Robert Fisk: Even I question the 'truth' about 9/11

[Barking_Mad]

Hmmm...........

I am increasingly troubled at the inconsistencies in the official narrative of 9/11. It's not just the obvious non sequiturs: where are the aircraft parts (engines, etc) from the attack on the Pentagon? Why have the officials involved in the United 93 flight (which crashed in Pennsylvania) been muzzled? Why did flight 93's debris spread over miles when it was supposed to have crashed in one piece in a field? Again, I'm not talking about the crazed "research" of David Icke's Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster – which should send any sane man back to reading the telephone directory.

I am talking about scientific issues. If it is true, for example, that kerosene burns at 820C under optimum conditions, how come the steel beams of the twin towers – whose melting point is supposed to be about 1,480C – would snap through at the same time? (They collapsed in 8.1 and 10 seconds.) What about the third tower – the so-called World Trade Centre Building 7 (or the Salmon Brothers Building) – which collapsed in 6.6 seconds in its own footprint at 5.20pm on 11 September? Why did it so neatly fall to the ground when no aircraft had hit it? The American National Institute of Standards and Technology was instructed to analyse the cause of the destruction of all three buildings. They have not yet reported on WTC 7. Two prominent American professors of mechanical engineering – very definitely not in the "raver" bracket – are now legally challenging the terms of reference of this final report on the grounds that it could be "fraudulent or deceptive".

Journalistically, there were many odd things about 9/11. Initial reports of reporters that they heard "explosions" in the towers – which could well have been the beams cracking – are easy to dismiss. Less so the report that the body of a female air crew member was found in a Manhattan street with her hands bound. OK, so let's claim that was just hearsay reporting at the time, just as the CIA's list of Arab suicide-hijackers, which included three men who were – and still are – very much alive and living in the Middle East, was an initial intelligence error.

But what about the weird letter allegedly written by Mohamed Atta, the Egyptian hijacker-murderer with the spooky face, whose "Islamic" advice to his gruesome comrades – released by the CIA – mystified every Muslim friend I know in the Middle East? Atta mentioned his family – which no Muslim, however ill-taught, would be likely to include in such a prayer. He reminds his comrades-in-murder to say the first Muslim prayer of the day and then goes on to quote from it. But no Muslim would need such a reminder – let alone expect the text of the "Fajr" prayer to be included in Atta's letter.

Let me repeat. I am not a conspiracy theorist. Spare me the ravers. Spare me the plots. But like everyone else, I would like to know the full story of 9/11, not least because it was the trigger for the whole lunatic, meretricious "war on terror" which has led us to disaster in Iraq and Afghanistan and in much of the Middle East. Bush's happily departed adviser Karl Rove once said that "we're an empire now – we create our own reality". True? At least tell us. It would stop people kicking over chairs.

http://news.independent.co.uk/fisk/article2893860.ece

 

[dylanredefined]

Robert Fisk questioning the truth about 9/11 thats about as shocking as Pete Docherty doing drugs .

 

[DrRingDing]

I hope the editor turns up soon to put us right about this fruitloop 'Fisk'.

 

[editor]

I hope the editor turns up soon to put us right about this fruitloop 'Fisk'.

Sorry, I must have missed his references to holographic planes, invisible people invisibly installing invisible explosives, perfectly faked phone calls and all the other idiotic bullshit that terminally gullible mugs swallow wholesale from moronic sites.

 

[Aldebaran]

But what about the weird letter allegedly written by Mohamed Atta, the Egyptian hijacker-murderer with the spooky face, whose "Islamic" advice to his gruesome comrades – released by the CIA – mystified every Muslim friend I know in the Middle East? Atta mentioned his family – which no Muslim, however ill-taught, would be likely to include in such a prayer. He reminds his comrades-in-murder to say the first Muslim prayer of the day and then goes on to quote from it. But no Muslim would need such a reminder – let alone expect the text of the "Fajr" prayer to be included in Atta's letter.

I didn't know about that (hence didn't see that text either).
But that is indeed truly very very weird. Hardly believable, in fact.

salaam.

 

[DrRingDing]

Sorry, I must have missed his references to holographic planes, invisible people invisibly installing invisible explosives, perfectly faked phone calls and all the other idiotic bullshit that terminally gullible mugs swallow wholesale from moronic sites.

As someone on a health blog says

'Im seeing something that seems quite common in our culture. That is: Using the most ridiculous examples that can be found for a given subject in order to attack everything that comes under the category.’

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=6383737&postcount=1

 

[Bernie Gunther]

There is a point there though.

There are quite a few fishy things about 911 but the conspiracy theorists have in my opinion made the subject toxic with their ravings.

I'm amazed that Fisk has even mentioned it, because the potential smear by association, e.g. with the likes of prisonplanet, is now and forever going to be used to discredit his all-too-sane journalism about the Middle East.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Harry's Place will be wetting themselves with joy.

 

[editor]

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=6383737&postcount=1

Trouble is, all the examples I quoted have been posted here multiple times by self proclaimed 'truth seekers' and can also be found repeated on just about every 9/11 'truth seeking' site.

So there goes your 'point.'

 

[DrRingDing]

Trouble is, all the examples I quoted have been posted here multiple times by self proclaimed 'truth seekers' and can also be found repeated on just about every 9/11 'truth seeking' site.

So there goes your 'point.'

'Truth seekers' or just Dr Jazzz?

Time and time again it has been proven that the majority of people here believe the official version of 9/11 doesn't ring true. You know this.

Any voice of question is stamped on by your dangerous extremism.

 

[disownedspirit]

i have a lot of time for fisk, his books on lebanon and the middle east are excellent
who are these 'Two prominent American professors of mechanical engineering '

tried google but all i get is the fisk article

havent really got the patience to go through all the 911 sites looking for it

but im sure some one will know

 

[editor]

'Truth seekers' or just Dr Jazzz?

Time and time again it has been proven that the majority of people here believe the official version of 9/11 doesn't ring true. You know this.

Any voice of question is stamped on by your dangerous extremism.

1. You brought up 'fruitloops.' I responded to that definition.
2. You'll find that many posters have made claims about holographic planes on these boards - you'll find most of their comments residing in the bin. You'll also find no shortage of similar claims on a host of sites elsewhere.
3. "Dangerous extremism"?!!
Get a grip, for fuck's sake.

 

[jonH]

funnily enough I picked up "The GWofC" again today, I had to lay off it for 4 months due to its depressing effects. Fisk is right as far as I can see, but if he goes on like this he's gonna get bumped. FACT.....

 

[editor]

funnily enough I picked up "The GWofC" again today, I had to lay off it for 4 months due to its depressing effects. Fisk is right as far as I can see, but if he goes on like this he's gonna get bumped. FACT.....

You mean like all those other truth seekers who have got too close to the truth have been bumped off by The Man?

Oh, hold on. That hasn't happened at all. FACT.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

The thing is that so many of his questions have been answered here, let alone in the total extremis of the internet, for an investigative journalist it's rather disappointing.

Why did flight 93's debris spread over miles when it was supposed to have crashed in one piece in a field?

The routefinder thing again.

If it is true, for example, that kerosene burns at 820C under optimum conditions, how come the steel beams of the twin towers

Answered in the NIST report if you look for it. IIRC

If he wants answers to his questions then he should look for them rather than assuming none exist.

 

[jonH]

And if he's right, what next?

Send George Bush to the electric chair??

Let's hope the non conspiracy loons (NCL's) are right

 

[editor]

And if he's right, what next?

Send George Bush to the electric chair??

Let's hope the non conspiracy loons (NCL's) are right

In the face of zero supporting evidence, have you now abandoned your claim that "he's gonna get bumped. FACT....."?

 

[Aldebaran]

There is a point there though.

There are quite a few fishy things about 911 but the conspiracy theorists have in my opinion made the subject toxic with their ravings.

I'm amazed that Fisk has even mentioned it, because the potential smear by association, e.g. with the likes of prisonplanet, is now and forever going to be used to discredit his all-too-sane journalism about the Middle East.

Yes and yes.
One can only hope the general public can make the distinction between a man who earned his credentials long ago and arm chair generals defending far-sought nonsense.

salaam.

 

[jonH]

All investigative journalists expose themselves to risks, Fisk has had a couple of close shaves already. I hope he doesn't get bumped, but making claims like this certainly won't make him any less of a target for pro war, right wing extremists.

the fact bit was wrong, I apoligise

 

[wreckhead]

Whilst I think we should all keep a more open mind on a subject as globally significant as 9/11, I'm surprised at Fisk trotting out long-debunked theories like the 93 debris trail and entertaining no-planes (at the Pentagon) and all that implies. He didn't speak of holograms or space beam weapons, but then I honestly doubt that any sane person can seriously consider these theories - it even seems dumb having to say that.

It is however deeply sad that any discussion on the subject has to be ruined by stubborn hot heads on both sides of the debate who won't accept that they could be wrong. Also Fisk is taking a real professional risk in the manner he's jumped into this subject, given his brief. There's so much crap out there and he seems to have swallowed some of it.

I'll stick with my position on the subject of "I don't know", but those horrible atrocities of 6 years ago certainly allowed the Bush administration and the PNAC folks who pull the strings to put their pet plans into action. Since the Iraq invasion and the terrible aftermath, it almost seems like the NeoCons have been neutered somewhat, but the "mission" isn't finished in the middle east and I can see 9/11 or a similar attack continuing to be used to justify further slaughter of innocents for the foreseeable...

 

[bluestreak]

There is a point there though.

There are quite a few fishy things about 911 but the conspiracy theorists have in my opinion made the subject toxic with their ravings.

I'm amazed that Fisk has even mentioned it, because the potential smear by association, e.g. with the likes of prisonplanet, is now and forever going to be used to discredit his all-too-sane journalism about the Middle East.

agree word for word.

i've been saying for years that the conspiracy theorists have destroyed all possibility of getting any proper investigation done.

theres so much dodgy stuff there but so many of the truth movement have made such mental claims that for many people asking questions gets you lumped into that movement.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

...There's so much crap out there and he seems to have swallowed some of it...

I thought his views seemed entirely rational. What's the 'crap' he's swallowed?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I thought his views seemed entirely rational. What's the 'crap' he's swallowed?

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=6388084&postcount=15

I must be on a lot of ignore lists.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=6388084&postcount=15

I must be on a lot of ignore lists.

But, they are fair and rational questions. He doesn't claim to have the answers. He's merely pointing out that there are valid questions to be answered. I don't have enough interest to go Googling for answers. I'm happy to accept the inspectors (whoever they are) findings.

The Pentagon thing is a valid question also. Initial reports were of a rocket attack, so it's entirely understandable that people start asking questions when it's reported as a plane crash.

The collapse of WTC 7 is a bit more suspicious.

I think he is just making the point that it's very understandable that controversy surrounds the events of 9/11. Then when Karl Rove comes out with "we're an empire now – we create our own reality" it only fuels the suspicions.

The Third paragraph of the article pretty much shapes how I read the rest:

Usually, I have tried to tell the "truth"; that while there are unanswered questions about 9/11, I am the Middle East correspondent of The Independent, not the conspiracy correspondent; that I have quite enough real plots on my hands in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Iran, the Gulf, etc, to worry about imaginary ones in Manhattan. My final argument – a clincher, in my view – is that the Bush administration has screwed up everything – militarily, politically diplomatically – it has tried to do in the Middle East; so how on earth could it successfully bring off the international crimes against humanity in the United States on 11 September 2001?

He isn't claiming to have answers, simply arguing that it's understandable that there are many questions being asked.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

He's not. He's asking questions that have already been answered. He's either ignorant of the answers because he hasn't looked for them or he's ignorant because he swallowed the shite on conspiraloon sites that says none exist.

You say you're happy to accept the inspector's answers, that's fair, so am i when they make sense. But i would not be so cavalier as to assume they haven't done so without checking. He has done exactly that.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

...He has done exactly that.

But, he hasn't claimed to have the answers. Fucked if I can find anything reliable with a quick Google. He uses terms like "if it is true" not "I believe"...

There are still some very valid questions that remain unanswered.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Robert Fisk has done enough good work to be allowed the odd lapse/imprecision.

As has been stated above, the toxic effect of 9/11 cult activities has been to delegitimise trivialise & side-line the important questions that can be asked about 9/11 as with any other event. A good book which asks important questions rationally is James Ridgeway's 'Five Unanswered Questions About 9/11'.

On a fundamental level, like Michael Moore's apparent wobbling recently, Fisk asking questions that have in some cases already been answered is testament to the pernicious power and influence of the 9/11 cult. Which needs to be opposed.

 

[butchersapron]

A rather large difference between fisk and loons is that he is simply asking questions (albeit they appear to outdated uninformed questions). He's not filled in the gaps himself with some paranoid madeness as far as i can see.

(And the obvious corrorally to this is, just because Fisk has done great work in his forgein reporting it doesn't follow that all he writes about every subject is correct or worth bothering with.0

 

[butchersapron]

Also, 'Even I question the 'truth' about 9/11' appears only in the headline and doesn't really follow the content of the article and is just a bit of polemical READ THIS!!! nonsense really.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

But, he hasn't claimed to have the answers. Fucked if I can find anything reliable with a quick Google. He uses terms like "if it is true" not "I believe"...

There are still some very valid questions that remain unanswered.

He's claimed they don't exist;

I am increasingly troubled at the inconsistencies in the official narrative of 9/11.

He then lists things that ARE COVERED in the official narrative.

He's not making things up, but if he's going to write about it then he has an obligation to do his research. Which he hasn't. Conspiraloon no, an instance of bad journalism yes.