The New Pearl Harbor ─ Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11

In the wake of the September 11th attacks, numerous individuals on the Internet and elsewhere began attacking the official accounts of how they occurred, raising questions over the actual physical evidence, the construction of the evidence, and the conduct of the government investigations. Although dubbed "conspiracy theorists" by many, former philosophy of religion professor Griffin prefers to call them "revisionists," arguing that they have made a strong prima facie case for some version of official complicity in the attacks. Collecting and collating the work of the conspiracy theorists/revisionists, Griffin admits that "although I have repeated only evidence that seemed credible to me, I have not independently verified the accuracy of this evidence." Some of the evidence seems easily dismissible, such as the possibility that the Pentagon was hit by a guided missile and not an airliner or that the twin towers were felled by controlled demolition explosives, while some, such as reports that the head of Pakistan's intelligence had wired money to the hijackers or that the Bush administration failed to adequately address warnings of the likelihood and nature of the attacks, will likely strike a significant number of readers as demanding further investigation. Annotation c2004 Book News, Inc., Portland, OR (booknews.com)