
If Panelists were unavailable to vote or refrained from voting through insufficient knowledge, the percentages were calculated on the number who did vote.
Results
In August 2011, thirteen Points in the first set achieved an overall average consensus of 94%, in which they were rated 1 (strongly agree) or 2 (agree).
Four of the first-set Points (31%) received 100% consensus.
The specific consensus percentages for the first-set individual points were:
Point 1 95% (now Point G-1) Point 2 100% (now Point TT-1) Point 3 100% (now Point TT-2) Point 4 95% (now Point TT-3) Point 5 100% (now Point TT-4) Point 6 100% (now Point WTC7-1) Point 7 90% (now Point WTC7-2) Point 8 90% (now Point WTC7-3) Point 9 90% (now Point TT-5) Point 10 85% (now Point Flt-1) Point 11 95% (now Point Flt-2) Point 12 90% (now Point Pent-3) Point 13 90% (now Point MC-3)
In January 2012, a second set of five Points achieved an overall average consensus of 91.2%, in which the points were rated 1 (strongly agree) or 2 (agree).
Point 1A 95.45% (22 votes) (now Point MC-1) Point 2A 85.7% (21 votes) (now Point MC-2) Point 3A 100% (22 votes) (now Point G2) Point 4A 85% (20 votes) (now Point Pent-1) Point 5A 90% (20 votes) (now Point Pent-2)
In June 2012, a third set of seven Points, plus their Introductory summary, achieved an overall average consensus of 93.25%, in which the points were rated 1 (strongly agree) or 2 (agree).
MC-Intro 94%
Point MC-4 100%
Point MC-5 88%
Point MC-6 88%
Point MC-7 100%
Point MC-8 94%
Point ME-1 88%
Point ME-2 94%
In September 2012, a fourth set of three Points achieved an overall average consensus of 95%, in which the points were rated 1 (strongly agree) or 2 (agree).
Point Video-1 95%
Point Video-2 95%
Point H-1 95%
In May 2013, a fifth set of four Points achieved an overall average consensus of 94%, in which the points were rated 1 (strongly agree) or 2 (agree).
Point PC-1 94%
Point PC-2 94%
Point PC-3 94%
Point PC-4 94%
In September 2013, a sixth set of five Points achieved an overall average consensus of 94%, in which the points were rated 1 (strongly agree) or 2 (agree).
Point PC-1A 90%
Point TT-6 90%
Point TT-7 89%
Point TT-8 100%
Point WTC7-4 100%
In June 2014, a seventh set of three Points achieved an overall average consensus of 98%, in which the points were rated 1 (strongly agree) or 2 (agree).
Point WTC7-5 95%
Point WTC7-6 100%
Point WTC7-7 100%
In September 2014, an eighth set of four Points achieved an overall average consensus of 94.75%, in which the points were rated 1 (strongly agree) or 2 (agree).
Point Flt-3 89%
Point Flt-4 95%
Point MC-9 100%
Point MC-10 95%
In September 2015, a ninth set of two Points achieved an overall average consensus of 97.5%, in which the points were rated 1 (strongly agree) or 2 (agree).
Point H-2 95%
Point Pent-4 100%
In June 2016, a tenth set of two Points achieved an overall average consensus of 95%, in which the points were rated 1 (strongly agree) or 2 (agree).
Point TT-9 95%
Point WTC7-8 95%
And in March 2017, another set of two Points achieved an overall average consensus of 90%, in which the points were rated 1 (strongly agree) or 2 (agree).
Point H-3 90%
Point H-4 90%
The 9/11 Consensus Panel offers these 50 Points as having attained strong consensus.
The strength of consensus methods such as the Delphi technique is that they allow research bodies to overcome some of the disadvantages normally found with decision-making in groups or committees, which are commonly dominated by either one individual or by coalitions representing different points of view.
This survey has allowed the Panel to transcend such limitations of group interactions, and it thus approximates an optimal level of group objectivity.
Science is a state of mind: questioning, open, balanced, respectful of evidence, and on the alert for bias.
By integrating 3-4 rounds of anonymous feedback from (at least) 20 experts, this scientific process has yielded an unprecedented degree of credibility for specific points of evidence opposing the official account of the events of September 11 2001.
It should now be possible for the media to promote serious discussion regarding this world-changing phenomenon.
