Los Angeles Times Issues Major 9/11 Interview With David Ray Griffin

Getting Agnostic About 9/11 - A society of nonbelievers questions the official version
All I can say is wow, someone in the media finally has the balls to bring to light the flaws in the official story of 9/11. The article features a brief introduction followed by a great interview with David Ray Griffin, be sure to read the whole thing.

Anyone who types the words "9/11" and "conspiracy" into an online search engine soon learns that not everybody buys the official narrative of what took place on Sept. 11, 2001. As a professor emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology, 66-year-old David Ray Griffin would seem to have more affinity for leather elbow patches than tin hats, yet after friends and colleagues prodded him into sifting through the evidence, he experienced a conversion. Now he's spreading the bad news. Griffin compiled a summary of material arguing against the accepted story that 19 hijackers sent by Osama bin Laden took the aviation system and the U.S. military by surprise that awful day in his 2004 book "The New Pearl Harbor" (published by Interlink, a Massachusetts-based independent publisher covering areas including travel, cooking, world fiction, current events, politics, children's literature and other subjects). He recently followed up with the book "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions" (Interlink), a critique of the Kean commission document in which he suggests that a chunk of the blame for the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil lies closer to home than the caves of Afghanistan. We contacted him at his Santa Barbara-area home for a report on his journey from mild-mannered scholar to doubting Thomas.
What would constitute a "smoking gun" against the official 9/11 account?

There are many. By just ignoring them, the 9/11 commission implicitly admitted they couldn't answer them. The towers coming down into a pile only a few stories high is a smoking gun. Many laws of physics had to be violated if the official story about the collapses is true. [The collapses] had all the earmarks of a controlled demolition by explosives. One of those is total collapse into a small pile of rubble. The fact that Building 7 [a skyscraper near the towers] collapsed when it had not been hit by an airplane, and collapsed in seven or eight seconds, that's a smoking gun. The fact that standard operating procedures were not followed that morning, and we've gotten three different stories now by the U.S. military as to why they did not intercept the planes, that's a smoking gun. The Secret Service leaving the president and themselves wide open to being attacked by [not responding immediately], that's a smoking gun. I can't say one is bigger than the other. You've got six or seven that are equally big.
Dissenters also seem to find it suspect that in a dire emergency, individuals and agencies bumbled, fumbled, delayed, dropped the ball or choked. Won't that occur in any emergency?

Well, of course, that is the official theory. It's a coincidence theory that just happened to be that on those days, everybody became terribly incompetent. Take the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration]. They've got these standard procedures: If a plane goes off course, if you lose radio contact or lose the transponder, you call the military. On this day we're told these FAA officials hit the trifecta. They got all three of these things, and yet they would stand around debating, "Should we call the military? No, I don't think so." And when they finally call, the people at headquarters won't accept their calls because they were in conference or wouldn't pass the call on. They have roughly about 100 hijack warnings a year where planes have to be scrambled, but suddenly they become just all thumbs. The whole thing is just implausible. The other thing is, if you've got accidents, screw-ups, some ought to go one way and the others the other way. Here everything goes the same way. Everybody fails to do their jobs in relation to something to do with 9/11.

Please take the time to write a letter to the editor of the Los Angeles Times at letters@latimes.com and thank them for having the courage to publish this article.

kinda wish they had a link

kinda wish they had a link to it on their homepage.. maybe some emails will help with that..

Just to let you know I

Just to let you know I purchased the Preview edtion of the Sunday LA Times (in Burbank, CA) which carries the Times Magazine and the Magazine section was missing from the paper. No Mag. No Griffin article.

Went to another store in Glendale, CA and, along with the owner, went through a number of Times Preview editions all of which had the LA Times Magazine section removed from the paper. No Mag. No Griffin article.

The article does appear in the on-line edition of the Sunday Times and can be linked by just clicking on the top link on the 911 blogger.

Guys, I'm writing from

Guys, I'm writing from Europe. Thanks for this important news.
What I read in the latest comment is
quite strange!
Anyonelse in have found missing the magazine of L.T.?
I discovered the alternative versions on 911 only one month ago by surging the net, and I'm tryng to my best to spread them around me.

Over-the-counter sales of

Over-the-counter sales of the Sunday Times were missing the Times Magazine.It had been removed. All home deliveries had the Times Magazine included.

The article about Griffin is on page six but is not referenced in the table of contents. Would guess that less than a thousand people read it, but we did call some friends who got the paper delevered, found the article, and read it.

The Times is owed no debt of gratitude for "publishing" the article.

too late, i already rattled

too late, i already rattled off a thanks for it. oh well, what do you expect?