What is wrong with all of us.....or you, selling your debunking ideas for money??? If you want the truth known, why would you charge for it? Get your opinions and point of view out to the public for free!!!!!

You want believers? then don't charge....just give your views!

If there was any doubt as to who carried out Sep 11th, Debunking 9-11 Debunking should set the question to rest. In this fifth book about 9/11, Professor David Ray Griffin takes on the critics of the 9/11 truth movement, including much of the left-leaning press. It is more dry than his other books, but shows what a philosopher can do when turned detective. The amount of evidence about 9/11 that Griffin has amased and synthesized is breathtaking. He shows that those who have attempted to defend the official version of 9/11 against the alternative researches have actually been guilty of some very serious scholarly errors. For example: the bogus cell phone calls supposedly main from airplanes. Griffin shows that these were impossible in 2001, but explainable in terms of voice morphing technology. While the book is a somewhat dry read, the introduction and conclusion are more laid back and offer a fascinating glimpse into the ¨stand-down¨of the media on this subject, even the so-called left-wing media, which one would think would have been the first to question the government account of 9/11. Debunking 9/11 Debunking is a necessary book for anyone who cares about the events of that tragic day. I highly recommend it!!

Presumably most of those reading 'Debunking 9/11 Debunking' will be veterans of the 9/11 conspiracy debate and will therefore be familiar with the general arguments on which the alternative theory is founded. Therefore David Ray Griffin dives into the minutia of the debate with great erudition.

In his opening chapter, Griffin enumerates the dozens upon dozens of contradictions and black holes in the official NORAD/NEADS timeline. This discussion on its own should be enough to raise the suspicion of even the most deeply entrenched opposers of the theory, but Griffin continues.

Griffin exposes the appallingly one-sided use of the term 'conspiracy theory', as well as the countless ways in which the official conspiracy theorists fail by their own criteria. Proponents of the official theory accuse holders of the alternative theory of using unscientific methods and simply ignoring information that goes against their pre-suppositions. Griffin, however, makes it laughably obvious that these people need to practice what they preach, as it is the official theory that is ducking away from the evidence at every turn. This is particularly true in respect of building 7 which requires much verbal chicanery and logical fallacies from much of the official theorists and indeed, is completely ignored by the 9/11 commission.

David Ray Griffin may be only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to those who reject the official conspiracy theory, but he is certainly one of the most knowledgeable and erudite. The 9/11 truth movement could do with as many of his kind as possible.

As an American citizen, this is easily the most terrifying book you will ever read. And yet you must read it.

If you can get through these often complicated, yet meticulously detailed arguments, and still not believe the 9/11 Commission Report was a huge cover up - you will certainly make a fine, obedient citizen in the New World Order.

Don't start with this one. Start with the "A new Pearl Harbor", then "911 Commission, Omissions and Distortions", then this one.
When you are done, be prepared to never have another "so called" normal conversation about 911 with friends or relatives. You will be rejected by all politicians. You will no longer be able to call talk shows without being labeled as a "911 Wacko". You will not be able to write your opinions to nearly all newspapers and most blogs without being "flamed" immediately. Your Republican friends will sneer at you each time 911 comes up and soon those opportunities will depend on you. People in this country just want to forget 911 or use it to suggest what a great leader they were on 911. Remember, it happened while BU**SH** was in office. You will, however, have much of the truth about 911 and a host of unanswered questions.
These are questions of our time that Prof. David Ray Griffin has answered in some cases and asked aloud in many other cases.
The unrelenting assault on his character, one need only check the one star reviews, by the right in this country is the best proof that he speaks the truth along with others such as Architect, Richard Gage.
Warning: all three of these books are dense with information and fairly slow reading if you are serious about learning but it is worth the effort.
Don't read this first, but READ IT!

This kind of testimonies are sorely needed. Too many questions remain unanswered even today. The author has made a great effort to give an extremely detailed and meticulous account of the events on 9/11 in different government institutions, and of the physical impossibility that the towers would collapse as a result of the impact of the planes. However, he has given too much of a good thing. He tries to be so meticulous that it becomes difficult to follow and ultimately, boring. He could have instead reviewed other elements, such as the complete lack of photos of the planes that allegedly impacted the Pentagon and of the one that allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, among many other things. However, if you have the patience to read it carefully, he sure makes his point.

An excellent argument for why the proponents of the official conspiracy theory are full of you know what. A must read for those interested in intellectual discourse on the subject of September 11th.

I flipped through this book a couple days ago at B&N, and thought to myself, who is this "scholar" and "academic" David Ray Griffin that he should challenge the official reports from the NIST and the Popular Mechanics book? After learning that the esteemed Griffin not only taught philosophy but also religion and theology, I soon realized that credentials were more than sufficient to provide a thoughtful and well informed rebuttal to the thousands of engineers and forensic scientist who contributed to the before mentioned reports.

Griffin's book is a breath of fresh air, and in my opinion the most important work yet in the 9/11 truth arsenal. It deals with the counterarguments and shows how logic can elegantly, entirely dismantle the gargantuan GM (government-media) myth of 9/11. Debunking 9/11 Debunking (D9/11D) is a work of art.

Please to all of my professional colleagues--whether in engineering or information technology--and my allies in the cause of political freedom: read this book! It's simply a towering edifice of scholarship, logic, and evidence that will blow your mind. On the basis of revealing the truth of what happened that fateful day in September, we the citizens of the United States of America will be taking our country back... imminently.

...

For my complete review of this book and for other book and movie
reviews, please visit my site [...]

Brian Wright
Copyright 2008

I've read just about every book on 9/11 you can imagine and thought I knew all the arguments pro and con about the most commonly debated points.

Wrong.

The beauty of this book is I learned a bunch of brand new, thought-provoking things about that day that I had never before come across. And that's an accomplishment. Griffin simply lays waste to the laughable PM article/book, almost to a fault--the arguments are EXTREMELY detailed and you'll see the same argument "debunked" two, three times in the book, in different chapters.

But oh, what spot-on arguing he does. Even things I wasn't that dubious about--the Pentagon being one--now cause me serious doubt, so compelling are his arguments and questions.

A must-have reference if you're serious about getting to the real story behind 9/11. He doesn't necessarily answer what that is, but he sure does show that the "official" version is full of holes.

Do not let others think for you. Read, ask questions, try to sort through all the misinformation, on both sides. this is the One book worthy of your time and efforts....be ever vigilant

Griffin's inspiration for this book roots from the fact that Popular Mechanics tore him to shreds for promoting his theory on the structural collapse of the WTC buildings and citing his background in theology (insert laugh track) as credentials.

I read through this heap and was baffled to see the reviews on Amazon. It's a mishmash of hearsay, bad research, selective interviewing, and a blatant lack of comprehension in basic structural physics. Conspiracy theorists claim to have an interest in knowing the truth, but works like these make it fairly obvious that the opposite is true. If you want to know the truth, it can be found in a physics textbook and academic pursuit in engineering. NOT a theology teacher.

David Ray Griffin is the leading expert on 9/11 studies. Many people allow emotion to get in the way of a solid look at what happened that fateful day. After reading this book, it's hard to see how the "official" story could be much more than a well-fabricated falsity. The number of holes in the story, the many, many questions which have not been answered, and the testimonies of witnesses and experts who disagree with the chain of events according to the 9/11 Commission Report, are all covered in this book. It is essential reading, and will pave the way toward the truth one day coming out.

I purchased this book out of general interest on the subject on 9/11. David Ray Griffin is a name that often comes up when searching online for information and so I decided to study his latest work on the matter. The book makes it's mission to defend some of the more cynical views expressed after 9/11 (which include direct government complicity). It's a pleasant (if you can say that about a book with such a harsh subject) read and has a hefty amount of references for the reader to go over which is good. This way we at least know what information the claims, speculations and conclusions are based on. Griffins field of vision is a bit narrow though, as he mainly focuses on the physical cases made by some of the independent researchers in the field (such as Jim Hoffman or Steven Jones). These cases - such as the deliberate demolition of the World Trade Center - though well publicized are hardly the best evidence for government complicity. Also some of the assertions by 9/11 critics Griffin chooses to defend are not supported by some of the people he has referenced. For instance the claim that Flight 77 was not necessarily the object that hit Pentagon is disputed by Jimm Hoffman (http://911research.wtc7.net/). Griffin also seems to think that the secret plot's perpetrators could not have been a mixed group of Al-Qaida and high US officials. Since Osama Bin Ladin himself is a former CIA asset it might be fair to assume he could have been a willing scapegoat. In all fairness, Griffin presents what he says as theories and opinions, not as the final word. That gives him a window for escape should some of his ideas prove false upon later examination. What Griffin does well is the scrutiny of the official theory and it's promoters. While his own conclusions about what happened on 9/11 may or may not be correct he does make a good case for further inquiry. Consider this book food for thought. For the answers though, you have to look further and broader.

There are too many examples of poor science and lies for me to explain them all but I will address as many as I can. First of all David Ray Griffin is still pushing the notion that the 911 commission is trying to hide something by not discussing WTC 7. There's really nothing sinister about it. Anyone who actually read the 911 commission report knows that its stated purpose is "to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks." See anything in there about forensic engineering? Of course not because its purpose is to identify what intelligence failures exist that allowed terrorists to perform the acts of 911,Since building 7 was not attacked it was beyond the scope of the report.

If DRG insists that WTC 7 was not damaged enough to collapse, then there are many firemen who are liars. Virtually all the firemen working near WTC 7 claim that it was going to collapse because of fire and the structural damage. In fact Deputy Chief Peter Hayden said " There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse." Notice he said that by 2:00 they realized that it was going to collapse? Remember that, it comes in handy in a minute.

He also uses the old, tired and soundly debunked claim that WTC 7 fell at freefall speed. It most certainly did not. Do a you tube search for "How fast did WTC 7 fall". You will find that WTC 7 did not fall at free fall speed.

DRG also loves to point out that firemen have often stated that they heard explosions. First of all I find it interesting that DRG considers firemen to be expert witnesses when they hear explosions but then doubts their credibility when they claim that WTC 7 was going to collapse due to fire and damage. As for explosions, I have no doubt that firemen heard explosions or what sounded like explosions. There were all sorts of things that could have exploded such as transformers also the sound of metal snapping and walls collapsing would itself be very noisy. Firemen have made this very claim as far as the sound of explosions.

There are several other things that DRG gets wrong with WTC 7. He claims that the fires didn't really get going till 3:30 which didn't give the fire enough time to cause wtc 7 to collapse because the steel was certified for 3 hours and the fireproofing for 2 more. Fire certification includes both the steel and fireproofing so DRG counted the fireproofing twice. Also fires existed in wtc7 for many hours before 3:30. Even if they weren't as hot as they were at 3:30 the fires still existed long enough to contribute to the collapse.

The validity of DRGs argument rests on the assumption that WTC7 was structurally sound at 3:30. Otherwise, he would have needed to factor the existing damage into the equation. As mentioned earlier, firefighters were predicting WTC7 collapse prior to 3:30. Obviously it was not structurally sound.

DRG also notes that some firefighters claim the fires were big and hot while others do not. He claims that the firefighters that deny the fires were big and hot were correct. DRG uses the argument of the historians principle which states that the people who make statements supporting the "official line" are the less likely to be accurate. The problem is that the overwhelming majority of the statements were made very early after 9/11 or on 9/11. This is long before there would be any official line. Where is it written what the official line is anyway?

He also seems to have little understanding of science. He claims that steel is an excellent conductor of heat so the heat from the fires should have dispersed throughout the frame rather than damage the steel. Steel most certainly is not an excellent conductor of heat. There are numerous pictures of the WTC steel that is damaged from heat

DRG also claims that oxygen starved fires produce dark smoke. Do a Google image search for smoking car crash and you'll find examples of plenty of fires that produce dark smoke and are not the least bit oxygen starved. Smoke color can be determined by the content of the material that is burning. DRG also claims that NIST limited their investigation of WTC 7 to floors 8-47. This is very misleading. NIST conducted modeling of the entire building but floors 8-47 were examined separately because those floors are structurally different from the floors beneath as stated in the NIST report "Below the 8th floor, floors generally consisted of formed slabs with some limited areas of concrete-filled metal decks. There were numerous gravity column transfers, the more significant of these being the three interior gravity column transfers between floors 5 to 7 and eight cantilever column transfers in the north elevation at the 7th floor." NIST studied the entire building but DRG focuses on one statement in order to lead the reader to thinking that only floors 8 and higher were studied.

Dr Griffin also discusses the use of squibs in the twin towers. Here he asserts that these puffs jetting from the building are evidence of controlled demolition. DRGs area of expertiece is in theology so you would think that he would consult a demolition expert to confirm his amateur assumptions but he does not, or more likely, he could not find one that agreed with him. The puffs of smoke were being ejected from the building due to the pressure from the collapse. If you watch the so called squibs, you'll notice that the smoke is ejected more and more quickly as the building collapses further. In an actual explosion, you would see an initial burst of smoke and debris and then see it dissipate, not the other way around. What DRG sees in the towers can't be explosives unless of course these explosives are from a fantasy land where they explode in reverse. Again, debunkers make a big point about these squibs being nothing more than air being forced out of the building. This book is DRGs big chance to bring in all the demolition experts to prove us wrong. Does he do this? Of course not. Did I mention that's because there aren't any that agree with his nutcase arguments?

These are just a few of the problems with the book. If this is the best he has got, it's pathetic.

This book is an answer to those frivolous attempts at debasing the truth and those who seek it. By necessity, it is pretty dry and packed with probably tens of thousands of documented facts. This it does very well.

For those of who feel that freedom, justice, life and ethics are of paramount importance, we are greatly indebted to the tireless research of Dr. Griffin. He not only is fearless in dashing into the dragons mouth, he is still fully capable of intelligent functioning while the dragon slashes and roars. Many people fold up like a cheap suit when those wild eyed enforcers of the greatest conspiracy theory start spewing their rehearsed rebuttals and posting pictures of tin foil hats...they love that one. Problem is they don't have science on their side. They don't have the facts on their side. They don't have probabilities on their side. And they have not shown real video on the Pentagon crash which was likely captured on over a dozen cameras. Nuff said.

If you like false information on 9/11 this is the book. If you like hearsay used to back up false information about 9/11, this is the book. The book can be used as a guide for spreading false information. I found all his points on 9/11 to be false with simple research.

Mr. Griffin has presented and astoundingly well researched record of the facts leading up to, the day of and the aftermath of 9/11. After reading the PM article and resulting book' Debunking 911 Myths' I really needed to find something that provided the answers that PM, and for that matter, the 911 Commission avoided. Following my read of Mr. Griffins' book ( I have as yet read his book 'The New Pearl Harbor', but intend to), follow-up research of his provided sources and a review of the Complete 911 Timeline [...] it appears to me, without a doubt, that there has been a deliberate, and so far, successful attempt by our government to conceal the truth.

If you've already made up your mind that 911 was engineered by USA insiders you'll love this book.
If you have some doubts about how credible that idea is and have actually read the book this addresses (Debunking 911 myths) I doubt this will shed much more light on it.
Unless you're already a true believer Griffin's stretching will likely be a bit much to swallow.

If you really haven't made up your mind, when reading this book you might make a mental note that Griffen, whom I'm sure is sincere and intelligent, has a very strong vested interest in believing 911 was a USA insider job: He's going around the country making a nice living lecturing on this topic. When he came through my city I estimated that his lecture took in about $12,000 for about a 3 hour appearance. Not bad for three hours even if only half went to him.
(I'm not suggesting he's cynically exploiting folks justifiable distrust and dislike of our current government -- only that it might be a bit hard for him to consider that he might not be right when so much of his income and perhaps identity and respect is tied up in believing that 911 was a USA inside job.)

If you are someone who claims to have an open mind, then the easiest way to get started on finding your own truth is by visiting; www.thetruthwillout.com
It's free and has one goal; hidden information to the people!

This book is utter and total drivel. Griffen continues to peddle his awful mix of outright lies, evasions, distortions, errors and half-truths despite the comprehensive debunking of his first version by Ryan Mackey (available online, and *it's* free).

Despite being the darling of the 911 truthers Griffen displays all the worst qualities of those (and other conspiracy believers); he refuses to acknowledge demonstrable facts, he distorts and selectively quotes sources to support his stance and he takes money for doing this.

I supoose that Griffin (who's a theologian, not an actual scientist or engineer)is used to dealing with theological questions, where you don't have to actually deal with evidence and facts to prove a point. One point the "Truth" movement don't want to discuss is the fact that of 130,000+ certified Civil Engineers in the US (and hundreds of thousand more in other countries, some hostile to the US) less than 0.003% support them.

I have been studying 9/11 data since the day it occurred due to the loss of my brother who was a passenger on AA FLT 11. I truly believe 9/11 was an inside job and since I didn't receive any money to keep my mouth shut like my brother's wife did, I have no agenda except to receive the truth. I believe the evidence shows we Americans were lied to by an extremely corrupt government. I hope one day, ALL of the players responsible for this will be punished.

I am stunned by Dr. Griffin's meticulous attention to facts and research. I challenge anyone who thinks the Truth movement is a bunch of 'crackpots' to actually read this book and THEN decide!

I agree with the positive reviews already posted, so no need to add more, other than to say that I especially liked his analogy of a compact car hitting an 18-wheeler and continuing at its original speed and even gaining speed - right! just like what happened when the upper floors crashed into the much greater mass of the lower floors - and continued on with ZERO resistance! C'mon, people, use some common sense! You don't have to be a scientist to see that we've been duped BIG TIME!

I will just say that I was surprised by how very READABLE it is - I was expecting an exhausting, dry list of technical facts, but I am actually having trouble putting it down! Well done!

Having read the book in full, I must admit that Griffin does poke several holes and highlights some inconsistencies in the four documents he challenges. However, despite his critiques, the four documents still appear more scientifically and statistically sound than what Griffin offers as an alternative theory.

Too often, Griffin dwells on the semantics of "conspiracy theory" vs. "alternative conspiracy theory", while making far-fetched claims involving "voice-morphing technology", on the extreme end.

As a book, it simply drags. Griffin is too wordy and repetitive with his arguments. He could have put forth the same claims with half the verbiage. Either way, though, most of the claims are indeed bogus.

As a philosopher and epistomologist, Dr. Griffin examines all subjects dispassionately and with pure intellect and reason. Here is a fact. It is indeed correct that "conspiracy theorists," in the pejorative sense of the term, do indeed cherry-pick random facts to bolster their case. They also omit data that doesn't fit their case.

Another fact is that a conspiracy is simply an agreement between two or more people in secret to do something illegal and/or immoral. A conspiracy theory is a hypothesis as to who is responsible for the act. The officially historically sanctioned version of what happened is itself a conspiracy theory: The idea that 19 Muslim extremists conspired to attack America, their motive being they hated our freedoms (or, in an another interpretation, out of "blow back" for decades of aggressive U.S. imperial-style foreign policy) is itself a conspiracy theory.

Throughout Griffin's latest excellent volume, he shows how the champions of the official theory are guilty of precisely what they accuse the alternative theorists of doing: cherry-picking, omitting and distorting.

The NORAD tapes likely involve distortion, as their version is corroborated by no one but themselves. All news reports and personal anecdotes from the time run to the contrary of what the tapes allegedly reveal.

Popular Mechanics engages in all of the negative traits. Here is but one example: Omission. They claim that no one could have imagined what would happen if a large jetliner slammed into the building. They omit the crucial words of one of the chief architects of the towers. He said: "There would be a huge fire, and massive damage, and a lot of people would be killed, but in the end, the structure would still be there."

The above is just one of countless omissions and distortions in the Popular Mechanics book. Griffin's latest volume is especially important for balance in libraries and the like, because many major institutions, such as the BBC and the History Channel, not to mention the U.S. Government's own State Department website page, continue to cite Popular Mechanics as the final answer to debunking "9/11 conspiracy theories." This book is the REAL conspiracy theory debunker.

I loved this book. David Ray Griffin has a lot to say and every bit of it is presented cogently and clearly. He sticks to the facts and adheres to the scientific method. In defending himself and other "conspiracy theorists," he presents an excellent case showing that documents presented to the American public as the "official story of 9/11" rely on two main methods to present their cases: cherry picking of evidence that bolsters the official story, and complete omission of evidence that doesn't.

The backers of the official story would like you to believe that people who believe in conspiracy theories are nut cases. But David Ray Griffin points out that the official story itself is a conspiracy theory. Therefore, the only real question is this: Who were the participants in the conspiracy? This book presents a very strong case that participants included top American officials and members of the Big Business elite. But that's only the case presented by the facts. There's also the case presented by a few of the "really good looking facts." Take your pick.

In order to demolish a building you mainly have to blow out the bottom supports and the sheer weight of the building collapses on itself. If they were caused by a controlled demolition they wouldn't have collapsed from where the plane impacts were which eventually were the breaking points of the buildings, nor would they have imploded from top to bottom like they did. And if there were explosives they would've gone off when the planes hit the building and not burn for an hour before they collapsed. And how long would it have taken to set up these imaginary explosives without anyone seeing this large crew, or hearing them slicing beams.

And for WTC7, it stood for a couple hours after two 110 story building collapsed literally from across the street on top and around. Just try to imagine the debris from the 1st couple floors from the WTC 1 & 2 collapse. There was so much force that the bottom 18 floors of WTC7 were damaged to the point that the weight did collapse the building eventually on itself. I'm sure your lying conspiracy theorists aren't telling you that. Use some common sense.

I've watched and analyzed the collapses over and over and over there are no signs of controlled demolition unless you're living in fantasy world.

The truth is these 9-11 conspiracy theorists believe contrived utter nonsense over simple logic.

They've been like that since Al Gore lost the election back in 2000, just kicking and screaming nonstop nonsense trying to get even with Bush somehow for becoming president.

I think most of America is too smart to buy into their redicoulous mindset. Just because we don't yell it in your face all the time doesn't mean were not here.

In order to demolish a building you mainly have to blow out the bottom supports and the sheer weight of the building collapses on itself. If they were caused by a controlled demolition they wouldn't have collapsed from where the plane impacts were which eventually were the breaking points of the buildings, nor would they have imploded from top to bottom like they did. And if there were explosives they would've gone off when the planes hit the building and not burn for an hour before they collapsed. And how long would it have taken to set up these imaginary explosives without anyone seeing this large crew, or hearing them slicing beams.

The truth is these 9-11 conspiracy theorists believe contrived utter nonsense over simple logic.

They've been like that since Al Gore lost the election back in 2000, just kicking and screaming nonstop nonsense trying to get even with Bush somehow for becoming president.

I think most of America is too smart to buy into their redicoulous mindset. Just because we don't yell it in your face all the time doesn't mean were not here.

Griffin's book is a devastating critique not only of the government's story regarding the events of 9/11, but also of the official defenders of that story. It it this book that finally convinced me beyond all doubt that the official story isn't only suspicious, but utterly absurd. I would strongly encourage anyone with even a mild interest in the events of 9/11 to read this book. Dr. Griffin cites strong evidence (with mountains of useful and accessible references) and uses basic logic and fundamental physics to dismantle the (as Griffin terms it) "official conspiracy theory". While there still may not be any solid proof about precisely what DID happen on that day, Griffin succeeds spectacularly in proving what did not. I would without any hesitation recommend this book to anyone, especially those who do not understand what reasons there are to question the government's version of events. Griffin's articulate, dispassionate, and intelligent arguments are very difficult to dismiss.

MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN I JUS DUNT GIT IT, WAHT IS TID BOOK SOPOSE TO B A BOUT NE WAY, IT JUST DONT HAV DAT MUHC CHARACTACTER DEVELOPMENT OR NO INSITE FUL LOOK ON DA HUMAN KONDITION WOOPIE OH WELL IM A PUT IT UP IN DA SHELF

There has been no trial to bring justice to the victims of September 11, but there have been public inquiries and an official commission that have sought the whole story surrounding the acts which took 3,000 lives on that criminal day. As a result of the publication of the 9/11 Commission Report, counter-claims have been formulated which seek to deconstruct the veracity of the "official conspiracy theory" which the US government has promulgated in this document and elsewhere.

The 9/11 Truth Movement is a decentralized and grassroots organization spanning the United States which has been at the forefront of public arguments that the plans for 9/11 were, by and large, known in advance by the top brass of the Executive//Intelligence leadership of the United States. Beyond that, the movement argues that American high-ups were complicit with the hijackers, since they materially aided the plans of Osama Bin Laden by various means in a preplanned manner. The author of "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" is a central member (although not a singular figure-head) of what is loosely called the 9/11 Truth Movement. And he insists that his group's claims deserve to be more cogently addressed, since the government's "irrational conspiracy theory" does not hold water against his evidence.

In response, Popular Mechanics, a mainstream science and technology magazine, has taken up the task of debunking the claims made by those they consider to be "conspiracy nuts" (i.e., those aligned with the 9/11 Truth Movement and others who don't believe the government's 9/11 story). However, Popular Mechanics was at the forefront of counterclaims made in response to the original (9/11 truth Movement-lead) conspiracy allegations regarding 9/11. If it gets confusing, it is.

According to an objective, dictionary definition of "conspiracy theory", both sides are conspiracy theorists. The real question, as author David Ray Griffin puts it is: Who are the "rational conspiracy theorists" getting matters of space, time, and intelligence correct; and who are the "irrational conspiracy theorists" who obfuscate truth and justice? The official conspiracy timeline the US leadership has formulated may be the closest thing there will ever be to a public trial of Osama Bin Laden, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, and others who allegedly perpetrated the attacks. This is unfortunate no matter who is to blame for 9/11.

The problem is: The Bush Administration cannot even apprehend those whom that are trying to convict in the court of international public opinion. So of course, the suspects cannot defend themselves, and the US government's version of events is left murky.
As far as the objective truth to 9/11, we may never know. Both sides certainly poke holes well in each others version of events.

Mind you, the 9/11 Truth Movement, which raises philosophical questions which may ultimately relate to the fate of our so-called democracy, does not necessarily insist Al Qaeda is innocent. Many inside and out of the "Truth Movement" tend to argue that Al Qaeda was made a scapegoat by the Bush Administrations, which enabled the terrorist plan to unfold by making sure that the best military and intelligence system in the world failed to stop 4 hijacked planes, and one big conspiracy to commit first degree murder on a mass scale inside the US..

A problem which makes the book non-definitive is that it only pokes holes in the hole poking which was done by Popular Mechanics magazine. In succeeds on many points but fails to prove anything definitively on others. It definitively does not construct a complete time line of what happened on 9/11 (as does "The Terror Timeline" by Paul Thompson).

As a connoisseur of 9/11-related conspiracy books and propaganda, I would say there are more impressive books if you are looking to expose yourself to alternative press on the subject of 9/11 "conspiracy theories". Nonetheless, no anthology on the subject would be complete without copies of David Ray Griffin's writings.

In short, Debunking 9/11 Debunking is a must have for libraries which seek to inform on the subject of economic conspiracies, political conspiracies, global conspiracies, and "9/11 Conspiricies". If you are looking to shorten your shelves however, you might want to consider getting a hold of Griffin's early works such as "The 9/11 Comission Report: Omissions and Distortions" or "9/11: The New Pearl Harbor" which were more ground-breaking and movement-building. "Crossing the Rubicon" by Michael Ruppert is also a must have, as it is has also served as a movement-building work of investigative research.

At what point did we as a culture decide to grant veracity to the claims of lunatics and print them as if they were solid arguments rooted in reality? Apparently sometime around the turn of the century. On this, the eve of the tragic events of 9/11, we should see it as our duty as not only intelligent human beings conciously aware of what is reality, but as a progressive culture, to mercilessly stomp the turds out of crap like this "book."
First of all, to correct Mr. Griffin, thinking of the truth of the events of 9/11 as "the official government record" is absolutly insane, that would be akin to saying that 9/11 happened on the moon, and not before the eyes of thousands. There's no real mystery to 9/11, what happened happened as we all saw it happen, no two ways about it, there is no conspiracy and those who believe that there is are either dellusional or mental dwarfs... or both. To believe that man kind is capable of perpetrating a hoax to the magnitude that is 9/11, is the same thing as saying you saw a purple unicorn, there just aren't words in the human language to adequitly describe the falsity of a statement like that.
Do your karma, your soul, your common sense, your basic human decency a favor and avoid this trash. If you still think that there is something more to 9/11, you won't be finding it in this book, before wasting your hard earned money, ask yourself one question: If our government were capable of orchestrating the events of 9/11 and then selling a completely false story to the public, including the actual victims and first hand witnesses, then don't you think the government would also be capable of not allowing an idiot like Griffin publish a book that would foil their plans??? Take off your tin foil pyramid hats and wake up to the sobering idea that sometimes horrible things happen, and sometimes all it takes is the will and determination of a few madmen.

It's fascinating to see how many pathetic reviews have been published for this work of academic merit in the last few weeks. These reviews which are largely derogatory, asinine, and facetious are below contempt.

Have these people the ability to even read? Because it's apparent that they haven't read this book.

The writers of Popular Mechanics, who are the so called 'experts' on 9/11, were previously writing articles concerning college football. None of them hold higher qualifications in Science, Mathematics or Engineering.

The rest of the 'experts' are seriously flawed because they are dependent on government funding to continue their work, so on a controversial matter of public interest they would simply be producing 'Science on behalf of their paymaster', or carefully chosen to do so.

In fact you don't need a government funded research department at a prominent American University. Or need a degree in a Scientific discipline (although one would help), to appreciate that there is something odd about the way in which three skyscrapers collapsed, in around 10 seconds or less, on 9/11.

Two of these, the Twin Towers, turned into a pyroclastic dust cloud of micro-particulate matter. I would trust my own eyes and nothing more than high school understandings of the Isaac Newtons laws of motion, gravity and thermodynamics to appreciate that the buildings were destroyed by explosive energy.

Finally some food for thought:

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)

"Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught in falsehoods school. And the one man that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool." -Plato

It's fascinating to see how many pathetic reviews have been published for this work of academic merit in the last few weeks. These reviews which are largely derogatory, asinine, and facetious are below contempt.

Have these people the ability to even read? Because it's apparent that they haven't read this book.

The writers of Popular Mechanics, who are the so called 'experts' on 9/11, were previously writing articles concerning college football. None of them hold higher qualifications in Science, Mathematics or Engineering.

The rest of the 'experts' are seriously flawed because they are dependent on government funding to continue their work, so on a controversial matter of public interest they would simply be producing 'Science on behalf of their paymaster', or carefully chosen to do so.

In fact you don't need a government funded research department at a prominent American University. Or need a degree in a Scientific discipline (although one would help), to appreciate that there is something odd about the way in which three skyscrapers collapsed, in around 10 seconds or less, on 9/11.

Two of these, the Twin Towers, turned into a pyroclastic dust cloud of micro-particulate matter. I would trust my own eyes and nothing more than high school understandings of the Isaac Newtons laws of motion, gravity and thermodynamics to appreciate that the buildings were destroyed by explosive energy.

Finally some food for thought:

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)

"Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught in falsehoods school. And the one man that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool." -Plato

The familiar Achilles Heel for the cottage industry sprouting conspiracy theorists is that, even though they absolutely believe in the rectitude of their position, the actual evidence to substantiate their theories is conspicuously absent.

There are disturbing similarities in the 911 and Diana conspiracies. Both events have one man, DRG in the 911 corner, and Mohmaed Fayed, in the Diana corner, promulgating incredible government initiated plots to either bring down skyscrapers or bring down blond ex-princesses.

Both men have their own support staff of "experts" and "inside" info operatives. Some of DRG's Amen Corner include "Professor" Alex Jones, Professional Anti-Semite Eric Hufschmidt, Former Arizona state chairman for Pat Buchanon's failed presidential run in 2000 Pilot Russ Wittenberg, Architect Richard Gage, and demolition Dutchman Danny Jowenko. Jowenko, while pronouncing WTC7 as an obvious demolition, does depart from the official "truth" manifesto in that he agrees with mainstream engineers that the tower that was hit last, was likely to collapse first (as it did), because of the higher weight on top of the weak spot.

Fayed's supporters include former MI6 officer Richard Tomlinson, who later retracted his accusations that driver Henri Paul was simultaneously a witting and unwitting conspirator, British writer of libelous Scallywag Simon Regan, and Harlequin type paperback authors, Noel Botham, Jon King and John Beveridge. Of course Fayed also has any amount of attorneys and private investigators on his payroll who parrot his conspiracy claims.

Just as DRG's 911 conspiracies have redundant back-up conspiracy systems, so too does Fayed. One can take their pick, or a combination there of, from the following smorgasbord menu:

1) Arms dealers had her killed because they were angry at her support for a ban on landmines
2). Princess Diana faked her death to relieve herself of the paparazzi
3). Prince Charles, and, or, Price Phillip, had her assassinated by M16 because she was seen as a liberal non-conformist
4). Dodi and Diana were murdered by business enemies of the Al Fayed family

Perhaps the jewel in the DRG conspiracy crown is the collapse of WTC7. This has now eclipsed the Twin Towers as "incontrovertible" damning proof of controlled demolition and proof of U.S. government conspiracy. Or is it? Other than the standard response that WTC7 contained Giuliani's command and control center, I have never been able to get a coherent answer as to why WTC7 had to be demolished on 911 with the Twin Towers in order to complete the successful conspiracy check list. Even if it didn't collapse on 911, it would have been condemned, as were 3, 4, 5, and 6, so why could WTC7 not wait to be demolished with 3, 4, 5, and 6 at a later date?

The testimony of on the scene authorities before the collapse of WTC7 still provide a much more compelling explanation then Never Netherlands demolition experts, who relied on you tube videos for their conclusions.

"Summary of World Trade Center Building 7 Emergency Response.
* The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.
* The building had large fires burning on at least six floors [fires were visible on 14 floors]. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.
* There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.
* They didn't have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for con-ducting operations inside the building."

"At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. The order terminated the ongoing rescue operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed."

FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro:

"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt." [Fire Engineering magazine, 10/2002]

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was [that] the collapse [Of the WTC towers] had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely."

Colin Powell pointed to a satellite map purporting to show WOMD's in Iraq. It of course showed no such thing. Griffin, and his fellow cohorts making money off of the 911 Commission Report, point to a hodgepodge of Rorschach ink blots and proclaim conspiracy. But there just isn't any there. Why do these conspiracy authors require less evidence than Powell to make such grandiose assertions?

The DRG Experience needs its own theme song. Here it is courtesy of George Harrison's "Awaiting On You All" from "All Things Must Pass."

YOU DON'T NEED NO CELL PHONES
YOU DON'T NEED NO AIR PHONES
YOU DON'T NEED A BOX CUTER OR PEPPER SPRAY
THE SEE THE MESS THAT YOU'RE IN
IF YOU OPEN UP YOUR EYES
YOU WILL KNOW WHAT I MEAN
DRG'S BEEN PULLING YOUR LEG SO LONG
NOW HERE'S A WAY FOR YOU TO COME CLEAN

BY ADMITING WHAT WE ALL SAW WAS ALL THERE IS TO VIEW
DRG IS TAKIN YOUR MONEY WHILE PUTTIN UP A SMOKE SCREEN
PARROTING DRG'S THEORIES AND YOU'LL ALL BE IN BELLVIEW
DRG IS AWAITING ON YOU ALL TO PONY UP MORE GREEN

YOU DON'T NEED NO HOLOGRAMS
YOU DON'T NEED NO STAND DOWNS
YOU DON'T NEED A TOMAHAWK MISSILE AT A CRASH SCENE
BEFORE YOU CAN TRUST IN COMMON SENSE
IF YOU WISE UP FROM THE START
YOU'LL SEE DRG DEALS IN COTTAGE INDUSTRY MARKS
ALWAYS WAS AND WILL BE SAME
DRG WILL STILL BE TRYING TO BE RELEVANT

BY ABIDING BY OCCAM'S RAZOR YOU'LL BE SANE
DRG CAN'T BE CONING YOU WITH APPARENT EASE
BY ADIDING BY OCCAM'S RAZOR YOU'LL BE FREE

DRG CAN'T BE CONING YOU WITH APPARENT EASE
YOU DON'T NEED NO THERMITE
YOU DON'T NEED NO MOLTEN STEEL
YOU DON'T NEED NO CONTROLLED DEMOLITONS OR MORE SCI-FI READS
TO SEE THAT YOU HAVE BEEN TAKEN
IF YOU OPEN UP YOUR EYES
YOU WILL KNOW WHAT I MEAN
DRG'S BEEN PULLING YOUR LEG SO LONG
HE IS CONVINCED WE'RE ALL GREEN

BY ADMITING WHAT WE ALL SAW WAS ALL THERE IS TO VIEW
DRG IS TAKING YOUR MONEY WHILE PUTTIN UP A SMOKE SCREEN
PARROTING DRG'S THEORIES AND YOU'LL ALL BE IN BELLVIEW
DRG IS AWAITING ON YOU ALL TO PONY UP MORE GREEN

Let's see; what could possibly be wrong with a scientifically uneducated and unqualified THEOLOGIST explain to us why conspiracy theorists are not inherently irrational? Philosophically, of course, proving that something isn't necessarily irrational is not quite the same thing as proving that it's true. But, this comes to us from a man who embraces irrational myth as his profession. It's unfortunate that our right to free speech in this country is often used to promote scientific illiteracy.

The familiar Achilles Heel for the cottage industry sprouting conspiracy theorists is that, even though they absolutely believe in the rectitude of their position, the actual evidence to substantiate their theories is conspicuously absent.

There are disturbing similarities in the 911 and Diana conspiracies. Both events have one man, DRG in the 911 corner, and Mohmaed Fayed, in the Diana corner, promulgating incredible government initiated plots to either bring down skyscrapers or bring down blond ex-princesses.

Both men have their own support staff of "experts" and "inside" info operatives. Some of DRG's Amen Corner include "Professor" Alex Jones, Professional Anti-Semite Eric Hufschmidt, Former Arizona state chairman for Pat Buchanon's failed presidential run in 2000 Pilot Russ Wittenberg, Architect Richard Gage, and demolition Dutchman Danny Jowenko. Jowenko, while pronouncing WTC7 as an obvious demolition, does depart from the official "truth" manifesto in that he agrees with mainstream engineers that the tower that was hit last, was likely to collapse first (as it did), because of the higher weight on top of the weak spot.

Fayed's supporters include former MI6 officer Richard Tomlinson, who later retracted his accusations that driver Henri Paul was simultaneously a witting and unwitting conspirator, British writer of libelous Scallywag Simon Regan, and Harlequin type paperback authors, Noel Botham, Jon King and John Beveridge. Of course Fayed also has any amount of attorneys and private investigators on his payroll who parrot his conspiracy claims.

Just as DRG's 911 conspiracies have redundant back-up conspiracy systems, so too does Fayed. One can take their pick, or a combination there of, from the following smorgasbord menu:

1) Arms dealers had her killed because they were angry at her support for a ban on landmines
2). Princess Diana faked her death to relieve herself of the paparazzi
3). Prince Charles, and, or, Price Phillip, had her assassinated by M16 because she was seen as a liberal non-conformist
4). Dodi and Diana were murdered by business enemies of the Al Fayed family

Perhaps the jewel in the DRG conspiracy crown is the collapse of WTC7. This has now eclipsed the Twin Towers as "incontrovertible" damning proof of controlled demolition and proof of U.S. government conspiracy. Or is it? Other than the standard response that WTC7 contained Giuliani's command and control center, I have never been able to get a coherent answer as to why WTC7 had to be demolished on 911 with the Twin Towers in order to complete the successful conspiracy check list. Even if it didn't collapse on 911, it would have been condemned, as were 3, 4, 5, and 6, so why could WTC7 not wait to be demolished with 3, 4, 5, and 6 at a later date?

The testimony of on the scene authorities before the collapse of WTC7 still provide a much more compelling explanation then Never Netherlands demolition experts, who relied on you tube videos for their conclusions.

"Summary of World Trade Center Building 7 Emergency Response.
* The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.
* The building had large fires burning on at least six floors [fires were visible on 14 floors]. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.
* There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.
* They didn't have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for con-ducting operations inside the building."

"At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. The order terminated the ongoing rescue operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed."

FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro:

"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt." [Fire Engineering magazine, 10/2002]

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was [that] the collapse [Of the WTC towers] had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely."

Colin Powell pointed to a satellite map purporting to show WOMD's in Iraq. It of course showed no such thing. Griffin, and his fellow cohorts making money off of the 911 Commission Report, point to a hodgepodge of Rorschach ink blots and proclaim conspiracy. But there just isn't any there. Why do these conspiracy authors require less evidence than Powell to make such grandiose assertions?

The DRG Experience needs its own theme song. Here it is courtesy of George Harrison's "Awaiting On You All" from "All Things Must Pass."

YOU DON'T NEED NO CELL PHONES
YOU DON'T NEED NO AIR PHONES
YOU DON'T NEED A BOX CUTER OR PEPPER SPRAY
THE SEE THE MESS THAT YOU'RE IN
IF YOU OPEN UP YOUR EYES
YOU WILL KNOW WHAT I MEAN
DRG'S BEEN PULLING YOUR LEG SO LONG
NOW HERE'S A WAY FOR YOU TO COME CLEAN

BY ADMITING WHAT WE ALL SAW WAS ALL THERE IS TO VIEW
DRG IS TAKIN YOUR MONEY WHILE PUTTIN UP A SMOKE SCREEN
PARROTING DRG'S THEORIES AND YOU'LL ALL BE IN BELLVIEW
DRG IS AWAITING ON YOU ALL TO PONY UP MORE GREEN

YOU DON'T NEED NO HOLOGRAMS
YOU DON'T NEED NO STAND DOWNS
YOU DON'T NEED A TOMAHAWK MISSILE AT A CRASH SCENE
BEFORE YOU CAN TRUST IN COMMON SENSE
IF YOU WISE UP FROM THE START
YOU'LL SEE DRG DEALS IN COTTAGE INDUSTRY MARKS
ALWAYS WAS AND WILL BE SAME
DRG WILL STILL BE TRYING TO BE RELEVANT

BY ABIDING BY OCCAM'S RAZOR YOU'LL BE SANE
DRG CAN'T BE CONING YOU WITH APPARENT EASE
BY ADIDING BY OCCAM'S RAZOR YOU'LL BE FREE

DRG CAN'T BE CONING YOU WITH APPARENT EASE
YOU DON'T NEED NO THERMITE
YOU DON'T NEED NO MOLTEN STEEL
YOU DON'T NEED NO CONTROLLED DEMOLITONS OR MORE SCI-FI READS
TO SEE THAT YOU HAVE BEEN TAKEN
IF YOU OPEN UP YOUR EYES
YOU WILL KNOW WHAT I MEAN
DRG'S BEEN PULLING YOUR LEG SO LONG
HE IS CONVINCED WE'RE ALL GREEN

BY ADMITING WHAT WE ALL SAW WAS ALL THERE IS TO VIEW
DRG IS TAKING YOUR MONEY WHILE PUTTIN UP A SMOKE SCREEN
PARROTING DRG'S THEORIES AND YOU'LL ALL BE IN BELLVIEW
DRG IS AWAITING ON YOU ALL TO PONY UP MORE GREEN

Well done reading that should open the eyes of even the most determined nay sayers

What this book intends to accomplish: To remove any doubts about the obvious False Flag operation by the "globalists" NWO agenda. Even the most thick headed, willfully ignorant can't refute the wisdom placed upon the pages within this book. The problem is they are living in denial AND they drink plenty of Fluoridated water, it's in the soda and other store bought poison they fill their bodies with on a daily basis (research it PLEASE!)God help us. The propaganda they peddle in T.V. shows like "24" and fake news makes me puke. Get this book. It's time for you to break the spell. I say, get this book NOW. P.S. Google video: "September Clues" and "Terrorstorm".

When DRG stuck to writing about reincarnation, ESP, possession by spirits, out-of-body experiences, as he did in his lackluster seller, "Parapsychology, Philosophy, and Spirituality: A Postmodern Exploration," his target audience was limited to Shirley MacLaine and her ilk. Even though in that book, he had more substantive arguments than this L. Ron Hubbard investigative account of 911, his support audience expanded to include, anti Zionists, anarchists, Conspiracies R Us, hate America firsters, and -Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism- does not exist contingent.

Strange how the more mundane reasons why St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, nestled in the shadow of the Twin Towers, managed to survive the collapse of the towers, where as 7 World Trade Center, 6 World Trade Center, 5 World Trade Center, 4 World Trade Center, and the Marriott World Trade Center did not, was because it was constructed out of the stone from Hudson River quarries, is not even worthy of mention in DGR's faute de mieux offerings.

Surely DRG will propose in his inevitable third 911 eidetic expose that the cause of the fire at The Deutsche Bank Building across Liberty Street from the World Trade Center complex. condemned due to the uninhabitable, toxic conditions inside the office tower, was set by the shadow Bush government because it was a storage facility containing controlled demolition equipment.

DRG claims that debris from the falling Twin Towers could never have reached WTC7, yet it managed to reach The Borough of Manhattan Community College's Fiterman Hall at 30 West Broadway, which was condemned due to extensive damage in the attacks, as well as 90 West Street and the Verizon Building also suffered major damage. There was also damage done to World Financial Center buildings, One Liberty Plaza, the Millennium Hilton, and 90 Church Street. But because WTC7 collapsed, it had to be the work of demolition charges, not a ragging fire and tons of debris that fell onto the roof. Of course the fact that the Twin Towers and WTC7 collapsed has nothing to do with their scandalous inferior architectural design and materials, but could only occur through a Herculean task of the Bush Administration surreptitiously planting demolitions through out these three buildings.

I'm still waiting to see any official video that shows a controlled demolition of a 110 story functioning skyscraper, filled to the gills with furniture, computers, carpeting, unknown tons of paper goods, etc, that demolitionists brought down in the course of their regular business practices. Never mind one that had a commercial jet fly into. Then, maybe, we would have a valid comparison as to how such a building would look when it collapsed.

For those who embrace the notion that such a covert planting of demolitions could be done in such a seamless fashion with no non-conspirator witnesses to all the wiring, the amount of explosives required to be placed in countless locations, and the danger of such volatile explosives left unattended for weeks on end, I would suggest watching the 2006 Discovery Channel video of the sinking of the aircraft carrier, U.S.S. Oriskany of the coast of Pensacola.

Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal team from Panama City, FL detonated C-4 explosive charges of approximately 500 total pounds net explosive weight, strategically placed on 22 sea connection pipes in various machinery spaces. It took thirty seven minutes after detonation for the mammoth ship, not just to sink, but to sink by design in a completely level position at its resting place 210 feet under the waves.

As to DRG's contention that there were no Air Phones in use by American Airlines back in 2001, he figured that since AA did not have them in use in 2004, they of course did not have them in 2001. This is the sort of shoddy reporting that DRG passes fir as in depth investigation.

"...DRG received two items suggesting that, although AA 757s did not have onboard phones in 2004, they probably did in 2001. One item was a 1998 photograph, said to show the inside of an AA 757, revealing that it had seat-back phones. The other was a news report 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."17 This report, DRG realized, did not specifically mention 757s, so this notice did not necessarily imply that AA 757s had had onboard phones up until that date. However, by taking into consideration this article, the photograph, and the realization that the letters from AA in 2004 were couched entirely in the present tense, DRG concluded that the claim that AA 77 had not had onboard phones was probably an error. He published an essay, "Barbara Olson's Alleged Call from AA 77: A Correction About Onboard Phones,"18 which contained a section entitled "My Error...."

If Olsen's Cell Phone call is Kosher, which DOJ says it is, it completely deflates DRG's contention that Flight 77 did not exists, and that it, not some Tomahawk Missile, hit the Pentagon.

With the release of detailed records of all the phone calls from the flights attendant to the Zacarias Moussouia trial, we now know for sure Barbara Olson did make a call to her husband, Ted. The Department of Justice verified this CELL PHONE call she made to Ted. Yes the call was made, but was disconnected before any conversation could take place. The call was placed at 9:18, twenty-two minutes after the plane's transponder was turned off. The altitude and speed of the plane at this time are unknown, but it may have been flying low and slow, making cell phone calls difficult but not impossible.

Also, during the flight of Flight 93, thirteen passengers made a total of over thirty calls to both family and emergency personnel, and all but two of these were on air phones.

DRG is not interested in matters of complexity, only matters of expediency. That is any alternative proposal that supports his juicy U.S. conspiracy as to how and why a cataclysmic event happened. Hijacked jets by Saudi Arabia terrorists just do not fit into this Weltanschauung.

When DRG stuck to writing about reincarnation, ESP, possession by spirits, out-of-body experiences, as he did in his lackluster seller, "Parapsychology, Philosophy, and Spirituality: A Postmodern Exploration," his target audience was limited to Shirley MacLaine and her ilk. Even though in that book he had more substantive arguments than this L. Ron Hubbard investigative account of 911, his 911 books are cat nip for anti Zionists, anarchists, Conspiracies R Us Filberts, hate America firsters, and the militant -Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist- do not exist contingent.

Strange how the more mundane reasons why St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, nestled in the shadow of the Twin Towers, managed to survive the collapse of the towers, where as 7 World Trade Center, 6 World Trade Center, 5 World Trade Center, 4 World Trade Center, and the Marriott World Trade Center did not, was that it was constructed out of the stone from Hudson River quarries, and not steel/glass/concrete, is not even worthy of mention in DGR's faute de mieux offerings.

Surely DRG will propose in his inevitable third 911 eidetic expose that the cause of the fire at The Deutsche Bank Building across Liberty Street from the World Trade Center complex. condemned due to the uninhabitable, toxic conditions inside the office tower, was set by the shadow Bush government because it was a storage facility containing controlled demolition equipment.

DRG claims that debris from the falling Twin Towers could never have reached WTC7, yet it managed to reach The Borough of Manhattan Community College's Fiterman Hall at 30 West Broadway, which was condemned due to extensive damage in the attacks, as well as 90 West Street and the Verizon Building also suffered major damage. There was also damage done to World Financial Center buildings, One Liberty Plaza, the Millennium Hilton, and 90 Church Street. But because WTC7 collapsed, it had to be the work of demolition charges, not a ragging fire and tons of debris that fell onto the roof. Naturally, the Twin Towers and WTC7 collapse has nothing to do with their scandalous inferior materials and architectural design, but could only occur through a Herculean task of the Bush Administration surreptitiously planting demolitions through out these three buildings.

I'm still waiting to see any official video that shows a controlled demolition of a 110 story functioning skyscraper, filled to the gills with furniture, computers, carpeting, unknown tons of paper goods, etc, that demolitionists brought down in the course of their regular business practices. Never mind one that had a commercial jet fly into it. Then, maybe, we would have a valid comparison as to how such a building would look when it collapsed as the result of a contractors demolition charges.

For those who embrace the notion that such a covert planting of demolitions could be done in such a seamless fashion with no non-conspirator witnesses to all the wiring, the amount of explosives required to be placed in countless locations, and the danger of such volatile explosives left unattended for weeks on end, I would suggest watching the 2006 Discovery Channel video of the sinking of the aircraft carrier, U.S.S. Oriskany off the coast of Pensacola.

Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal team from Panama City, FL detonated C-4 explosive charges of approximately 500 total pounds net explosive weight, strategically placed on 22 sea connection pipes in various machinery spaces. It took thirty seven minutes after detonation for the mammoth ship, not just to sink, but to sink by design in a completely level position at its resting place 210 feet under the waves.

DRG is not interested in matters of complexity, only matters of expediency. Any, and I mean any, alternati