Methodology of the 9/11 Consensus Panel

What is “Best Evidence”?

An important distinction in the field of evidence is that between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence, or evidence that suggests truth as opposed to evidence that directly proves truth. The “best evidence” related to 9/11 is founded on:

• The opinions of respected authorities, based on professional experience, descriptive studies, and reports of expert committees.
• Physical data in the form of photographs, videotapes, court testimony, witness reports, and FOIA releases.
• Direct rather than circumstantial evidence

The Practice of Evidence-Based Research

We define the practice of evidence-based research as the judicious use of current best evidence in evaluating the issue at hand. This practice means integrating individual professional expertise with the best available documentary and scientific evidence. To integrate professional expertise into Consensus Points, the Panel employs a simplified Delphi methodology. The Delphi approach is often used in contexts “where published information is inadequate or non-existent,” providing “a means of harnessing the insights of appropriate experts to enable decisions to be made.” The 9/11 Consensus Panel is dedicated to using the “best evidence” available in its quest to shed light upon the world-changing events of September 11, 2001.

The Scope of “Best Evidence” for the Purposes of the 9/11 Consensus Panel

The Panel uses the term in the very narrow sense of the “best evidence” available with regard to any specific claim of the 9/11 official story that the Panel challenges. It does not mean the strongest evidence against the official story in general. It is simply the best evidence against each particular claim that the Panel addresses. “Best evidence”, as used by the 9/11 Consensus Panel, is not evidence in support of alternative theories of what happened on 9/11.

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. Through March 2017, the Consensus Panel published 11 sets of Consensus Points, for a total of 51 Points.

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:

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).

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).

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).

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).

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).

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).

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).

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).

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).

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).

The 9/11 Consensus Panel offers these 51 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.