9/11, Arts and Entertainment, book reviews, Essays, latest

9/11 Unmasked: A Remarkable Review

David Ray Griffin

The book 9/11 Unmasked, which I wrote together with Elizabeth Woodworth, has received several excellent reviews. But the most remarkable of these was written by Philip Roddis, who in 2016 had written with vitriol (his term) about the idea that 9/11 was an “inside job.” He wrote: “9/11 Truthism is not only seriously crackers but reactionary too.” What is remarkable about Roddis’ 2018 review is the extent to which he reversed his previous position.


Roddis’ reversal began after seeing responses to his 2016 piece. Most of the responses simply confirmed Roddis’ long-held “contempt” for 9/11 truthers. He had felt this contempt – he recently realized – because he had been “exposed only to lazy, simplistic and epistemologically naive truthers.” Put otherwise, Roddis admitted that his “exposure to truthism had come from armchair conspiracists too idle or brain fogged to put together a decent argument.” Given his long-held certainty that the truthers could not be taken seriously, he had felt no need to “engage with evidential flaws in the official account.” So sure had I been of the logic of my case,” Roddis admitted, I’d seen little or no need to address the empirical underpinnings of [the truthers.]

Contempt for truthers had been expressed by many other critics. For example, British political writer George Monbiot said that the 9/11 truth movement consists of morons and “idiots” who believe in “magic.” Calling me the 9/11 movement’s “high priest,” Monbiot described my 9/11 writing as a “concatenation of ill-attested nonsense.”

Likewise, in an essay entitled “The 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts,” Alexander Cockburn used me to illustrate the “idiocy of the conspiracy nuts.” In a follow-up essay, Cockburn wrote: “The main engine of the 9/11 conspiracy cult is nothing [but] the death of any conception of evidence.” Because of their failure to understand the idea of evidence, truthers illustrate the “ascendancy of magic over common sense, let alone reason.”

Matthew Rothschild, the editor of the Progressive, was equally dismissive in an essay entitled “Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, Already.” Referring to me as the “guru of the 9/11 conspiracy movement,” Rothschild wrote:

Not every riddle that Griffin and other conspiracists pose has a ready answer. But almost all of their major assertions are baseless…At bottom, the 9/11 conspiracy theories are profoundly irrational and unscientific.

Whereas critics such as Monbiot and Cockburn have treated all critics of the official account of 9/11 as equally nutty and idiotic, Roddis noticed a distinction with regard to the truthers who criticized his vitriolic article. Although many of them could be easily dismissed, there were also “voices of reason from dudes who’d done their homework and whose tones were sober.”

This distinction was implicit in a Michael Moore quip:

Now, I’m not into conspiracy theories, except the ones that are true.”

In any case, having become aware that there may be such a distinction, Roddis “promised to re-assess the truther case and return either to concede and apologize or reaffirm my views with better arguments.”

Roddis’ Evaluation

Roddis’ evaluation of 9/11 Unmasked is here summarized in terms of seven issues he discussed.

1. One of the basic questions addressed by Roddis is whether 9/11 Unmasked, “by its detailed evidence and reasoning,” crossed “the threshold for being taken seriously?” Roddis replied: “I say it does.”

2. With regard to the attempt to discover the truth about 9/11, Roddis said: “One irreducible and most essential task is to expose the manifest inadequacy of the official narrative.” Except for a few minor problems, said Roddis, Griffin and Woodworth “have acquitted themselves admirably on that front. So admirably that I’ve been forced,” Roddis added, “to reexamine the logic of my own assumptions.”

3. His previous contempt for 9/11 truthers, Roddis admitted, had led him to assume that he “needn’t engage with evidential flaws in the official account.” This is crucial: A few people have, almost from the beginning, been pointing out problems in the official account. But no matter how convincingly such critiques have shown that the official account could not possibly be true, most people have simply chosen not to study these critiques, at least with an even 30% open mind, because of the contempt for “truthers” they had been taught to have.

4. Besides criticizing his previous position, Roddis also rejected another way of refusing to deal with flaws in the official account of 9/11 – a way that will likely continue to give people permission to ignore the evidence provided by the 9/11 Truth Movement:

eminent psychologists who’ve never – as I’d never – deigned to engage with evidential details will continue to publish acclaimed drivel on the pathology and pitiable delusions of all conspiracy theorists, citing all 9/11 truthers as textbook examples.

5. The Griffin-Woodworth book is built around the “best evidence” against claims made by the official account of 9/11. No reply to the book’s 51 chapters of best evidence could possibly be satisfactory apart from an extensive examination of the evidence. Discussing what would be needed to respond to “the gauntlet Griffin and Woodworth have thrown down,” Roddis gave this answer:

an inquiry quite unprecedented – a truly independent panel with no-holds access to all materials and witnesses, and immune from intimidation by pretty much the most powerful interests on earth.

6. The official account of the World Trade Center (the Twin Towers and WTC 7) was provided by NIST – the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Expressing his strongest endorsement of 9/11 Unmasked, Roddis wrote: “this is as strong a prima facie case for throwing out NIST, and its predecessors, as ever confronted an official cover up.”

7. Roddis concluded his review by saying: “I’ll close – with this recommendation for all who deem, as I had, the 9/11 truther case too daft for serious consideration. Buy this book.”


Between 2016 and 2018, Philip Roddis underwent a remarkable transformation. Beginning with the conviction that 9/11 Truthism is “seriously crackers,” he ended up thinking that the book 9/11 Unmasked must be taken seriously and also that it provides a strong “prima facie case for throwing out NIST.”

This kind of reversal is one of the things that my co-author and I hoped would be produced by our book. We had long known that the evidence against the official account of 9/11 is convincing. For people to be actually convinced, they need only to be willing to examine the evidence. Roddis’ response to our book suggests that this is the case, even with people who had been hostile to the 9/11 Truth Movement.


  1. nixak*77* says

    Turns out some of the biggest opponents of ‘9-11 Truth’ are ‘liberal-leftists’ [some even have the rep of being ‘progressives’ if not ‘radicals’], Dr Griffin names 3 here: Phil Roddis [I’m not so familiar w him], Alex Cockburn & that insufferably-smug George Monbiot. But I can name several others- IE: Matt Taibbi & Ted Rall & let’s not forget their main ‘guru’ Noam Chomsky! IMO it seems most of these allegedly ‘leftist critics’ of the US main-stream, dismissive & condescending attitude re 9-11 Truth was first prefaced by a quite similar stance re the ‘JFK Hit’ [I know that’s so for Chomsky & Cockburn]. These guys instead of dealing honestly w legit issues raised by serious folks of the 9-11 Truth movement [IE: Dr Griffin, Dr Steve Jones, Kevin Ryan, A&E for 9-11 Truth, etc], instead resort to wise-ass cracks & disses. Yet we know guys like Chomsky, Cockburn, Taibbi, et-al can not easily be dissed as(s) just idiots, most [if not all] of these guys are too ‘sharp’ & thus Should & IMO MUST know better- Yet re 9-11 [& the JFK Hit too] they effectively have given ‘Left-Cover’ to & also uphold the validity of the official [= the Repug Bush-Cheney NeoCON regime’s] ‘Conspiracy Theory’ tale re the 9-11 ‘New Pearl Harbor’ event -&- The LBJ, CIA, FBI official ”Lone-Gunmen’ tale re the ‘JFK Hit’, too. So ‘What Up w That’ Chomsky, et-al??!

  2. Ron Unz covered this recently in one of his Pravda Series articles. The entire series his highly recommended reading. Please check it out. Search Ron Unz Review Pravda Series.

    Also, Grenfell Tower. Now that was a building on fire. Yet it didn’t become pulverized and fall straight down like a droppped bowling ball. Not exceptional at al, at least for building experts such as structural engineers and architects.

    • excerpts:

      “…I’d also grown quite friendly with Alexander Cockburn, whose Counterpunch webzine seemed a very rare center of significant opposition to our disastrous foreign policy towards Iraq and Iran. I do recall that he once complained to me in 2006 about the “conspiracy nuts” of the 9/11 Truth movement who were endlessly harassing his publication, and I extended my sympathies. Each of us move in different political circles, and that brief reference may have been the first and only time I heard of the 9/11 Truthers during that period, causing me to regard them more like an eccentric UFO cult than anything else.”

      “We might expect that if a former intelligence officer of [William] Christison’s rank were to denounce the official 9/11 report as a fraud and a cover-up, such a story would constitute front-page news. But it was never reported anywhere in our mainstream media, and I only stumbled upon it a decade later.

      “Even our supposed “alternative” media outlets were nearly as silent. Throughout the 2000s, Christison and his wife Kathleen, also a former CIA analyst, had been regular contributors to Counterpunch, publishing many dozens of articles there and certainly were its most highly-credentialed writers on intelligence and national security matters. But editor Alexander Cockburn refused to publish any of their 9/11 skepticism, so it never came to my attention at the time. Indeed, when I mentioned Christison’s views to current Counterpunch editor Jeffrey St. Clair a couple of years ago, he was stunned to discover that the friend he had regarded so very highly had actually become a “9/11 Truther.” When media organs serve as ideological gatekeepers, a condition of widespread ignorance becomes unavoidable.”

      • Paul says

        The reasons why the mainstream media did not mention any of the 9/11 Truther theories, well you just have to look at who owns mainstream media sources like CNN and Fox News, they like many industry leaders always control the narrative. For example the Bilderberg conference last year 2017, Who’s attendees listed a multitude of media print and digital, financial services, investment management, private equity CEO’s, along with a plethora of former or current political figures in previous or current Washington DC administrations. Hence they control the agenda they control the narrative of all mainstream media and a lot of alternate media also, so you’re never going to really see a deviation from the official 9/11 report which is total BS. And if there is any deviation it will be so far-fetched that people won’t take any notice of it, this is purposely done as usual.

      • Mulga Mumblebrain says

        Alexander Cockburn was also an anthropogenic climate destabilisation denier, a true sign of the anti-intellectual and highly dangerous crack-pot.

        • Admin says

          We discourage people from using the word “denier” here. It’s a neoliberal/neofascist development to use this word to close down debate by branding certain positions as a priori illegitimate. Personified by Luke Harding’s attempts to popularise “collusion denier”.

          Questioning prevailing orthodoxies should never be delegitimised

          • BigB says

            Forget AGW, it’s a pseudo-topic, as if mere talk or debate could confirm or deny either way. Outside the expertocracy: it becomes a miasma of empirical and anti-empirical opinions strongly held, and even more strongly affirmed or denied …of which the anti-dialogue has rightly been compared to a bloodsport.

            The planet, its flora and fauna are dying: to say otherwise IS denial. To replace biodiversity, we are creating a monoculture. 98% of the large fauna is composed of man and domesticants. I could go on, but factuality entrenches denialism. And evokes a reactionary strong psychological attack/defence mode.

            We live in a hyper-real thought bubble that insularises us. We believe, that is the majority believe, that the fate of the planet does not concern us. The gross delusion of which is about to take a reality check. Whether this will cause a mortal rupture in a collective psychology that is already displaying its mental illness …who knows?

            Tim Morton has proposed that the climate, and with and beyond it, the fate of the planet, is a ‘hyperobject’ …which we cannot conceptualise: much less do anything about. This is our performative powerlessness; of which the best psychological defence is denialism.

            So we continue with the same economic and ecological calculus (of compound exponential growth and accumulation, fuelled by extractivism, etc) that may or may not have already precipitated the environmental rupture. If it is not already precipitated, then it soon will. Are we prepared to debate and bluster until the rupture is confirmed?

            This is a strange logic: it is also a fact that capitalism and environmentalism, that is our very survivalism, are mutually exclusive and antithetical. This is not really open to debate, either. This should part of the facticity of the left …absorbed over the last 150 years of Marxism and Post-Marxism, culminating perhaps in the New Left radicals?

            Yet the belief persists that we can continue on the same trajectory, with the same economic calculus of growth …and all will be fine. When can this magical thinking be ruled a priori illegitimate?

            The same pure Reason – applied to the ecologies of mind, economy, and environment – that precipitated the current crisis of humanity, cannot be applied to prevent it. Shall we open this up to debate? Or shall we draw a line under the disempowering dissensus: and agree, whatever may be, we need to change? Then work toward allowing that change to occur?

            It’s not like our very survival depends on such an outcome, is it?

          • milosevic says

            We discourage people from using the word “denier” here. It’s a neoliberal/neofascist development to use this word to close down debate by branding certain positions as a priori illegitimate.

            I favour using the term “9/11 denier”, with people who fit the description.

            The cognitive dissonance this immediately produces in them helps to break down the barrier of their ideological conditioning, by implicitly accusing them of the same kind of ThoughtCrime which they habitually attribute to the evil Conspiracy Theorists.

  3. SuzS says

    Thank you Mr Griffin and Mr Roddis for quite a rare experience. I very much appreciated Roddis’ review for its fairminded preparedness to admit a profound change of perception. Mr Griffin follows that up with a very fine response. These two pieces are VERY important and should be widely read

  4. Sally Lun says

    David Griffin is one of my 911 heroes. Along with Kevin Ryan and Niels Harrit, discoverer of thermite in the WTC dust

    Who are other people’s personal heroes?

    • PainedScientist says

      It was professor Steven Jones who first discovered thermite in the WTC dust, in 2006. Harrit was the lead author on the subsequent paper from 2009, detailing their findings

    • Bryn Higgins says

      I’m a fan of Ace Baker. Irreverent. Bit mental. But fun.

      • As my understanding of the technical aspects of video is non-existent, the fact that I find his explanation of how they did the plane video fakery extremely credible may not mean very much. However, I suggest where he gets it wrong is that he states that the nose cone pops out the other side of the South tower due to “drift” with the implication that the fakers were unable to control it. He assumes, quite reasonably, that the nose cone popping out is some kind of screw up but it isn’t. It’s completely deliberate – the power elite mashing their hoaxery in our face. And, indeed, they have a witness, Mark Walsh, testify to seeing the plane “ream right into the side of the twin tower exploding through the other side.” https://youtu.be/f-pLwI7dcQ0?t=56s

        • Mark Walsh is not who he seems. There is no end to this rabbit hole. It is bottomless. Endless Like fractals. Seriously.

          • He’s certainly a hired witness but he seems to really be Mark Walsh, aka, “Psycho Mark”. The brazenness of these people knows no bounds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO7MJnw5S4s. It was put out on the internet that the witness was actor, Mark Humphrey, from Canada (http://mydevotionalthoughts.net/2017/02/interview-with-actor-mark-humphrey-when-calls-the-heart.html) but I believe that was just ludicrous disinformation because he looks nothing like Mark Humphrey and is very obviously “Psycho Mark”.

            • Look closely at this. I caught it live while recording on 3 tv’s set on 3 different channels and still have the VHS tapes. It happened….or did it? I suppose I should pop the tapes in to make sure the Mandela effect hasn’t changed them. Just kidding – or am I?

              • Fascinating but wherever speculation is involved I think it best to not bother going there. Rather, stick to the essential facts that will get these people behind bars (doubt it will ever happen though) then THEY can explain it.

              • bill says

                Nudging folk along seems sensible but truthers will just call what you have posted an anomaly or speculation… they wont endeavour to explain it or indeed any of the huge problems with CD
                because they have only 2 answers on their multiple choice test paper and they are hanging on to that paper for grim death,no matter what, because the criminals gotta pay, as they certainly should, but wont of course… …the only real remaining argument over what happened has been as debated at the Vancouver Conference….do they even suspect how much Z learnt from the errors of the Warren Commission when he wrote the 9/11 Commission Report or how the HSCA took the murderers by a surprise ( and dealt with it /Gaeton Fonzi,the Last Investigation) they wont again permit but this time will and do control in search of,when ready, yet another hugely profitable war….not Iran ..

                • This particular posting was the issue that divided scholars for 9/11 truth. It was a big deal at the time. Steven Jones on one side of the debate, arguing for thermite and Jim Fetzer on the other side, arguing for directed energy weapons. The dissolving antenna was certainly interesting but served only to further divide the movement. What caused it? Who knows. Neither anomaly or speculation define what we see. Nearly everything that happened that day was in some respect not physically or rationally possible. There is still more hidden in plain sight. So far, discovery and facts don’t seem to be doing too well in the effort to have a real inquiry. Do they? The infighting has been a separate show in itself. The many perspectives of facts and the speculation on intent and complicity have so far, been outside our ability to put into a cohesive picture. There must be something we are missing. I have my own idea what that something is. It is not a popular idea because It includes us all sharing the guilt.

                  • Eye Witness says

                    Steven Jones behaved shabbily toward Fetzer and ST911. He, Kevin Ryan and others combined to break the organisation far more than Fetzer ever did. Granted Jones received vicious attacks from some elements in the organisation,but that doesn’t excuse what he allowed to be done by his followers. No one has reason to be proud of that episode.

              • willi uebelherr says

                To axisofoil and bill and all.

                I thinks, all this with 9/11 is not a question of truth. All theoretical discussion, what we found, show us the physically impossibilities of the oficial story.

                The real problem seems to be, that the most people can’t live with this truth. You can see it with Noam Chomsky. For him it is impossible, that this event was designed with and from the state apparatus. And we can understand, that people without his deep inside view will have much more distance to accept that all this oficial stories are a big lying theatre.

                Of course, all instances of the political superstructure ignore and suppress any form of true documentation. But this we find in all themes. But here we stay directly in front of the state construction. And only the anarchists can here act totally free. The most of all others never, because they are existentially bound to a working state construction.

                • willi uebelherr says

                  Not really, dear axisofoil. We can understand, that on this field we will never break the systems, that create this events for the global wars.
                  We can recognise, that the most people will never defend the official story. The real change we can only organise based on her live basics.
                  The real problem for us is, that only with the fighting against the lying and stupid explanation of any thing we will never be able to create together a real alternative. The money system is the core for slavery. The privatisation of information flows stabilise the systems.
                  If the people want to create a really human way of life, never the can to that in reaction of the doing of the systems actors. if we follow only the activism of the systems actors, we lost our space for alternatives.
                  greetings, willi
                  Asuncion, Paraguay

                  • Thanks,
                    I agree with you. One has to be prepared to live outside this reactionary and polarized world, at least where I live. I have gotten rather used to it now. Sometimes I jump in and comment for the entertainment of it all. Here, it is difficult to express with any effect, individual values and opinions. There is a social structure extremely focused on controlling the narrative. That control is getting tighter all the time.

              • CH says

                Wow. I’ve watched these videos off and on since the day of 9/11, when I happened to be unemployed by our fine capitalist system and sat home all day watching the live TV coverage. But I didn’t think through the collapse of Building 7 for some three years afterward, whereupon I suddenly went, “Holy S***!” Now, in 2018, another aspect of that collapse that I never noticed is pointed out to me! Maybe the earlier videos I’d watched had been terminated early; maybe I just didn’t see it. Either way, this is interesting.

                But let me ask a question: If that tall column just happened to fall directly away from (or directly toward, for that matter) the camera, we would have observed an in-plane rotation, not an atomization. (By “plane,” I refer not to any airplane, but to the Euclidean plane defined by the top and bottom points of the column and the camera location; call those points A, B, and C respectively; three points determine a triangle, and, more generally, a plane.) And if the column had fallen away from the camera, not toward it, it would not have presented foreshortening due to perspective effects. I ask if that may not account for the apparent vaporization? While I’m on it, let me ask if any such perspective effects have been noted by anyone.

                OK, two questions more: did any other cameras catch a view of the same column from outside the plane ABC that I’m talking about? What did they show? And, if it was an in-plane rotation and not an atomization, it would have been moving pretty fast and caused some serious damage along the line where it whacked into the ground. Was any such damage, death, or injury sustained along that line?

                These are the questions that I regard and unanswered in my mind as I write this. I’d be grateful to anyone who can help out with their answers, or point to any existing treatment of my questions.


  5. Makropulos says

    “What is remarkable about Roddis’ 1918 review” is that it seems to have happened a century ago!

    • No one can say the man doesn’t plan ahead! 🙂

      Typo fixed now with apologies from us.

    • Don’t get your hopes up. We just watched a half million Syrians butchered with our tax dollars.We ate pop corn . We still have the School of the Americas. We still vote for the better of 2 evils. The values bar is now flush with the floor, so at least we are not guilty. We are irreverent by choice. It’s easier….and safer. Grab a beer. Who is going to issue those subpoenas anyway? Walt Disney?

        • Our so called civilized world would collapse if it prosecuted itself. This won’t happen. My cynicism is based on my personal experiences with the human species. Our values are such that we are easily manipulated by psychopaths. What do you think might have happened if the occupy movement had fixated on only one demand………NO PROFITS OF WAR? Maybe some light shed on our real values? The equitable share of the 1%s wealth that Occupy felt belonged to them was looked at from a purely selfish perspective. The stench of human carnage in which that profit wallowed was not even considered. This is a shame.
          The unfortunate reality is that the lie now has too much momentum.The entire world has been turned into a blood bath for profit for too long. The guilty will defend themselves from scrutiny.This includes each of us.
          It didn’t start with 9/11. Instead, 9/11 was the inevitable result of a program which demanded our complicity in order to pass further legislation which would then facilitate that agenda with our permission. We complied. The Patriot Act was waiting. It had been waiting for a while.
          How did we ever go passed the Oklahoma City bombing? We were too distracted with the ‘Home grown terrorism’ meme? The outrage about the impossibility of that destruction was also loud, yet ignored.

          There has already been very official hearings about 9/11 – The Toronto hearings. To no avail.

          I wish the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry good luck. I really do. I’m sure they know the judicial system is corrupt to the core and are prepared. These may be some well meaning attorneys, but what kind of life vest do you wear when you dive head first into a sewer churning with mindless brutality? It is just my opinion, but we need to have a hard look at our own values first. Really hard.

          • Mulga Mumblebrain says

            The Western ‘Rules Based International Order’ is utterly destructive, utterly Evil and utterly irredeemable. The idea that it can be reformed and turned into something other than utter malevolence is seriously mistaken.

  6. writerroddis says

    “This kind of reversal is one of the things that my co-author and I hoped would be produced by our book. We had long known that the evidence against the official account of 9/11 is convincing.”

    Well what can I say, David? For those who regard truthism as article of religious faith my turnaround could never be good enough. More astute truthers, however, will see the value of a gamekeeper turned poacher! May sales soar in the way your and Elizabeth’s book deserves.

  7. tael says

    OffG, this is huge, thank You, thank You David & You Elizabeth !
    As ever Surface the equations: truth x time x denial x education x culture of hypocrisy. This may be the turning point.
    A lot of people perceived evil at work in their gut from the start and as a society it is quite shameful, hurting to say the least, to have to live through all of it. Personally I feel quite sick about the ease how the public deniers who earned their wage by doing so will get away with rationalising apologies while shame and a long time in a cave would be approprate . Start with T.Blair, please!

  8. harry stotle says

    No doubt Monbiot’s blindness to 9/11 was a factor in his uncritical acceptance of imperial propaganda such as the ‘White Helmets’ narrative or the Assad ‘gassed his own people’ trope.

    In fact its pretty much axiomatic that those too blinkered to see 9/11 as a colossal lie (since the official conspiracy myth is bereft of even the most rudimentary forms of reason or logic) are those most likely to unquestioningly buy into the endless stream of propaganda fed to our media by government agencies in order to rationalise international conflicts and with it appalling human rights abuses.

    Of course any one BTL who does not subscribe to Monbiots cock-eyed apologia for neoconservatism is immediately memory-holed.

    • Agreed. I think many of us knew that 9/11 was deep state event at the time it happened, even before the false narrative started coming out (which was very soon)..It was all so unlikely and cinematic. But then those of us of a certain age are suitably cynical, having had the “advantage” of seeing the JFK assassination on TV and immediately knowing, for much the same reasons,thatwas a deep state action. (Monbiot was only 10 months old at the time and he’s still as naive.).

  9. TFS says

    This is what so called Truthers/Conspiracy Theorists are up against:


    What would have been nice would be if DRG had turned the tables of Matt and asked him to justify his support of the Official Conspiracy Theory on 9/11.

    Also, its nearly 20yrs since 9/11 happened. What new techniques are there that could be bought to bear on the investigation?

    Well for a start MIT released a piece of software technology years ago which could detect and amplify small movements in videos (in the demo,detecting a babies heartbeat). I wonder if it could be used to detect the shaking of the WTC 1,2 &7 buildings prior to their collapse?

    • wittym says

      Apart from many audio/video recordings and dozens and dozens of eye-witness testimony, the pre-attack and pre-collapse explosions were detected by USGS seismic recorders in New Jersey.

      Facts and data don’t matter though, the truth is what they say it will be no matter how unbelievable.

    • It’s very interesting how people have no trouble coming up with claptrap to argue against another’s explanation but when asked to provide an explanation for their own belief, they’re left like a gaping fish out of water. Yes, it’s a very good idea to ask people to defend their own belief because so often they can’t come up with two words to do so.

      No more techniques are required. 9/11 may well be the greatest case of the Emperor’s New Clothes the world has ever known. The book has way beyond more than enough information to prove that 9/11 was an inside conspiracy. To my mind, it’s a good idea to stick to the smallest amount of evidence to prove your case – it saves endless arguing about this that or the other. With 9/11 there are a number of single pieces of evidence that act as proof all on their own, my favourite being the undisputed 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration in the collapse of WTC-7. For free fall through the path of greatest resistance, all the building’s 82 steel support columns had to give way at virtually the same time and the only possible way that could have happened was from the action of pre-positioned charges. It’s very, very straightforward.

      There’s absolutely no evidence for the official story. Zero. We don’t even see a terrorist board a plane. In fact, the power elite stage their crimes deliberately that way. While they smother us in very clever propaganda to stop us seeing them, at the same time, they push their crimes in our faces like cream pie. An insider told false-flag analyst, Ole Dammegard, that the power elite (essentially a weird global cult of super rich, powerful and depraved people who engage in weird and criminal ritualistic practices including human sacrifice) justify their crimes against us by signalling them through clues, contradictions, impossibilities, things that don’t add up, many and strange changes in the story, smiling grievers, sloppiness and on and on. They reason that that puts the responsibility on us to call them out and if we don’t then the fault’s on us and they are spared karmic repercussions. This is just nonsense, of course, but apparently, it’s very, very important to them and you can see evidence of their signalling in their crimes.

      I mean, why the collapse of WTC-7 on 9/11 in the first place? One of their agendas was obviously to bring down all the buildings in the WTC. They brought down the others after 9/11 and as WTC-7 was not part of their terror operation why not bring it down later with them? Perhaps they wanted it down urgently but I think it’s an interesting question. To me it seems as though the perfect implosion of WTC-7 was pushed in our faces. And there were certainly other things they pushed in our faces: the 20 minute pre-announcement of WTC-7’s collapse by the BBC, many of the terrorists popping up alive, the pristine passport fluttering to the ground and THEN changing ownership, the nose cone of alleged Flight 175 popping out the other side of the South tower – I mean, really. They needed the plane to penetrate the building for their story (of course, that was an impossibility too with obviously faked footage) but they certainly didn’t need the utterly ludicrous popping out the other side of the nose cone. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH5InKzdQHw

      • Rhisiart Gwilym says

        The three thoroughly-proven – sic! – controlled demolitions are all the evidence that’s needed. Grant them, and the whole false-flag hypothesis is clinched, right there.

      • TFS says

        What’s out there is already proof enough to dispel the Official Governments Conspiracy Theory, granted

        The example suggested is just another ‘forensic tool’ that could be applied to the scene of the crime that was recorded from multiple sources.

        ‘You say no bombs were heard. I say play the recordings’.
        ‘You say yeah but that’s just internal mechanisms within the damaged buildings causing the sounds. I say analyze the video’.

        There is always new techniques to apply to old crimes.

        Think JFK assassination analysis has ceased?
        Still waiting for the experiment proving ‘back and to the left’, from the shot from the TSBD. It’s been 50yrs already and NO ONE has accomplished it, NO ONE.
        You say, haha, but the Single Bullet Theory has been explained by multitude of animations. I say release the animations as open source and we’ll talk, otherwise it’s a cartoon.

      • On second thoughts perhaps the insider was lying and the power elite don’t justify their crimes by signalling them for us to call them out, they simply enjoy the ability their power allows them to push their crimes in our face with absurdity upon absurdity without fear of suffering the consequences of them. Of course, either way they do have a blast pushing their crimes in our face, no doubt about that. An example that makes me laugh myself is the cat and two guinea pigs among all the other Skripal nonsense.

      • There is also the twin tower antenna that vaporizes in front of our eyes, It turns to dust in mid air. Clever. Red herrings were everywhere that day. We will still find more. Like an Easter egg hunt. Somebody is having fun. Meanwhile………

  10. wittym says

    It is remarkable to me how little, facts or Science count in people’s minds, even in a civilized, educated place like Britain. The buildings could not have accelerated toward the ground at the rate they did according to laws of Physics you would learn in GCE O level and hopefully still do. When they actually look at the data, 99% of Engineers, Chemists, Architects, Pilots, Air Traffic controllers, Fire/explosive-experts and 100% of controlled demolition technicians know that the official story is not at all credible even as left field theory, it is in fact, an interwoven list of base-less, completely anti-scientific fairy stories. Invented by the Federally controlled, agency called NIST which had Dick Chaney’s gun to its head before the event even happened.

  11. vexarb says

    “The truth rarely if ever convinces its opponents; it simply outlives them”. — “Mad” Max Planck.

    Here we have a clear example of the rare exception: truth convincing an opponent. Hurrah for writer Griffin, hurrah for writer Oddis!

  12. TFS says

    Here’s a lovely example of the Smithsonian channel pulling a fast one.

    Go to 3:30 and check out the cartoon.

    An then look at google:


    Yep. The top of WTC 2, is falling off to the side. The Smithsonian cartoon is at odds with reality. Of course mentioning this will get your comment shadow banned in relation to that particular video.

    Anyone up for getting the data and analysis they used for their recreation?


  13. Rhisiart Gwilym says

    Unqualified respect to David RG, as ever. He will be remembered, when the true history of 11/9 (I’m British!) is established as the universally-accepted account, as the great, unfailingly-steady rock against which the ridiculous truth-rubbishing, due-diligence-failing ‘pundits’ dashed themselves so ineffectually. Belated kudos to Roddis, for having the honesty to shift position because of the effect of real evidence, and for having the balls to admit it in public. I was one of those who ridiculed his original fatally ill-informed article trashing the truth movement. Glad to withdraw that condemnation now. Welcome to the reality-based community on 11/9 Philip!

    As any engineeringly-competent person can see, once the fact (I choose the word carefully) of the controlled demolitions of the three WTC buildings was established beyond reasonable doubt, it became impossible to conclude that the whole atrocity could be anything but an inside job. That has been unavoidably clear ever since – to those who studied the actual evidence. Demolition work of that high level of professional skill simply cannot be organised by foreign amateurs sneaking into a building with a couple of rucksacks. Preparing buildings for that sort of spectacle is a light-industrial process that absolutely requires privileged access to them for a considerable period of time. In the real world, rather than the Hollyshite fantasy world, that just can’t be done by amateurish stealth.

    • Rhisiart Gwilym says

      PS: Congratulations and respect to the Off-Graun editors too, for the intellectually-honest, meticulous, and genuinely open and even-handed way that you’ve handled this tricky issue. You put the corporate-media whores to utter shame with your proper professionalism!

    • Chris says

      It is a pity more Americans couldn’t be convinced to stop using the American ordering of dates because quite apart from being less logical than the British ordering, the date of 9/11 appears to have been chosen precisely because the sickos behind the event deliberately decided to use a number which would be imprinted on all Americans because of their phone emergency number 9-1-1.

      As Flaxgirl notes above referencing Ole Dammegard, “the power elite (essentially a weird global cult of super rich, powerful and depraved people who engage in weird and criminal ritualistic practices including human sacrifice) justify their crimes against us by signalling them through clues, contradictions, impossibilities, things that don’t add up, many and strange changes in the story, smiling grievers, sloppiness and on and on.” The 9/11 9-1-1 matching fits with this as the sort of Satanic joke that apparently floats their boat.

      The whole operation appears to have been conceived as early as the date when AT&T first decided that 9-1-1 would be the American emergency number in late 1967. It was just several months prior to then, of course, that David Rockefeller was having his picture photographed for the cover of the April 1967 edition of Newsweek magazine showing the hands of his wristwatch on 9 and 11 – a photo against the backdrop of a high rise view of New York taken just after the ground was broken for the building of the Twin Towers.

  14. willi uebelherr says

    Dear friends, dear David Griffin,

    I didn’t read the book. I just read the text by Philip Roddis. But my first question doesn’t come up:

    Is it physically possible that a aluminum airplane with a body and wings of aluminum is able to cut through all the steel beams like butter on the entire width?

    Is it physically possible that a aluminum airplane with a body and wings of aluminum is able to go through a whole with 5 m diameter?

    If we don’t find a valuable answer to this question we have never discuss about temperature or fire or any question to Airspace Safety.

    many thanks for your work and much greetings to all, willi uebelherr
    Asuncion, Paraguay

      • So in a collision between a Mack truck and a sedan, would you make a different choice depending on which vehicle is going at 100km and which is stationary?

        • It’s not an argument of absolutes.
          If the towers were made of aluminium the planes (it is argued) would have caused much more damage, likewise if the planes (absurdly) were made of steel. If the planes were going slower into the actual (steel) towers, they would have caused a whole lot less damage.
          Blancmange doesnt do my knee much harm when I drop it from my spoon. If I shot blancmange at the speed of sound at my knee, I would lose my kneecap most likely.
          That’s how I understand it. I am not a physicist, I linked to what I regard as the best collection of scientific and acadmenic opinion on 9/11 (The Journal of 9/11 Studies). Just seems the best opinion on the matter to me.

          • wittym says

            It doesn’t matter which is stationary. Two objects collided relative to each other. In fact, the Trade Centers were not stationary. Not to be pedantic, they were spinning with the earth’s rotation, flying around the sun and around the center of the milky way. Just to demonstrate it is their relative motion of the colliding objects to each other that counts, whichever was moving or if both are moving. There is no absolute reference grid in space to measure whether you are stationary or moving with constant velocity.
            If you are in a sedan travelling at a constant velocity, and you throw a ball at a model of a building on the car seat, the consequences and calculations are the same as if you are stationary, all that you need to take into account is their relative velocities and their masses which combined is their momentum and which is jointly conserved in the collision.

      • willi uebelherr says

        Dear mog, we speak here about physiks, about kinetic energy. and this is always relative. If two materials come togeher with a relative speed, only the material structures defined the result. Never who stay or moved to or against the other.

  15. This is an important documentary. Long, but worth it. You may not accept everything said, but there are some eye opening moments. Really.

  16. Hugh O'Neill says

    David Ray Griffin, your gentle patience and scholarly dedication show Mankind at his level best in confronting Totalitarian crimes and propaganda. It is interesting how Roddis changed his mind due to the gentlemanly attitude of some who dare question the official account. (Note to self: be gentle and less impassioned)
    By conscious choice, I try to avoid exposure to MSM propaganda but had no concept of 9/11 as Psy-Op until listening to a 2009 Radio NZ interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArLe__a_VaY) when Kim Hill attacked relentlessly the impeccably polite Richard Gage. (It was her condescending hostility which alerted me to a bigger story). Only then did I begin my own research, and the moment you see WTC7 collapse, you know something is amiss. That the BBC had announced this collapse before it happened, then tried to claim it was a reasonable mistake in all the confusion!
    My own research on the JFK assassination and the subsequent Warren Commission had already convinced me that governments commit outrageous crimes, and that the whole Establishment can maintain a cover-up thereafter.
    There are many parallels between JFK and 9/11 e.g. Allen Dulles (ex-CIA chief ousted by JFK for treachery) appointed micro-manager of the Warren Commission, just as Philip Zelikow managed the 9/11 Commission, despite having co-authored “Catastrophic Terrorism” in 1998 – almost a clarion cry for a False Flag Psy-Op. (Zelikow is also a student of the JFK assassination and wrote a thesis on creating myths).
    Understanding the JFK assassination is key to understanding that Official Accounts of events requires much skepticism. As always, Orwell hit the nail on the head: “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” In other words, lets please wake up and smell the brimstone. Can we not see that the Emperor is naked?

    • Those who control the energy control the people. But those who control their perception control everything. Wake up sheeple🐏and read WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO ❓ Don’t be afraid of the truth. In the electronic age knowledge is a choice.

    • mick says

      Kim Hill didn’t do any research before the interview with Richard Gage. It showed in her comments.
      The thing I an so surprised at about 911 over the last 17 years is how the Israeli involvement has been ignored. People say ‘somebody on the inside would have talked’ if it was an inside job but here we see evidence in the ‘public domain’ about Israelis arrested and found to have had prepositioned cameras before the first plane hit the North Tower and even a moving van full of explosives in New York on 911 driven by an Israeli agent. Both these groups of Israelis were arrested and linked to 911 even failing polygraphs repeatably. Only to be returned to Israel weeks later.
      But Muslims are blamed?

      • I would sooner blame Mega Transnational Corporations. Israel wasn’t the only one to benefit from 9/11. The old money like the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts and JP Morgan didn’t go away they are still in power.

Comments are closed.