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

[editor]

Or perhaps react blindly and subjectively before taking a bit of time to try and take in the full context of what one is reading?

Rather like you have just done in fact!

Still looking forward to you explaining and sharing the wonders of your "extra reading strategies."

 

[fela fan]

Still looking forward to you explaining and sharing the wonders of your "extra reading strategies."

Well mate, the irony is that you are actually asking me for the strategies. It means you didn't catch the full pragmatic meaning behind my apparent offer to help you with your reading skills. Which is often what you do, and which is why i jokingly made my 'offer'.

 

[editor]

Well mate, the irony is that you are actually asking me for the strategies. It means you didn't catch the full pragmatic meaning behind my apparent offer to help you with your reading skills. Which is often what you do, and which is why i jokingly made my 'offer'.

You're full of shit. Really.

 

[fela fan]

You're full of shit. Really.

It's expensive shit though...

 

[8den]

Still looking forward to you explaining and sharing the wonders of your "extra reading strategies."

I suspect he stands in libraries and gets the information in an osmosis type process.

Or he's talking fucking shite.

 

[editor]

I suspect he stands in libraries and gets the information in an osmosis type process.

Or he's talking fucking shite.

My money's on the latter.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

My money's on the latter.

I'll take that bet as well

 

[Aldebaran]

It's called, "researching a topic".

You should try it sometime. It leads to informed opinions.

Seen the derailment of this thread I wonder if it was worth the effort to research the topic of the OP (the letter Fisk refers to). I am not all that charmed by the confrontation with the handwritten fanaticaly delusional scribblings supposed to be of a mass murderer, who claims his instructions to be derived from Al Qur'an at that. In that context the word "spooky" is an eufymism.

Seen the derailment of this thread I'm not looking forward to write my - informed but not infallible - opinion/ explanation on it in this language and post it here, doomed to sink like a stone to the bottom of the ongoing, very interesting felafan-debate

I shall better wait for an other thread (these threads come and go with the tidal waves anyway).

salaam.

 

[fela fan]

Seen the derailment of this thread I wonder if it was worth the effort to research the topic of the OP (the letter Fisk refers to). I am not all that charmed by the confrontation with the handwritten fanaticaly delusional scribblings supposed to be of a mass murderer, who claims his instructions to be derived from Al Qur'an at that. In that context the word "spooky" is an eufymism.

Seen the derailment of this thread I'm not looking forward to write my - informed but not infallible - opinion/ explanation on it in this language and post it here, doomed to sink like a stone to the bottom of the ongoing, very interesting felafan-debate

I shall better wait for an other thread (these threads come and go with the tidal waves anyway).

salaam.

Yes, i apologise for my part in that mate. I'll try better next time.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Yet more pesky evidence the idiots will bo doubt ignore:

An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks.

The study by a Cambridge University engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.

Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are to be published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics

"One thing that confounded engineers was how falling parts of the structure ploughed through undamaged building beneath and brought the towers down so quickly," said Dr Seffen.

He added that his calculations showed this was a "very ordinary thing to happen" and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behaviour of the buildings

His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down.

This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground

(my emphasis)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6987965.stm

 

[editor]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6987965.stm

So, there's another daft loon claim shown to be steaming bollocks.

As you say, it will no doubt be competely ignored in preference to a load of loon-tastic, unscientific drivel posted up on some idiotic TROOFseekers homepage somewhere or another.

 

[fela fan]

So, there's another daft loon claim shown to be steaming bollocks.

As you say, it will no doubt be competely ignored in preference to a load of loon-tastic, unscientific drivel posted up on some idiotic TROOFseekers homepage somewhere or another.

Yes, you are busy saying what others will ignore (which may or may not be the case), while at the same time immediately and totally accepting something calculated by one dr seffen as reported on the bbc propaganda machine.

You rubbish others for completely ignoring stuff which you have chosen to blindly accept.

Can you really not see the sheer hypocrisy of your position?

And it's also interesting to note that beesonthewhatnow has read this report and labelled it 'evidence'.

How easily evidence is claimed by the likes of yourselves.

 

[editor]

Can you really not see the sheer hypocrisy of your position?

Be sure to highlight my supposed 'hypocrisy' by listing the credible independent research by qualified experts supporting the 'controlled explosion' theory.

Here, I'll make it easier for you and prepare a list ready for you.

1...........................................
2...........................................
3...........................................

 

[fela fan]

Your breathtaking hypocrisy is laid bare in post 371 for all to see. It needs no further explanation from me.

A very poor attempt to hide it.

 

[Blagsta]

fela, yesterday

 

[editor]

Your breathtaking hypocrisy is laid bare in post 371 for all to see. It needs no further explanation from me.

Stop throwing around personal insults and debate the issue please.

Please list the credible independent research by qualified experts supporting the 'controlled explosion' theory.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Yes, you are busy saying what others will ignore (which may or may not be the case), while at the same time immediately and totally accepting something calculated by one dr seffen as reported on the bbc propaganda machine.

Can you honestly not see the difference between something written by a cambridge university based engineer, published in a peer reviewd journal, and something on prisonplanet?

You're an idiot fela.

 

[editor]

Yes, you are busy saying what others will ignore (which may or may not be the case), while at the same time immediately and totally accepting something calculated by one dr seffen as reported on the bbc propaganda machine..

The claims aren't being made by the BBC, you clueless plonker.

They're being made by Dr Keith Seffen, a senior lecturer in structures at Cambridge University, and his analysis will be published in a forthcoming issue of the American Society of Civil Engineers' Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Now, seeing as you're insisting that I'm a hypocrite for taking the considered research and analysis of a hugely qualified expert seriously, please point me in the direction of credible independent research by qualified experts supporting the 'controlled explosion' theory.

http://www.physorg.com/news108737007.html
http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=284&storycode=3095046&c=0

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Ed, you're forgetting that in the strange paranoid world of fela there's no such thing as "qualified" or "experts".

No facts either

 

[fela fan]

Can you honestly not see the difference between something written by a cambridge university based engineer, published in a peer reviewd journal, and something on prisonplanet?

You're an idiot fela.

Er, yes i can see the difference. I have at least a couple of brain cells. You're the idiot for making such weak assumptions about me, based purely on your rather narrow methods of interpretation of what people say.

You and editor read what this engineer said and called it 'evidence'. I questioned this and wondered why you were both so quick to accept stuff as evidence. I wasn't denying what he said, all i was posting up was my reactions to your rather easily satisfied levels of what constitutes evidence.

I've never read or seen prisonplanet, i only know of it from reading these forums.

You, beesonthewhatnow, appear to put more stock in the person speaking rather than the substance of what they say. If it's someone connected with cambridge university, it's evidence; if it's on prisonplanet, it's wrong.

Wow, just like that!

 

[fela fan]

The claims aren't being made by the BBC, you clueless plonker.

They're being made by Dr Keith Seffen, a senior lecturer in structures at Cambridge University, and his analysis will be published in a forthcoming issue of the American Society of Civil Engineers' Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Now, seeing as you're insisting that I'm a hypocrite for taking the considered research and analysis of a hugely qualified expert seriously, please point me in the direction of credible independent research by qualified experts supporting the 'controlled explosion' theory.

Now then:

I know the claims aren't being made by the bbc, and in fact never said so. Stop putting words into my mouth.

I wasn't suggesting you were a hypocrite for that reason, so stop putting words into mouth.

Nor did you previously indicate you were taking his research and analysis seriously, rather you agreed with beesonthewhatnow that what seffen said constituted evidence.

I've never promoted anything to do with any controlled explosion theory, and have no views on this aspect of 911 either way. I simply do not have any kind of background knowledge about explosions and demolitions.

 

[fela fan]

Stop throwing around personal insults and debate the issue please.

Please list the credible independent research by qualified experts supporting the 'controlled explosion' theory.

Calling you a hypocrite because it's true is personal abuse?? Nah, can't see that. Your hypocrisy was laid bare in post 371.

And you call me for throwing personal abuse about when i wasn't, yet almost immediately after this false accusation refer to me as "you clueless plonker".

That is patently personal abuse, which just confirms that you are being a hypocrite. That is now two clear examples of your hypocrisy in the last dozen or so posts, and that i'm afraid impacts upon your effective debating techniques, which is fair game to highlight, and nothing whatsoever to do with personal abuse.

 

[fela fan]

The claims aren't being made by the BBC, you clueless plonker.

And make up your mind editor, are they claims or evidence?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

If it's someone connected with cambridge university, it's evidence; if it's on prisonplanet, it's wrong

Not quite.

If it's something written by a Cambridge engineer (you know engineers fela? They're the highly qualified people that deal with stuff like, you know, building things) published in a peer reviewed journal, then I'll give it a tad more consdieration and weight than something written by an unqualified cock on a paranoid website for idiots


It's really not that hard to grasp.

 

[fela fan]

Not quite.

If it's something written by a Cambridge engineer (you know engineers fela? They're the highly qualified people that deal with stuff like, you know, building things) published in a peer reviewed journal, then I'll give it a tad more consdieration and weight than something written by an unqualified cock on a paranoid website for idiots


It's really not that hard to grasp.

No, not difficult to grasp at all. What i'm finding rather harder is what position you're taking on seffen's analysis.

Firstly you called it evidence, now you seem to be backtracking from your original position. Can you please confirm to interested posters on this forum if you accept seffen's research and analysis as 'evidence' that there was no controlled explosion?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Can you please confirm to interested posters on this forum if you accept seffen's research and analysis as 'evidence' that there was no controlled explosion?

It is one piece of evidence that helps to show controlled demolition was not needed to bring down the towers in the manner and speed that they did.

 

[fela fan]

It is one piece of evidence that helps to show controlled demolition was not needed to bring down the towers in the manner and speed that they did.

Can you explain how it is evidence, or even 'one piece of evidence'? Can you explain how you can take this man's word for it? That what he says cannot be wrong? That he doesn't have an agenda?

Basically, what are your own credentials for being able to judge that what he says constitutes either evidence, or one piece of evidence?

And if it is indeed just one piece, where are the other pieces that it belongs to? And if his one piece of evidence is only part of the full evidence, then why were you so quick to call it [the whole] evidence originally?

From 'evidence'

to

'I'll give it a tad more consdieration and weight'

to

'It is one piece of evidence'.

Well well man!

 

[Crispy]

Have we got to the bottom of this yet? No?
Let's give it another few days or years, I'm sure it'll all prove productive in the end.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Can you explain how it is evidence, or even 'one piece of evidence'? Can you explain how you can take this man's word for it? That what he says cannot be wrong? That he doesn't have an agenda?

Basically, what are your own credentials for being able to judge that what he says constitutes either evidence, or one piece of evidence?

And if it is indeed just one piece, where are the other pieces that it belongs to? And if his one piece of evidence is only part of the full evidence, then why were you so quick to call it [the whole] evidence originally?

You are a very stupid man fela.

 

[fela fan]

You are a very stupid man fela.

Aha, back on much safer ground i see mate, questioning my intelligence. It was getting a bit hot under the collar there for a while wasn't it!

Still, be a bit more careful next time before jumping to rapid conclusions about what represents evidence. I would suggest that it fitted your bill and so you swallowed it.

Rather like those pesky CTers you always suggest do the same thing.

How funny.