IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Two Quit In Protest After Zarembka Dumped From Consensus 9/11 Panel

Craig McKee
post May 3 2012, 06:04 PM
Post #1





Group: Newbie
Posts: 10
Joined: 22-September 11
Member No.: 6,305



By Craig McKee

Two members of David Ray Griffin's Consensus 9/11 Panel have quit in protest following the dismissal of fellow member Paul Zarembka.

Journalist and author Barrie Zwicker and Pilots For 9/11 Truth core member Shelton Lankford resigned from the Panel last week in solidarity with Zarembka (author of The Hidden History of 9-11) and over disagreements the three have with Griffin and Panel co-founder Elizabeth Woodworth about how the project is being administered.

"I felt Paul's treatment was kind of a last straw," Lankford said in an interview. "For me the Consensus Panel process was functioning as a gatekeeper, and evidence deemed controversial was not going to be considered."

Zarembka added in an interview: "It's kind of an authoritarian process. They determine what questions are dealt with, how they are dealt with, and even how many points are considered. They chose the panel members; they chose the structure of it."

The departures leave the Panel without three of the strongest supporters of the research efforts of Citizen Investigation Team, which contends that the plane that approached the Pentagon flew on a flight path (north of the Citgo gas station) that was inconsistent with the physical damage path and with impact of any kind. In fact, the three listed the complete absence of CIT evidence being considered by the Panel among reasons they lost confidence in the project. None, however, says they renounce all the points the Panel has agreed upon.

With the departures, the chances of the Panel approving any points based on this evidence in the future have been markedly reduced if not eliminated. The effect on the Panel's credibility remains to be seen.

Woodworth responded to a request for comment with a written message in which she said all three departing members had done good work on the first set of consensus points.

"Most of our Panel Members understand that the Consensus Panel is not a forum for discussing and attempting to settle unresolved evidence. It is basically a 'blind' review and approval process for straightforward evidence that has achieved peer review through publication, or that represents a logical contradiction within the 9/11 account." Griffin was unavailable for comment.

Lankford explained some of his concerns with the Consensus Panel process in his letter of resignation:

"The Consensus process, as it is being administered, seems by design to exclude any evidence that contradicts the framework within which the 911 Commission operated The removal of Paul Zarembka from the panel would seem to cement the enforcement of an authoritarian view of evidence as being what the co-founders say it is."

The Panel uses the Delphi Method originally created by the RAND Corporation. With this project, points are formulated by the founders and submitted to the members (although new provisions were announced to members in March allowing them to submit points as well) to be considered and voted upon.

Zarembka questions the value of the Delphi Method to arrive at "best evidence" of what is false in the 9/11 official story (members are given points against an element of the official story and asked to approve or not. Each point requires the support of 85% of the members to be adopted. The Panel is currently working on its third set of points).

"I didn't understand why it was useful in the 9/11 context," Zarembka said. "I still don't. It's not by any means a democratic process; it's a top-down process."

Zwicker added in an interview: "There's too much power residing with Elizabeth and David. There wasn't sufficient room to question why a particular point was brought forward and how it was worded."

The Panel was founded for the purpose of creating a bank of points that contradict individual elements of the 9/11 official story. These points are intended to stand as reference material for the public and media. There is no limit to how many points may be added over time.

Woodworth has argued that the process is both an academic and a scientific one that is very useful in determining what the "best evidence" is against the official story.

Woodworth and Griffin jointly wrote to Zarembka on April 22 stating that his objections to certain points under consideration by the Panel and his written assessment of those points were "irresponsible" in that he didn't stick to the assignment to comment only on whether the points effectively showed the falsity of the official story. Zarembka countered that some of the points had other problems with them that needed to be addressed.

One point of contention was a proposed point that would have implicated Donald Rumsfeld in the 9/11 crimes. Zarembka objected to the point on the grounds that it could be libelous and expose the Panel to possible legal action. When the points were sent out to members for a second round of consideration, no mention was made of Zarembka's concern. He says this was the only time he violated the rule against communicating with other members about points under consideration, and that he did this so they'd be aware they could be legally vulnerable.

Zarembka also objected to the wording of another point because it referred to the Sept. 11 "attacks," a term he feels reinforces the official story that an external enemy attacked the United States. This term is sprinkled throughout the Consensus 9/11 web site. Both Griffin and Woodworth have stated that they consider "attack" to be a neutral term that does not support the image of the event as an external attack.

Zwicker has been the most vocal on this point. In his resignation letter he writes:

"After all these months, the website still refers to 'Why the attack on the Pentagon was not prevented,' a persistence in significant self-sabotaging language that verges on the perverse."

He added in an interview: "How reasonable and intelligent people can argue that 'attack' is perfectly good is beyond me."

Zwicker joined Lankford in supporting Zarembka's stand on the "stonewalling" of CIT evidence, contending that the controversy over CIT has been artificially created.

"The work and reputation of CIT can be deemed 'controversial' only because they have been subject to a most destructive disinformation campaign," he wrote to Woodworth and Griffin.

The dispute between Zarembka and the founders came to a head when Zarembka was given an ultimatum in writing from Woodworth and Griffin. He was given three choices:

  • Revise his "irresponsible" report on the third set of Consensus Points
  • Report that he was unable to write the report with a promise to do better in the future
  • Resign
Zarembka refused to do any of these, stating he had done nothing wrong and that the objections he had raised concerning the process and individual points were justified.

Underlying a lot of the frustration that all three departing members have expressed with Consensus Panel process is a concern about the direction Griffin himself has taken in recent months, notably with the publication of his book, 9/11 Ten Years Later: When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed.

In it, he devotes an entire chapter to the Pentagon, reviewing at some length the arguments of those who attack CIT and claim a 757 did hit the Pentagon but not mentioning CIT at all (in the chapter, does Griffin effectively lay out the non-CIT evidence against impact).

"From an academic point of view that's unconscionable, to do a whole chapter on the Pentagon and not to mention CIT's existence," Zarembka said. "That's unforgiveable."

In the book, Griffin lays out his "consensus approach" which takes emphasis away from whether a plane hit and focuses on the fact that a 757 piloted by al-Qaeda could not have. All three of the departing panelists believe this is a significantly weaker position because CIT has shown conclusively that the flight path of the large plane that approached the Pentagon could not have caused physical damage like felled light poles proving inside job.

Speaking at the Toronto Hearings last September, Griffin repeatedly quoted CIT opponents like David Chandler, Jonathan Cole, and Frank Legge, all of whom have written papers attacking CIT. But again, no CIT evidence was mentioned.

"Dr. Griffin's shunning of CIT and their well-supported and documented evidence, and embracing their chief critics was a serious mistake," Lankford said. "Far from identifying best evidence, it seems likely to further marginalize it."

Where does the panel go from here? Zwicker says there is still the hope that something positive will come of the project and that its credibility hasn't necessarily been fatally compromised.

Zarembka says the ball is back in their court.

"The personal advantage for me is that my name doesn't have to be associated with something deeply problematic."

***

The Panel added Aidan Monaghan as a member in February. The changes in the Panel's membership have been laid out on the web site under the innocent heading: "Consensus Panel comings and goings."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post May 3 2012, 06:23 PM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,675
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Good work Craig... .thanks for sharing.

There is nothing "Consensus" about the "Consensus Panel".

Related reading -
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10800817

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10798304
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post May 3 2012, 06:26 PM
Post #3



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 839
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



Welcome to P4T Craig. Can you introduce yourself in the Welcome All forum for those who don't know you.

Cheers,
KP
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post May 3 2012, 06:30 PM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,675
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (KP50 @ May 3 2012, 06:26 PM) *
Welcome to P4T Craig. Can you introduce yourself in the Welcome All forum for those who don't know you.

Cheers,
KP


Craig McKee is the founder of the blog Truth And Shadows which was mainly created when there was a mass purge/banning of CIT supporters from 9/11 Blogger.

He created his blog to counter all the disinformation being spread by 9/11 Blogger.

Here is a link to his blog.. he has some pretty good articles.

http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/

and his about page...

http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/about/


I post on Craig's blog every once in a while and invited him here to post the above article.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 3 2012, 09:31 PM
Post #5



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Hi Craig! welcome.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post May 4 2012, 06:16 AM
Post #6





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



indeed welcome Craig!

a fairly common complaint about the delphi method, as was pointed out, is that the 'moderator' chooses the topics. top down most of the way. seems like rand has figured out a nice way of compartmentalizing even the search for truth. don't you just love ngo's?

hat tip to Barrie and Shelton for having integrity and one for Craig as well for his blog and post.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig McKee
post May 4 2012, 03:22 PM
Post #7





Group: Newbie
Posts: 10
Joined: 22-September 11
Member No.: 6,305



Thanks, guys. Glad to be here. I hope to be a regular visitor from now on. As far as I'm concerned this is the top 9/11 forum going.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
A. Syed
post May 5 2012, 02:28 AM
Post #8





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 124
Joined: 17-May 08
Member No.: 3,358



This is the best structured 9/11 truth forum, and Craig's Truth and Shadows is the best personal 9/11 truth blog at the moment. Glad you registered here, Craig! thumbsup.gif thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post May 5 2012, 10:38 AM
Post #9





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,910
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



welcome.gif

Glad you're here Craig!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post May 9 2012, 03:15 PM
Post #10



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,675
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



I have also set up a new RSS feed for Truth And Shadows here at our forum so readers here won't miss when a new article is published by Craig.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showforum=68

You can see all of his past articles in the above linked forum section as well.

Enjoy!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post May 9 2012, 05:56 PM
Post #11





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Craig...

Welcome aboard... You are correct that his is a top 9/11 internet site.. but please don't ignore the 911 Free Forums which leads in discussion of the destruction of the WTC.

Unlike some sites we know, PFT does not censor even if the member give me a hell of a time. And now it's a better place with you aboard... a polite, rational and fair minded person.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig McKee
post May 10 2012, 10:16 AM
Post #12





Group: Newbie
Posts: 10
Joined: 22-September 11
Member No.: 6,305



Thanks, SanderO. I appreciate the warm welcome. I look forward to contributing here.

And thanks, Rob, for setting up the RSS feed. I'm looking forward to getting more deeply into the research that Pilots has done.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th August 2014 - 08:21 PM