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

[Stanley Edwards]

He's claimed they don't exist;

What don't exist? The answers?[/QUOTE]

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.

Fair enough. He also lists things that aren't.

It's not a good piece and I suspect he felt the need to write it simply in response to the conspiraloons he talks about right at the start. Yes - there are valid questions. No - there aren't holographic turnips floating in the sky and spreading federal brain seeds everywhere.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

His entire arguement is undermined, if he can't be trusted to get those points right then he can't be trusted to have any others right either.

He demands answers, in some cases they exist and i know them to, in other cases he demands them and i do not know if they're they do exist or not, but i can't trust his assertion that they don't. That irritates me.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

His entire arguement is undermined, if he can't be trusted to get those points right then he can't be trusted to have any others right either.

He demands answers, in some cases they exist and i know them to, in other cases he demands them and i do not know if they're they do exist or not, but i can't trust his assertion that they don't. That irritates me.

You may be right--but Robert Fisk has done enough excellent work to be allowed some latitude, unlike the 9/11 cultists (here & elsewhere). Cut the man some slack--he's a brave genius!

 

[Bob_the_lost]

It's the "Even I" bit that really grates. "Even Robert Fisk gets things wrong" would be a better title to the thread.

Will i condemn him as a bad journalist? No, i haven't read enough of his work to do so, but an off day or not it's still his work and his reputation should suffer for it, even if it's only a teensy little bit.

 

[phildwyer]

Gore Vidal has questioned the official version as well. Fisk and Vidal are no credulous mugs.

 

[phildwyer]

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.

Exactly. He also knows that whatever he says will be taken very seriously indeed. One can only conclude that he feels quite strongly on the matter.

 

[Aldebaran]

One can only conclude that he feels quite strongly on the matter.

Exactly my thoughts.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

It's the "Even I" bit that really grates.

No it doesn't.

salaam.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Gore Vidal has questioned the official version as well. Fisk and Vidal are no credulous mugs.

He is here. He's failed to check his sources or his statements. He's believed statements that are untrue and has repeated them, this time attaching his reputation to them.

 

[laptop]

I demand evidence that Fisk himself wrote this and that he did so of his own free will, not under the influence of the NWO barcode on his breakfast cereal

 

[butchersapron]

Even i doubt fisk wrote this.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Even i doubt fisk wrote this.

 

[Aldebaran]

I doubt even that I am writing this.

salaam.

 

[8den]

Exactly. He also knows that whatever he says will be taken very seriously indeed. One can only conclude that he feels quite strongly on the matter.

If so, then he should have researched his facts better. He's repeating things that are blatantly untrue, and hasn't researched this for himself at all. Sloppy fucking journalism. Poor show by Fisk.

 

[Aldebaran]

I think the over-reaction causing people to twist (already) what he actually wrote is typical.

salaam.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Typical of what? Impatience with sloppy reporting or perhaps it's with ignorance masquerading as educated opinion?

There is no need to twist what he's said to see that he doesn't know what he's talking about here.

 

[Aldebaran]

First he explains what made him write the piece, next he explains he has questions, next he asks them.

Nowhere does that include or proposes the intention to claim that he knows the answers.
He only touched a few unclear issues and one of them is as blatantly puzzling to me, as he said it is to all Muslims he knows.
If you have all the answers, why don't you let him know?

salaam.

 

[laptop]

There is no need to twist what he's said...

Indeed. All the conspiranoids have to do is ignore the content of the article - both the false and the true content - and chalk up "Fisk is On Our Side".

 

[Bob_the_lost]

First he explains what made him write the piece, next he explains he has questions, next he asks them.

Nowhere does that include or proposes the intention to claim that he knows the answers.
He only touched a few unclear issues and one of them is as blatantly puzzling to me, as he said it is to all Muslims he knows.
If you have all the answers, why don't you let him know?

salaam.

If you're not getting it by now then you're never going to. But just one more time for luck.

By stating there are no answers to the questions he asks he is misleading all that read the article, as they do exist despite his claims otherwise. I have sent an email pointing out the flaws and expect a resounding silence in return.

 

[wreckhead]

I'm slightly confused by the consensus here... It's OK to question the official story of 9/11 but not to think of the implications of having possibly been fed a false story by the establishment?

I don't mean paranoid lunacy, but it's surely a natural chain of thought when something is in doubt to consider how and why. The world has changed so much in 6 years that whatever the "truth" of the matter, right-wingers in the US have used the tragedy to cement an agenda which I fear will not be reversed for many years. It's sad so many see it as a matter of "sides".

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I'm slightly confused by the consensus here... It's OK to question the official story of 9/11 but not to think of the implications of having possibly been fed a false story by the establishment?

I don't mean paranoid lunacy, but it's surely a natural chain of thought when something is in doubt to consider how and why. The world has changed so much in 6 years that whatever the "truth" of the matter, right-wingers in the US have used the tragedy to cement an agenda which I fear will not be reversed for many years. It's sad so many see it as a matter of "sides".

You're missing the point of this thread entirely. See above reply.

 

[butchersapron]

Filling in the gaps with holograms is the sort of stuff that isn't liked. Does wondering about "the implications of having possibly been fed a false story by the establishment?" neccesarily involve doing that?

I don't know what your last para means.

 

[wreckhead]

Filling in the gaps with holograms is the sort of stuff that isn't liked. Does wondering about "the implications of having possibly been fed a false story by the establishment?" neccesarily involve doing that?

I don't know what your last para means.

I suppose the "wondering" would involve whatever speculation the person doing so wants. I guess that's the problem with a subject like this, as has happened with similar big news stories with elements of doubt amongst some people (JFK, Diana etc.).

My last para was a badly made point that whatever one thinks about 9/11, the way it has been abused to push an idealogical agenda is by far the more important discussion - but that's not this thread.

 

[yield]

I'd be much more willing to accept the "official truth" if, for example, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident had never happened.

 

[8den]

I'd be much more willing to accept the "official truth" if, for example, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident had never happened.

What you mean the confused reports about the severity of an attack, was used as justification to increase America's involvment in a war they wanted to get into.

Why yes that totally validates all the eronious points raised by Fisk.

 

[yield]

What you mean the confused reports about the severity of an attack, was used as justification to increase America's involvment in a war they wanted to get into.

Why yes that totally validates all the eronious points raised by Fisk.

No, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. That there is a precedent with the Tonkin Gulf Resolution of 1964.

 

[8den]

No, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. That there is a precedent with the Tonkin Gulf Resolution of 1964.

A precedent for what? That the US has used flimsy pretenses to justify military force in the past.

How does that in any way cast down into the "offical story" of 9/11?

 

[ymu]

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.

That's a bit disingenuous Bob, if you read the OP:

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".

Unless you can also debunk this statement, you should probably acknowledge that there may be some unanswered questions. It doesn't make you a conspiraloon - really.

It is interesting that Fisk is sticking his neck out here, although IIRC he wrote a similar piece maybe 4-5 years ago. Pilger and Vidal also. I don't think any of them support any conspiraloonery - they're just saying that even as pretty competent and experienced investigative-type journalists, there are some questions that they can't find any good answers to.

The loons might have muddied some of the waters (eg routefinder crap), but I don't think they're supporting any of the theories so much as challenging the USG to fill in a few apparent gaps in their story. If they refuse, it almost looks like they'd prefer the wild conspiraloonery to continue muddying the waters rather than 'fess up to what really happened - which may be something as simple as monumental cock-ups which should have had some powerful people out on their ear and/or stupid lying propaganda stunts used to manipulate the political situation.

 

[yield]

A precedent for what? That the US has used flimsy pretenses to justify military force in the past.

Professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law, Boyle said today: "According to the facts in the public record so far, this was not an act of war and NATO Article 5 does not apply. President Bush has automatically escalated this national tragedy into something it is not in order to justify a massive military attack abroad and an apparent crackdown on civil liberties at home. We see shades of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which the Johnson administration used to provide dubious legal cover for massive escalation of the Vietnam War."

source

How does that in any way cast down into the "offical story" of 9/11?

The official story is that Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded in response to September 11th. I thought you would know that?

Well, I still hold to that view. Any military which can claim – as the Americans did two days ago – that al-Qa'ida is on the run is not capable of carrying out anything on the scale of 9/11. "We disrupted al-Qa'ida, causing them to run," Colonel David Sutherland said of the preposterously code-named "Operation Lightning Hammer" in Iraq's Diyala province. "Their fear of facing our forces proves the terrorists know there is no safe haven for them." And more of the same, all of it untrue.

 

[butchersapron]

A precedent for what? That the US has used flimsy pretenses to justify military force in the past.

How does that in any way cast down into the "offical story" of 9/11?

It supports it surely?