Assignment Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/9-11.Pdf 👈

1. 1
1
BAD LIARS: A Critical Review of
“THE NEW PEARL HARBOR:
Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11”
by David Ray Griffin (2004)
© H. J. Spencer [23Aug.2021] < 5,100 words; 8 pages>.
ABSTRACT
This 300-page best-selling book is viewed by many as the definitive history of the Attack on America in
September 2001 - now known universally by the abbreviation 9/11. This attack was used by the Bush
Administration to justify several wars (Iraq, Afghanistan) and to modify the effective Constitution of the USA.
The official investigation concluded that this attack was organized and committed by a small group of Islamic
Terrorists; this conclusion has become the official history of this major event, that has been compared as a
Second Pearl Harbor. Professor Ray Griffin is regarded as one of the fairest skeptics about the official story
that has also been challenged by many professionals, such as architects and engineers. Griffin explores the
broad landscape of official behavior relating to this event. He alerts the reader to the general threat to
constitutional democracy, under the guise of "National Security".
The book is organized into two parts. Firstly, it analyzes each of the four parts of the attack, raising logical
contradictions against the official 'explanation'. Secondly, it challenges the deeply flawed 'investigations' and
pseudo-explanations offered by "Friends of Bush". It concludes with the summary evidence for Complicity of
Silence and a call for a new, thorough and independent Investigation into these dreadful events of 20 years ago.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
David Ray Griffin (born 1939) has been Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Ethics at the Claremont
School of Theology in California for over 30 years. He is the author and editor of more than 20 books. He was
born and raised in a small Oregon town. Initially, as a committed Christian, he planned to become a minister but
switched from the Northwest Christian College to the University of Oregon gaining a Master's Degree in
counseling. After listening to Paul Tillich, he studied philosophical theology at Claremont Graduate University,
getting his PhD there in 1970. His interest moved to Process Theology (based on Whitehead's philosophy) as
this provided a sound basis for addressing contemporary social and ecological issues. Griffin then taught
philosophy at University of Dayton before returning in 1973 to Claremont to establish, with Cobb, the Center
for Process Studies at the Claremont School of Theology, where he stayed thereafter. Since 2004 he has focused
on the 9/11 events and has written 14 books on this topic.
AUTHOR'S BIBLIOGRAPHY
Professor Griffin has written 26 books on philosophy, theology and religion; including:
• (1976) Process Theology: An Introductory Exposition, with John B. Cobb.
• (1988) The Re-enchantment of Science: Postmodern Proposals.
• (1989) Varieties of Postmodern Theology.
• (1990) Primordial Truth and Postmodern Theology.
• (1993) Postmodern Politics for a Planet in Crisis.
REVIEWER'S WEBSITE
All of the reviewer's prior essays and other reviews (referenced herein) may be found, freely available at:
https://jamescook.academia.edu/HerbSpencer

2. INTRODUCTION
This book adopts the title of a "Second Pearl Harbor" to recognize the power of this phrase in invoking
the power of nationalism and patriotism that was appealed to by the Neo-Conservatives in their 'Project
for the New American Century'. The events of 9/11 were the most important events of recent times -
for both America and the rest of the world. The attacks on that day have provided the basis for
significant restrictions on civil liberties in the US. They were also the basis of a worldwide "war on
terror" (leading to the failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) and the creation of a growing National
Security state that is morphing into a global fear of BioTerrorism. Some critics of US foreign policy
believe that the imperialism of the Bush-2 administration, since 9/11, has been much more explicit, far-
reaching and arrogant. The American press has provided no in-depth investigation of whether the
official account of what happened fits with the available evidence or is even plausible.
Professor Griffin admits in his introduction that until 2003, he had not looked at the evidence. Like
most people, he assumed that no American government could ever be actively involved, even in any
major cover-up. Only 'crackpots' and "conspiracy theorists" (a term invented by the CIA sixty years
ago to discourage questions about the JFK assassination) would deviate from the standard vision. It
was only after reading a few well-researched books did he begin his own investigations that we see
here. These books suggested that the attacks must have resulted, at least, from complicity in high
places, not merely from incompetence in lower levels. This book began as a short magazine article
summarizing the main evidence but it just kept growing. He also begins with a useful discussion on the
various types of 'complicity', reflecting the degree of foreknowledge involved and he seems to arrive at
'Specific Advance Knowledge by the White House' where some of the major advisors there knew of
the targets and timing of the attacks. He develops a cumulative argument consisting of several
independent conclusions, admitting that perhaps some of them have been exaggerated but still leaving
a strong impression of some major complicity. He admits that we accept all those conspiracy theories
that we believe to be true, while rejecting all those we believe to be false. According to the official
account, the 9/11 attacks occurred because of a conspiracy among Muslims, with Osama bin Laden
being the chief conspirator. Revisionists reject that as a sufficient explanation, arguing that an official
conspiracy is needed, at least in allowing the attacks to succeed.
1. THE ATTACK
The book analyzes the attacks by target: the two planes crashing into the World trade Center (WTC)
that he combines into a chapter labeled 'Towers'; the strike against the Pentagon; and the only plane
that failed ('Flight 93') on September 11, 2001.
1.1 THE TOWERS
1.1.1 THE NORTH TOWER (American Flight 11)
American Airlines (AA) Flight 11 (a Boeing 767), left Boston at 7:59 for LA. At 8:14, it failed to
respond to an order to climb from the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA), while its radio and
transponder (the device that identifies the aircraft automatically on the screen of the air-traffic
controller, displaying also its exact location, altitude and direction) went off. At 8:20, the FAA ground
controllers saw that the plane was going in a radically different course than authorized, leading them to
conclude that it probably had been hijacked. At 8:21, flight attendants on the plane reported by
telephone that the plane had definitely been taken over by hijackers, who had already killed some
people. At 8:28, the plane turned towards New York. At 8:46, the plane crashed into the North Tower.
This never should have happened because if standard procedures had been followed, the plane would
have been intercepted in ten minutes of any sign of it being hijacked. If he plane had failed to follow
the fighter, it would have been shot down (probably by 8:24 or 8:30) at the latest. An F-15 should have
been 'scrambled' from McGuire AFB and with a top speed of 1,800 mph would have reached the target
in a few minutes.

3. 3
3
1.1.2 THE SOUTH TOWER (United Flight 175)
United Airlines (UA) Flight 175 (a Boeing 767), left Boston at 8:14 for LA. At 8:42, it lost its radio
and transponder and it veered off course. Knowing by then that the earlier flight had definitely been
hijacked, the FAA officials contacted the military immediately at 8:43. North American Air Defense
(NORAD) should have had fighter jets intercept this plane by 8:53. Instead, no planes intercepted flight
175 and it crashed in the South Tower of WTC at 9:03. At 8:55, a public announcement was broadcast
inside the South Tower, saying that the building was secure, so that people could return to their offices.
This suggests that someone other than the hijackers was seeking to ensure that a significant number of
lives were lost: a second Pearl Harbor needed a high death count to excite the American public.
1.1.3 NORAD CONFUSION
The acting head of NORAD (General Myers) later admitted (confirmed by VP Cheney) that NO fighters
were launched until after the Pentagon was hit at 9:38, instead of at least 8:46 when the North Tower
was hit; suggesting that this could only happen if high-ranking officials worked in a co-ordinated way
to make the system fail. This indicates that the subsequent lack of disciplinary action either suggests
lying or the relevant parties (FAA and/or NORAD) did what they were told to do. NORAD took six
minutes to scramble after they knew about the hijacking. Further, they ordered the planes at Otis Air
National Guard in Cape Cod to go, instead of from McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey that was
only 70 miles from NYC (110 miles closer), so could have reached the WTC in just 3 minutes that
could have saved the South Tower.
1.1.4 COLLAPSE OF WTC TWIN TOWERS
The 'official' version claims that both towers collapsed due to the impact of the hijacked airliners plus
the "intense" heat produced by the resulting fires. However, the official report by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) declared that "the sequence of events leading to the collapse
of each tower could not be definitively determined." An unexplained anomaly is that the South Tower
that was hit 17 minutes after the North Tower but collapsed first at 9:59, 29 minutes before the
collapse of the North Tower.
This explanation was rejected out of hand by an expert writing in the January issue of the Fire
Engineering trade magazine that reported a growing number of fire protection engineers said it was
impossible for the plane impacts plus jet fuel alone to have brought down the buildings. Indeed, it is
now known that temperatures above 1,500ºC are needed to soften the steel beams but most of the fuel
would have burned off quickly at temperatures below 1,300ºC. Indeed, such high-rise towers have
NEVER burned down anywhere in the world. The few steel columns hit by the planes would have
easily been compensated by the hundreds of other undamaged columns. Furthermore, both buildings
collapsed in seconds, comparable to free-fall, where there is no resistance. The observations are more
consistent with controlled demolitions of high-rise buildings, where powerful explosives are placed
throughout the building. This would also explain the vast quantities of fine-grained concrete that
require large amounts of energy, not just temperature; as well this explains the horizontal ejections.
This theory is reinforced by many first-hand accounts (including by some firemen) of hearing
explosions within the buildings. Mysteriously, all the debris was quickly removed before investigators
could analyze the rubble; the 300,000 tons of steel were shipped rapidly to China and Korea.
1.1.5 COLLAPSE OF WTC BUILDING 7
A third high-rise (the 47 story Building 7) collapsed on that day that was never hit by any aircraft;
even FEMA was baffled. The unofficial explanation is that some burning debris crossed the 355 foot
gap to the nearer North Tower, to start a fire. It's sprinkler system failed to activate and the fire-chief
banned all crews from checking it. Other buildings (WTC 4, 5 and 6 burned but never collapsed). This
building also collapsed at near free-fall speeds, with no explanation ever given. Mysteriously, WTC7
had been converted into the NYC Emergency Response Center a few years earlier and was also storing
unique CIA and SEC documents, plus much gold bullion.

4. 4
4
1.2 THE PENTAGON
The official story of the attack on the Pentagon was that it was American Airlines (AA) Flight 77 (a
Boeing 757) that took off from Washington Dulles International Airport at 8:20 for LAX. At 8:46, it
went significantly off course for several minutes but no fighter jets were scrambled. At 8:50, the plane
got back on course but radio contact was lost, while at 8:56 the plane's transponder went off, so the
plane disappeared from the air-traffic controller's radar screen in Indianapolis; still no fighter jets were
scrambled. At 9:25, air controllers at Dulles Airport noticed a fast-moving plane apparently moving
towards the White House. At 9:27, VP Cheney was warned that a mysterious plane was only 50 miles
away. At 9:37, the Pentagon was hit, after making a sharp turn and descended rapidly from 7,000 feet.
Less than 35 minutes into the flight, the hijackers stormed the cockpit and forced the passengers, crew,
and pilots to the rear of the aircraft. Hani Hanjour, one of the hijackers who was trained as a pilot,
assumed control of the flight but was incompetent to manoeuver. Unknown to the hijackers, passengers
aboard made telephone calls to friends and family and relayed information on the hijacking.
1.2.1 WHAT HIT THE PENTAGON?
There are many questions that have been raised about the nature of the aircraft that hit the Pentagon. A
Dulles air-traffic controller said that he and several of his colleagues who watched this on radar
thought that "the speed and maneuverability indicated a military plane". There were several closed
circuit TVs recording that day: all of their film has been seized by the FBI and none released. The real
mystery is the amount of damage caused to the Pentagon, as seen on an immediate photograph that
shows a hole under 20 feet across; there is very little left of the crashing plane (over 100 tons) and
some witnesses claim an explosion occurred on impact. Worse, the Pentagon's own anti-missiles were
never used (why not?). Many people query whether Hanjour was skilled enough to fly the plane like
this. The other question raised was why the target was the small wall (only 80 feet high) when the
whole roof offered a target of nearly 30 acres and would have killed far more servicemen?
1.3 FLIGHT 93
United Airlines (UA) Flight 93 (a Boeing 757), left Newark International Airport at 8:42 for San
Francisco. At 9:28, ground flight controllers heard sounds of screaming. At 9:34, Tom Burnett spoke
to his wife who told him about the WTC hijacking, leading him to realize that his own plane was likely
on a suicide mission. At 9:36, the plane turned towards Washington. After 9:47, Jeremy Glick told his
wife, by telephone (with the FBI listening in), the passengers had voted to attack the hijackers. At 9:58,
another passenger talking on the phone to her husband said: "I think they are going to do it; they are
forcing their way into the cockpit." But her husband then heard screaming in the background followed
by a "whooshing sound", then he lost contact. A seismic study concluded that the plane crashed soon
after 10:06. The plane crashed into a field in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. VP Cheney confirmed
the order three times to shoot down the plane that was confirmed by an unauthorized flight controller
said that "an F-16 fighter closely pursued Flight 93". Everyone onboard (all 44 people) were killed but
this has never been admitted officially, claiming that it was done deliberately by the hijackers. The
consensus later was that this flight was to be targeted at the Capitol Building that was not evacuated
until after 9:48.
1.4 THE PRESIDENT'S REACTION
Disturbing questions have also been raised by President Bush's behavior on that day. The president's
schedule called for him to visit an elementary school in Sarasota, Florida where he was to listen to
students read, as a 'photo opportunity'. He arrived at the school shortly before 9:00 AM. Since CNN
broke into its schedule at 8:48 announcing the attack, it seems odd that the president was unaware of
this ten minutes later. If he knew, before arriving at the school, why did he and others pretend
otherwise? Indeed, after telling the school's principal about the plane crash, he told him that "they were
going ahead and do the reading thing anyway." After this he continued, not asking for further updates.
The president did not leave until 9:29. Did he know that he was not a target? Was this action rational?

5. 5
5
2. THE GOVERNMENT REACTION
2.1 ADVANCED WARNINGS?
In this section, Griffin explores the possibility of government officials being prior aware of the attack
before it occurred. The official position was to deny this was possible and they were never alerted.
However, Griffin quotes several documented examples to contradict these denials. Over ten years
earlier, the National Intelligence Council. which advises the president and US intelligence agencies on
emerging threats said in a report on terrorism: "Suicide bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed
with high explosives into the Pentagon, the CIA HQ or the White House."
A second, narrower claim is that there were no specific warnings relating to 9/11. On 9/14, the director
of the FBI said: "There were no warning signs that would indicate this type of attack." One of the
official warnings was provided by the UK on August 6 that al-Qaeda had planned an attack in the US
involving multiple airplane hijacking. Intelligence agencies monitor the stock market watching for
clues of impending catastrophes. In the days leading up to 9/11, there was an extremely high volume of
'put options' [bets that the share price is going down] in Morgan Stanley (that occupied 22 stories in
the WTC), and for United and American Airlines as well as against Boeing. These two airline volumes
of 'puts' were up by 120 times; immediately after the attack these options multiplied 100 times in
value. This unusual set of purchases "raises suspicions that the secret investors had advanced
knowledge of the attacks." It is known that the CIA were monitoring the market for just these types of
advanced transactions. Even worse, these trades were NEVER investigated by the FBI. There were even
more warnings from foreign allies about 9/11; US intelligence agencies would later claim that the
highly specific messages received two days before September 11 were not translated until afterwards.
Denials by White House officials, like Condoleezza Rice, have been called out as "patent lies".
2.2 BLOCKING PRIOR INVESTIGATIONS?
There is strong evidence that the fact of official complicity is robustly suggested as there is evidence
that governmental agencies had purposely prevented investigations of al-Qaeda and related individuals.
In December 2000, Richard Clarke (a counter-terrorism expert) submitted a plan a plan to 'roll back' al-
Qaeda through a dramatic increase in covert action in Afghanistan that was offering sanctuary for bin
Laden. In March 2001, Russia secretly provided a "an unprecedentedly detailed report" to the UN
Security Council about bin Laden and his whereabouts, including a list of all his bases, his government
contacts and foreign advisors - enough to kill him. But the Bush administration took no action. In July
2001, bin Laden spent two weeks in the American hospital in Dubai (UAE), where he was treated by an
American surgeon and visited by the head of Saudi Intelligence and the local CIA agent. This story was
widely reported in Europe but barely at all in the US. The reality was that the Bush family has had
business relations with the bin Laden family for over 20 years and there have been ongoing ties
between the Saudi government, Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda throughout the pre-9/11 period. But in
August 2001, John O'Neill (a counter-terrorism expert and the US government's 'most committed
tracker of bin Laden') resigned from the FBI, citing repeated obstructions of his investigations into al-
Qaeda, as reported in the New Yorker magazine.
Griffin then dedicates six pages to detailing specific FBI failures to pursue hot leads from their own
agents in Phoenix, Minneapolis, Chicago and New York, when specific future hijackers were identified
by field agents.
The Chief Investigative Counsel for the US House of Representatives (David Schippers) publicly
stated that he warned the Attorney General about attacks planned for lower Manhattan six weeks
before, based on information he had received from FBI agents. This information included dates and
targets of the attacks plus names and funding sources of the hijackers. The FBI then shut down these
investigations, threatening the agents with prosecution if they went public with this; all then confirmed.

6. 6
6
2.3 ALLOWING THE ATTACK?
The US has initiated two wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) based on "responses to 9/11". In reality, both
these wars were planned for, several years ahead.
2.3.1 WAR In AFGHANISTAN?
After explicitly helping the Taliban defeat the Russians in Afghanistan, leading to their first victory in
1996, the US began negotiating with them for a new pipeline ('CentGas') through Afghanistan and
Pakistan through to the Indian Ocean. Later that year, the US oil company (Unocal), losing confidence
in the Taliban, pulled out of CentGas. From then on, the US grew increasingly hostile to the Taliban
and the US started bombing Afghanistan on October 7, 2001. An Israeli observer pointed out that the
large American bases created there lie on the projected route of the new pipeline to the Indian Ocean.
2.3.2 WAR In IRAQ?
The Project for a New American Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think tank, published a proposal
in September 2000 Rebuilding America's Defenses that contained an argument for an invasion of Iraq
that might need a second, large attack on the USA as a smokescreen ('A New Pearl Harbor'). PNAC
was supported by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's future deputy at
Defense) and Lewis 'Scooter' Libby (Cheney's future chief of staff); all future insiders in the Bush II
administration. Whereas the Bush and Blair administrations claimed the Iraq War was to remove
Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons, the real motivation was to seize control of the vast Iraqi oil
reserves. Perhaps, PNAC had been inspired by Zbigniew Brzezinski's earlier recommendation for
America to target Central Asia, with its vast oil reserves, as key to future world domination.
2.4 POST-ATTACK INVESTIGATIONS
Chapter eight is a short analysis of the several attempts by the Bush Administration after 9/11 to falsify
their reaction. These included the PR effort to capture bin Laden in Afghanistan and the cover up of
their nefarious dealings with the Pakistan ISI (their CIA equivalent) that began in the 1980s during
which the ISI was the local agency in Kabul through which the CIA operated there. After the final
withdrawal of the Russians from Afghanistan, the ISI (at the instigation of the CIA) began heroin
smuggling into western countries, to use the huge profits for its own illicit expansion. One ex-CIA
agent (Gerald Posner) reported that the ISI had made a wire transfer of $100,000 to the bank account
of Mohamed Atta (the alleged 9/11 leader) in Florida on the direct instruction of General Mahmoud
Ahmad, the director of the ISI. Worse, it was learned that General Ahmad had been in Washington
from September 4 to 10th, 2001 meeting with CIA Director George Tenet, officials at the Pentagon, the
National Security Council and the State Department.
Further lack of curiosity was revealed when many of the alleged hijackers had received flight training
at US military installations, such as the Naval Air Station in Pensacola (FL), US Air Force bases at
Brooks (San Antonio), Maxwell (Alabama) and in Monterey (CA). None of these were investigated.
Astonishingly, FBI Director Mueller, calling the FBI's month-long investigation of 9/11 "the most
exhaustive in its history"; declared it over on October 10, 2001.
The final nail in this coffin occurred when the directors of the CIA, the FBI and the NSA all admitted
before a congressional committee that no individuals in their agencies had been fired or even punished
for missteps connected to 9/11. Indeed, some of them were actually promoted.
Griffin confessed that he kept qualifying the term 'hijackers' with 'alleged' since there is some dispute
whether any of them were actually involved or not. Newspaper stories were soon appearing suggesting
that five of the men identified by the FBI were still alive; all five have been confirmed to be alive. The
Saudi embassy (Washington) said that another four were alive in Saudi Arabia. In fact, one hijacker's
passport was even discovered in the rubble of the Towers.

7. 7
7
3 THE NEED FOR A NEW INVESTIGATION
Naively, Griffin expects the Fourth Estate to do a full inquiry, when it is obvious the media are a weak
bunch of losers fully controlled by the rich Few, so they keep their jobs. Indeed, the government only
funded a Joint Inquiry in 2002 to the tune of $3 million (in contrast, a federal commission to study
legalized gambling cost $5 million in 1996 and the Columbia Shuttle disaster cost $50 million). The
focus of the Inquiry was on "Never Again" - not what happened. Bush refused to give evidence under
oath
4. COMPLICITY
There is usually a connection between a complicity and the benefits that result. Several investigators
have named the following as direct beneficiaries of 9/11: the Bush Administration, the Pentagon, the
CIA and FBI, the weapons industry and the oil industry. President Bush announced that the US military
capacity would be increased sufficiently to win this new war ('against terrorism') "whatever it would
cost" was able to push through the biggest increase for military spending since the end of the Cold
War; the $48 billion addition in January 2002 was more money than any other country spent on its
total military. Within one month, Donald Rumsfeld told The New York Times that "9/11 created the
kind of opportunities that World War II offered to refashion the world."
4.1 THE BEST EXPLANATION?
The tragedy of this book is the wasted opportunity to 'dig deeper'. Griffin simply repeats the claims of
the four principal investigators that initiated his efforts. These are:
1) Nafeez Ahmed, "The War on Freedom" (2002).
2) Michel Chossudovsky, "War and Globalization" (2002).
3) Thierry Meyssan, "9/11: The Big Lie" (2002).
4) Paul Thompson, "9/11: The Complete Timeline" (2002).
In chapter nine, Griffin lazily repeats a summary for the Official Complicity (24 points); the ten best:
1) Pre-existing evidence for future wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
2) Al-Qaeda personnel were allowed into USA and trained in flight schools.
3) The 9/11 attacks could not have happened with proper air defense standard procedures.
4) The WTC buildings (especially Building 7) needed explosives for their rapid collapse.
5) The Pentagon aircraft was not a Boeing 757 but a missile.
6) FBI had one month's advanced warnings about the attack date and targets.
7) CIA knew about the 'Put' options purchased before 9/11.
8) The involvement of the Pakistani ISI senior management in financing 9/11.
9) The lack of reprisals (but even punishments) for many involved.
10) Senior Bush Officials were promoting a 'New Pearl Harbor' incident.
Indeed, Griffin bends over backwards to give the Bush Gang an 'Out' for lack of "true" evidence; he
raises a series of "rhetorical" questions in his attempt to be fair, like: "to accept the complicity theory
would be to attribute a degree of incompetence to the conspirators that is beyond belief. But the truth
may be that they really were terribly incompetent." Furthermore, he condemns the US mass media for
huge failures to investigate.
Griffin's major source (Ahmed) says that the purpose of his book is not to provide a definitive account
but merely "to clarify the dire need for an in-depth investigation into the events of 11th of September."
Griffin's own confession is that his own book "is an attempt to show in relatively brief form, that he
and the other three have done just this."

8. 8
8
4. CONCLUSIONS
4.1 CONFESSION
Near the end of this book is an astonishing confession by Professor Griffin, who admits that "the task
of this book was NOT to develop a theory of what really happened on 9/11 but merely to summarize
evidence suggesting both the falsity of the official account and the likelihood of official complicity."
Griffin then has the nerve to criticize the commission's chairman, Thomas H. Kean (a direct personal
appointment by President Bush) for always assuming that the official story about 9/11 was correct; but
this is his own implicit assumption throughout this book.
4 REVIEW CONCLUSIONS
This patchwork of lazy, third-hand reporting by Griffin goes a long way to explaining why there has
never been a real investigation of the 9/11 Conspiracy (in spite of his 'pro forma' call for such a 'real'
investigation). If this is the best that an independent member of the Professoriate could come up with,
then it is no wonder that the Bush Gang and the their Media supporters literally got away with murder.
The truth is that few Americans care, as they are either true (Bush) believers or too cynical to ever
expect ever uncovering the real facts behind another judicial murder, such as JFK, RFK and MLK.
Perhaps, a few more people may get suspicious about these facts of twenty years ago as we approach
another great conspiracy: the Great Reset of the Global Economy, after the incredible Covid
Plandemic.
4.1 BOOK STRENGTHS
As a professional academic, Griffin documents almost every claim with an explicit cross-referenced
link in his extensive (50 page) set of footnotes. However, few offer any new insight but mainly links
to the four major books [see $4.3 below].
4.2 BOOK WEAKNESSES
The major weakness of this book is its focus on blaming Bush (as per its subtitle); VP Dick Cheney
appears more central to the story. The greatest weakness is he author's assumption that the official
story is nearly" right - the attacks were made by Islamic fanatics that the US allowed to happen.
He never considers that the whole story is a LIE: everything was done by the US government,
military and national security agencies and cleverly diverted onto bin Laden and friends. Worse,
Griffin has not done ANY independent research before writing this book. He simply refers to
(hundreds of times) to the independent research that first triggered his interests in this topic. Another
annoying weakness with the book here, is the indexing only of people, there is no broader index on
locations or generic events.
4.3 REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS
This book adds little to the knowledge of the 9/11 Conspiracy and seems really targeted towards other
academic scholars. It is written in a very dry academic style that fails to convey the anger linked to
these deceptions. I found it a chore to read. It is a terrible wasted opportunity and a distraction to many.
So, I do NOT recommend it to the general reader. Internet videos, like the following will provide a
much more interesting use of one's time [sad to say, as I am a reader].
1) The New Pearl Harbor (Part 1): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GCeuSr3Mk
2) The New Pearl Harbor (Part 2): https://youtu.be/K7mDXHn_byA
3) The Pentagon Mystery (Part 3) https://youtu.be/DegLpgJmFL8
4) Loose Change: https://youtu.be/lKO5t3rcIZU
5) Architects & Engineers (9/11 Truth): https://www.ae911truth.org/project-due-diligence