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

[editor]

Not all that uncommon, unfortunately.

Sadly true. Fucking religious cunts.

 

[fela fan]

Would you like a list of all of the catalogue of errors Fisk has made in his journalist career? There are basic factual errors in Fisk's 911 article, that he could have verified quite easily as completely untrue, but Fisk doesn't bother to check.

Yes please, i'd like to see that list.

And also could you let me know how you can say so authoritatively that fisk "doesn't bother to check"? Are you his wife or something?

Y'see mr den, when you come out with such certainties that are purely subjective, and which must be wrong, it tends to impact negatively on everything else you say.

Of course if you are right that fisk doesn't bother to check then i apologise in advance. But i think you're unnecessarily slurring one of the finest journos around.

 

[fela fan]

I dunno, he's hardly a neutral source of information when it comes to an opinion on the USA is he?

And who is?

 

[fela fan]

Sadly true. Fucking religious cunts.

I know what you mean, but bush ain't religious. Any religious person could never start wars for fun. And let's not forget how bush used to smirk when texas governor when signing the execution papers for those on texan death row. The man loves death.

He's a politician masquerading behind religion. They love to mix the two.

 

[8den]

Yes please, i'd like to see that list.

And the bitch slapping continues.

Meet the informal verb Fisking Fisk rants and makes eloquent polemics,to describe him as a accurate journalist is a joke. To describe him as one of the "finest journalist around" when he claims extraorindary claims about the collapse of the world trade centers yet doesn't provide a single source to support his claims? Feck off

And also could you let me know how you can say so authoritatively that fisk "doesn't bother to check"? Are you his wife or something?

No see, fuckwitard. When Fisk comes out with something like;

, 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.)

Fisk ignores, or doesn't bother to look at the concept of steel weakening, he assumes that steel is absolutely fine at 1,379C but only when it nudges the 1,480 mark it instantly snaps. He doesn't research the fact that steel loses half it's tensial strengrh at half that temp.

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?

It didn't collapse in 6.6 seconds, and the collapse spread across a eight lane street, ruining it. But hey why let photographic evidence, facts, and logic get in way of the conspiracy theory.

Y'see mr den, when you come out with such certainties that are purely subjective, and which must be wrong, it tends to impact negatively on everything else you say.

Of course if you are right that fisk doesn't bother to check then i apologise in advance. But i think you're unnecessarily slurring one of the finest journos around.

Well then fella you could provide me with fisk's sources then

 

[fela fan]

Fisk has been around for years. Are you talking about his journalism in general, or just one particular article of his? Because i took it that you were commenting on him as a journalist in general, not just taking him to task for one article.

He remains one of the most respected journalists regardless of your opinions, and is not popular at all with many politicians in many governments. That is usually a good sign that a journo is doing their job.

Much better than being a spokesman for government policy, which is what many journos unwittingly are.

 

[MikeMcc]

I know what you mean, but bush ain't religious. Any religious person could never start wars for fun. And let's not forget how bush used to smirk when texas governor when signing the execution papers for those on texan death row. The man loves death.

He's a politician masquerading behind religion. They love to mix the two.

Religious people have started wars for all sorts of reasons since we were clans wandering around the countryside. Bush is on record as using his 'faith' to guide him in his decisions.

 

[TAE]

I know what you mean, but bush ain't religious.

I think he is christian in the sense that he really does believe in the virgin birth, sacrificial crucifixion and bodily resurrection of Jesus.

 

[Aldebaran]

Blimey. Even I know that a Muslim would never write that. It's basically equating oneself with God. But that fact makes it *harder* for me to believe it was faked. Why would any faker much such an obvious cock-up? Must be a mistranslation, I'd say.

I mentioned the mistranslation option for the sake of having all options open. In reality you must be from an other planet to be able to mistranslate 3 of the most common simple words in simple syntax. It's not as if this is about translating one of the gems one can encounter in Classical Arabic.

I wonder too why anyone going through the (weird) process of faking such a letter would make such a lunatical mistake, unless when having no clue about Islam. Which is at first sight an obvious contradiction (but not entirely impossible, especially if done by a US'er )
Hence for the moment I keep it with sensationalism of the WP, adding something that wasn't there for the sake of adding it while having no clue how this hunger for sensationalism backfires.

Leaving this mysteriously missing first page aside, there are some peculiarities on the pages I found that are worth commenting (the grammar isn't the best either, but that is not unusual among Arabic speakers, really).
If sopeone is interested, I shall come back to this when
a) I have conquered the flue
b) have adapted to the usual ramadan-induced weakness (which involves loosing a few kilos and constant srearching for my brain, swimming in the headaches).

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

So is twisting your faith around to justify the random mass murder of innocents, no?

No, it is not the same, in fact the contrary.
They are ready to die in the conviction that is what (their interpretation of) the religion requires and advertizes as the most noble, most rewarding deed any human can engage in to glorify and serve God.
At such a moment putting yourself (and your family) at equality with God goes even beyond lunaticism. I don't even speak of the spiritual meanings that come with the use of the bismillah. You simply don't use that in vain, ever.

salaam.

 

[warren]

No, it is not the same, in fact the contrary.
They are ready to die in the conviction that is what (their interpretation of) the religion requires and advertizes as the most noble, most rewarding deed any human can engage in to glorify and serve God.
At such a moment putting yourself (and your family) at equality with God goes even beyond lunaticism. I don't even speak of the spiritual meanings that come with the use of the bismillah. You simply don't use that in vain, ever.

salaam.

IIRC the justification for 9/11 was Prophet Mohammed's attack on one of the tribes of Medina using catapults to bombard the city.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

8den

Thanks for the 911myths link.

I've started on it and will read more as I have the time. It appears to me to be well balanced in attitude so far, I like the way they dont pupport their opinions as neccessarily fact.

At first glance it looks like they deal more substantially with MIHOP rather than LIHOP or negligence allegations, but I'll probably come back on that anon.

thanks anyway, I'm determined to be as clued up about this as possible.

 

[EddyBlack]

This one is good too - www.debunking911.com/ - The building 7 analysis is very interesting.

 

[editor]

You simply don't use that in vain, ever.

salaam.

I don't believe you - or anyone else - can say with any absolute certainty what goes through the mind of murderous cunt.

 

[editor]

This one is good too - www.debunking911.com/ - The building 7 analysis is very interesting.

Odds on he won't like it.

Too many independent experts all agreeing that there were no exciting explosives in the building.

Booor-ring!

 

[Gmart]

Any conspiracy is the same as a religion, it needs a step of faith to believe in it either way.

That guy knows what he's talking about!

 

[laptop]

I don't believe you - or anyone else - can say with any absolute certainty what goes through the mind of murderous cunt.

Yes, but say the murderous cunt in question were a follower of Ian Paisley, you could be pretty sure that what was going through his mind wasn't "In the name of the Father, the Son and the Invisible Pink Unicorn".

 

[ymu]

So what are you saying Phil? That all those eyewitnesses suffered a mass delusion when they clearly saw a plane hitting the Pentagon and the original plane, the phone calls from the plane were faked by CIA's Mike Yarwood Team, the real plane vanished into an alternative reality and the passengers are in fact fit and well and living in Penge?

I've never understood this obession with the phone calls and Mike Yarwood. Nooone disputes that 4 planes were hijacked, only where they ended up. The phone calls don't mean squat as evidence for any proposed scenario that I've ever seen.

IIRC the justification for 9/11 was Prophet Mohammed's attack on one of the tribes of Medina using catapults to bombard the city.

Funny. I seem to remember OBL stating quite clearly that it was the Israeli occupation of the West Bank & Gaza, the murderous sanctions on Iraq and the presence of US troops on Saudi Soil.

Of course, the 'Mericans carried on whinging "why do they hate us", but they were told very clearly very early on.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

I've never understood this obession with the phone calls and Mike Yarwood.

Allow me to elucidate:

It stems from a protracted 'discussion' that took place regarding the technical possibility that telephone calls can be 'faked' between an individual and an imposter posing as as another individual that is well known to the first.

Such capabilities are well documented, for instance by the Defence Analyst William M. Arkin in a piece he wrote for his 'Dot.MIL' column in that appears in the Washington Post way back in February 1999.

You can (and probably should) read the article here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm

An alternative view was proposed which posits that for such a deception to take place, a 'Team of Mike Yarwoods' (popular UK comedian / impersonator) would need to be employed.

HTH.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Nooone disputes that 4 planes were hijacked, only where they ended up.

Except Jazzz for one. Oh and a fair few others on prison planet.

You should research your material more thoroughly, or at least apply a reality check: Nothing is beyond the NWO after all.

 

[fela fan]

Religious people have started wars for all sorts of reasons since we were clans wandering around the countryside. Bush is on record as using his 'faith' to guide him in his decisions.

I have to state again, no religious people could involve themselves with war, not least start them for fun. It's an oxymoron. You might mean people who profess themselves to be religious, and who through self-deception may believe this to be true.

 

[fela fan]

You can (and probably should) read the article here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm

Interesting link bb!

 

[butchersapron]

I have to state again, no religious people could involve themselves with war, not least start them for fun. It's an oxymoron. You might mean people who profess themselves to be religious, and who through self-deception may believe this to be true.

What utter nonsense. The major religions all have justifications for involvement in war. Have you heard of Augustine's development of 'Just war' theory? Or seen the long list of 'ethics' concerning justifed warfare and behaviour in that war in the Islamic tradition?

'State' what you will, introduce whatever circular clauses (if they get involved in war they're not religious because religious people don't get involved in war) you like, but you're wrong - you can only be right if you perosnally have the one and only univerally true defintion of what constitutes religion and what constitutes religious motivation and behaviour - i.e it's what you say it is

Such waffle you come out with.

 

[editor]

Interesting link bb!

Except they didn't have the 'high quality recordings' needed of the people on the flights. Except one of the calls came from someone who wasn't even supposed to be on one of the flights. Except that the technology is not real time. Except that the example listed wasn't a conversation or an intense, emotional talk with their nearest and dearest.

Oh, I could go on, but I doubt if you're interested in reality here.

 

[TAE]

I have to state again, no religious people could involve themselves with war, not least start them for fun. It's an oxymoron. You might mean people who profess themselves to be religious, and who through self-deception may believe this to be true.

While the New Testament (for various reasons) does not advocate violence, the Old Testament certainly did advocate going to war in certain circumstances.

 

[ymu]

Allow me to elucidate:

It stems from a protracted 'discussion' that took place regarding the technical possibility that telephone calls can be 'faked' between an individual and an imposter posing as as another individual that is well known to the first.

Such capabilities are well documented, for instance by the Defence Analyst William M. Arkin in a piece he wrote for his 'Dot.MIL' column in that appears in the Washington Post way back in February 1999.

You can (and probably should) read the article here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm

An alternative view was proposed which posits that for such a deception to take place, a 'Team of Mike Yarwoods' (popular UK comedian / impersonator) would need to be employed.

HTH.

Well, I was trying to keep it real simple for the ravers who might otherwise find it hard to believe that such technology might ever have actually been used in earnest in the real world of Mossad and the CIA.

 

[editor]

Well, I was trying to keep it real simple for the ravers who might otherwise find it hard to believe that such technology might ever have actually been used in earnest in the real world of Mossad and the CIA.

There is no technology available that could instantly, totally accurately and with a 100% success rate impersonate a real-time conversation between family, friends, and colleagues. The suggestion that they were faked and that the loved ones too stupid to notice is sick.

So have you any point here?

 

[editor]

And just to put this idiotic 'faked calls' bullshit to bed, one of the longest calls was between Jeremy Glick and his wife. He had postponed a business trip and left on a different day as a last minute decision, so there was zero chance of Dem Evil Peeps having high quality copies of his voice beforehand.

Any moronic 911 fruitloop cunt telling his widow that she was fooled by a CIA Mike Yarwood - or that's whe's lying - needs a good fucking slap, IMO.

Lyz Glick: “He said, ‘Lyz, I need to know something. One of the other passengers had talked to their spouse and he had told me, said that they were crashing planes into the World Trade Center,’ and was this true. And I said, ‘You need to be strong, but yes, they are doing that.’”

She didn’t tell him everything she was seeing. As they talked, another plane crashed into the Pentagon. And then the first tower collapsed.

He said one passenger was already dead and the others were plotting to rush the cockpit as a last chance to live or save other lives. While it was unspoken, it was understood, this was goodbye.

Lyz Glick: “We said ‘I love you’ 1,000 times over and over again and it just brought so much peace to us. And he said, ‘I love Emmy,’ who is our daughter, and to take care of her. And then he said, ‘Whatever decisions you make in your life, I need you to be happy and I will respect any decisions that you make.’”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080114/

 

[ymu]

There is no technology available that could instantly, totally accurately and with a 100% success rate impersonate a real-time conversation between family, friends, and colleagues. The suggestion that they were faked and that the loved ones too stupid to notice is sick.

So have you any point here?

And I pointed out that it was irrelevant when under any credible scenario 4 planes full of real people were hijacked.

I call case-closed on the need or otherwise for Mike Yarwood impersonators; it is entirely irrelevant.

 

[fela fan]

While the New Testament (for various reasons) does not advocate violence, the Old Testament certainly did advocate going to war in certain circumstances.

Yeah, but there's religions, and people who are religious. Not the same thing. A religious person would find it impossible to support war, never mind start them, never mind start them for fun. Bush is as far away from being religious as it's possible.