Dr. Griffin's work on 9/11 is brilliant as well as courageous. His first book on 9/11, The New Pearl Harbor (2004), is an excellent, comprehensive introduction to the questions posed by the US government's 'official story' about 9/11. Dr. Griffin applies rigorous standards of scholarship in all of his work and seldom, if ever, theorizes. He lays out evidence, leaving others to try to resolve and explain it.
But I had trouble with 9/11 Contradictions. Other reviewers have described its content and purpose well, and I agree that it fills a niche. But I suggest that it is NOT a good introduction to 9/11 questions, mostly because of its intense focus. It defines the contradictions between the 9/11 Commission report and other reports very precisely, indeed so precisely that new readers could find its arguments pedantic and even trivial. One must understand the context in which these questions arise, and context is absent from this book.
Indeed, I have a few faults to find with the book, most of which, I believe, are the result of its narrow focus and, perhaps, insufficient editing. Repetition is useful in making strong arguments, but I believe that it's overdone here. Dr. Griffin could have made his points in about half the space. Also, I question whether the 9/11 Commission, as incredibly irresponsible as its report was, should have been required to respond to 9/11 contradictions appearing in newspaper accounts and on TV shows, as Dr. Griffin maintains. Finally, I do think that a very few of his arguments ARE trivial, in the greater scheme of things.
In the past, he has set forth 9/11 issues in an elegant and unimpeachable manner. This book is a useful tool for 9/11 researchers (and I WOULD like to see Congress and the press investigate these contradictions). But please read The New Pearl Harbor if you need or want context.