It is well-written and readable (relatively brief and clear) and thoughtful for what it is (he does seem to try to look at it from many sides). It contains a great deal of the original foreknowledge and complicity case, the vast majority from Paul Thompson and Nafeez Ahmed, some small nods to Michel Chossudovsky: Griffin seems not to be aware of the degree to which Nafeez Ahmed's book was built upon Michel Chussodovsky and Mike Rupperts work, and he lavishly quotes Nafeez as an authority. Thierry Meyssan is the other big source. plus a smattering of physical evidence (Meyssan, Hufschmid and even Gerard Holmgren), tempered by mainstream left material (Palast, Parenti, Pilger) and ultimately, a somewhat consensus Left limitation in how he looks at the world. There is some dubious stuff quoted in it as well, such as Dick Eastman and Gerald Posner. This book seems to have "something for everyone".
Perhaps the most telling chapter that shows where Griffin's head is, the conclusion, involves Griffin's discussion of complicity (he calls this the "revisionist" camp) vs. incompetence or coincidence theory. This comes after he has devoted the bulk of chapters to the "truth" of the complicity case. Basically, he suggests that the complicity case is on the right track, seems to be "rooting for it", but stops short of fully embracing it. He says he is "simply expanding on [Nafeez] Ahmed's admission that he has not provided a conclusive case". Earlier in the book, Griffin mildly criticizes the Left for not studying 9/11 and brushing it off as conspiracy theory (but mentions few of the big name Left attackers), but here he does carry the Left's water by raising pages of "rhetorical questions" arguing that the complicity case has problems of "credulity" with too many questions unanswered, or impossible to answer. More than once, he raises the idea that gross incompetence was possible. Then he switches over again, and blows up the coincidence case. Ultimately Griffin takes no side, and calls for "a full investigation" and more public disclosure.
Richard Falk wrote the foreward. Falk is a Left icon on par with Chomsky. Falk wrote articles defending the post-9/11 attack on Afghanistan as a "just war". But in the foreward, he makes no mention of his own contributions to war hysteria. In the acknowledgments, Griffin cites Falk as the guy who influenced him on global politics. Falk was his "main discussion partner", and also connected Griffin to the publisher. Perhaps this is also how Griffin got Howard Zinn's endorsement.
Falk's foreward is the green light for previously unwilling Lefties to tiptoe into 9/11, in a strictly limited fashion. Falk praises the derivative Griffin to the skies as an original thinker and a great analyst. Falk also praises Griffin for adhering to his definition of establishment left etiquette and "credibility", unlike "mad" conspiracy theorists. This passage is extremely telling:
"It must be underscored that this book does not belong in the genre of 'conspiracy theories' at least, as Griffin himself points out, in the pejorative sense in which that term is usually understood...part of the difficulty in achieving credibility in relation to issues this profoundly disturbing to public confidence in the basic legitimacy of state power is that the accusatory voices most often heard are strident and irresponsible, making them easily dismissed as 'paranoid' or 'outrageous' without further consideration of whether the concerns raised warrant investigation. In contrast, Griffin's approach is calm and his argument consistently well-reasoned, making his analysis undeniably compelling."
There is very little geostrategic context in the book, nothing about "terrorism" (he admitted on KPFA' Flashpoint's that he isn't conversant). Virtually nothing about oil and his knowledge of covert operations and deep system doesn't seem to be extensive.
Regarding Mike Ruppert directly, Griffin writes in the notes:
"One failing of this book is that I have usually made no effort to discern, with regard to various stories and facts reported, which investigator or researcher was first responsible for reporting them. This means that I have surely in many cases failed to give proper credit. One example involves the fact that I cite Paul Thompson's timelines abundantly while citing Michael Ruppert's website, From The Wilderness (www.fromthewilderness.com or www.copvcia.com), relatively rarely. And yet Ruppert was one of the earliest major critics of the official account of 9/11. In fact, in Thompson's statement of "credits and sources", he says: 'This timeline started when I saw the excellent timeline at the From The Wilderness website and began adding to it. I found that timeline to be a great resource, but it wasn't as comprehensive as I wanted. My version has since grown into something of a monster, but the inspiration still lies with From The Wilderness" (www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/index.html). Ruppert, furthermore, is simply one example of several researchers, such as Jared Israel, who were publishing information challenging the official account almost immediately after 9/11. To try to sort all of this out in order to assign proper credit, however, would detract from the task of getting the challenge to the official account into public discussion. Most researchers, as far as I can tell, seem more interested in this than in receiving credit. The question of proper credit, in any case, is one that would appropriately be answered by some historian of this movement if it is successful."
_________________________________________________________________ Get rid of annoying pop-up ads with the new MSN Toolbar – FREE! http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200414ave/direct/01/