David Ray Griffin: Hustler Interview transcript.

[reprehensor]

I buy it for the articles. Honest.

HUSTLER INTERVIEWS GRIFFIN, "WHAT IF EVERYTHING YOU KNOW ABOUT 9/11 WAS WRONG?"

snip

What are some other problems with the official story?

DRG: ...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 story. Further evidence of foreknowledge involved the Secret Service's seeming not only to know the attacks were coming, but know who was targeted and who was not.
That morning , 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 Services 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.

more@link

[Bolo Boffin]

1. You quoted one of the more rational parts of the article.

However, after reading it, it's clear that Griffen has fallen hopelessly into the grip of fantasies like Flight 77 denial and controlled demolition hokum. He repeats utterly refuted canards like the Silverstein quote. If Griffen ever wants to be taken seriously, and have his legitimate questions gain the forum they deserve, he needs to stop clinging to fairy tales.

[Mr Rabble]

2. bullshit! DRG has an excellent grip on the events of 9/11.

You can keep living in denial with the rest of the sheeple.

Here is a guy who has a pretty good grasp on the attacks. Whether he is wrong about 1 in 1000 points is not the story.

[Bolo Boffin]

3. wrong in 1 of 1000? more like 879 out of 1000

If the Hustler article is a representative sample of what DRG believes about 9/11, then people are right to dismiss him out of hand.

[demodewd]

4. out of hand

Dismiss him out of hand? Please clarify yourself.

[Rob Conn]

5. Useless

Yo dewd,

This is where you hopefully recognize that the person you are trying to talk to is simply reactionary. By that I mean that they are only reacting with preset responses and not thinking for themself. I have a basic question. Why would anyone in here defend the official story? I think a lot of debate in here is healthy, and I even support the devil's advocacy provided by our many provocateurs. But the official story is so well supported, even by the psychological pressures of normative influence, that I feel anyone taking the time to argue for the offical version of events has a political agenda and is not likely interested in learning anything or changing their mind. So don't waste your time arguing when you won't make a difference. This person very likely has not read "The New Pearl Harbor", or "Omissions and Distortions", and also likely has no alternative book to suggest either. Maybe some right-wing web page. By the way, if flight 77 hit the Pentagon, what the hell is that vapor trail in the first image from the CCTV sequence? What else hit the pentagon? - R.C.

[Bolo Boffin]

6. Rude

dewd and I go way back, Rob, honest. And why would anyone defend the official story here? Because it's mostly what happened and they don't want to see DU easily dismissed by its opponents, perhaps? How reactionary of me.

And please don't try to guess my motives. That's against the rules here.

dewd: If someone says, as does DRG -

- that six of the hijackers are alive
- that the "official story" says the WTC buildings fell only due to fire
- that the severity of the WTC fires was limited to the early jet fuel portion of the fire
- that WTC 7 had fires only in the 7th and 12th floor
- that WTC 7 fell exactly the same way as the towers
- that Silverstein admitted to demolishing 7
- that something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon
- that the Pentagon hole was too small for Flight 77
- that most of the Pentagon victims were too burned for modern identification techniques

then you can safely dismiss anything else the person has to say on the matter of the 9/11 attacks, which is a shame.

Because DRG does make an number of good points. It's too bad that he's so easily dismissed.

[Mr Rabble]

7. watch PBS much?

I guess not, or you would have seen Silverstein admit that they "pulled" WTC 7. Period. He said it himself. It was on Frontline.

Wake up.

[Bolo Boffin]

9. here and there...

Silverstein was talking to a firefighter, who was calling him to tell him that the fire in building 7 was not worth fighting, that to fight the fire there would be putting the lives of firefighters in unnecessary danger when they could be used more fruitfully elsewhere that day.

So Silverstein acceded that they should "pull it" and the firefighters made that decision to pull, and then they watched the building fall down.

The context is firefighting. The firefighting term "pull" means to stop fighting a fire. It dates back before radios existed. The way of informing firefighters of this decision then was by pulling on the hoses they were using to fight the fire. That is the context. That is what Silverstein meant. To pretend otherwise is willfully blinding yourself to the truth.

Do you honestly believe that Silverstein was party to one of the most heinous conspiracies ever, and that he then mistakenly admitted his part in said conspiracy to a PBS interviewer on camera? Would you like to contact anyone at Frontline and see if they think that's what Silverstein meant?

[stickdog]

10. You offer an alternative explanation as if it were the only possible one.

It's not.

And the fact that Griffin doesn't agree that your preferred explanation is the only possible one doesn't diminish the overall strength of his presentation.

Sorry.

[Bolo Boffin]

16. Not the only possible one - just the only rational one.

Another explanation is that Silverstein was an animatronic robot and that the WTC collapses were the culmination of a 50 year experiment in mass hypnosis. But that's not rational.

The "demolition pull" explanation is more rational than the "animatronic robot" explanation, I'll grant that. But that's not saying much. And Silverstein admitting to his part in 9/11 to a PBS interviewer isn't rational enough to consider.

Sorry. No, I'm not.

[stickdog]

22. Sure, it's rational. He was still fighting for the amount of his insurance

settlement, and that amount was figured in his favor mighty quickly AFTER he fired that little shot across the bow.

It's called blackmail, and it's probably the only reason that a lot of people who know something shocking about 9/11 are still alive.

But what's so amusing about your "analysis" is how it applies so perfectly to the actions of Bush, Rumsfeld and General Myers on 9/11. I assume that you have no trouble believing that they are all "animatronic robots"?

[demodewd]

8. hopefully recognizing

I have an open policy of responding to anybody. I know bolo...he and I have been sparing for a year and a half. I hope in due time...he'll come around ..Yes I hopefully recognize what you are hopefully hoping I recognize.

[ROH]

13. Just to give a fair perspective on the issues...

You claim that he is wrong "more like 879 out of 1000"; and you have repeatedly explained the points that you consider to be in that category.

Even by your own estimation that still leaves 121 instances out of 1000 in which he is right. So just to give a fair perspective, please write something more about them. You have already mentioned the Schippers issue; which other points do you think are particular useful factors in the summary that Griffin puts forward?

[ROH]

11. So do you expect to be taken seriously?

You wrote:
------------------------------
He repeats utterly refuted canards like the Silverstein quote.
------------------------------

I appreciate that you have a particular view about Silverstein's quote, but by no stretch of the imagination has it become an "utterly refuted canard".

[Bolo Boffin]

12. Yes.

And, yes, the idea that Silverstein admitted to demolishing building 7 in a PBS special is completely refuted. I'm sorry if this is news to you, but there it is.

[ROH]

14. But what did Griffin actually say...

"Further evidence of Building 7 being brought down by controlled demolition came 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 building collapse.
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."

The point is that Silverstein's comments have some ambiguity. http://www.truth-now.com/911/pullWTC includes notes on the semantics.


You wrote: "the idea that Silverstein admitted to demolishing building 7 in a PBS special is completely refuted". That answers a different point to the one that I raised -- I agree with you that the Silverstein quote is not a 100%-definite admission due to some ambiguity in his comments, but when referring to Griffin's statements in the article you had actually remarked: "He repeats utterly refuted canards like the Silverstein quote."

Again, I appreciate that you have a particular view about Silverstein's quote, but by no stretch of the imagination has it become an "utterly refuted canard". Silverstein's remarks are ambiguous.

[Bolo Boffin]

15. The only "ambiguity" in Silverstein's comments are imported.

It was over a year before anybody "noticed" this "admission" in the PBS special. Silverstein said what he did in an unmistakable context.

Face it - you think that one of the architects of this horrendous crime slipped up in the PBS special and admitted his part in the whole affair, and that the people who rounded up videos, killed American citizens, designed shaped charges and aerial ballets were then stupid enough to let that documentary be released without a review and without any attempt to disappear it into a memory hole.

Come back into the light.

[ROH]

17. So you do not agree that Silverstein's comments are ambiguous?

You wrote:
------------------------------
Face it - you think that ...
------------------------------
followed by stream of speculations. Comment for yourself, boloboffin, and don't presume that you know what I think.

Now let's get back to the facts: Silverstein's comments are ambiguous. If you disagree, please check the meaning of the word 'ambiguous'.

[Bolo Boffin]

18. No, I don't.

I don't know how much strongly I can state this.

Silverstein is perfectly clear about what he meant. The only ambiguity is imported - a foreign context (demolition) being brought into Silverstein's words. The firefighting context is clear and unambigious. The only reason to think his words are ambiguous is because the hearer has an agenda - a reason to misunderstand.

If you believe Silverstein ordered the building demolished, then you do think that:

a) Silverstein was a part of the plot

b) Silverstein admitted to his part of the plot on national TV

You have to. It's inductive to the premise that Silverstein ordered the building demolished. I am allowed to tell you what you think on the matter, because you profess a statement that relies on those statements to be true. You may find it surprising that you believe these things, but you must, if you believe Silverstein had 7 demolished on 9/11. Logic is inescapable. Live up to what you believe.

[ROH]

19. You are off on a wayward track again, aren't you?

I have never stated my own beliefs about whether or not Silverstein ordered a demolition.

Some people certainly do interpret Silverstein's comments differently to your interpretation, one example being the author of the article at http://www.truth-now.com/911/pullWTC/

OK, is that finally understood?

So again don't arrogantly presume that you know what I think unless I first tell you what I think.

Just because you interpret comments in a particular way does not mean that your interpretation of those comments is actually a fact. Surely you appreciate that?

[Bolo Boffin]

20. You cite a link like that and you say I'm on a wayward track???

Whatever. Enjoy the color of the sky in your world.

[ROH]

21. Yes, you went off the point, and into your own subjectivity

If you have nothing more to offer on the point, there is no necessity to lash out in ad hominem fashion.

Are you interested in the truth, or are you just interested in pushing your own views?

------------------------------

You mentioned earlier that in your opinion Griffin was wrong in "more like 879 out of 1000" cases, so I politely asked you in all fairness whether you would write more about the points (estimated by you at 121 instances out of 1000) upon which he is correct.

So far no response at all from you to this request.

------------------------------

You had previously referred to the David Schippers issue.

You may agree with Griffin that PNAC "involved Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld and many others who became central members and ideologues of the Bush Administration"; is Griffin's quoted PNAC reference regarding "... any transformation of military affairs will go rather slowly, “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a New Pearl Harbor”." of any significant interest to you?

Do you think that the circumstances of Flight 93 have been fully and accurately covered in the CR?

[stickdog]

23. Or that Silverstein knew enough about the plot to put pressure on the US

civil court system to rule the 9/11 WTC insurance settlement in his favor -- which quickly happened AFTER he dropped this little hint.