How Do I Critique a Book Based on the Title?

Jon Gold wonders why I'm ignoring the above book. To answer:

1. It just came out two weeks ago.
2. I haven't read it.
3. I haven't read any substantive reviews of it.
4. I'm not going to buy it.
5. The local public library doesn't have it on order.

Now, Jon Gold himself doesn't let a mere thing like not having read the book hold him back from reviewing it:

Kevin Fenton has been a contributor for years [...], and the "Complete 9/11 Timeline." He has provided countless pieces of helpful information for anyone concerned about the "official account" of 9/11. I highly recommend this book.

So Gold's review boils down to, "I like Kevin Fenton and therefore his book must be good." Like I said, I haven't read any substantive reviews.

Update: Gold claims to have read the book; you'd never know it from that ridiculous "review".

BTW, that's Jon Gold's second review on Amazon. His first? Back in 2006 for a Grifter book:

Years From Now Dr. David Ray Griffin will be mentioned in the same breath as the likes of Dr. Martin Luther King, and Ghandi(sic).

Hey, I mention them in the same breath all the time. David Ray Griffin is a moron who led a bunch of other morons off an intellectual cliff, unlike Dr Martin Luther King and Gandhi.

The publisher does provide some information:

Questioning actions taken by American intelligence agencies prior to 9/11, this investigation charges that intelligence officials repeatedly and deliberately withheld information from the FBI, thereby allowing hijackers to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Pinpointing individuals associated with Alec Station, the CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit, as primarily responsible for many of the intelligence failures, this account analyzes the circumstances in which critical intelligence information was kept from FBI investigators in the wider context of the CIA’s operations against al-Qaeda, concluding that the information was intentionally omitted in order to allow an al-Qaeda attack to go forward against the United States. The book also looks at the findings of the four main 9/11 investigations, claiming they omitted key facts and were blind to the purposefulness of the wrongdoing they investigated. Additionally, it asserts that Alec Station’s chief was involved in key post-9/11 events and further intelligence failures, including the failure to capture Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora and the CIA's rendition and torture program.

Bolding added for emphasis.

So it's a LIHOP book. We don't talk about LIHOP much around here, but it seems to me that's even less tenable than MIHOP. Why? Because at least with MIHOP, the plotters can choose whom they let in on the conspiracy. With LIHOP, the people who have found out through their work about the terrorist attacks all have to be trusted without any prior selection by the elements who allow the attacks to happen.