Customer Reviews

The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks

5 star:		(92)
4 star:		(31)
3 star:		(12)
2 star:		(12)
1 star:		(67)

 

 

The Warren Commission is officially off the hook about their lies on the Kennedy Assassination. 9/11 as told by mainstream sources is the biggest joke and should never be believed. The unrefutable documented facts show that there is something wrong with this report. If people don't take time and dig for the truth it's their own fault. Just don't be the one that falls into that naive batch. In the memory of the over 3000 dead on 9/11 and the countless civilians murdered by bombs in Afghanistan and Irag, along with the brave military who are fighting and dying, we can do better than a disgraceful report like this. Check the websites that are mentioned in some of the reviews here and get educated on the unrefutable documented facts. DAVID GRIFFIN is the name you should stamp on your forehead so check out his books please.

Many people have said that this Report "reads like a novel." It is indeed surprisingly good when judged in terms of criteria appropriate to works of fiction. But the 9/11 Commission was supposed to conduct a serious investigation into the question of who was responsible for the attacks of 9/11. Instead, it simply presupposed the official conspiracy theory, according to which the attacks were planned and carried out solely by al-Qaeda. The Commission entirely ignored all evidence for the alternative conspiracy theory, according to which the attacks succeeded only because of complicity by members of the US government.

Having written a book that summarizes much of the evidence supportive of this alternative theory ("The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11"), I read "The 9/11 Commission Report" to see how it handled this evidence. I found that it simply omitted most of it and distorted the rest.

For example, the Report simply repeats the official story about the 19 Arab hijackers, failing to mention that at least six of the named men have shown up alive. It even suggests that Waleed al-Shehri, who visited the US embassy in Morocco after 9/11, stabbed a flight attendant on AA 11 before it hit the North Tower (page 5). This sloppy scholarship proves to be no aberration.

With regard to why jet fighters failed to intercept any of the flights, the Report provides a radically revisionist account of 9/11. Claiming--in contradiction to the timeline provided by NORAD on September 18, 2001--that the FAA never notified the military about Flights 175, 77, and 93 until after they crashed, the Report fails to explain why NORAD had earlier said otherwise. This new timeline also changes the starting times of all the teleconferences, in order to claim that they could not have been the means for the military to have learned about the hijackings from the FAA. Also, to bolster the claim that the shootdown order was not given until after Flight 93 had crashed, the Report also contradicts by 45 minutes all prior testimony--including Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's eyewitness testimony to the Commission itself--as to when Vice President Cheney descended to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center.

With regard to the World Trade Center, the Report fails to mention that fire had never caused steel-frame high-rise buildings to collapse. It also, by way of suggesting why the Twin Towers could have collapsed so easily, says that the core of each building consisted of "a hollow steel shaft" (541n1), whereas in reality the core of each consisted of 47 massive steel columns. While mentioning that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds (305), the Report otherwise fails to mention the fact that the collapses manifested 10 standard features of controlled demolitions. The Report handles the collapse of Building 7, which even FEMA admitted it could not explain, by simply failing to mention it.

With regard to the Pentagon, the Report fails to mention that the West Wing would have been the least likely target for terrorists, that its facade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike, and other facts in tension with the idea that the Pentagon was struck by Flight 77. And while claiming that al-Qaeda operatives did not strike a nuclear plant for fear that their plane would be shot down (245), the Report fails to point out that the Pentagon is even better protected, so that any aircraft without a military transponder would have been automatically shot down.

With regard to the FBI, the Report fails to mention many stories that are damaging to the official account of 9/11. These omitted stories include attorney David Schippers' report that several FBI agents told him of their advance knowledge of the New York attacks, the complaint by Coleen Rowley (Time magazine person of the year) that FBI headquarters sabotaged the Moussaoui investigation, and the damning allegations made by FBI translator Sibel Edmonds in her 3.5-hour testimony to the Commission.

What about the allegation by Craig Unger (popularized in Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11") that the White House authorized a private flight carrying Saudis on September 13, before private flights were otherwise allowed? The Report "refutes" this allegation by simply saying that US airspace had been reopened at 11 AM that day (329, 556n25), thereby ignoring the crucial distinction between commercial flights, which were then allowed, and private flights, which were not.

The Report also provides radically ahistorical accounts of the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, ignoring all the evidence that these attacks were motivated by desires to establish military bases and to take over the oil (rather than by desires to protect human rights and promote democracy). In this and other ways, the Report omits all evidence that the Bush administration had plans of the sort that could have provided motives for allowing or even engineering the attacks of 9/11.

I have documented these and dozens of other problems in my book "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions." These problems are so great that the Report, instead of being nominated for a National Book Award, should be designated a National Disgrace.

As David R. Griffin said this was meant to be a thorough report, but now seeing it is a 568 page 'book' that starts with..

"TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, dawned temperate and nearly cloudless in the eastern United States..."

and going through the Table of Contents that reads like a university assignment done the night before, I don't need to read it to know it is a blatant coverup.

I mean that opening sentence they are kidding right? They have got to be kidding - "The night was sultry"

If this was indeed a serious investigation it would have started on September 12th, been given an unlimited budget and access to people (under oath) & information (uncensored), and produced a ~20,000 page report covering in minute detail what went wrong and why, and what is changing to ensure it never happens again. Not a coffee table book for a bit of bed-time reading. Geez even Lewinksy got a budget of $40 million dollars to determine if she blew the president. This investigation of the most monumental and devastating attack on the heart of America which finally started 441 days afterwards was originally budgeted a paltry $3 million dollars.

I don't need to read this 'book' to remind me of this quote by Bill Hicks..

"Go back to bed, America, your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed America, your government is in control. Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up, go back to bed America, here is American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their ____ing skulls together and congratulate you on the living in the land of freedom. Here you go America - you are free to do what we tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!"

Hi. You don't know me. I'm a famous person. You just don't know that yet because I haven't had the correct people write my biography yet. Well, I finally found those people. They are the authors of the official "9/11 Commission Report", first published in 2004 as THE official story of what happened that day in 2001. They are perfect for the job. Their ability to highlight information favorable to an official story, while keeping out or suppressing any details or evidence that might contradict said story, is surpassed by none. I plan on having my agent (once I find one) call them up first thing tomorrow morning.

I actually read this book a few years ago, when I was reading EVERYTHING about 9/11 that I could get my hands on. I had no intention of writing a review of it on Amazon until today, when I noticed David Ray Griffin himself wrote a review of it. (For those who don't know Mr. Griffin, he has written something like six separate books on the events that day that highlight the massive inconsistencies with the official story.) Call me a groupie if you must (which would be slightly less "fishy" than calling me a grouper) . . . but having read most of his works and then now reading his review here, I became inspired to write my own review of it.

This book is truly an exhausting read. Over 500 pages of text and notes. The most striking thing about that fact is how much ISN'T in here. For something that was supposed to be a "comprehensive" report that answered "all" questions, there sure are a lot of things missing. For instance, the authors treated the nasty little issue of WTC Building 7 collapsing at free fall speed (with little damage to it) by . . . um . . . not even mentioning it. I mean, they don't even give it a passing "howdya do?". Completely missing.

Not to be outdone by themselves, though, they leave out a whole bunch of other necessary evidence, such as firefighter and eyewitness testimony about explosions heard within the Twin Towers, the insider trading on the stock market that indicated prior knowledge (except for mentioning it in a small endnote), the close ties of the Bush family and the bin Laden family, the ties of Marvin Bush with the security companies for the WTC and Dulles International Airport, Dick Cheney's role in possible stand-down orders, and various important pieces of structural evidence related to the Twin Towers. The list goes on. There is an actual legal term that describes this: it's called "Suppression Of Evidence". Furthermore, the authors seriously contradict themselves and earlier official stories on more than one occasion, the most notable being the timeline of events and the role of NORAD. How can anyone think this book constitutes a comprehensive report of all the evidence for the largest attack on US soil?

Most people complain about not being able to give some product on Amazon a review with no stars whatsoever, relegated to settling for at least one star. Not me. I think this book DESERVES at least one star. I give the authors praise for concocting this transparent piece of whitewash. I mean, can you imagine what it must have been like in the room when they put this nonsense together? Ah, to be the proverbial fly on the wall. Endless entertainment, I'm sure. But despite my negative review, I WANT you to read this book. PLEASE read it. Then read anything about 9/11 written by David Ray Griffin, especially his first three books, where he expertly dissects the official story and raises much-needed questions about who might really be responsible. (I wrote a review of his very first book on the subject, "The New Pearl Harbor", back in 2005.) Watch the documentaries called "Loose Change" and "Zeitgeist". Educate yourselves. And remember . . . hundreds of thousands of civilians have died in Iraq and Afghanistan BECAUSE you have believed the official story.

So you see . . . you don't know me. But you will. I'm gonna have these guys write my biography. You will soon know me as the man who ended poverty, found the cures for cancer and AIDS, won the Heisman Trophy, discovered the Fountain of Youth, scaled Mt. Everest in the winter, became lifelong drinking buddies with a great white shark, pitched the first ever no-hitter SEASON, wrote the most beautiful piece of music since Beethoven's 9th Symphony, and single-handedly brought lasting peace to the Middle East.

Anyone want the movie rights?

The report was censored & omits anything the government does not want you to know. Even the co-chair of the commission admits that it's full of lies.

If you want to read this fictional account of what happened on 9/11, why buy the book? You can download the entire report for free.

...in the reviews for the Report. In 2004, the Report received mostly 5-star reviews. In 2005, however, most of the reviews are 1-star. In addition, most of the 1-star reviews began to appear in long strings shortly after David Ray Griffin's second book hit the shelves in late 2004. 2005 was my year of 9/11 epiphany when I watched Dave vonKleist's video "911 In Plane Site" and Eric Hufschmid's DVD "Painful Deceptions."

In 2004, Michael Moore was my hero for making "Fahrenheit 9/11." Mr. Moore's movie does do poetic justice to the post-9/11 world and the Iraq war, but when it comes to the events of 9/11 itself, he does unfortunately keep us on the rabbit trail of "the foreign terrorists." While in 2004 I thought Michael was the deepest, most probing filmmaker out there, in 2005 I realized he doesn't go far enough!

I personally started waking up when I heard Larry Silverstein's statement about WTC 7 being "pulled." That really got me curious to investigate further. Prior to that, I had heard complaints from a friend about the lack of air-defense response, but I still wrote that off as incompetence. (I later realized that such "incompetence" can only be accomplished through a deliberately paralyzed system.) However, even I realized that a skyscraper cannot be rigged for demolition in 7 hours. Lately, Silverstein's spokesman has responded to the controversy by stating that "pull it" meant "pull the contingent of firefighters." However, this contradicts another part of the "official" story, which holds that WTC 7 was evacuated at 9 a.m.

Finally, Silverstein states that the fire was so intense that it could not be contained. Why, then, do all the photos of WTC 7 show overwhelmingly that this was not the case?

In a few decades from now, hopefully our children's 5th grade history textbooks might define 2005 as the year people started privately waking up to 9/11 truth.

EDIT: 2006 was exponentially more successful for 9/11 Truth than 2005 was, with the success of Loose Change and Terrorstorm, and the scientific polls which were released showing that 36% of the country is LIHOP. 2007 has been a bit slower, but it has seen the release of Griffin's excellent "Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory."

This book is flawed from the very beginning. They didn't investigate the causes of 9/11 but accepted the Bush administration's theory and never used a critical approach. They never investigated why building 7 was demolished with demolition charges. They never questioned why towers 1 and 2 collapsed when there has never been a steel framed building collapse from a fire...ever. They never questioned the lack of Boeing 757 parts at the Pentagon. The list of ommissions goes on and on. This is a seriously flawed book that should never have been printed.

This book is by no means a report from an 'independent' investigation. Members on the panel have relations throughout the government, [...]

The entire investigation into 9/11 was hampered from the very beginning. The editor in chief of Fire Engineering Magazine, William Manning, called the investigation a 'half baked farce' in describing the coverup and destruction of evidence which commenced immediately after 9/11.

This book reads like a novel, and to the average person probably makes them feel like they have gained an understanding of 9/11, but in fact this book directly avoided hundreds of questions asked by the 9/11 family steering committee, and failed to answer any of the unknown questions, only to repeat the official story and to attempt to come up with yet another timeline which could cover the differences in the FAA and NORAD timelines.

DO NOT PAY MONEY FOR THIS BOOK. If you want to read it, read it online, do not support such a shoddy 'independent investigation'. If it were a real investigation it would contain a decent index and it would mention WTC7, which it doesn't.

Omits everything factual. Doesn't bother to mention, much less explain, what happened to the 47 box columns of steel from which the twin towers were constructed. Also no mention of building 7 falling on it's footprint at freefall speed, even though no airplane hit building 7.

The purpose of this report is to reinforce the blatant official fantasy, for the purpose of justifying problem / reaction / solution, and getting you to cave in and accept greater government control over you.

There was no effort made to check any facts. If you're seeking the truth about what happened on 9/11 you won't find it in this book. Instead you'll find lots of reasons to seek facts and you'll find the facts at [...]. You may also want to check out David Ray Griffin's books or Steven E. Jones.

When a lie is big enough and you tell it often enought the people may believe it and this is the purpose of the 911 Omission report.

See David Ray Griffin. Mr. Griffin proves this report was a work of fiction.

Watch Loose Change. Go to Google video and type in 9/11. Look at the REAL evidence.

Men in caves did not defeat a trillion dollar U.S. military and waltz through the most heavily defended airspace in the world.

Look at the website from Scholars For 9/11 Truth. Do some research.

The only "conspiracy theory" is the one contained between the pages of the 9/11 Commission.