Customer Reviews: Read 6 more reviews...
 Still making a compelling argument for an independent investigation February 22, 2008
Mr. Tristan Martin (Cambridge, UK)
6 out of 7 found this review helpful
Professor David Ray Griffin's first book on the atrocity of 11th September, 2001, was named The New Pearl Harbor. This was a clear synthesis of other people's research, conveniently assembled in one book, articulately written and refreshingly free of hyperbole and foaming-at-the-mouth 'anti-government' hysteria. Written before the Independent 9/11 Commission published its findings, The New Pearl Harbor was in some way a plea not to ignore difficult and controversial evidence.
Griffin's sequel, was a book that responded to the official report on 9/11. The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, analysed how the Independent Commission handled this important but neglected evidence and also looked at just how independent this investigation actually was. From the title, we can tell that Griffin was distinctly unimpressed, articulating the anger and disappointment expressed by some of the victims families themselves.
A few books later, Griffin has produced his most comprehensive work yet: Debunking 9/11 Debunking (a terrible title indeed). This book systematically dismantles the work that has been produced by the apologists for the 9/11 Commission and its Official Conspiracy Theory. The main offenders here are Vanity Fair (which was instrumental in promoting the NORAD tapes, which became the basis for the film United 93), the book Without Precedent, written by the Chair and Vice Chair of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas H. Keen and Lee H. Hamilton respectively), the NIST report on the destruction of the World Trade Center and finally Popular Mechanics book, Debunking 9/11 Myths. Griffin also looks at the mostly unconvincing arguments put forth by those from the political left of the spectrum, who argue that the whole '9/11 Truth Movement' is a dangerous diversion from more important areas of popular struggle.
It would be redundant, here, to explain Griffin's arguments as to why each one of the pieces put forth by defenders of the Bush administration's position on 9/11 fails to encompass all of the available facts. Griffin calmly takes apart and deconstructs each argument. This is not the work an academic theologian arguing that he understands engineering, construction, or military and defense issues better than those who have spent their entire professional careers within the respective areas of the 9/11 story - Griffin solidly supports his contentions with readily source-able information from Admirals and Generals, pilots, intelligence officials and physicists, engineers and firefighters, mainstream news reports and independent studies.
Debunking 9/11 Debunking is an indispensable guide to the latest research on 9/11. It methodically demonstrates that, despite the best pretences of the liberal-conservative consensus, the alternative theory is at present, the only one that encompasses the majority of the available facts. When ideology is put to one side and a cold, hard look is taken at the evidence, the official version of events simply lacks credibility, as uncomfortable as that may seem. If nothing else, Griffin's book is a reminder that the more evidence uncovered around the awful events of 11th September, 2001, the more questions that are raised and as a result, we need most what we haven't yet got: a truly independent, international investigation.
The real conspiracy August 11, 2007
Luc REYNAERT (Beernem, Belgium)
17 out of 22 found this review helpful
This very courageous and extremely hard-hitting book is a meticulous decomposition of a massive cover-up of the events of 9/11.
By thoroughly analyzing published semi-official and `private' investigations, D.R. Griffin turns the official attacks on the so-called `conspiracy theorists' upside down: the officials are the real conspirators. They are torpedoing their own serial versions of the events.
This book exposes clearly some very disturbing and sometimes really astonishing facts: `the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11', bogus confessions (Bin Laden), bogus evidence (distorted NORAD tapes, forged security video frames, impossible phone calls, strange hijacker names), murky links between a hijacker and intelligence services. It explains that the NIST Report on the collapse of the 3 WTC towers is a physical impossibility and that the `Pentagon attack by a jetliner' produced a too small hole and no plane debris.
For D.R. Griffin, the 9/11 attack is another false flag operation, `a murderous act which has increased military spending by hundreds of billions of dollars'. It constituted a justification `to attack Iraq and Afghanistan, to violate the Geneva conventions and to restrict civil rights.'
D.R. Griffin has written a fearsome book. It is a must read for all those wanting to comprehend the planet we live on. Indeed, `we have, after all, a world to save.'
Pretty much does what it says on the tin: July 3, 2007
SmokeNMirrors (London)
21 out of 29 found this review helpful
: it debunks the "debunkers". Calmly, dispassionately, thoroughly, and completely.
Contrary to other reviews, however, his "attacks" against the promoters and defenders of the official conspiracy theory are far from "highly personalised" - and certainly nothing like the way that those defenders of the official conspiracy theory have attacked anyone who has challenged the mainstream view. Rather, he seeks to rebut those often rabid ad hominem attacks by pointing out the absurdity of their claims, and by backing up his own claims with a wealth of evidence, referenced by over 1200 endnotes, in a way which the defenders of the official story simply cannot do without resorting to circular logic, distortions, and outright lies. Witness, for instance, the way the 9/11 Commission sought to "explain" insider trading, and the way that David Ray Griffin dismantles what amounts to a total non-explanation meaningless to all bar the easily-swayed:
"The Commission, however, did not provide evidence to support its conclusion. Its primary claim was that "[a] single US-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to Al Qaeda purchased 95% of the UAL puts ("put" options)." The implicit syllogism behind this conclusion, as I have pointed out, was the following:
- The attacks of 9/11 were planned and executed solely by Al Qaeda
- No other person or agency had any other role in, or even advance knowledge of, the attacks
- The purchaser of the put options on United Airlines stock had no connection with Al Qaeda
- Therefore the purchaser could not have had any advance knowledge of the attacks
The Commission's argument, accordingly, was perfectly circular: Taking as unquestionable the assumption that the attacks were planned and executed solely by Al Qaeda, with no help from US officials or anyone else, they concluded that if purchasers did not get advance information about the attacks directly from Al Qaeda, they did not get advance information, period. The Commission hence reached its conclusion by begging the question, which is precisely whether people other than agents of Al Qaeda were involved in planning the attacks."
This latest work does not answer every question about 9/11, but then it does not set out to do so. Rather it sets out to show that those defenders of the official myth, such as Popular Mechanics and NIST, have more often than not employed the very methods and anti-science which they accuse challengers of the official story of employing. In my opinion he achieves this aim quite admirably. If you are "on the fence" about 9/11 because of what you perceive to be the persuasiveness of arguments put forward by the US Government, NIST, PM, the 9/11 Commission, or anyone else who promotes and defends the official conspiracy theory, then I dare you to pick up this book with only a "30% open mind" and not be ultimately convinced that the official story is a lie of massive proportions.
That other reviewers can claim to have read "many books on the subject" and still be only convinced of the shootdown of Flight 93 is quite incredible. I would suggest those reviewers do not put too much store by the claims of structural engineers who claim that it was "obvious" what was going to happen to the towers when hit by airplanes, in light of the fact that even the construction manager of the Twin Towers said "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting." That steel-cored, steel-framed buildings have never before collapsed due to fire is another reason why what happened to the Twin Towers was less than predictable. Perhaps those other reviewers would also like to ask "their father" how, with his "advanced knowledge of the structural characteristics of steel when subjected to heat", he could also have predicted the free-fall collapse of WTC7, hit by no plane, and with minor fires on only a couple of floors?!?!
Popular Mechanics debunked November 13, 2007
William De Worde (London)
7 out of 9 found this review helpful
David Ray Griffin is no conspiracy theorist. Rather, he sets out clearly how the official myth of 9/11 has been built up and supported by Yellow Journalism. This book is primarily an answer to Popular Mechanics "Debunking 9/11 Myths," but also touches on some other topics.
Griffin shows that all the debunkers have done is set up "straw man" arguments then debunk these.
Griffin shows that the official narrative of 9/11 is false and contains so many contradictions and falshoods that it can not be anything other than a myth. He makes no claims outside of this other than to call for a proper independent investigation in to the attacks of 9/11.
An alternative to "Groupthink" February 11, 2008
Ynda (UK)
4 out of 5 found this review helpful
Like everyone else I was taken in by the events of the day: the shock and awe. Looking back though it is very strange: why did those towers EXPLODE? where were the fighter jets? How come they were experts in TV studios ready to give explanations on who was behind the attacks while the attacks were happening? Even people on the street ready to be interviewed with a complete story of how and why the towers collapsed? How come people knew in advance of the attacks and conducted insider trading? Immediately after 9/11 there was the Anthrax attacks? (Remember those?)
Loads of questions...
And then there was matters that was hushed up: the biggest being the collapse of World Trade Center 7 - this was a huge building. Small compared to the twin towers but would be huge in any other city except New York: 47 stories. Untouched by aircraft it collapsed in 6.5 seconds in what looks like a perfect controlled demolition. No live TV cameras showed it coming down and as far as I can tell, the few videos of it coming down have never shown on BBC1 or major TV channels! Why not? Shouldn't we at least be worried by skyscraper safety?
So let's re-cap:
Advance warning of the event: widespread.
Fires exploding skyscrapers? Impossible.
Towers collapsing at free fall speeds: Impossible.
Dust clouds and Molten steel at ground zero: Not possible from a fire.
4 airliners over 4 hours not being intercepted by jet fighters: Highly improbable.
Rumsfold announces $2.2 TRILLION overspend on September 10th and the only department destroyed at the Pentagon on the 11th September are the AUDITORS looking at the overspend: highly suspicious!!!
From there explore all the evidence: all the craziness of that day and decide: how could this not be an inside job? Like a magic trick, the art is in the preparation... Building rigged for demolition? They must have needed someone on the inside for that? I wonder who they could get? (Google it: the answer will surprise!) The Bush Administration wanted a "New Pearl Harbor" (See Program for a New American Century) and they got it on 9/11.
Why? Throughout history, when a country goes to war, the aggressor first blames its victim for some indiscretion. The Bush Administration needed a b-i-g justification for its war in Afghanistan and Iraq and 9/11 provided that justification!
I am happy to be proven wrong on these assertions. The only way to do it is to have a new investigation into 9/11 just as the relatives of the victims of 9/11 are saying in "9/11 Press for Truth".
|
