Hustler magazine hooks up with 911 Truth author David Ray Griffin.
Submitted by Rob Williams on Sun, 06/12/2005 - 8:36pm.
Rob's note: Discovering larger truths about 911 makes for strange bedfellows, as with this new August 2005 "Hustler" magazine interview with theologian and NEW PEARL HARBOR author David Ray Griffin. While some of Griffin's arguments are more powerful than others, this interview is a useful introduction to the 911 Truth community conversation.
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
Here's the whole Hustler PDF article
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 dispute?
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.
Read the whole article on the PDF file.
Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Technorati
From the very first moment I heard about the first plane I was online IRC-ing with a friend of mine who works in Manhattan in emerging internet technologies. He showed me where to see the camera feeds that the television channels choose from, and he issued constant observations from mid-town. I immediately began to notice discrepancies; I went to the websites of the airlines & saw for myself that none of the hijackers were listed on any of the flights. Two days later those lists disappeared; several days later it emerged that half of the alleged hijackers were alive!
Since then I've spent at least an hour every day reading news from some of the sites mentioned in this article as well as my favorite news portal/blog, whatreallyhappened.com
The conclusion that I've come to is that *whatever* happened that day, we, as Americans do not have the full story. At the absolute least we have extreme negligence & a subsequent cover-up; coupled with a cynical exploitation of that tragedy in the form of the Iraq war. (I don't know how many of you remember that Reagan was the first to try and start a "War on Terrorism," but the ruse has been kicked around by the Neo-Cons since before they were called Neo-Cons, and the Project For a New American Century's call for a '...new Pearl Harbor,' is certainly curious.)
My point is that even the mildest realistic charges against the various parties in power before & after 9-11 would warrant criminal prosecution in a functional government. The best-case scenario is bad enough, and delving into the details has the easy potential to turn people off. I've certainly seen it do so at Second Vermont Republic meetings.
I, for one, have moved on. I no longer care about the details. I just want a government small enough to maintain transparency & accountability.