• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Hustler Magazine Interview with David Ray Griffin

May 28, 2005
Reaction score
Reading is fundamental...I just buy it for the articles!

Hustler Magazine Interview with David Ray Griffin

What if Everything You Know about 9/11 is Wrong?
by Bruce David and Carolyn Sinclair, Hustler Magazine, August 2005

Scanned PDF with images: http://911truth.org/docs/drgHfull.pdf

We all know what happened on September 11, 2001 - Osama bin Laden
inspired 19 Muslim extremists to hijack commercial airplanes and fly them into
the World Trade Center and Pentagon. But what if it didn't happen that way at all?

David Ray Griffin is a professor of theology, a well-respected scholar
and author of more than 20 books, including The 9/11 Commission Report:
Omissions and Distortions and The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions
About the Bush Administration and 9/11. Griffin maintains that the
evidence contradicts the government's official story and that, so far,
nobody's come up with a theory that can account for all of the facts.

At HUSTLER we believe the murder of 2,98fi innocent people demands hard
questions and digging deeper. We're especially troubled by the collapse
of Building 7, but we're determined to keep an open mind. As such, we sit
down with Griffin to discuss what appear to be disturbing inconsistencies
with the government's story.

HUSTLER: You've compiled a record of the facts-but are they beyond

DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: I simply gather research that has been done by
others, a lot of it based on mainline stories from The New York Times, The
Boston Globe and The Guardian and so on. These reports tend to, more or less, contradict the official theory.

You say there's reason to question the government's official position
on Osama bin Laden.

One problem with the official theory of the attacks being pulled off
entirely by the 19 men named as al Qaeda terrorists is that six of them
have, subsequently, shown up very much alive. This has been reported in
the BBC, but not in the American mainstream press. One guy even walked
into the U.S. Embassy and asked what was this nonsense about his having
died on 9/11?

What are some other problems with the official story?

The government had every reason to know this was going to happen. There
were some 52 warnings of the attack, many of which the Bush
Administration didn't see fit to have released until after the inauguration. A little bit came out during the 9/1 1 hearings. For example, Condoleezza Rice-who had been describing the famous August 6, 2001, memo from British
intelligence as merely historical in nature-was forced to admit that the title of it was "Bin Laden Determined to Strike within the United States." Many
people have thought that was the strongest evidence of foreknowledge-but not at all.

Another example involves David Schippers, the attorney who prosecuted
Bill Clinton and is highly thought of in Republican circles. Schippers says
he called up Attorney General John Ashcroft repeatedly to tell him that
FBI agents were warning of an attack, that they knew the date and said it
was going to be in Lower Manhattan. Schippers couldn't get the Attorney
General's office to call him back. The New American, a conservative
political magazine, interviewed these FBI agents and confirmed their

Further evidence of foreknowledge involves the Secret Service's seeming
to not only know the attacks were coming, but know who was targeted and
who was not. That morning [of September 11], Bush was in a classroom in
Sarasota, Florida, publicizing his education program. After the second
building was struck, there could be no doubt the country was under
attack. Yet Bush just sat there for about ten minutes.

Many people have criticized the President for not getting up
immediately and going into commander-in-chief mode, but really, the Pentagon handles these things. Standard operating procedure dictates the Secret Service should have sprung into action and whisked Bush out of the classroom, into a car and away to some secure location.

The Secret Service should have assumed that the President would be the
next target and at least take action as if that might be the case. The
head of the FAA had just reported that there were 11 planes unaccounted
for; and so there might have been 11 hijacked planes at that time. Yet
the Secret Service did nothing. Bush went on national TV at about 9:30 for
a prescheduled talk, and then they got in the limousine and went in the
caravan on the normally scheduled route to the airport. When they got
to the airport, they hadn't even called ahead to make sure there was jet
fighter cover for Air Force One.

What are some of the contradictions involving the attacks?

One involves the story about the collapse of the World Trade Center
buildings. We had three buildings collapse there, the North Tower [WTC
I], the South Tower [WTC 2] and Building 7 [WTC 71. Each was a high-rise
steel-frame building. Now, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never
in the history of the universe been brought down by fire. And yet on this
day, three of them were allegedly brought down by fire. There have been
experiments with buildings raging with fire. In the experiments, fire
made them sag a little, but never caused them to collapse. [See Madrid
high-rise fire, page 34.] And yet on 9/11 these three buildings, which
had relatively small fires in them, collapsed.

People have the image of the South Tower in their minds, and they
think, Oh, these were towering infernos. But most of the jet fuel exploded
outside of the South Tower, which produced the really dramatic effect.
But you have to remember, that effect only lasted for a few seconds, and
the fuel burned up very quickly. In the South Tower there was relatively
little fuel to feed the fire inside; so it would have had to be feeding
on carpets, on desks and things like that. And yet the South Tower
collapsed in less than an hour after it was hit.

The collapse of Building 7 is particularly unusual, and yet the 9/11
Commission never mentions it once in their report. Somehow fire got
started in Building 7, which is two blocks away and was never hit by a
plane. There was no jet fuel inside to feed the fire. There are
photographs that show only small fires on floors 7 and 12 of this
47-story building. And yet at 5:20 in the afternoon it comes collapsing down in exactly the same way as the other buildings.

Now I stress in the same way because they all came straight down into
their own footprint for the most part. They collapsed very quickly,
within about ten seconds. That's amazing when you think about it, that fire
could produce that kind of effect, just like controlled demolition. In fact,
on that very night, Dan Rather-viewing the collapse of Building 7-blurted
out, "It looked just like one of those controlled demolitions."

Further evidence of Building 7 being brought down by controlled
demolitioncame from Larry Silverstein, the man who had recently taken a lease on the entire complex. In a PBS documentary from September 2002, Silverstein said he told the fire commander that the smartest thing to do was "pull it. "Next, he says, they "made that decision to pull" and watched the buildingcollapse. Pull is a term commonly used to describe using explosives to demolish a building. Silverstein allegedly made almost $500 million in profit from the collapse of Building 7.

If the Twin Towers did come down by controlled demolition, wouldn't
they have to be wired for the event well in advance of the attack?

They would have had to be wired, and then closer to the time [of the attack] the explosives would actually have to be placed. Several people
who worked in the towers reported that there were times [shortly before
the attack] when a certain part of one tower or the other was sectioned
off for several days, and no one could go there except these special
workers who were called "engineers." So it does appear that there could
have been this kind of advance planning and that there would have been
time to do this.

Also, because of terrorist alerts, they had been taking bomb-sniffing dogs through the buildings, checking for explosives. There is a report that the bomb-sniffing dogs were called off the weekend prior to 9/11.

Are there also inconsistencies involving the hijacked aircraft?

Let's start with Flight 77, which is credited with crashing into the Pentagon. There are many problems with the official story, which is that it took off from Washington, D.C., went west, then got hijacked, then turned around and came hack. Somehow it flew through American airspace, toward the Pentagon for about 40 minutes, without being detected.

Our multi-trillion-dollar defense system proved to be worthless. Even
more striking, whatever hit the Pentagon hit the West Wing. These terrorists
are supposedly so brilliant that they defeat this trillion-dollar system, and yet they didn't know that the West Wing was the worst part of the Pentagon to hit because all the top brass and Rumsfeld, whom you would presume they would want to kill, were in the East Wing.

Article in full...
Why didn't you post this on 911 was an inside job. Either you are incredibly....ah better not, or you are an enemy of America try to subvert people from the truth. I ain't gonna let this crap slide. We have already been through this. I've already addressed your conspiracy theory. Ripped it apart more like it. No come back? I'm not gonna say your drivel insults victims of 911 (which it does) but instead let science do the talking. Again folks this nonsense is put down on the thread 911 was an inside job. Posts 22, 26, 29, 34, 72, 94. Really bro this dog won't hunt.
Top Bottom