What do you think?
Rate this book
9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press
In 9/11 Contradictions, David Ray Griffin shows that the official story of what happened on 9/11 is riddled with internal contradictions. Since two contradictory statements cannot both be true, it is clear that individuals and agencies articulating the official story of 9/11 have made many false statements. Congress and the press must ask which of these contradictory statements are false and why they were made.
This book simply lays out the fact that these contradictions exist; it contains no theory. Therefore, politicians and journalists who deal with the issues raised herein will not be giving credence to some "conspiracy theory" about 9/11. They will simply be carrying out their duty to ask why the official story of 9/11 - arguably the most fateful event of our time - does not stand up to examination.
This book simply lays out the fact that these contradictions exist; it contains no theory. Therefore, politicians and journalists who deal with the issues raised herein will not be giving credence to some "conspiracy theory" about 9/11. They will simply be carrying out their duty to ask why the official story of 9/11 - arguably the most fateful event of our time - does not stand up to examination.
346 pages, Paperback
First published March 1, 2008
4 people are currently reading
236 people want to read
About the author
David Ray Griffin
70 books86 followersDr. Griffin, a retired emeritus professor of Philosophy of Religion and Theology at the Claremont School of Theology, has published over 30 books and 150 articles. His 9/11 books have been endorsed by Robert Baer, William Christison, William Sloane Coffin Jr., Richard Falke, Ray McGovern, Paul Craig Roberts and Howard Zinn.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
October 28, 2025
video book review: https://youtu.be/dma1I2_uSpg
Published in 2008, this book goes through a number of unanswered questions and gaping holes in the 9/11 Commission Report. It's now been 20 years since 9/11, which means people are emotionally distant enough to ask questions. Hardly anyone now believes the official government explanation for the Kennedy Assassination, that the bullet fired from the Book Depository building, behind the President, caused his head to go back and to the left. And both Trump and Biden refused to release papers relating to the assassination for "national security reasons."
For those who want to know why we went to war in the Middle East for an entire generation, with millions of dead Iraqis and tens of thousands of our own dead, this book proposes at least one aspect of the answer to that question.
Just a sample of the chapters in the book, which is extensively footnoted for you to look up the assertions put forward:
When did Cheney issue shootdown authorization?
When was the military alerted about Flight 93?
Had 9/11-type attacks been envisioned?
Were Mohammed Atta and the other hijackers devout Muslims?
Is there hard evidence of bin Laden's responsibility?
Could Hani Hanjour have flown American 77 into the Pentagon?
What caused the hold in the C Ring (of the Pentagon)?
Were there explosions in the Twin Towers?
Were there explosions in WTC 7?
Did the WTC rubble contain evidence that steel had melted?
Definitely worth a read, but my experience has been that people are firmly in their camps at this point and there isn't a whole lot of curiosity about the truths behind how our government works, because reality TV and sports is much more interesting to the average American.
Published in 2008, this book goes through a number of unanswered questions and gaping holes in the 9/11 Commission Report. It's now been 20 years since 9/11, which means people are emotionally distant enough to ask questions. Hardly anyone now believes the official government explanation for the Kennedy Assassination, that the bullet fired from the Book Depository building, behind the President, caused his head to go back and to the left. And both Trump and Biden refused to release papers relating to the assassination for "national security reasons."
For those who want to know why we went to war in the Middle East for an entire generation, with millions of dead Iraqis and tens of thousands of our own dead, this book proposes at least one aspect of the answer to that question.
Just a sample of the chapters in the book, which is extensively footnoted for you to look up the assertions put forward:
When did Cheney issue shootdown authorization?
When was the military alerted about Flight 93?
Had 9/11-type attacks been envisioned?
Were Mohammed Atta and the other hijackers devout Muslims?
Is there hard evidence of bin Laden's responsibility?
Could Hani Hanjour have flown American 77 into the Pentagon?
What caused the hold in the C Ring (of the Pentagon)?
Were there explosions in the Twin Towers?
Were there explosions in WTC 7?
Did the WTC rubble contain evidence that steel had melted?
Definitely worth a read, but my experience has been that people are firmly in their camps at this point and there isn't a whole lot of curiosity about the truths behind how our government works, because reality TV and sports is much more interesting to the average American.
April 11, 2009
Why are there so many contradictions surrounding 9-11? How can the 4 main figures in charge of defending the US - Dick Cheney, GW Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) - all have radically contadicting accounts as to where they were and what they were doing during the crucial moments of 9-11? Why doesn't mainstream press report on any of this? Read this book and walk through the critical elements of the 570+ page "The 9-11 Commission Report" and why so many of the elements within are contradicted over and over again. Good thus far. A great starting point for anyone interested in 9-11 (which should be everyone).
July 21, 2024
GRIFFIN ASKS CONGRESS AND THE PRESS TO LOOK AT THE ISSUES
Retired theologian David Ray Griffin nowadays devotes his time to 9/11; he has written many other books on the subject (such as 'The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé') etc.
This 2008 book "is addressed to Congress and the press... This book... contains no theory about what really happened. It provides simply an exposition of various facts... there are serious contradictions with (the) accepted story: this book documents 25 of them. The existence of so many contradictions within such an important story is intolerable." (Pg. vii-viii)
He asks "whether (Defense Secretary) Rumsfeld was participating in (Richard) Clarke's video conference from 9:10 to 9:40, as Clarke says. If he was... then Rumsfeld would have known by 9:15 that the two planes that struck the World Trade Center had been hijacked... If that is true, then his self-reported behavior over the next hour would have clearly constituted criminal negligence, if not worse." (Pg. 71)
He argues, "The contradiction between the Commission's portrayal of Mohammed Atta and the other supposed hijackers as devout Muslims, on the one hand, and their actual behavior... is an issue that does need to be addressed." (Pg. 156) He points out that although at least fifteen cell phone calls were reported as coming from United Flight 93(pg. 177), "According to the FBI report presented at the Moussaoui trial in 2006, however, no passenger on any of the flights used a cell phone to call a relative." (Pg. 182)
Since the 9/11 Commission found no "hard evidence of the responsibility of Osama bin Laden for the attacks of 9/11," this contradicts the claim by government spokespersons that "there is no question about bin Laden's responsibility for 9/11." (Pg. 196)
He summarizes, "The official conspiracy theory about 9/11... has been used to justify attacks on two countries, which have caused over a million deaths, including the deaths of thousands of Americans. This theory has also been used to justify ... a general undermining of the US Constitution... Congress and the press need to ask if the many contradictions in this story point to its falsity." (Pg. 280)
Fans of Griffin's other 9/11 books will naturally enjoy this one, particularly in its more "focused" approach.
Retired theologian David Ray Griffin nowadays devotes his time to 9/11; he has written many other books on the subject (such as 'The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé') etc.
This 2008 book "is addressed to Congress and the press... This book... contains no theory about what really happened. It provides simply an exposition of various facts... there are serious contradictions with (the) accepted story: this book documents 25 of them. The existence of so many contradictions within such an important story is intolerable." (Pg. vii-viii)
He asks "whether (Defense Secretary) Rumsfeld was participating in (Richard) Clarke's video conference from 9:10 to 9:40, as Clarke says. If he was... then Rumsfeld would have known by 9:15 that the two planes that struck the World Trade Center had been hijacked... If that is true, then his self-reported behavior over the next hour would have clearly constituted criminal negligence, if not worse." (Pg. 71)
He argues, "The contradiction between the Commission's portrayal of Mohammed Atta and the other supposed hijackers as devout Muslims, on the one hand, and their actual behavior... is an issue that does need to be addressed." (Pg. 156) He points out that although at least fifteen cell phone calls were reported as coming from United Flight 93(pg. 177), "According to the FBI report presented at the Moussaoui trial in 2006, however, no passenger on any of the flights used a cell phone to call a relative." (Pg. 182)
Since the 9/11 Commission found no "hard evidence of the responsibility of Osama bin Laden for the attacks of 9/11," this contradicts the claim by government spokespersons that "there is no question about bin Laden's responsibility for 9/11." (Pg. 196)
He summarizes, "The official conspiracy theory about 9/11... has been used to justify attacks on two countries, which have caused over a million deaths, including the deaths of thousands of Americans. This theory has also been used to justify ... a general undermining of the US Constitution... Congress and the press need to ask if the many contradictions in this story point to its falsity." (Pg. 280)
Fans of Griffin's other 9/11 books will naturally enjoy this one, particularly in its more "focused" approach.
August 10, 2016
Click here if you want to read all the thoughts i’ve bothered to type up so far (too big to fit on Goodreads).
I’d need to write a book to express everything i have to say about 9/11 Contradictions. In that sense alone, it’s worth my time and almost worth 3 stars. But i've given other books 1 star because because of poor writing & i could give this one 1 star because Dr G's efforts are occasionally suspect. I give it 2 stars, though, because i can't believe Dr G was dishonest, because i couldn't/wouldn't stop reading, and because i learned a lot about what is, to be sure, the biggest single-day event in my lifetime so far.
A Litmus Test: Is this book for you?
A. If you really like conspiracy theories in general, then i think you’ll at least like some things about this book
B. If you answered "yes" to A but you already know a lot about 9/11, there might be better books about 9/11 for you (possibly Dr G's The New Pearl Harbor?)
C. If you enjoy arguing with an author, then i think you might like this book
My responses:
A = i feel predisposed to find fault with most conspiracy theories
B = n/a
C = i enjoy arguing (period) and, therefore, i almost-but-not-quite liked reading 9/11 Contradictions
As stated at the outset, i feel like i have a bookload of things to say about 9/11 Contradictions, but i don't have the gumption to do that much work. My compulsion led me to write this review as a sort of poor man's substitute. For a couple weeks i attempted to organize my thoughts. I have chosen a kind of point-by-point reading of Chapter 1. I don't think Ch 1 is the best chapter or the worst chapter or the most representative chapter of this book, but its contents were sufficient to allow me to express the methods and forms of my arguments with the book as a whole.
The following ¶ is from a friend who wrote to me after reading my review; it aptly expresses the central point that i'd hoped (but failed) to make:
The criticisms that follow are specific to Dr G's methods and the forms of his arguments. There are reasonable people with reasonable suspicions based on reasonable arguments about 9/11. I believe that the book i'm reviewing was written by an overzealous person who includes some unreasonable suspicions and a lot of spurious arguments. One untrustworthy voice in favor of continuing to investigate the events of 9/11 more deeply and more critically does not mean that all voices in favor of further investigation are not worthwhile. The 9/11 Truth movement seems to me a worthwhile endeavor and the cheapness of some activists' sophistries shouldn't tarnish the validity of honest and noble inquiries.
Click here if you want to read all the thoughts i’ve bothered to type up so far (too big to fit on Goodreads).
I’d need to write a book to express everything i have to say about 9/11 Contradictions. In that sense alone, it’s worth my time and almost worth 3 stars. But i've given other books 1 star because because of poor writing & i could give this one 1 star because Dr G's efforts are occasionally suspect. I give it 2 stars, though, because i can't believe Dr G was dishonest, because i couldn't/wouldn't stop reading, and because i learned a lot about what is, to be sure, the biggest single-day event in my lifetime so far.
A Litmus Test: Is this book for you?
A. If you really like conspiracy theories in general, then i think you’ll at least like some things about this book
B. If you answered "yes" to A but you already know a lot about 9/11, there might be better books about 9/11 for you (possibly Dr G's The New Pearl Harbor?)
C. If you enjoy arguing with an author, then i think you might like this book
My responses:
A = i feel predisposed to find fault with most conspiracy theories
B = n/a
C = i enjoy arguing (period) and, therefore, i almost-but-not-quite liked reading 9/11 Contradictions
As stated at the outset, i feel like i have a bookload of things to say about 9/11 Contradictions, but i don't have the gumption to do that much work. My compulsion led me to write this review as a sort of poor man's substitute. For a couple weeks i attempted to organize my thoughts. I have chosen a kind of point-by-point reading of Chapter 1. I don't think Ch 1 is the best chapter or the worst chapter or the most representative chapter of this book, but its contents were sufficient to allow me to express the methods and forms of my arguments with the book as a whole.
The following ¶ is from a friend who wrote to me after reading my review; it aptly expresses the central point that i'd hoped (but failed) to make:
Forget if Bush left quickly or not, who cares? Did he know? It's no or yes. If no, well, then no. If it's yes, he should be held responsible. But the answer to that question will never be known, so why ask it? Forget if the hijackers were devout muslims or not. Forget if Cheney gave a stand-down order, forget if flight 93 crashed or was shot down. Not enough proof really. Forget the pentagon. It all comes back to those bldgs for me, that's where the majority of
people died, that's where evidence was removed and not investigated, that's where there's so much video of the actual attacks and bldgs collapsing. That's where you see people jumping. It's those bldgs, especially bldg 7, that make me feel as I do, not having peace about that day and wanting to know more.
The criticisms that follow are specific to Dr G's methods and the forms of his arguments. There are reasonable people with reasonable suspicions based on reasonable arguments about 9/11. I believe that the book i'm reviewing was written by an overzealous person who includes some unreasonable suspicions and a lot of spurious arguments. One untrustworthy voice in favor of continuing to investigate the events of 9/11 more deeply and more critically does not mean that all voices in favor of further investigation are not worthwhile. The 9/11 Truth movement seems to me a worthwhile endeavor and the cheapness of some activists' sophistries shouldn't tarnish the validity of honest and noble inquiries.
Click here if you want to read all the thoughts i’ve bothered to type up so far (too big to fit on Goodreads).
October 7, 2008
Holy crap, if anyone can read this and not DEMAND that we somehow, some way get to the truth about 9/11, well, just stick your head a little deeper in that sand, why don't you?
Easy to follow, and of course I skipped to some of the questions I had (the giant plane and the tiny hole in the Pentagon? And how did Ted Olson's wife call him from the plane if 757s have no phones? And there is no cell record of the call, and at the time of the alleged calls, the plane was 25000+ feet and cells wouldn't work, and what time did Cheney give that order and what was up with My Pet Goat? (that one wasn't answered). Good exploration of a painful topic that haunts me.
Easy to follow, and of course I skipped to some of the questions I had (the giant plane and the tiny hole in the Pentagon? And how did Ted Olson's wife call him from the plane if 757s have no phones? And there is no cell record of the call, and at the time of the alleged calls, the plane was 25000+ feet and cells wouldn't work, and what time did Cheney give that order and what was up with My Pet Goat? (that one wasn't answered). Good exploration of a painful topic that haunts me.
December 18, 2009
Extremely informative and I don't know how anyone can read this book and then not realize The 9/11 Commission is flawed in many ways. And sadly the questions asked in this book will probably never get answers.
May 2, 2017
This book asks 25 questions about 9/11 and (theoretically) explains why they're important and need to be asked. I started this about a year ago, and kept notes on each question. Then I lost the paper I wrote on (prompting me to start keeping an organized notebook for reading notes), and gave up in frustration. The other day, I finally picked the book back up, skimmed the previously read chapters to recapture my thoughts on them, and delved into the second half. A la George Bush, a week later, it's "mission accomplished."
Griffin raises interesting questions, but thinks he's quite clever in not stating the real reasons for the questions. For example, when did Bush leave the school that morning? The real reason is that somehow, the timing of Bush's exit will reveal whether or not he knew beforehand what was going on. Ditto with the whereabouts of Rumsfeld and Cheney.
In reality, contradictions and more likely to represent incompetence than conspiracy. I witnessed a fatal accident once, and spent an hour giving a police officer information for his report. Not only did he misspell every other word (or so it seemed), but it took me repeating everything again and again in order for him (and me) to get down what I'd witnessed. Bear in mind I'm a former history major with an eye for detail who insists on getting things correctly on paper; most people aren't. Reports and eyewitness accounts are often incorrect, plain and simple. Contradictions are inevitable, even when the nicest people are doing their best to be as accurate as possible.
I don't know Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. But I don't think that Bush has the brains to orchestrate a plot like 9/11. Cheney might, but my best guess is that he simply used the events to his political advantage. As for Rumsfeld, he is the craziest person on earth if he trusted an automated system or a suicide-mission pilot to avoid hitting the section of the Pentagon where he was that morning.
Regarding whether or not the Pennsylvania plane was shot down or brought down by brave passengers, of course the politicians and press and filmmakers are going to go with the heroic story! DUH. Maybe passengers were gearing up to rush the cockpit, or maybe this was in the collective imagination of those who say they received phone calls. Once the story entered the popular consciousness, people wanted to believe it, and so they did. Why on earth would Cheney or anyone dial up the media and say, "Oh, BTW...that hero story is false. Those passengers died as cowards, crying in the back, trying to call their families. The plane went down because I ordered it to be shot down"!? Seriously? And as for films on United 93--good grief. Part of my job is watching historical dramas and documentaries and noting their accuracy. News alert: they're almost ALWAYS highly inaccurate. Has this author never read a movie review?
News reports are very often inaccurate, plain and simple. I've been to enough events and seen the news reports afterwards. Television news is the worst.
I'm not 100% convinced that 9/11 wasn't an "inside job" or whatever. But my gut tells me that the most obvious explanations are most likely.
Structural steel? Well, living in NYC and seeing firsthand how cheap contractors are, my guess is that the steel beams weren't as nice as the contractors claimed. But since the same steel is likely used in every high-rise in town, why incite panic by admitting that safety claims are based on an idealized version of construction materials, and not on reality? Why scare people by telling them that beams don't melt--unless they're in contact with the sulfur contained in gypsum board (the same gypsum board which is in every building)?
I could go on all day. My bigger point is that, if I step back and think, "I want to incite fear of terrorism in order to justify military action in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq," I can come up with a much better, less full-of-holes plot than 9/11. And I'm a nobody. What happened on and following September 11 leads me to conclude that the Bush administration merely took advantage of a tragedy to meet its own ends. I'll even go so far as to say that the Bush administration hoped that something like 9/11 would happen, and consciously didn't take the preventative measures which could have made 9/11 impossible (or at least less deadly).
Griffin raises interesting questions, but thinks he's quite clever in not stating the real reasons for the questions. For example, when did Bush leave the school that morning? The real reason is that somehow, the timing of Bush's exit will reveal whether or not he knew beforehand what was going on. Ditto with the whereabouts of Rumsfeld and Cheney.
In reality, contradictions and more likely to represent incompetence than conspiracy. I witnessed a fatal accident once, and spent an hour giving a police officer information for his report. Not only did he misspell every other word (or so it seemed), but it took me repeating everything again and again in order for him (and me) to get down what I'd witnessed. Bear in mind I'm a former history major with an eye for detail who insists on getting things correctly on paper; most people aren't. Reports and eyewitness accounts are often incorrect, plain and simple. Contradictions are inevitable, even when the nicest people are doing their best to be as accurate as possible.
I don't know Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. But I don't think that Bush has the brains to orchestrate a plot like 9/11. Cheney might, but my best guess is that he simply used the events to his political advantage. As for Rumsfeld, he is the craziest person on earth if he trusted an automated system or a suicide-mission pilot to avoid hitting the section of the Pentagon where he was that morning.
Regarding whether or not the Pennsylvania plane was shot down or brought down by brave passengers, of course the politicians and press and filmmakers are going to go with the heroic story! DUH. Maybe passengers were gearing up to rush the cockpit, or maybe this was in the collective imagination of those who say they received phone calls. Once the story entered the popular consciousness, people wanted to believe it, and so they did. Why on earth would Cheney or anyone dial up the media and say, "Oh, BTW...that hero story is false. Those passengers died as cowards, crying in the back, trying to call their families. The plane went down because I ordered it to be shot down"!? Seriously? And as for films on United 93--good grief. Part of my job is watching historical dramas and documentaries and noting their accuracy. News alert: they're almost ALWAYS highly inaccurate. Has this author never read a movie review?
News reports are very often inaccurate, plain and simple. I've been to enough events and seen the news reports afterwards. Television news is the worst.
I'm not 100% convinced that 9/11 wasn't an "inside job" or whatever. But my gut tells me that the most obvious explanations are most likely.
Structural steel? Well, living in NYC and seeing firsthand how cheap contractors are, my guess is that the steel beams weren't as nice as the contractors claimed. But since the same steel is likely used in every high-rise in town, why incite panic by admitting that safety claims are based on an idealized version of construction materials, and not on reality? Why scare people by telling them that beams don't melt--unless they're in contact with the sulfur contained in gypsum board (the same gypsum board which is in every building)?
I could go on all day. My bigger point is that, if I step back and think, "I want to incite fear of terrorism in order to justify military action in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq," I can come up with a much better, less full-of-holes plot than 9/11. And I'm a nobody. What happened on and following September 11 leads me to conclude that the Bush administration merely took advantage of a tragedy to meet its own ends. I'll even go so far as to say that the Bush administration hoped that something like 9/11 would happen, and consciously didn't take the preventative measures which could have made 9/11 impossible (or at least less deadly).
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews