Learn more Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Learn more Shop Fire Shop Kindle Blind Boys of Alabama Learn more Fitbit

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on 28 September 2010
Keane and Hamilton said that the CIA (and likely the White House) "obstructed our investigation". They of the 9/11 Commission also said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn't bother to tell the American people. Indeed, Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.
Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history.
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."
9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting"
Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up".
9/11 Commissioner John Lehman said that "We purposely put together a staff that had - in a way - conflicts of interest".
The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11 staff's inquiry, said"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is not spin. This is not true."
According to the Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, a U.S. government informant was the landlord to two of the hijackers for over a year (but the White House refused to let the 9/11 inquiry interview him).
Current U.S. Senator (Patrick Leahy) states "The two questions that the congress will not ask . . . is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush's watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen?"
Current Republican Congressman (Ron Paul) calls for a new 9/11 investigation and states that "we see the [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on"
Current Democratic Congressman (Dennis Kucinich) hints that we aren't being told the truth about 9/11
Former Democratic Senator (Mike Gravel) states that he supports a new 9/11 investigation and that we don't know the truth about 9/11
Former Republican Senator (Lincoln Chaffee) endorses a new 9/11 investigation
Former U.S. Democratic Congressman (Dan Hamburg) says that the U.S. government "assisted" in the 9/11 attacks, stating that "I think there was a lot of help from the inside"
Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee (Curt Weldon) has shown that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the possibility that9/11 was an inside job
Knowing all of this, why buy the above piece of garbage?
Save your money and buy David Ray Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbor Revisited", which is deserving of The Pulitzer Prize!
11 Comment| 16 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 27 August 2016
This book is perfect, it is a guarantee that we can avoid our 9/11, by learning from america's own mistakes.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 29 July 2015
Biggest work of fiction since the bible!
11 Comment| 4 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 29 August 2015
Absolute bs. This book and its seemingly delusional writers deserve no more words; don't waste your money and time, please.
11 Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 23 April 2006
This "report" is a disgrace. Nay, an outrage. How dare this comission release such a half-baked excuse for a report. For shame.

Do not expect to gain any accurate knowlege of the atrocities that were committed on 9-11 from this compilation of hearsay.

Some examples:

- WTC building no. 7 is not even mentioned. Yes, you read correctly: IT IS NOT EVEN MENTIONED.

- Operation Vigilant Guardian. Again: It is not even mentioned.

- According to this commission, finding out who bankrolled the attacks is "of little practical importance".

I could go on like this all night, but I won't. Read David Ray Griffin's "The 9/11 Commission Report: Ommissions and distortions" and you will begin to understand.

That said, I would consider this "report" well worth reading. It is going to be considered a classic example of state progaganda in the future.
44 Comments| 49 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 7 March 2009
I have been using the 9/11 commission report as the centrepiece for an essay i am currently constructing for my History course. After doing a bit of background reading, getting hold of those for and against this report, i am afraid to say that this 'report' is nothing but a narrative history of 9/11 and is heavily propagandised.

Please, i urge you to read some articles from the Journal of 9/11 studies, some of David Ray Griffin's few books on this subject and read further around the 'conspiracy theroies' surrounding 9/11. This report is a necessity for background reading into 9/11, but it would be foolhardy to take it as gospel truth. I give it a two star review only because it's a must-read on the subject of 9/11 and, overall, it is clear, concise and well written. Nothing more.
0Comment| 12 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 26 October 2014
Well, we all know that this book is a bunch of lies and a whitewash, more or less from start to finish...

It is really incredible that anybody would believe this garbage with all the information out the contradicting the content of this work of fiction.

This book is the fictional fairytale of Phillip Zelikow and an offensive slap in the face to anyone caring about truth and justice.
0Comment| 6 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 1 July 2015
I cant wait for the next book to come out' its called HARRY POTTER AND THE COLLAPSE OF BUILDING 7. Its about 3 young wizards who get on their broomsticks and smash into a building' the result is a complete collapse at freefall speed and harry and his friends blame it on the muslims. NONE FICTION (because the George W Bush said so.
11 Comment| 5 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 12 March 2011
This is pure fiction. Buildings made from steel suffering pancake collapse from kerosene fuel while site clearance crews pick molten steel out of a furnace over a month after the event...? No way, not in a million years, physically impossible. The US government has a lot to answer for and explain to the victims family's it's an absolute disgrace!!! They must think people around the world are complete dummys to believe this nonsense. I give this book one star because I can't go any lower to rate it having read it. Some of the engineers who contributed to this book have now actually 'jumped ship' and feel some shame into what they entered into it and have retracted their former stance and opinions on the official story. I'm glad I didn't pay too much for this and got a copy second-hand.
11 Comment| 11 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 25 February 2015
Checked and checked again, no mention of World trade centre building 7 collapse, this major event on 911 was been totally overlooked on purpose ~Q: WHY
Maybe it is because the NIST report also overlooked Building 7's demise
Building 7 is the first steel high rise building to have ever collapsed due purely to office fires, its collapse showed all the visual traits of a controlled demolition and the building fell at the speed at gravity.
NIST were expected to explain Building 7 dropping out of the sky at the speed of Gravity but in the end they just did not bother, they smoothed over this scientific impossibility by saying the collapse matched their computer model, which it actually didn’t, NIST computer model couldn’t explain the building dropping symmetrically out the sky at the speed of freefall or Gravity.
Nist put the initiating event of the collapse down to THE NEW PHENOMENON 0F THERMAL LINEAR EXPANSION, which is not new at all, it is just the fact that steel when heated expands length ways (and all ways) this is a known scientific fact and the expansion of certain metals is well documented.
Nist stated initially that the thermal linear expansion caused floor beams to PUSH a steel girder off its 11 inch seat at column 79, the floor beams would have needed to push the girder at least 5.5 inches to WALK the girder past its web centre load bearing point leaving just the flange of the girder to support, NIST state this flange unable to support the webs load weight and so failed and unseated the girder.
NIST noted that the temperature needed to expand the floor beams their maximum thermal linear expansion length of 5.5” would need to be the maximum temperature of 600 degrees C at which steel expands, after 600 Degrees C steel stops pushing and looses stiffness and strength and will droop or sag.
It was then pointed out to NIST that the seat at column 79 was actually 12”s and the end of the girder was secured to column 79 using shear bolts and that the flanges of the end of the girder were reinforced for maximum load bearing by the use of STIFFENER stiffener plates welded from the flange to the web, thus making the flange as strong as the web on the girder, NIST then recalculated their thermal linear expansion to 6.25 inchs but ignored the stiffener plates and shear bolts.
It was then pointed out to NIST that to achieve 6.25 inches of Thermal linear expansion on the floor beams they would need to receive a constant temperature of over 760 Degrees C, way past the point where steel looses strength and would stop pushing and loose stiffness and start to sag, NIST replied ........nothing !
NISTs theory for the collapse of building 7 due to office fires with the initiating event at column 79 does not hold up to simplest of scrutiny, add this to the fact that they failed in their report to explain the freefall speed of the building then this makes the whole of the 911 commision report total fantasy.
Remember, if they lied about building 7, they lied about the whole of 911.
0Comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)