David Ray Griffin is your original gentleman and
scholar.

His first book on 9/11, "The New Pearl Harbor"
carefully documents why we were lied to. This
volume presents the evidence in a new way. Dr.
Griffin uses the government's own information
to make the case against them.

This is an effective and strong way to present it.
This book is a little drier than most, with facts
presented over a period of time while the story
changes internally. The government version of
the 9/11 events is untenable. And Dr. Griffin
proves it. Again.

-John Austin

In a clean and clear scolarly way Dr. Griffin defines contradictions that should not exist 7 years after. No matter the consequenses the people of America and the peoples of the world have a right to learn the truth.
These 25 questions are a good start to begin with. Yes, to begin with, because besides these contradictions there are many unsolved and unexplained mysteries. If 9/11 is not thoroughly investigated it will grow into a cancer of enormous proportions in the american society and in world relations.

David Ray Griffin succeeds once again to destroy the official Bush administration's version of the events of 9/11. Mr. Griffin provides irrefutable evidence of the Bush administrations complicity in the cover-up and framing of the largest terrorist attack on U.S. soil. This is a must read and a perfect follow up to "Debunking 9/11 Debunking".

If you are one of those who believe that people who question the official story of 9/11 are "conspiracy nuts" you need to read this book.

It is a very concise, easy to understand and easy to read series of questions about the very public contradictions that our own government and the main stream media have themselves made concerning the events of 9/11.

It doesn't try to analyze the technical aspects of falling buildings or melting steel it only deals with the things that our leaders have said.

Check it out. At least you'll have some idea what the conspiracy nuts are talking about.

9/11 Contradictions is the seventh book by David Ray Griffin on the "9/11 event." It brings together in one place many of the facts which have been elucidated in his earlier books and those of others. One fact stands out over all: The 9/11 Commission did not do the job it promised to do: to investigate and report on all the facts surrounding the 9/11 event.

This book details 25 contradictions not resolved by the Commission. At one point Professor Griffin compiled a list of 115 questions not answered by the Commission. All of these unresolved issues underscore an urgent need for a new investigation by a body not beholden to the Bush Administration nor anyone else - perhaps an international investigation under the auspices of the United Nations, as has been suggested recently.

No one has been more diligent and thorough in investigating the events of 9/11 and those leading up to the attacks than David Griffin. He is not an investigative reporter, but he is an internationally renowned scholar, and the skills of the two professions are remarkably similar. It is his detailed scouring of sources, his searching out sources that are not readily available, and his painstaking analysis of what he has learned that distinguishes Griffin's works - both in his primary field of theology and in understanding the 9/11 event. Read any of his books and you'll see the depth of his attention to detail in ferreting out contradictions and discrepancies.

This book is directed at Congress and the press, institutions which Griffin charges with not doing their jobs. Journalistic and Congressional oversight have been sorely lacking during the Bush administration and before - not only with respect to the 9/11 event but with all aspects of the drip-by-drip loss of freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, the establishment of pre-emptive war and torture as United States policy, the unprecedented secrecy under which this administration has operated, the "signing statements" which provide unprecedented scope for a "unitary presidency" which considers itself above the law, and more. I hope the press and Congress will take the message of this book to heart.

A review of the table of contents will give the reader a list of the 25 discrepancies covered in the book. For the average reader, many of the discrepancies will not be gripping reading, yet they point to the heart of important questions about what really happened on 9/11. For example, most people won't care how long President Bush remained in the Florida classroom after learning about the first plane strike - until they realize that this means the Secret Service was sure that the President wasn't under threat of attack!

The most compelling issue of 9/11 for me is the collapse of the three World Trade Center towers at free fall speed (less than 10 seconds each) and the complete pulverization of most of the buildings. One rescue worker said they found nothing larger than half a telephone dial. Could a jet fuel fire possibly have caused all that? Jet fuel, after all, burns at about 1,000º cooler than is needed to soften steel. And wasn't it convenient that all the hundred-plus-foot-long steel beams were cut to just the right lengths to be carted away? And why were they sent off to Japan so quickly? Wasn't this a crime scene? Those collapses certainly looked like controlled demolition to me! Griffin's chapters 22-25 cover those issues.

Another compelling issue is the crash into the Pentagon, the most highly defended building in the world. How could that have happened? Where were the building's defenses? The Pentagon issue is covered in Chapters 19-21.

This review just scratches the surface of the issues surrounding the 9/11 event. Your best guide to them is Professor Griffin. And in this book he skips all the conjecture and speculation, just relaying the facts. But the facts call out for serious probing. Anyone with even a mild curiosity about the truth about the 9/11 event will find this book an excellent introduction to the facts.

Patriotism has been defined during the Bush administration as standing by idly as the government pursues a "war on terrorism." A Patriot, according to Cheney & Bush, does not question anything under the guise of "national security." And under the facade of "support the troops," we are to understand that all we do is good and everything "over there" is evil or an "axis of evil."

But what if the terrorist attack that gave Cheney & Bush the cover for these wars was not what we thought it was? Explain molten metal for weeks under WTC 1, 2, & 7. Explain the free fall speed of the collapse of all three buildings. Explain how any building has a full, catastrophic, symmetrical collapse when damage is not symmetrical, and (especially with WTC 7), not catastrophic. After reading and understanding these and many other inconsistencies regarding the "official 9/11 story," you will understand that the corporate controlled mainstream media cannot be relied upon for critical analysis of today's most critical issues. Thankfully, we have real patriots like David Ray Griffin questioning our government.

It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from his government.
-Thomas Paine

David Ray Griffin, with his 5th book on the subject has made lying about one of the most tragic events in modern history a cottage industry. In this book the retired theologian continues to use dishonesty and misrepresentation to make his case. Once again he shows how he can not be taken seriously as an historian or scientist, in fact he has even bragged about how this book is science free, on a recent radio show:

"Uhh, we can't arbitrate that, say politicians and journalists and we don't have time to do the research ourselves, so we just have to accept the official account. Uhh, well this book has no science in it either."

Griffin has repeatedly refused to adhere to any type of scientific or academic standard, and in fact has vigorously opposed any attempt in his so-called truth movement to advance any sort of hypothesis as to what happened on September 11th, ignoring the conventional academic process of advancing and defending a thesis.

Why he is doing this is apparent, because although he seeks to point out contradictions in the so-called "official story" which in reality is just pointing out the obvious fact that in major events involving thousands of participants and media throughout the world, there will be contradictory accounts, his own theories are far more inconsistent and contradictory.

The most prominent example from this book is the chapter on flight 77, where he argues that there were no airfones on board, even though he personally admitted that this argument was invalid several months ago.

http://911blogger.com/node/8408#comment-139890

"My mistake, like that of Henshall and Rowland before me, was to assume that the AA spokesperson and this website were talking about AA 757s as they had always been, not simply about 757s at the time of the query, in 2004.

But the latter was evidently the meaning. Elias Davidsson, an Icelandic member of the 9/11 truth movement, sent me a story from February 6, 2002, which said: "American Airlines will discontinue its AT&T in-flight phone service by March 31, a spokesman for the airline said Wednesday." (5) Davidsson also reported a 1998 photograph of the inside of an AA 757 showing that it did have seat-back phones. (6)"

In an act of stunning dishonesty, the fact that he had already rejected this theory was completely left out of this book. Talk about contradictions...

Another example, he writes a chapter on Hani Hanjour where he argues that he could not have piloted flight 77, as he was not a great pilot. In this argument he cites Marcel Bernard, a flight instructor who flew with Hanjour in a Cessna. He portrays Bernard as supporting the view that Hanjour could not have flown the plane, but leaves out the fact that when Bernard was specifically asked whether Hanjour could fly the plane he responded:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/17/se.18.html

"We believe that even though he didn't necessarily have experience in jets, that once the airplane was airborne, that he could have easily pointed it in any direction he wanted to, and crashed it into a building or whatever would be a real feasibility, real possibility. "


It appears that one could write a book on the contradictions and dishonesty of David Ray Griffin.

I recommend this book to everybody. Everybody needs to take the time and look at reality, as we're being deceived on a daily basis. The 9/11 myth/hoax/fraud is what gave us the 'war on terror'. The problem is the 9/11 accounting is false, a huge lie and cover-up with the media spewing out whatever they're told to make us look the other way. A cocktail of lies/spin/dis-info and propaganda. This is easy to read and very well documented. Also read The 9/11 Commission's report, Ommissions and Distortion's. proof of the cover-up.

Very factual points of reference as what the contradictions are in the 9/11 Report. Just as good as his previous works.

Dr. Griffin's work on 9/11 is brilliant as well as courageous. His first book on 9/11, The New Pearl Harbor (2004), is an excellent, comprehensive introduction to the questions posed by the US government's 'official story' about 9/11. Dr. Griffin applies rigorous standards of scholarship in all of his work and seldom, if ever, theorizes. He lays out evidence, leaving others to try to resolve and explain it.

But I had trouble with 9/11 Contradictions. Other reviewers have described its content and purpose well, and I agree that it fills a niche. But I suggest that it is NOT a good introduction to 9/11 questions, mostly because of its intense focus. It defines the contradictions between the 9/11 Commission report and other reports very precisely, indeed so precisely that new readers could find its arguments pedantic and even trivial. One must understand the context in which these questions arise, and context is absent from this book.

Indeed, I have a few faults to find with the book, most of which, I believe, are the result of its narrow focus and, perhaps, insufficient editing. Repetition is useful in making strong arguments, but I believe that it's overdone here. Dr. Griffin could have made his points in about half the space. Also, I question whether the 9/11 Commission, as incredibly irresponsible as its report was, should have been required to respond to 9/11 contradictions appearing in newspaper accounts and on TV shows, as Dr. Griffin maintains. Finally, I do think that a very few of his arguments ARE trivial, in the greater scheme of things.

In the past, he has set forth 9/11 issues in an elegant and unimpeachable manner. This book is a useful tool for 9/11 researchers (and I WOULD like to see Congress and the press investigate these contradictions). But please read The New Pearl Harbor if you need or want context.

This latest book by David Ray Griffin is perhaps his best work because it avoids all the conspiracy theories that skeptics ridicule. By documenting contradictions from official sources, the obvious need for a new investigation becomes apparent.

This book is an easy read and doesn't have to be read from start to finish. The reader can pick the topic and chapters that most interest them. This book and the film 9/11: Press for Truth are the best introductions to understanding the 9/11 Truth Movement.

This is the fifth of David Griffin's books on the events of 9/11. Despite the overwhelming evidence against the official account, Dr Griffin has been criticised on the grounds that as a theologian rather than a physicist, architect or engineer, he is not qualified to question the government account. Using a similar defence, many people in Congress and the press duck and run for cover when confronted with the issue, claiming inability to comment because of a lack of the necessary technical expertise.

In his latest, incisive polemic, Dr Griffin focuses on the welter of contradictions and inconsistencies of the official story. By adopting this approach, he shows that the only way to cling to the official story is to believe that it is possible for two mutually contradictory statements to both be true.

Griffin has thus placed members of Congress and the press in an extremely awkward position. If they accept that mutually contradictory statements are consistent with the official story, they demonstrate that they are intellectually unfit for duty. On the other hand, if they continue to ignore the contradictions they show that they are morally unfit, by underlining their complicity in the coverup of the greatest mass murder in United States history.

Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R25SU5GLCFXMP3 An excellent introduction to a host of problems with the 9/11 narrative. Well worth buying for people new to this area of research. Also a good reference for those with a lot of research under their belts.

In his book, Breakpoint (2007), Richard A. Clarke (President Bush's former top anti-terrorist adviser and now a novelist), tells a tale, set in the near future, about an attack on America's cyber-infrastructure. All the authorities immediately assume that China is behind the attack and proceed to find evidence supporting this view. (This aspect of the plot is reminiscent of Clarke's report that, after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld asked Clarke to find evidence to support the view that Iraq was behind these attacks.) The heroes of the novel are a small band of investigators, under the guidance of a wise-old counter-terrorist expert, who are cautioned on two occasions to ignore the common wisdom and stick to the facts. The group is told: "facts, gaps, theories, analysis," in that order, and warned that this might be a "false flag operation"--a domestic act of terrorism designed to look as if it was coming from outside the United States. As America's foremost expert on terrorism, Clarke knows all too well that things are often not as they seem and that large agencies, including the press, tend to engage in group- think. And if one is theory-driven, then one will find the facts to support that theory, and facts that do not fit that theory are overlooked.

To use the language of Clarke's novel, Griffin's new book, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press, sticks mainly to "facts" and "gaps," or more precisely, facts and contradictory facts. Anyone who reads this book will see that the facts do not add up and do not support the dominant theory. For example, high-ranking government officials have explained that the reason that these attacks were successful is because prior to 9/11, no one could have imagined that civilian aircraft could be used to strike domestic targets. There is abundant evidence to the contrary. In October 2000, Pentagon officials carried out an emergency drill to prepare for the possibility that a commercial airliner might crash into the Pentagon. In May 2002, two medical clinics in the Pentagon held training exercises involving a scenario in which an aircraft was crashed into the Pentagon and in July of that year, just two months prior to the actual attacks, NORAD planned an exercise called Amalgam Virgo 02 that would simulate a scenario in which airliners hijacked within the United States would be used as weapons. So there is a "gap" between these facts and the statement of many high ranking officials, including President Bush. These facts do not support the theory that the attacks succeeded because the military had not foreseen the possibility of such attacks.

There are also discrepancies regarding the claims about when NORAD was alerted to the hijackings. For three years, NORAD officials said that they had been notified about United flight 175 at 8:43 a.m. In the 9/11 Commission report that time stands as 9:03--a twenty minute gap that is the difference between having enough time or not to intercept the flight. The dominant theory is that fighter planes were not scrambled to intercept flight 175 because they did not know it was hijacked until 9:03, but the facts do not support this.

And then there is Ted Olson's claim, made on at least two occasions, that he received two phone calls from his wife, Barbara, who was aboard the hijacked plane that flew into the Pentagon. The 9/11 Commission Report states that, in all probability, he received four calls, not just two, while the FBI testified in a court of law that phone records show that Barbara Olson made one unsuccessful attempt to call her husband. The records, they say, show that her call lasted zero seconds. Who are we to believe, Ted Olson, the 9/11 Commission Report, or the FBI? Certainly they cannot all be correct. Insofar as the dominant theory is that of the 9/11 Commission's, then Ted Olson and the FBI must be lying. Or perhaps the FBI is correct and the 9/11 Commission got it wrong.

Griffin outlines twenty-two other instances of facts and contradictions that are in direct opposition with each other. In order for a theory to be credible it must internally consistent and explain known occurrences. The dominant theory is inadequate on both accounts.

Some will say that although Griffin does not spend much time developing theories in this book, he has in previous books, and therefore this book is already theory-laden even if it is hidden. Be that as it may, the facts remain. There are sworn testimonies, eye-witness accounts, pictures, videos, and reports, and if the dominant theory cannot explain these, then there is a need for a new theory that does.

It would be interesting for Richard Clarke to write a review of Griffin's book and to see what he makes of all the facts that contradict the theory developed in the 9/11 Commission Report.

As is announced with the promotion of this book, 9/11 Contradictions does not delve into possible alternative scenarios with respect to 9/11. It deals purely with internal contradictions within the official account of 9/11. This is already a quintessentially important point. Many people think, in simple black and white terms, of "official story" versus "conspiracy theories." This very thinking numbs the average mind into believing, if having not done the research, that there is "one" official story versus the "many" conspiracy theories. This in of itself is a fallacy, because though there is indeed one official story in the generic sense ("19 Muslim extremists attacked us because they hate our freedoms"), this story comes apart at the seams because the official accounts and testimonies contradict each other (and sometimes themselves) in so many ways. As this text deals only with internal contradictions within the official story, congress and the press can not be excused for not asking these questions out of fear of being tarnished with the "conspiracy theorist" tag in the pejorative sense of the term.

When a child lies to avoid getting in trouble, he often has to change his story in order to cover for himself. This is often because he didn't see a logistical problem with the first lie. Sometimes, the child doesn't even realize he's not keeping his story straight until the adult points out the inconsistencies in the story, at which time the child thinks (or says aloud) "Uhhh-ohh. I didn't think of that..."

With the 9/11 official account, the sources who endorse the official narrative have changed their story time and again. Perhaps they are confident that these inconsistencies will be erased down history's memory hole, but they are wrong; the internet is the greatest invention since the printing press when it comes to the exchange and rapid flow of information. For example, when Bush was notified of the second plane strike, we all know that he stayed in the classroom for at least 7 minutes and at the school for another half hour; however, on the one-year anniversary of 9/11, the White House issued a revisionist account, according to which Bush got up and left the room only seconds later. This revisionist account was clearly an attempt to squash uncomfortable questions about why the Secret Service did not whisk the President away, as indeed was the case with Dick Cheney, who was in the White House. The hard question, which journalists should be asking, is why the head of Bush's Secret Service did not whisk Bush away unless he somehow know that the Florida school was not a target. Perhaps in putting out their revisionist account about the Florida classroom, the White House never anticipated someone like Michael Moore to break through into the mainstream and make Bush's true behavior widely known.

Some information I was not previously aware of involves multiple changes of story by the Florida classroom teacher, Sandra Kay Daniels. Clearly she knew the truth, but in conjunction with the White House's 2002 revisionist account of Bush's behavior, Mrs. Daniels also supported the story that the President left almost immediately. Even more interestingly suspicious, she presented two different accounts, within two days, to support this revisionist history. According to an LA Times story on the one-year anniversary, Mrs. Daniels said: "I knew something was up when President Bush didn't pick the book up and participate in the lesson... He said, 'Mrs. Daniels, I have to leave now. I am going to leave Lt. Gov. Frank Brogan to do the speech for me.' Looking at his face, you knew something was wrong. He shook my hand and left." However, the next day, a NY Times article told a very different story, based on a 9/11/02 interview with Mrs. Daniels. In this account, it was a Secret Service agent, not Andy Card, who informed Bush of the second strike, and this agent said "Where can we get to a television?" Mrs. Daniels then reportedly said: "The President bolted right out of here and told me, 'Take over.' I knew something serious had happened, and then a short while later he came back and said, 'What we thought was an airline accident turned out to be a terrorist hijack.'" Mrs. Daniels even elaborated on the suddenness of Bush's disappearance: "My kids were so happy that morning - imagine the President sitting there shooting the breeze, and then poof, suddenly, he's gone." So even in support of Bush leaving the room quickly, Mrs. Daniels gives two contrasting scenarios. Why the multiple revisionism? Who is telling Mrs. Daniels what to say? What is being covered up?

Another point which for me is not new is the issue of Barbara Olson's calls to then solicitor-general Ted Olson. Mrs. Olson's supposed call is among the foundational cement in the definitiveness of the official account of 9/11, whereby airliners were hijacked by terrorists. Mr. Olson first claimed, on 9/11 itself, that Barbara phoned him twice, from a cell phone. On Sept. 14, however, Olson told FOX's Hannity & Colmes program that she called the department of justice, collect. He then speculated that this was because she did not have her credit cards with her and therefore couldn't make a normal-way call. This scenario, of course, would be consistent with not a cell phone call but a seatback airphone. Astonishingly enough, Mr. Olson changed his story again later that same night on Larry King, reverting back to cell phone. He said that the second call went dead because "signals coming from cell phones from airplanes don't work that well." Two months later, at a memorial service, Mr. Olson flip-flopped AGAIN, settling with airphone. Why so many self-contradictions on Mr. Olson's part? Not only does Olson contradict himself, he is contradicted by other sources, one of whom is the FBI. The FBI acknowledged, via documents released after the Moussaoui trial, that there were only two on-board phone call attempts by Barbara Olson, and these were unable to connect and therefore lasted "zero seconds." This SHOULD be front page news around the world. Where are our investigative journalists?

9/11 Contradictions lays out literally hundreds of internal contradictions within the official account of 9/11, some blatant, some subtle; but every one of these contradictions is important in that each undermines the credibility of the whole story, and journalists, as our "Fourth Estate," have an obligation, a responsibility, to look into these inconsistencies. Unfortunately, the First Amendment seems to only be alive and well on the internet and alternative media, for the corporate-controlled media has not looked into even one of these inconsistencies. Indeed when Michael Moore exposed Bush's classroom behavior to the mainstream, many pundits in the corporate media hopped onto the "Michael Moore is un-American!" bandwagon. The corporate media has clearly lost the trust of much of the American people for not asking the tough questions leading into the Iraq war; questions which, had they been vigorously addressed, might have averted the war from the get go. For this, hard 9/11 questions notwithstanding, they are already going to be remembered in history as the generation of media that failed its citizens. Whereas we look back to the days of Edward R. Murrow as an era of journalistic integrity, we will look back on this era's journalism with shame. Indeed, TV news commentators who spew forth the idea that 9/11 Truthers should be tased and kept in secret prisons will be viewed, in a couple decades, the way we now view Dr. Goebbels. However, the media just might begin to redeem themselves if they wake up and begin asking the hard questions about 9/11, and should they choose to take this red pill, Griffin's works are the perfect arsenal toward restoring true democracy in the United States.

Griffin uses rationality's purest tools to throw light on to the fraught territory of 9/11: clarity and reason.

His contradictions are undeniable, and cry out for responses from the corporate colossus of the mass media and the vast miasma of the military-industrial-banking consortium.

Those who call for 9/11 researchers to forget it and move on are precisely those who prevent the world moving on. The whole affair has to be reopened and the hideous secrets of the war machine revealed.