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

[editor]

A religious person would find it impossible to support war, never mind start them, never mind start them for fun.

*Planet Earth paging fela fan!

Have you never read a history book then?

 

[fela fan]

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.

I only said it was interesting, the fact that such technology is available. That is reality. As for the calls not being between the real people themselves, seems very hard to believe to me. But it seems the reality is that it was possible.

 

[fela fan]

*Planet Earth paging fela fan!

Have you never read a history book then?

They're not my favourite no. But look, people who claim to be religious may start wars, bush is an example. But then they're not really religious people.

I perhaps have to say that for me religious people do not blindly follow religions, but one of their qualities is that have nothing to do with violence of any sort.

 

[editor]

I only said it was interesting, the fact that such technology is available. That is reality.

It was not available in 2001. It's not available now. That is the reality.

But it seems the reality is that it was possible.

Only in sci-fi books and the twisted minds of conspiracy utters.

 

[editor]

But then they're not really religious people.

You're as daft as a brush.

 

[fela fan]

It was not available in 2001. It's not available now. That is the reality.Only in sci-fi books and the twisted minds of conspiracy utters.

Well, bb's link says different.

I'm just saying that the technology appears to have been available.

 

[fela fan]

You're as daft as a brush.

Is this always your answer to me?

 

[editor]

Well, bb's link says different.

No. It. Doesn't.

Read it again and then feel a little bit silly.

 

[fela fan]

No. It. Doesn't.

Read it again and then feel a little bit silly.

Well, i've just read it again and i'm going to need you to point it out for me. The article is from 1999 and i can't see anything that says the technology was not available at the time of writing. You'll need to show me exactly where i should feel silly.

 

[laptop]

* Imagines ff trying to construct a 1500-metre -square mirror in space *





Can I move planet, now, please?

 

[editor]

Well, i've just read it again and i'm going to need you to point it out for me. The article is from 1999 and i can't see anything that says the technology was not available at the time of writing. You'll need to show me exactly where i should feel silly.

Here's a clue for the terminally witless:

"By taking just a 10-minute digital recording of Steiner's voice, scientist George Papcun is able, in near real time...."

So. Not in real time and totally incapable of manufacturing a note-perfect live intimate conversation between loved ones. The technology needs pre-recorded high quality digital recordings (no chance of any of them being available for, say, Glick on the plane) and can only make up one way statements.

So, it would be utterly impossible to fake intimate conversations on 911.

Silly, silly, silly boy.

 

[jæd]

Well, i've just read it again and i'm going to need you to point it out for me. The article is from 1999 and i can't see anything that says the technology was not available at the time of writing. You'll need to show me exactly where i should feel silly.

You're assuming that (a) the technology worked that well in 1999 + (b) they can improve it to fool loved ones in real-time two years later. Oh and (c) they have enough background info on everyone to make the contents of the conversations genuine, in real-time...

Sounds pretty silly to me....!

 

[TAE]

A religious person would find it impossible to support war

I think a christian ( <- for example ) should find it impossible to support war, but unless you define a religious person to be someone who would find it impossible to support war, there certainly are religious people who do support/start them. Sadly.

 

[editor]

You're assuming that (a) the technology worked that well in 1999 + (b) they can improve it to fool loved ones in real-time two years later. Oh and (c) they have enough background info on everyone to make the contents of the conversations genuine, in real-time...

Sounds pretty silly to me....!

Bearing in mind that one of the passengers making a call to his wife wasn't even supposed to be on the flight, there's no doubt that this 'magic technology' is utter bollocks.

Yes, it's possible to digitally create false statements of someone using high quality samples, but this notion of instant Mike Yarwood technology able to instantly copy, imitate and inherit an intimate knowledge of another person, and then accurately pass off their personality, quirks, trait and accent in a foolproof manner is utter shite.

It's also deeply insulting and more than a little sick to suggest that the survivors were too stupid to recognise the last worlds of their loved ones (of which not one has come forward with any suspicions about the calls).

 

[jæd]

It's also deeply insulting and more than a little sick to suggest that the survivors were too stupid to recognise the last worlds of their loved ones (of which not one has come forward with any suspicions about the calls).

I tend to find *all* conspiraloons sick for this reason. I'd be interested if they would like to tell someone their loved one died from a lizard plot... Sick fuckers, the lot of 'em...

 

[EddyBlack]

I think a christian ( <- for example ) should find it impossible to support war, but unless you define a religious person to be someone who would find it impossible to support war, there certainly are religious people who do support/start them. Sadly.

Not necessarily. Jesus was not a pacifist. The New Testament does not preach pacifism. He did preach forgiveness at all times and peacefulness as far as possible. This page explains it.

 

[TAE]

That page explains the view of some christians. It is a view I disagree with. I've had many discussions with fellow christians (some of whom are in the army) about this.

Jesus never advocated armed resistance against the roman occupiers. No-where in the book of acts are christians engaged in armed struggle and no-where in the epistles are christians encouraged to do so.

 

[EddyBlack]

Ok. These debates are above me really. However as a christian I do genuinely want to understand this one .

Christ did wip the money changers at the temple – so violence for a just cause no?
Does Christ not wage war in Revelation?

Would it not be just to declare war on Nazi Germany or some other such state throughout history? What about defensive war?

 

[butchersapron]

Fela can easily dismiss the above as being part of institutional religion if they take the Just War doctrine postion (for some reason religious people can't be members of churches in his opinion) - i wonder though if he's heard of the brethren of the free spirit or the various anabaptists or similiar groups throughout history?

Incidentally, he's also just told a large chunkc of the worlds Muslim communities that they're not really religious people. They're just pretending.

 

[Aldebaran]

Incidentally, he's also just told a large chunkc of the worlds Muslim communities that they're not really religious people. They're just pretending.

Do you mean that to be a Muslim, you must advocate war?
Care to read Al Qur'an first? Thank you.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

Jesus never advocated armed resistance against the roman occupiers. No-where in the book of acts are christians engaged in armed struggle and no-where in the epistles are christians encouraged to do so.

Not to my knowledge. Still he is described as acting agressively towards the money lenders etc... which is in my view out of character.

salaam.

 

[butchersapron]

Do you mean that to be a Muslim, you must advocate war?
Care to read Al Qur'an first? Thank you.

salaam.

No i don't. Please read my posts above first.

 

[butchersapron]

Not to my knowledge. Still he is described as acting agressively towards the money lenders etc... which is in my view out of character.

salaam.

It was money changers - money changers who were there in an acceptable capacity IMO to change the roman money (or whatever) of the pilgrims into Jewish money in order to buy animals to make the passover sacrifices.

 

[Aldebaran]

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

Wher do you see me saying that?

Give proof that someone like Atta had no clue what he was writing, hence no clue what Allah means and no clue about the connotations of what Muslims - shortened - call "the bismillah".

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

It was money changers - money changers who were there in an acceptable capacity IMO to change the roman money (or whatever) of the pilgrims into Jewish money in order to buy animals to make the passover sacrifices.

In my idea the dispute was about the profit they made from the activity of money lending (and/or changing?) and on top of it using the Temple, place to worship only God for it.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

No i don't. Please read my posts above first.

No need to go through pages of posts to believe you.

salaam.

 

[TAE]

Ok. These debates are above me really. However as a christian I do genuinely want to understand this one .

I'm not arguing that the bible is against war as such, but I do think that the new testament makes it clear that christians should not be going around killing people, neither for their country nor for their faith.

Christ did wip the money changers at the temple – so violence for a just cause no?

He was being a prophet. He was simply making a point. He did not grab a sword and cut off their heads.

When he was finally arrested in Gethsemane, he rebukes Peter for using a sword and heals the person whom Peter attacked. He points out to Pilate that his followers are not fighting for his release.

Does Christ not wage war in Revelation?

I don't think Revelation calls on Christians to take up arms.

Would it not be just to declare war on Nazi Germany or some other such state throughout history?

Regime change? Christian Jihad? No thanks.

What about defensive war?

Against the christians who felt it was 'just to declare war' because they did not like your government?


Like I said, fighting the roman occupation did not seem to be a high priority.

If you believe God exists, why should he care if Britannia rules the waves or not ? Individual people have the right to defend themselves against attackers, but how many wars are about that? Even if you accept that the use of force is sometime necessary (I don't know any Christians who believe we should not have any police), that does not mean we should always fight for our country. The new testament is not very concerned about nationalities, especially post-resurrection.

Just my 2 euro-cents, of course.

 

[editor]

Wher do you see me saying that?

You keep insisting what "no Muslim" would say.

 

[Aldebaran]

You keep insisting what "no Muslim" would say.

Yes. Do you mean that because Atta's mind was indoctrinated in a way we see as criminal, he was no longer a Muslim?

salaam.

 

[editor]

Yes. Do you mean that because Atta's mind was indoctrinated in a way we see as criminal, he was no longer a Muslim?

Err, no. I'm just suggesting that the behaviour of a fucked up mass murderer may not be as predictable as you suppose.