Your Garage Summer Reading Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Blake Shelton Father's Day Gift Guide 2016 Fire TV Stick Luxury Beauty Father's Day Gifts Amazon Cash Back Offer bighero bighero bighero  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $149.99 All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Outdoor Recreation
Customer Review

138 of 169 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Half Great, Half Terrible, March 19, 2008
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation (Hardcover)
"The Commission" by Philip Shenon has performed a great public service, letting the world know that there are good reasons to be suspicious of "The 9/11 Commission Report." The main problem is the fact that the Commission was almost entirely under the control of Philip Zelikow, who was closely connected to the Bush White House. Although my book "Christian Faith and the Truth behind 9/11" revealed some of the facts about Zelikow that showed him to be one of the worst possible choices for the Commission's executive director, Shenon has revealed even more facts.

It was already known that Zelikow had been on the National Security Council (NSC) with Condoleezza Rice during the administration of the first President Bush; that he wrote a book with her while the Republicans were out of power; that he helped her make the transition from the Clinton to the Bush NSC; and that he wrote at her request the 2002 version of "National Security Strategy of the United States of America" (NSS 2002), which enunciated a new doctrine of preemptive war that was used, in Shenon's words, to "justify a preemptive strike on Iraq."

But now Shenon reveals more: that in applying to Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission, for the position of executive director, Zelikow failed to reveal some of his conflicts of interest, especially his authorship of NSS 2002 and his role on the transition team; that he continued, contrary to his promise, to be in touch with Karl Rove (who was very concerned about the Commission's work), as well as Rice; that Zelikow largely prevented direct contact between the staff and the Commissioners ("If information gathered by the staff was to be passed to the commissioners, it would have to go through Zelikow"); and that Zelikow largely "controlled what the final report would say."

Shenon also reveals that Zelikow, before the Commission's work had begun, had written a detailed outline for the Commission's report, complete with "chapter headings, subheadings, and sub-subheadings," and that he and the Commission's co-chairs agreed to keep this outline a secret from the Commission's investigative staff. When the staff learned about this outline a year later, some of them circulated a parody called "The Warren Commission Report---Preemptive Outline," one chapter of which was entitled "Single Bullet: We Haven't Seen the Evidence Yet. But Really. We're Sure."

However, although all of this should have made Shenon suspicious that Zelikow might have used his power to cover up the truth about 9/11, it did not. Shenon believes that the falsehoods in the Commission's report were limited to covering up White House incompetence (especially by Rice) and foreign funding of al-Qaeda (by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia).

Because Shenon simply presupposed the truth of the official story as fully as did the Commission, his book is terrible as well as great. It is terrible because Shenon, in mentioning the contention that 9/11 was an inside job, assures his readers that this contention has been debunked, while showing no sign of having studied any of the books that provide evidence for this contention. In his bibliography, for example, he mentions two defenses of the official account: "Debunking 9/11 Myths," put out by Popular Mechanics, and "Without Precedent," coauthored by Kean and Hamilton. But he does not mention my "Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory," in which I responded at length to both of these books. Also, although one would expect his bibliography to include all major critiques of the 9/11 Commission, it does not include my book, "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions," which has generally been considered the major critique of the Commission's report.

Shenon's ignorance of facts contained in this alternative literature is apparent in his assurances that all is well with the official account. For example, claiming that the evidence that al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11 is "incontrovertible," Shenon points to a videotape in which a bin Laden boasts about the attacks. Shenon is evidently unaware that bin Laden expert Bruce Lawrence called this videotape "bogus" and that FBI spokesman Rex Tomb admitted that "the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11." Also, claiming that there is clear evidence that "nineteen young Arab men . . . were aboard the four planes," Shenon is evidently unaware that, as I showed in "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" (updated edition), all this supposed evidence falls apart under scrutiny. For example, although we were told that the presence of hijackers on American Flight 77 was proved by Barbara Olson's phone calls to her husband, Ted Olson, the evidence given to the Moussaoui trial in 2006 by the FBI said that no such calls occurred. This same report contradicted the widely held belief that cell phone calls from passengers on United 93 had reported the existence of hijackers.

Shenon could have remained neutral on the question of the truth of the official story. But because he chose to enter the fray, it was incumbent upon him as a journalist to study, and report, the arguments on both sides of the issue. He did not.

Shenon's book is terrible not only because he endorses the official account without engaging any of the serious critiques of that account, but also because his complacent acceptance of that account leads him to ignore dozens of signs in the Commission's report that Zelikow used his position as executive director to cover up far more than incompetence. In "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions," I showed that it contains over 100 omissions and distortions of the type that would be expected if Zelikow had indeed used his position to cover up official complicity. Here are a few examples that Shenon fails to mention.

Believing that the claim "that the Twin Towers were brought down by preplaced explosives" had been debunked before the Commission began its work, Shenon does not mention the Commission's silence about the fact that over a hundred members of the Fire Department of New York, in giving oral histories of that day---which were made publicly available by Shenon's own New York Times----spoke of apparent explosions in the towers. Shenon also fails to mention the Commission's silence about evidence that steel in the buildings had melted and even evaporated---evidence that a New York Times article called the "deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation," because the fires could not have come close to the temperature needed to produce such effects. Was Shenon unaware of these revelations provided by his own paper?

Shenon ignores the Commission's failure even to mention the fact that WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane and had fires on only a few floors, also collapsed. Shenon perhaps considers this omission unimportant because there was no mystery. "[I]t was determined," he says, "that a fire that . . . destroyed WTC 7 on September 11 was probably caused by the rupture of the building's special diesel fuel tanks." That is indeed the official theory. But the FEMA report---which is still the only official report on this building---suggested what it considered the most likely version of this theory but then admitted that it had "only a low probability of occurrence."

Although Shenon mentions that Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta testified before the Commission, he does not mention Mineta's report that Vice President Cheney was in the bunker under the White House by 9:20 AM, which contradicted the Zelikow-led Commission's later claim that Cheney did not arrive there until almost 10:00.

Although Shenon mentions Cheney's appearance on "Meet the Press" five days after 9/11, he does not mention Cheney's statement that he learned about the attack on the Pentagon after (not before) he entered the bunker---which the Zelikow-led Commission later contradicted.

Although Shenon points out that Zelikow and Clarke hated each other, he does not point out that Clarke's book, Against All Enemies, is not mentioned by the Zelikow-led Commission's report and that it contradicted that report on several points, saying that Cheney was down in the bunker before 9:15, that Clarke received shootdown authorization from Cheney before 9:55 (not at 10:25), and that General Richard Myers was in the Pentagon between 9:00 and 9:45 AM (not on Capitol Hill).

Although Shenon points out that the Commission failed to ask Rudy Giuliani any tough questions, he does not mention the Commission's failure to ask the toughest question that should have been asked: How did Giuliani know in advance that the Twin Towers were going to come down?

In sum: Whereas Shenon's book has performed a great service by revealing things about the Zelikow-led Commission that should lead people to suspect that its account of 9/11 covered up the truth, it is also a terrible failure: Because of Shenon's lack of journalistic skepticism with regard to the official account of 9/11, he failed to raise the most important question about the Commission's report: Did it cover up complicity by forces within our own government? Although the Commission's report contains dozens of signs that it did just this, Shenon's book mentions not a single one.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
Name:
Badge:
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
 
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in
  [Cancel]

Comments

Track comments by e-mail

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 20 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Mar 20, 2008 11:29:32 AM PDT
As usual, Dr. Griffin is thorough, meticulous and fair--as a lifetime of doing research has taught him to be. Unfortunately, Dr. Griffin also reveals yet another member of the corporate-controlled press who will run away from legtimate research about 9/11 until it is "safe" to do so. Then, suddenly, miraculously, Shenon's mind will open to the incontrovertible facts about liquid steel and symmetrical collapses. Or maybe not. Maybe we're headed into JFK, RFK, MLK, OKC Bombing cover-up territory in the United States of Amnesia, as Gore Vidal put it. Either Americans learn to be citizens again, instead of consumers, or soon this country and its citizens will have been exploited for all their worth and we'll watch Cheney et al. sail into the sunset on some Sultan's fishing boat. Shenon? My guess is that he'll be thumbing a ride.

Posted on Mar 21, 2008 4:32:48 AM PDT
Read David Ray Griffin's book "9/11 Contradictions" instead of wasting time on Shenon's "Commission".

9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2008 9:39:21 PM PDT
James B says:
Even better, read NASA scientitist (not a retired theologian) Ryan Mackey's decimation of David Ray Griffin's lies and dishonesty (which Griffin refuses to respond to).

http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 25, 2008 2:53:04 AM PDT
T. Harriman says:
I believe Mr. Vidal also stated that the only difference between the Soviet Union and the United States was that "Americans always believed their government, while the Russians never believed theirs." There is a considerable amount of literature available regarding the history of "strategies of tension" that play on fear and manipulate public opinion. That we have not matured to understand this concept is unfortunate. As long as we remain distracted by shouting news anchors and vulgar social diversions, and acquiesce to the agendas of an elitist government (and the central banks), our fate is surely sealed.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 25, 2008 3:43:45 PM PDT
Kameelyun says:
James B,

Invoking Mackey's paper only earns admiration within the loyal circle-jerk supporters on JREF, with their mindless groupthink. More truly objective readers come to such conclusions as:
____________________________________________

It has the appearance of rational discourse, but it basically has the posture of evangelism.

For example, early on, Mackey relates that Griffin points to several architects of the WTC towers who said they were built to withstand the impact of a 707.

Mackey responds: "Not one of his points above contains anything other than speculation."

Well, crap, if you're going to discard the "speculation" (read: expert opinion) of the architects who actually built the friggin towers as worthless, then whose expert opinion matters? Ryan Mackey's?

****

I got as far as his first three points all of them wrong. Skilling was obviously Robertsons superior. At the time of construction Skilling was already a leader in his field and Robertson, at that time had no formal engineering qualifications or experience. So Skilling was wrong and Robertson was right. I don't think so!

The size of 707 although smaller was faster than a 767,and as one of the variables involved in working out kinetic energy is velocity,a 707 would cause more damage than a 767.

As the plane broke through the exterior, kinetic energy was greatly lost. The wings were already smashed breaking through that exterior.It is therefore logical to assume the wings,already destroyed,would have no impact on the core.He asserts the complete opposite saying there is no reason to assume the wings could not cut through a core member. Thats almost moronic!

Posted on Apr 6, 2008 7:20:27 PM PDT
ConsDemo says:
I find it rather amusing a reviewer faults an author for not citing the reviewer's own work.

In reply to an earlier post on May 5, 2008 10:16:35 AM PDT
J. Hauf says:
Why amusing? Should the reviewer have been more modest because of some silly societal taboo on self promotion? The fact is, as Griffin stated, his book is indeed one of the major critiques of the commission's report. Perhaps THE major one. I recommend it.

In reply to an earlier post on May 7, 2008 5:59:04 PM PDT
HHlistener says:
The 9/11 commission is a dog and pony show. Why waste your money and time on the characters in a dog and pony show? Better spend your money and time on the examination of the evidence, which Griffin covers in his books.

Posted on Aug 7, 2008 3:33:09 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 7, 2008 3:33:56 PM PDT
L. Colby says:
Griffin's review is exemplary of his carelessness with the facts. If I had the time and inclination I could point out dozens or errors or misleading statements but since I don't I'll focus on a few.

** "Clarke's book, Against All Enemies... is not mentioned by the Zelikow-led Commission's report and that it contradicted that report on several points, saying that Cheney was down in the bunker before 9:15,"

Its simply not true that Clarke placed Cheney "down in the bunker before 9:15,". Clarke said he left the VP's office some time after the 2nd crash (9:03) and that Cheney was gathering his papers to go to the PEOC but gave no indication as when he left.
"he does not mention Cheney's statement that he learned about the attack on the Pentagon after (not before) he entered the bunker---which the Zelikow-led Commission later contradicted."

Griffin fails to distinguish between the 2 parts of the PEOC which Cheney described as "a corridor locked at both ends", i) the conference room and ii) the hall (corridor) leading up to it. The former has a secure phone, table, TV and perhaps other amenities. According to the commission Cheney was on the secure phone in the hall with Bush till about 10 and then entered the conference room, an article in the Washington Post said the same thing. In the Meet the Press interview Cheney said he called Bush on the secure phone in "the shelter". Similarly there is no way to determine from his comments whether he meant the conference room or outer hall when he said "we had word the Pentagon's been hit" the Post said this happened in the hall.

** "Shenon ignores the Commission's failure even to mention the fact that WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane and had fires on only a few floors, also collapsed."

When truthers bring up this point I always wonder if they really read the Commission's Report. There was no reason for them to mention this, they were not charged with finding out the reason for the collapses. They didn't discuss the collapses of the towers but rather their evacuations, WTC7 was evacuated more less without incident several hours before it collapsed.

** "the FEMA report---which is still the only official report on this building"

He needs to catch up on his reading the NIST draft report on WTC 7 came out in 2004.

** "...the FEMA Report...suggested what it considered the most likely version of this theory but then admitted that it had "only a low probability of occurrence.""

The "low probability of occurrence" referred to a specific collapse model not the over all theory.

Posted on Oct 19, 2008 2:50:26 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 19, 2008 4:20:46 AM PDT
soulbox says:
Shenon's book is brilliantly written and carefully researched within the scope of its subject. It is probably true that Shenon hasn't read the material Griffin points to (his own books among them), and probably true that he doesn't care to. "Truthers" can point to this as a sign he has blinders on, but not that he wrote in bad faith. This book is written in good faith and vividly portrays the players at the center of what was a government investigation into 9/11. Expecting the government to investigate and prosecute itself seems to me a rather naive - and self-defeating - starting point. It is up to the public - and journalists from independent (even if it is establishment) media - to hold the powerful accountable for what was done and what was not done in the 9/11 case. Criticizing Shenon for being complacent, or even complicit, in a government cover-up of a government conspiracy - and that is what Griffin seems to be doing - is counter-productive. He is neither complicit nor complacent. He has written an indictment of the Commission's work far greater than any other so far, precisely because he truly and deliberately gives Zelikow - and Rice and Ashcroft and Bush and Cheney and Tenet and Kean and Hamilton for that matter - a fair shake. What emerges is a mind-boggling lesson in how democracy functions in the face of evil. The Commission wasn't manipulated by the White House (although, astoundingly, those phone calls from Rice and Rove haven't been fully explained). The Commission manipulated the Commission, and Shenon shows exactly how this was done and how this was all and everything they could do given the circumstances. That's a big accomplishment.

I have read the literature and I make no bones about saying that I don't believe the official version of the collapses of the three World Trade Center buildings. But, like Shenon, I have trouble with big government conspiracies. That is just not how the world works. For an analysis of how to reconcile these two, apparently contradictory declarations, I recommend that readers (including Shenon) get a copy of Peter Dale Scott's "Deep Politics".

"Truthers" should be seekers of truth, not arguers. The biggest problem facing those who want to know what really happened and how is the lack of interest by mainstream reporters and authors. Now Shenon who, as a NY Times reporter is mainstream and who is interested, has brought some important information to light. He should be praised for it, and the praise should be unqualified. If you're new to the subject of doubting the official version of the 9/11 attacks and you want to know more, you could do worse than to start by reading Shenon. I hope he writes more on the subject.

Michael Katims
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›