25 Intolerable Contradictions: The Final Undoing of the Official 9/11 Story
Review of David Ray Griffin's book
A review of “9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press,” by Dr. David Ray Griffin. Interlink Publishing, March 2008. 368 p. List
At last there is a book about 9/11 that politicians and journalists can openly discuss without fear of being labeled “conspiracy theorists”.
9/11 Contradictions advances no theories. It simply exposes 25 astonishing internal contradictions that will haunt the public story of this unparalleled event for all time.
Until now, the persistent and disturbing questions about the day that changed the world have confused and alienated journalists and politicians, because:
The technical issues regarding the collapse of the towers, the failure of the military to intercept the flights, and the relatively minor damage to the Pentagon have been considered too complex for analysis in the media.
However, Griffin’s new book requires no technical expertise from the reader, because each readable chapter revolves around one simple internal contradiction inherent in the public story. “If Jones says ‘P’ and Smith says ‘Not P’, we can all recognize that something must be wrong, because both statements cannot be true.”
Many who have doubted the official story have offered alternative theories which have been dismissed as “conspiracy theories” by a press which must understandably place a high value on its credibility.
However, this book offers no alternative theories to explain the contradictions within the public story. It simply presents the glaring contradictions that have never been probed by Congress or the media, and beseeches members of these institutions come to grips with the reality and lead the charge for a truly independent investigation.
- The 9/11 issue is six years old, journalists are busy people, and the world has moved on.
Though six years have passed, this matter is by no means closed, nor is the trail cold. “The accepted story about 9/11 has been used to increase military spending, justify wars, restrict civil liberties, and exalt the executive branch of the government.” Indeed, this reviewer notes, the public story has recently been challenged in foreign forums (Japan Parliament, January 10, 2008, and at the European Parliament building in Brussels, February 26, 2008). The 9/11 Commissioners themselves have cast doubt on the credibility of the Commission Report in their January 2, 2008 New York Times article, “Stonewalled by the CIA.” (Ref. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html)
Let us now turn to the contradictions. But first, to quote Professor Griffin:
“Within the philosophy of science, there are two basic criteria for discriminating between good and bad theories. First, a theory should not be inconsistent with any of the relevant facts….Second, it must be self-consistent, devoid of any internal contradictions. If a theory contains an internal contradiction, it is an unacceptable theory.”
Unacceptable, for example, is the following internal contradiction, quoted from the chapter summaries that have been helpfully provided at the end of the book interested investigative journalists and members of Congress:
With regard to the identity of the plane spotted over the White House around the time of the Pentagon strike: The military’s denial that it was a military plane is contradicted by CNN footage of the plane’s flight, which showed, as former military officers have agreed, that it was an Air Force E-4B.
[Reviewer’s note: "The E-4B serves as the National Airborne Operations Center for the president, secretary of defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff or JCS." Cited from a current US Air Force factsheet at
Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Center of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [email protected]
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: [email protected]