Has anyone read David Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor?

The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1566565529/qid%3D1083205584/sr%3D2-1/ref%3Dsr%5F2%5F1/104-9255177-5959963


Any good? Anything someone wouldn't already know from reading DU?

The New Pearl Harbor is just the book we've been waiting for, and an excellent summary of the many issues that point to LIHOP, while letting the reader draw their own conclusions.

Until now we've all had to get various parts of the "big picture" at websites such as standdown.net, fromthewilderness.com, tenc.net, cooperativeresearch.org, oilempire.us, etc. This well documented book presents every aspect of the unanswered questions of 9-11. It's also very well written, by a well respected Theologian no less. I recommend it highly.

I'm about halfway through. I've already ordered 10 more from Amazon to loan to people before the (s)election. I'll give a few away to some conservative leaning people who still have an open mind.

it should have been printed on tin foil.

I'm about halfway through and it's frankly embarrassing that paulthompson's timeline should be associated with it.

no Pentagon plane
CDs at both Towers and WTC7

it's (so far) mostly a rehash cut 'n paste of Meyssan.

Flt77 went down in Ohio, or Kentucky or landed 'unnoticed in DC

(sure) not a shred of evidence about what happened to flt77 or it's crew and passengers.

hugely disappointing. and no, nothing you have heard discussed/flamed here before.

i'm stunned that Howard Zinn has a blurb on the cover.

plan a controlled demolition and THEN fly planes into it but don't fly a hijacked plane into the Pentagon but instead use a military missle?

when did they plant the bombs in WTC7? *before* it burned for HOURS without detonating the bombs? or *while* it was burning?

I am NO fan of the official story and this book does repeat the LEGTIMATE questions like why was SOP ignored regarding hijacked planes and why did * sit on his ass in FL for so long but...

IMHO this is to give some credibility to their serious TIN. I mean, they quote Breitwiser and Gore Vidal but I've never heard either of them suggest a overly convoluted, massive government conspiracy of the scale presented (so far) here.

this book seems to want to discredit the serious investigations that need to be done to address why the bushies LIHOP'd that day.

but, it's ultimately your $15

<donning my asbestos now> flame away!

Sure, in one sense the book is "merely" a compilation of research done by others, but in that sense alone its worth it, since you'd have to peruse many other sources, mostly on the Net, to get the entire picture. The chapter on the lack of air response to the hijackings is compelling enough to buy the book, in my opinion.

I was quite skeptical about the no-plane hit the Pentagon angle too, until I read that chapter and considered the evidence, or lack of it. Best of all is his analysis of the various levels of complicity, from a hunch that something big was going to happen and doing nothing to prevent it, to full outright planning of the attacks. Various other reseachers, such as Ahmed and Ruppert, go into more detail on the background or history to 9-11, but I've seen no compilation of ALL the various pieces as well done as that here.

If you're a 9-11 afficianado, or believe in some level of LIHOP, I still maintain this book is a must read, despite some of the flaws pointed out in this thread.

sorry, but his 'presentation' is SO cherry-picked and incomplete and 'qualified' and just DUMB it only serves to discredit all questioning of the 'official' story.

if you believe the 'no plane' theory?

where's the plane? crashed in Ohio or Kentucky and shipped back or landed in DC 'unnotived'? the passengers? then re-read the hopelessly tortured discrediting of eye-witnesses (they were crazy, deluded)

who knocked down those utility poles?

are you a one missle 'no plane' theorist or a 'one missle/one plane' theorist?

sorry, this is not serious scholarship by a long long shot but it will puff up the extreme CTs to see their uncorroborated and unconvincing 'theories' in print.

it cheapens the discussion.

but, i've butted heads with those who buy this line and they're no changing their minds...

one enduring question: who planted the explosives in WTC7 and when? were they placed before the fires and survived hours of fire or, were they placed while the fires were burning?

the premise of the book isn't close to logical, that's my biggest problem.

It's a very quick read (160 pages.) There's lots of info one won't find at DU.

His conclusions are astounding.

Julie

I was hugely disappointed with the disproportionate time devoted to the no-plane and demolition theories. IMHO, "it wasn't a plane" is simply discrediting disinfo, and though I'm back and forth on demolition, I think it's a big distraction, especially in a book that is likely an intro to 9/11 skepticism for many readers. There are so many more important issues Griffin should have given his attention to.

The best book on the subject remains Ahmed's The War on Freedom, though it doesn't seem to be widely distributed.

this is not. it's just cut 'n paste of existing legit and loony theories.

if I were paulthompson, i'd be pissed off. i would love to hear what he has to say about this book because last time i checked he was not buying 'no plane' and CD distractions

If I remember correctly, he admits in his intro he only started looking at 9/11 skeptically last Spring. That's not much time to process a huge amount of research, and discern which is valid and which is not. He struck me as someone infatuated with a novelty - 9/11 skepticism - which was unfortunate, because it's a subject which demands rigorous critical thinking.

I bet, if he'd taken another year to work it through, he would have written a better book.

just assembled one.

there's a BIG difference.