Mark Dallas of Berkeley, CA wrote:
I agree with David Ray Griffin's response to my review, but I wish to clarify two points. He mentions that his book was a summary of arguments and evidence that other authors have compiled. As a summary, his book certainly fulfills its objective. I urge readers to view my counterpoints to Griffin not as critiques of his work, but rather as attempts to improve his argument and make it more rigorous. Granted, this is not the traditional objective of a book review, but this is no ordinary book. My essay was my way of furthering the dialogue, rather than simply summarizing and discussing a book in a detached manner as most reviews are wont to do. So, yes, he fulfills his objectives fully, and my writings should be read as 'brainstorming' to improve it further, not as attacks on his work. I'm sorry if I caused a mistaken interpretation.

Secondly, I may not have made it clear enough in my essay, but I do not view his argument concerning the behavior of Bush and the Secret Service as 'weak.' Rather, I said that it was 'weaker' than the other arguments put forth in the first section of the book. It may be pure semantics, but I still found the sections which provide more abundant hard, physical evidence concerning the buildings, the flights, etc., more convincing than how the Secret Service reacted or failed to react. To the unknowledgeable reader, evidence concerning the physical destruction of buildings is more tangible and real than the reaction of the Secret Service. I have absolutely no information about Secret Service protocol, about who calls the shots when an attack occurs, or about what their past reactions have been. And while I have my opinions about Bush's cool reactions on that day, I will not jump to the conclusions I perhaps wish to make concerning his apparent delay of action (ditto for Moore's movie). So, while I see the argument concerning the reactions in Florida as another plausible path of inquiry which deserves attention, I personally would devote more energy towards the other paths that are more convincing to the lay reader.

Despite these minor points, I fully support and admire Professor Griffin's continued inquiry into these unthinkable questions.