Soon to be posted to the book's page on Amazon (hopefully...)
As usual, Dr. Griffin's latest book represents the gold standard of independent inquiry into the truth behind the 9/11 attacks. Griffin presents this work as a kind of companion volume to his earlier The New Pearl Harbor but it can be read on its own by experienced 9/11 researchers and those looking for a solid, responsible, and accurate introduction to most of the pertinent issues that have concerned the many people around the world who have been following this issue since, well, 9/11/01. As millions more around the world discover every year, there is much more to "9/11 truth" than the caricature routinely invoked by most mainstream commentators - that of the wild-eyed conspiracy theorist.
Since the book's content is summarized by other reviews I will focus on my one problem with it, from my point of view as a long standing researcher and activist into the subject. Griffin does an admirable job in this and previous works--particularly 9/11 Contradictions, of not only dismantling the officially proffered evidence for the existence on 9/11 of Arab and/or Muslim hijackers, but also of unambiguously expressing his conclusion that no such hijackings occured.
In the present book however he devotes several chapters to discussion of the hijackers and the hijacking story, detailing for example the reasons why official claims that no warnings existed prior to 9/11 were false, as well as material focusing on alleged Saudi and American collaboration with al Qaeda. Since it is Griffin's own view (and that of the vast majority of experienced independent 9/11 researchers) that al Qaeda was not responsible for the attacks and that the named alleged hijackers did not in fact hijack anything that day (except perhaps people's imaginations) he could and should do a better job of explaining the significance of what is known among independent researchers as the "patsy backstory". In other words, if Mohammed Atta was not actually a devout Islamist fanatic and did not actually hijack any plane on 9/11, and since the twin towers were destroyed with pre-positioned explosives and not as a result of the planes that crashed into them (presumably piloted by remote navigation), how relevant to our investigation is the fact that the FBI, for example, appears to have shielded him from investigation prior to 9/11? If he was a double agent working to infiltrate Islamic militant groups that would be quite expected, after all. We are left by Griffin's own implicit admission to wonder about the significance of vague warnings about something that did not actually happen! Incidentally, this is the problem with ascribing as the mainstream left wing media do undue significance to the August 2001 presidential daily brief titled "bin Laden determined to strike in the US". If as it appears bin laden had nothing to do with 9/11 then what does a warning invoking his name mean to the study of 9/11? Nevertheless a minority of purported 9/11 researchers cling to the notion that the attacks were really by al Qaeda and that the Bush administration allowed it to happen to suit its needs. This view, for which LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) is shorthand, has long been shown to be untenabl and seems to most researchers to suggest a desire to limit the damage done by the truth movement to the usefully exaggerated myth of a global muslim conspiracy against freedom.
Finally, while Griffin goes to great lengths to show, fairly credibly, that the Bush administration and the neocons specifically used 9/11 as an excuse to advance their political and military agenda, it is not so clear that Griffin distinguishes between taking advantage after the fact and actually planning and perpetrating the crime. Extremist elements with Israeli military and intelligence also had much to gain in terms of advancing their own agenda and much evidence exists, though ignored by Griffin, that there was significant Israeli involvement in the attacks--one need only research WTC leaseholder and primary insurance beneficiary's long-standing ties to right wing Israeli leaders to see this. American neocons' strong link to extremely pro-Israel positions add to the suspicion that 9/11 could well have been at least in part the work of the same regime that attacked British and Americans in Egypt (see the Lavon Affair) and the USS Liberty, among other incidents. The fact that blaming Arabs and Muslims for attacks conducted by themselves on their allies is a precedent that should place Israel squarely in the focus of any investigation into the truth behind 9/11.
It is understandable that Griffin avoids these most controversial of lines of inquiry given the current political realities and the readiness of groups like AIPAC and the ADL to smear any critic of Israel, even Jewish ones, of anti-semitism or jew-hatred (self-hatred in the case of Jews, as if loyalty to Israel were a sine qua non of Jewishness) which is why sites like wtcdemolition dot com (slash blog) are actually on the cutting edge of independent research into 9/11 while Griffin's books are solid introductions to and summaries of the much broader "big tent" of 9/11 skepticism.