Elizabeth Woodworth (former medical librarian who coordinates a newly formed panel calling itself "Consensus 9/11" -- which recently announced the release of science-based statements constituting 13 Consensus Points challenging the official government account of the events of September 11) reviewing the movie documentary “9/11 in the Academic Community” on the 9-11 false flag operation (2014): “As the academic year begins, and the 13th anniversary of 9/11 draws near, it seems timely to review this eye-opening documentary about the failure of academia to explore the evidence about the events of September 11. Indeed, there are literally dozens of peer-reviewed science articles challenging the American government narrative about 9/11 that academics simply do not talk about. These articles stand published in the science literature – for the most part unreported, unexamined, and unrefuted… In view of the magnitude of the 9/11 tragedy, and the persistent public doubts about its cause,[1] the scientific academy has been eerily silent.[2] Although many studies questioning the official account have been published in peer-reviewed science and engineering journals,[3] they have not generated debate in the literature, or reports in the media. This is virtually unprecedented, for new scientific research always stimulates a trail of discussion – be it through letters, rebuttals, or further studies. Two examples of peer-reviewed articles that should have made sensational headlines and stimulated major academic discussion simply faded into obscurity:
An article published in the Journal of Business was reported by econometrician Dr. Paul Zarembka as showing a 99% statistical probability that high-volume insider trading occurred with American Airlines and United Airlines stocks in the days before 9/11;[4]
A nine-author article published in the peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal (2009) reported that unreacted nanothermite, which can be tailored to behave as an incendiary (like ordinary thermite), or as an explosive, was found in four independently collected samples of the World Trade Center dust.[5] Nanothermite is a high-tech substance not found in nature, yet there has been no published research follow-up to this landmark article’s astonishing conclusions.
In short, the subject has been untouchable…A winner at the University of Toronto Film Festival, “9/11 in the Academic Community” has been widely hailed as essential viewing… This film reveals a new pathology that infests our society, in which it is taboo for even academics to pursue politically disturbing truths. Let us hope that the film will continue to open the way for more open discourse on 9/11, and the overwhelming body of research that contradicts the official narrative.” [1].
[4] Allen M. Poteshman, “Unusual Option Market Activity and the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001,” Journal of Business, 79 (2006): 1703-26. Two subsequent financial articles provided further evidence of insider trading, but these econometric investigations have not been challenged in any professional or governmental responses: http://www.consensus911.org/point-g-2/ .
[5] Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, and Bradley R. Larsen, “Active Thermitic Material Observed in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2: 7-31: http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm .
[1]. Elizabeth Woodworth, “”9-11 Truth” and the failure of the academic community to explore the events of September 11, 2001. Academia’s treatment of critical perspectives on 9-11 – documentary (produced and directed by Adnan Zuberi 1)”, Global Research , September 2014: http://www.globalresearch.ca/911-truth-and-the-failure-of-the-academic-community-to-explore-the-events-of-september-11-2001/5399487 .