Amongst all those who suggest some kind of clandestine US Government involvement in the events of 9/11, none have had quite as much attention as David Ray Griffin. This respected professor of Philosophy and Theology isn't an obvious conspiracy theorist, after all. His second book on this issue, "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions", in particular has attracted some glowing reviews:
"Through an incisive and carefullydocumented review, David Ray Griffin skillfully refutes the findings of the 9/11 Commission and questions the official 'bipartisan' account of what happened..."
Michel Chossudovsky, Centre for Research onGlobalization/University of Ottawa
"...David Ray Griffin's latest book amply explains why the 9/11 Commission can now be placed in the same category as the Warren and Tower Commissions as dissemblers and varnishers of the truth"
Wayne Madsen, syndicated columnist, investigative journalist
"In this masterful sequel to The New Pearl Harbor, David Ray Griffin unveils a disparity between official 9/11 "spin" and independently researched 9/11 fact so glaring as to suggest the possibilityof a constitutional crisis unlike anything our country has ever known. In this new study, as in its predecessor, he simply details the hard, cold evidence that seriously--and alarmingly--challenges the independence, impartiality, and thoroughness of the 9/11 Commission..."
Burns H. Weston, Bessie DuttonMurray Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, The University of Iowa
"This is a painstaking and devastating demolition of the lies transmitted by The 9/11 Commission Report, and also the new lies invented by it in an effort to reconcile the governments impossible chronologies..."
Dale Scott, author of Drugs, Oil, and War: The United States in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Indochina
Powerful stuff. Griffin himself sums up the purpose of the book, and the reason for its
title, in the opening words of Chapter 1.
"...the 9/11 Commission for the most part simply omits evidence that would cast doubt on the official account of 9/11. When it does refer to evidence of this type, it typically mentinos only part of it accurately, omitting or distorting the remainder".
The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (Chapter 1)
Plainly this is a worthwhile point to make, but some might say Griffin does exactly the
same thing himself, and even more frequently. Could that be true? We’ll take a look at arguments throughout the book, and you can ultimately decide for yourself. (The sheer volume of work involved here means this is going to take a very long time to do thoroughly, so please be patient.