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

[editor]

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.

Let's try again.

All credible research and analysis from suitably qualified experts points to there being no explosives being used. This latest independent research from a hugely respected academic institute underlines that.

I have repeatedly asked you to point me in the direction of credible research proving - or even suggesting - that explosives were in fact used but each time you run away from the challenge.

So in the total and complete absence of any credible research suggesting that explosives were used, why am I a 'hypocrite' for treating the findings from this latest piece of independent research seriously?

 

[detective-boy]

Still, be a bit more careful next time before jumping to rapid conclusions about what represents evidence.

If you're going to be arsey about it, the "evidence" is the time it took the towers to collapse (i.e. an observed fact). What we have here is an expert opinion (which may be accepted as evidence in any forum or debate) which provides an explanation for the observed evidence and which challenges the proposed explanations of others.

Any expert opinion evidence is only as good as the qualifications / experience / research / etc. underlying it. It seems this individual is qualified and experienced in this field and has applied rigorous scientific method to the issue before reaching their conclusions.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

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.

<sigh>

Evidence is evidence.

I could post up a scanned picture of a childs drawing and call it evidence, or I could write a thesis.

There is good evidence that stands up to scrutiny, and there is poor evidence that dosen't.

Do you need a fucking diagram or something?

 

[fela fan]

Let's try again.

All credible research and analysis from suitably qualified experts points to there being no explosives being used. This latest independent research from a hugely respected academic institute underlines that.

I have repeatedly asked you to point me in the direction of credible research proving - or even suggesting - that explosives were in fact used but each time you run away from the challenge.

So in the total and complete absence of any credible research suggesting that explosives were used, why am I a 'hypocrite' for treating the findings from this latest piece of independent research seriously?

I'm a patient man too editor, and so i shall try again too.

For the umpteenth time i've said i have no opinion either way about whether there was a controlled demolition, and any time i see any report backing it up, or refuting it i just ignore it. I don't have the wherewithall to decide either way. It's a red herring, none of us can definitely accept any report about it with any certainty.

So since i have read just about nothing on the subject, and for the umpteenth time, i tell you that i cannot point you in any direction on this topic.

"All credible research and analysis from suitably qualified experts points to there being no explosives being used."

Since you've read loads on it, you may well be right in saying this, but earlier on you had this seffen's research down as evidence. This sentence of yours now is somewhat more acceptable, certainly in academic terms, something you like to refer to often.

I don't need to explain any further why you're a hypocrite, it is all there in post number 371, and shortly after for dishing out personal insults to me while falsely claiming i'm doing the same to you.

Anyway, you're not alone, just about everybody is a hypocrite from time to time. Unless you avoid judging people, then hypocrite you must be. So just accept it mate.

 

[fela fan]

<sigh>

Evidence is evidence.

Yes, that is an insightful conclusion bees.

But:

From 'evidence'

to

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

to

'It is one piece of evidence'.

What kind of evidence is seffen's report bees? You have come up with three kinds so far, i'm trying to find out what kind you actually - really - think it is.

 

[editor]

For the umpteenth time i've said i have no opinion either way about whether there was a controlled demolition, and any time i see any report backing it up, or refuting it i just ignore it. I don't have the wherewithall to decide either way. It's a red herring, none of us can definitely accept any report about it with any certainty.

So that'll be why you continue to ignore the evidence and declare anyone a 'hypocrite' who takes proper academic research seriously, yes?

You're a liar, a fraud and a fucking unpleasant person with a wildly over-inflated opinion of yourself. beesonthewhatnow was absolutely right.

 

[jæd]

So since i have read just about nothing on the subject, and for the umpteenth time, i tell you that i cannot point you in any direction on this topic.

So why waste your time posting up on it...? Basingstoke becoming a bit dull again...? Go and look at your posters of Thailand again Fela. Perhaps those lady-boys will think you are interesting...?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Yes, that is an insightful conclusion bees.

But:

From 'evidence'

to

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

to

'It is one piece of evidence'.

What kind of evidence is seffen's report bees? You have come up with three kinds so far, i'm trying to find out what kind you actually - really - think it is.

Jesus christ.

It is evidence, one piece of many, that I give more weight to than shite on prison planet.

It's really not that hard to get your head round.

 

[fela fan]

If you're going to be arsey about it,

DB, i'm not being arsey about anything. I've pointed out that editor and beesonthewhatnow are doing the very same thing they frequently accuse others of doing.

They are wriggling like champion eels at the moment, with no grace to admit their hypocrisy.

If you're trying to avoid fights, then avoiding other people's fights is very good starting place!

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

They are wriggling like champion eels at the moment, with no grace to admit their hypocrisy

How, exactly?

 

[fela fan]

So that'll be why you continue to ignore the evidence and declare anyone a 'hypocrite' who takes proper academic research seriously, yes?

You're a liar, a fraud and a fucking unpleasant person with a wildly over-inflated opinion of yourself. beesonthewhatnow was absolutely right.

I'm not ignoring any evidence, just calling into question how you or bees are qualified to declare what seffen says as being evidence.

As for your personal insults, and they're as big as they come in this post, it only shows you've lost this particular argument mate. It's always the case in debating, anyone who resorts to such unpleasant name-calling is running away from the actual debate.

For whatever reason, and i wonder what that might be...?!

A fucking unpleasant person? No, i've never been called that before, still, i'll take it as a compliment mate, i've won, you've lost, hahaha.

 

[fela fan]

How, exactly?

And you call me an idiot, a very stupid person...

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

And you call me an idiot, a very stupid person...

Enlighten me.

I post a link, cite it as credible evidence against CD.

That makes me a hypocrite....how?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I'm not ignoring any evidence, just calling into question how you or bees are qualified to declare what seffen says as being evidence.

Jesus, do you honestly not see the difference in credibility betwee a cambridge engineer, writing in a peer reviewd journal, and a faceless nobody on some random website?

 

[editor]

I'm not ignoring any evidence, just calling into question how you or bees are qualified to declare what seffen says as being evidence.

Why are you calling it into question?

Please list your reasons why Seffen's professional analysis should be called into question in the context of his academic background and your complete failure to find a single credible piece of expert analysis from anyone on the entire globe who supports the 'explosives' theory.

Can you do that without resort to more personal insults too, because I've had just about enough of your lip.

 

[editor]

Jesus, do you honestly not see the difference in credibility betwee a cambridge engineer, writing in a peer reviewd journal, and a faceless nobody on some random website?

No he doesn't. He just thinks he knows better.

 

[tarannau]

I'm not ignoring any evidence, just calling into question how you or bees are qualified to declare what seffen says as being evidence.

As for your personal insults, and they're as big as they come in this post, it only shows you've lost this particular argument mate. It's always the case in debating, anyone who resorts to such unpleasant name-calling is running away from

This is clearly bollocks though isn't it Fela? The fact that someone takes the piss out of your sheer pompousity isn't 'proof' or any indication whatsoever that they've lost any argument. That's another one of those logical fallacies and silly wooly oversimplifications that you seem to specialise in.

Nobody's running away from anything as far as I can see. There are plenty of folks bashing their head against the brick wall of your inability to weigh up sources and evidence dispassionately however.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Can you do that without resort to more personal insults too

FWIW I'll try and stop calling him an idiot, but ye gods, in the face of such random logic it's hard.....

 

[editor]

Nobody's running away from anything as far as I can see. There are plenty of folks bashing their head against the brick wall of your inability to weigh up sources and evidence dispassionately however.

Fela's one of the reasons why 9/11 threads end up in the bin.

He's not interested in serious, credible research. He's not interested in expert analysis, neither is he interested in dispassionately examining the facts and the evidence and arriving at a collectively informed opinion.

He just wants to tell everyone how he simply knows better.

There's not much debate to be had with such an arrogant dreamer who refuses to engage and acknowledge the facts, so I can see this thread ending soon.

It's a bit like arguing with a religious nut in some sort of weird denial ('I'm not a conspiraloon but every single expert has to be ignored' etc etc)

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1146186220070912

The latest in a long line of people to raise questions about 911 is none other than Fidel. I wonder how many U75 parrots of the US administration coincidence theory will re-think their line now Comrade Castro has spoken out.

"Castro said the truth behind the September 11 attacks with hijacked planes that killed nearly 3,000 people will probably never be known."

Something I would think we can all agree on, but there wont be a full open enquirey to assist. God knows Bush and Cheney did their best to stop even the 911 Omission taking place. Neither did Bush agree to speak alone, in public or on oath to this Omission, and a key player was a neo-con flunkie. But the coincidentalists will have an excuse lined up for that I'm sure.

 

[editor]

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1146186220070912 I wonder how many U75 parrots of the US administration coincidence theory will re-think their line now Comrade Castro has spoken out.

That seems rather an insulting slur, so could you name these "parrots" please?

And seeing as you're insisting that posters should 'rethink' what they believe happened about 9/11 in line with his comments, can I asssume that you concur with Castro's claim that the Pentagon was hit by a rocket? (which, presumably totally fooled the vast amount of eye witnesses, including pilots)?

Quite why you think Castro would be privy to inside information about 9/11 is anyone's guess, mind. It's not like he has any kind of history with the country, is it?

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

That seems rather an insulting slur, so could you name these "parrots" please?

And seeing as you're insisting that posters should 'rethink' what they believe happened about 9/11 in line with his comments, can I asssume that you concur with Castro's claim that the Pentagon was hit by a rocket? (which, presumably totally fooled the vast amount of eye witnesses, including pilots)?

Quite why you think Castro would be privy to inside information about 9/11 is anyone's guess, mind. It's not like he has any kind of history with the country, is it?

It's not aimed at anyone in paticular. Someone said (on U75 I think) that 911 is like an inkblot test, people see in it what they want to see. Some want to see state conspiracy regardless. Some want to see conspirilunacy regardless. Both attitudes are unhelpful. That comment is aimed at the latter.


I think Castro is right that we will never know the truth. People are still figuring out the JFK thing which was way less complex. I had a conversation with a leading 911 writer and told him his problem was that he had loads of dots, but no way of joining them. But there is also a great deal of conjecture and reliance on co-incidence from those who pupport the official version.

I dont have a firm opinion on the Pentagon. It might be exactly as stated officially, but apart from the coincidental ineffectiveness of air defence, lack of mess on the lawn etc. it would have required world-class acrobatics from an alledged pilot documented to be virtually useless with even small planes. Still, it might be true becuase the JFK case featured a magic bullet didnt it?

I dont know what Castro does or doesnt know, but he has been on the recieving end of plenty of clandestine CIA attempts on his life and the reputation of his country to know more than I do about the underbelly of the worlds no. 1 terror state.

 

[editor]

It's not aimed at anyone in paticular.

Oh come on - no need to be coy, now!

You explicity asked how many of these "U75 parrots of the US administration coincidence theory" would "re-think their line" in the light of ol' Castro's mumblings, so it only seems reasonable to ask who these "parrots" are.

It's clear that you think there's quite a few, so could you share some names with us all please? Thanks!

I had a conversation with a leading 911 writer

Oh! A leading 9/11 writer! That sounds grand! Who was he/she then?

 

[laptop]

I had a conversation with a leading 911 writer

So he was selling his book on the Euston Road on Monday, then? Which one was it?

Shame I had something useful to do nearby, really, or I'd have done a count. But there seemed to be more dvdmongers than punters showing up. Apart from the one punter who had no idea what meeting he was going to, or was too paranoid to say

 

[FridgeMagnet]

If Castro has become a no-planer, yeah, he's lost it, on that issue anyway.

 

[editor]

Speaker as a leading urban poster, I agree.

 

[TAE]

Why would 'they' fly planes into the Twin Towers but use a missile against the Pentagon ?

 

[editor]

Why would 'they' fly planes into the Twin Towers but use a missile against the Pentagon ?

Probably because 'they' had successfully sent in invisible operatives to invisibly install invisible explosives in the WTC so they only needed the planes for show, whereas they needed a real holographic plane-cum-missile for the Pentagon, silly!

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

it would have required world-class acrobatics from an alledged pilot documented to be virtually useless with even small planes

Oh for fucks sake, how many times do we have to go over this particular lump of shit?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

it might be true becuase the JFK case featured a magic bullet didnt it?

Errr, no.

Go away and learn to read.