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

[phildwyer]

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?

You're not familiar with the Gulf of Tonkin incident, are you?

 

[editor]

You're not familiar with the Gulf of Tonkin incident, are you?

It happened in a different time in a different world with different leaders in a world order with different priorities.

Sure it's worth looking back at history to try and help make sense of the world today - even when you're stretching back the best part of half a century - but it casts bugger all light on any supposed 9/11 cover ups today.

 

[phildwyer]

It supports it surely?

No it does not. In the Gulf of Tonkin incident the US government faked an attack on its forces in order to provide a causus belli. 9/11 conspiracy theorists can therefore point to a precedent for what they believe occurred at the World Trade Center.

 

[editor]

9/11 conspiracy theorists can therefore point to a precedent for what they believe occurred at the World Trade Center.

They can point at the Moon if they like, but without a shred of credible evidence to back up any of their fanciful theories, citing the the Gulf of Tonkin incident is a fairly meaningless exercise.

 

[butchersapron]

No it does not. In the Gulf of Tonkin incident the US government faked an attack on its forces in order to provide a causus belli. 9/11 conspiracy theorists can therefore point to a precedent for what they believe occurred at the World Trade Center.

Nah, the fact that the US could and would exploit a local situation in a period of permanent agrression - even engineer a minor incident in order to further their own aims shows that they don't need to smash planes into some of the most famous buildings in the world, on US soil, killing thousands as a result, in order to pursue their own interests. The boyd tonkin incident makes a joke of that scenario. Every loon that posts it as evidence undermines their own argument.

 

[yield]

Nah, the fact that the US could and would exploit a local situation in a period of permanent agrression - even engineer a minor incident in order to further their own aims shows that they don't need to smash planes into some of the most famous buildings in the world, on US soil, killing thousands as a result, in order to pursue their own interests. The boyd tonkin incident makes a joke of that scenario. Every loon that posts it as evidence undermines their own argument.

I agree completely that "The boyd tonkin incident makes a joke of that scenario". But setting a precedent is not the same as saying that they are equal.

</tinfoil hat>

 

[editor]

Nah, the fact that the US could and would exploit a local situation in a period of permanent agrression - even engineer a minor incident in order to further their own aims shows that they don't need to smash planes into some of the most famous buildings in the world, on US soil, killing thousands as a result, in order to pursue their own interests. The boyd tonkin incident makes a joke of that scenario. Every loon that posts it as evidence undermines their own argument.

Yup.

I've no doubt that the US administration would lie through their teeth and try to engineer all sorts of situations on foreign soil if it helped them pursue their global goals, but the notion of them coming up with a plan that involved the mass slaughter of their own citizens in a humiliating tower-toppling attack in New York is beyond ridiculous.

And for that there is absolutely no precedent.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Pearl Harbour might be a better case to cite. Given that if they had actually arranged the 911 attacks as a casus belli for invading Iraq, you'd think that they'd have had the brains to plant evidence of some sort of direct linkage to Saddam if they were going to go to all that trouble in the first place.

In the case of Pearl Harbour, the suspicion has always been that they knew some sort of attack might be imminent, but let it happen anyway, being taken by considerable surprise at how effective it turned out to be. Something that I find much more credible than spooks actively conspiring to blow up the WTC.

Of course, with Bush's crowd, the suggestion that they were too incompetent and distracted by ideological matters to listen to the warnings coming from their own intelligence apparatus is far more plausible still, and would certainly provide a plausible alternative to the conspiracy theories when it comes to explaining why the 'official inquiries' appeared so useless.

 

[Karac]

9-11 i think was just down to Islamic terrorists and American incompetence

Whats always worried me though is the attack on the Mexican parliament around the same time
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/mexicopaper.jpg
It was reported in bona fide Mexican newspapers at the time -2 Israelis attempted to enter the Mexican parliament with grenades and guns-were apprehended and eventually released after massive pressure from the Israeli Govt.
Ive never seen a proper explaination of this

 

[phildwyer]

Yup.

I've no doubt that the US administration would lie through their teeth and try to engineer all sorts of situations on foreign soil if it helped them pursue their global goals, but the notion of them coming up with a plan that involved the mass slaughter of their own citizens in a humiliating tower-toppling attack in New York is beyond ridiculous.

I tend to agree, on the whole. However it is worth noting that the world-wide scale of US aggression since 9/11 is also unprecedented, as is the internal police state they have implemented under the guise of 'homeland security.' As indeed are the measures taken by Israel to ensure the permanent subjection of the Palestinians. An incident on the scale of the Gulf of Tonkin would not have provided sufficient public support for such undertakings. So I'm keeping an open mind on this.

 

[ymu]

Nah, the fact that the US could and would exploit a local situation in a period of permanent agrression - even engineer a minor incident in order to further their own aims shows that they don't need to smash planes into some of the most famous buildings in the world, on US soil, killing thousands as a result, in order to pursue their own interests. The boyd tonkin incident makes a joke of that scenario. Every loon that posts it as evidence undermines their own argument.

That is a fair point, but it's also fair to say that Vietnam, and all the associated shenanigans, necessitated a massive shift in approach.

This is Pilger's main point in what he's written on 9/11 - PNAC laid out their vision in 2000 (and various docs in the preceding years) and then concluded that it would require "another Pearl Harbour" to get sufficient support from the US people for such a large scale war. Pearl Harbour was a sufficiently big incident to put public support behind joining the war when previously maintaining an isolationist stance was the only politically acceptable option. I think it's clear what they meant by the statement.

The US has started a lot of wars in the period between Vietnam and Iraq, but not on this scale and often through covert support of local forces - colonialism by proxy. Vietnam made it politically very difficult to launch a full scale invasion anywhere. Hence the Gulf War stopping at the border, despite some hawks being keen to carry on to Baghdad.

Your point still stands, but it's not entirely valid. Any incident engineered to trigger support that was previously non-existent would likely have to be a lot more than "minor", even if backed by propaganda and some dodgy intelligence reports. Had not so many ordinary people in the US been baying for blood, the "intelligence" that supported war on Iraq would never have passed scrutiny there - it didn't anywhere else.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I agree completely that "The boyd tonkin incident makes a joke of that scenario". But setting a precedent is not the same as saying that they are equal.

</tinfoil hat>

But it isn't a meaningful precedent at all in the only way it can apply. All it says is "governments will lie flat out to people about very serious matters" and I think there are enough existing known examples that nobody with any sense - no matter what side they are on - would deny that. (Not that sense is exactly universal, but it's polite to assume it unless and until it's shown not to exist.)

The constant reference to previous USG covert activities, but only _certain_ ones like Tonkin and Operation Northwoods, often sounds to me like continual naive astonishment at the very idea of a government "betraying its own people". Why, the very idea! Also, a lack of understanding that other people have long since accepted the fact that governments are regularly happy to lie, cheat, torture and murder if they can get away with it, regardless of nationality, and who just, you know, want some indication that they _have_ in a particular instance.

 

[butchersapron]

Why would it? They had control of all the exective bodies.

 

[butchersapron]

The constant reference to previous USG covert activities, but only _certain_ ones like Tonkin and Operation Northwoods, often sounds to me like continual naive astonishment at the very idea of a government "betraying its own people". Why, the very idea! Also, a lack of understanding that other people have long since accepted the fact that governments are regularly happy to lie, cheat, torture and murder if they can get away with it, regardless of nationality, and who just, you know, want some indication that they _have_ in a particular instance.

This, IMO, is often the problem. I kinow that govts lie, i kow what they lie about and i know why, and i know how they go about it. I'm not at all shocked by little holes in official narratives. I just assume on the basis of past experience that some small section of a larger thing is lying. It doesn't need the big boss to be in on it or to have desgined it. And it doesn't need me to fill in the gaps from the internet then demand that others prove me wrong.

 

[laptop]

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

Of course it doesn't - to anyone concerned with events in the world.

But it "follows" from the "they could'a, couldn't they?" mindset.

Many conspiraloons, it seems to me, are exclusively concerned with finding "immoral agents", and completely oblivious to little things like how the world works - hence their readiness to believe, nay compulsion to believe, that hundreds of thousands of people would participate in a cover-up with nary a whisper from them.

I'm starting to wonder whether this exclusive preoccupation is the answer to my question "what is the opposite of autism". With apologies to trainspotters, I'm imagining a crowd of train-anti-spotters who have not the least interest in locomotives - in fact wouldn't recognise one if it fell on them - but obsess endlessly about the mysterious forces that make trains move.

 

[EddyBlack]

I've no doubt that the US administration would lie through their teeth and try to engineer all sorts of situations on foreign soil if it helped them pursue their global goals, but the notion of them coming up with a plan that involved the mass slaughter of their own citizens in a humiliating tower-toppling attack in New York is beyond ridiculous.

And for that there is absolutely no precedent.

I don't think the notion of them attacking the US is riduculous. Some of these people are capable of doing this if they believe the ends justify the means. However, specifically on this attack, believing they did in the face of all the evidence to the contrary is ridiculous.

I recall this author for his coverage of Depleted Uranium weapons usage and their apparent long term effects on the populations of Basra and Afghanistan. He’s done more over the years than any other mainstream journalist on this subject. So I respect him.

This is a bad article though, and will only damage his credibility. It is not fatal, but it is a pity. I agree that he has most likely been reading some conspiaracy theorist sites and has been deceived that there are no answers to his questions. His questions, particularly about the towers collapse, are half baked and he sounds stupid in some parts ('cracking beams', Hi jackers still alive). The questionsare not too difficult to answer if he was genuinely interested in knowing the answers, particularly for an experienced journalist.

He does make a couple of interesting claims though, the first:
'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".'

The other one is the thing about Mohammed Atta’s letter, which Alderbaran confirmed would be suspicious. I have to agree with Bob here though, the rest was so uninformed and obviously influenced by CTs that I’m not sure it is that interesting. I think he is a conspiracy fan,,, trying to raise these questions whilst donning a non CTer robe.

Larry O Hara - James Ridgeway's 'Five Unanswered Questions About 9/11'. Sounds interesting what are they?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

This is a bad article though, and will only damage his credibility. It is not fatal, but it is a pity. I agree that he has most likely been reading some conspiaracy theorist sites and has been deceived that there are no answers to his questions. His questions, particularly about the towers collapse, are half baked and he sounds stupid in some parts ('cracking beams', Hi jackers still alive). The questionsare not too difficult to answer if he was genuinely interested in knowing the answers, particularly for an experienced journalist.

I agree, it's disappointing. I did fall for some of the more peculiar stuff a long time ago, but that was before I really knew a lot. (I quoted Joe Vialls about a micronuke in Bali once, only to be slapped down painfully by one of my friends who had actually spent a while in Bali and pointed out how much shit the whole thing was.) I wasn't and still am not someone with Fisk's experience and knowledge and I'm a bit puzzled as to why he's putting this forward now without, it seems, much examination.

He does make a couple of interesting claims though, the first:
'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".'

The thing is of course that you do find (a) people being trumpeted as "experts" by CTers without being anything of the such, and also (b) people who could reasonably claim to be "experts" based on their qualifications and experience who still have some very odd ideas. Not a huge number of them, certainly the latter, but it's not that uncommon in this area. You can't rely on the argument from authority with these things; it may give you some idea that the person's argument is worth looking at, but it's by no means a guarantee that it's going to be relevant. You can find "experts" who will uphold pretty much anything.

The other one is the thing about Mohammed Atta’s letter, which Alderbaran confirmed would be suspicious. I have to agree with Bob here though, the rest was so uninformed and obviously influenced by CTs that I’m not sure it is that interesting. I think he is a conspiracy fan,,, trying to raise these questions whilst donning a non CTer robe.

I am actually rather suspicious personally of a lot of the attempts to pin blame on certain convenient individuals, which would be entirely consistent with government activities for centuries. Not sure about this particular instance.

Of course, one has to consider what the point of that investigation is. To prove that the USG lied and distorted? But there are already so many instances already of them blatantly lying in the run-up to the war, and after. Is another really going to help? Perhaps... I wouldn't spend a huge amount of time on it personally speaking.

 

[EddyBlack]

ymu-

I’m open minded to the possibility of the official story being a deception to some extent. But it is important to go where the evidence leads. Yes it was convenient, yes the administration are villains, no the evidence does not show them to be behind it like the 911 ‘truth’ movement say. (not saying your one)

 

[ymu]

The thing is of course that you do find (a) people being trumpeted as "experts" by CTers without being anything of the such, and also (b) people who could reasonably claim to be "experts" based on their qualifications and experience who still have some very odd ideas. Not a huge number of them, certainly the latter, but it's not that uncommon in this area. You can't rely on the argument from authority with these things; it may give you some idea that the person's argument is worth looking at, but it's by no means a guarantee that it's going to be relevant. You can find "experts" who will uphold pretty much anything.

That's all true - but it's not exactly relevant to the point Fisk was making. They've launched a court case challenging what they consider to be fraudulent claims in the NIST report. They may well be fruitloops (plenty of those in academia), but the outcome of the case may well be interesting - even if it only strengthens NIST's conclusions. He's just saying that there are people who are willing to back their doubts with their professional reputations (and commit academic suicide if they're wrong,l and quite possibly also if they're right).

Of course, one has to consider what the point of that investigation is. To prove that the USG lied and distorted? But there are already so many instances already of them blatantly lying in the run-up to the war, and after. Is another really going to help? Perhaps... I wouldn't spend a huge amount of time on it personally speaking.

There are very few people still trying to claim that the war was ever justified, even if many still do the apologetics routine ("it was a mistake, get over it"). No mistake that big can just be gotten over. Of course people want answers. If it was a monumental cock-up, they want to see some heads rolling. If evidence was deliberately fabricated to further the propaganda cause, they want to know who did what and see some heads rolling.

If it was something even more sinister - well, I'm not sure many people in the West really want to face that option (unless they cream their pants over any conspiracy going), but there's a fair few outside the West who might at least hope it would change their world for the better if it was that and it did become known.

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis have paid for any deception anywhere along the line with their lives, whilst the rest are in a living nightmare with no prospect of waking up any time soon. Is it not only right that we demand answers and whatever limited form of "justice" is possible for these people?

 

[butchersapron]

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis have paid for any deception anywhere along the line with their lives, whilst the rest are in a living nightmare with no prospect of waking up any time soon. Is it not only right that we demand answers and whatever limited form of "justice" is possible for these people?

This sort of emotional blackmail really gets on my tits.

 

[ymu]

ymu-

I’m open minded to the possibility of the official story being a deception to some extent. But it is important to go where the evidence leads. Yes it was convenient, yes the administration are villains, no the evidence does not show them to be behind it like the 911 ‘truth’ movement say. (not saying your one)

I was pointing out a logical flaw in someone's argument, not making any claims whatsoever. Might as well have been a thread on hamsters for all the opinion I offered.

These threads bore me - full of people on both sides sticking their fingers in their ears, singing la la la whilst frantically constructing the next straw man. I like Fisk, checked the thread, and felt the need to defend him from the la las and straw persons. Silly me.

If you have an open mind you won't get much interesting debate on an urban 9/11 thread. Possibly some interesting links (and a load of dross) if you want to explore the issues for yourself, but participating in the debate here is good if you fancy a barney for no particular reason, but not for much else.

Moderation is dead, long live moderation. Ironic, in a sad sort of way.


*shrugs and wanders off

 

[ymu]

This sort of emotional blackmail really gets on my tits.

But you're not gonna address any other point because ... ?

Ne'er mind. I know why not.

 

[butchersapron]

What other point - about the war. Big war booster me. Up Blair, reclaim basra.

What have i missed? or ignored?

What do you know by the way?

 

[ymu]

What other point - about the war. Big war booster me. Up Blair, reclaim basra.

What have i missed? or ignored?

What do you know by the way?

I don't care if you read my posts, let alone respond to them. I just thought it was interesting that you picked on a real easy straw man. Not that interesting obv, as it's also highly predictable.*

What have I claimed to know? I could check back, but I'm pretty sure I didn't make any outrageous claims of having knowledge unavailable to other posters. Claiming you know anything about 9/11 is pretty pointless, and usually a bit of an exaggeration, on these threads.

Or do you mean, who am I to question the mighty BA? Ah - that'd make sense. I did get an O' level in logic if that helps. But if you have a problem with my logic, you'd point it out, wouldn't you?

But no need to bother. I'm so not interested.




*to answer the specific question: In the post you straw-manned, IIRC I was noting that FM's point that the scientists could easily be fruitloops isn't relevant to what Fisk said; and also questioning his conclusion that we all know govt's lie and cheat so why are we expending any energy on trying to prove it, when there are some very obvious reasons why at least some people might be willing to expend considerable energy in this particular instance. My first post in the thread was pointing out what I believe are some critical flaws in your logic concerning the type and scale of incident needed to trigger support for this war.

But you can read, so why did you ask?

 

[butchersapron]

Ok
You sound pretty interested though if truth be told.

 

[ymu]

Ok
You sound pretty interested though if truth be told.

Superb.

 

[butchersapron]

*to answer the specific question: In the post you straw-manned, IIRC I was noting that FM's point that the scientists could easily be fruitloops isn't relevant to what Fisk said; and also questioning his conclusion that we all know govt's lie and cheat so why are we expending any energy on trying to prove it, when there are some very obvious reasons why at least some people might be willing to expend considerable energy in this particular instance. My first post in the thread was pointing out what I believe are some critical flaws in your logic concerning the type and scale of incident needed to trigger support for this war.

But you can read, so why did you ask?

To answer this reply that appeared two minutes after mine.

It's entirely relevant whether they're fruitloops or not. Of course it is. How could it not be?

Not sure that i follow what you trying to say in the next bit. Either your orginal post or the later explanation.

 

[butchersapron]

See, this was your second point:

There are very few people still trying to claim that the war was ever justified, even if many still do the apologetics routine ("it was a mistake, get over it"). No mistake that big can just be gotten over. Of course people want answers. If it was a monumental cock-up, they want to see some heads rolling. If evidence was deliberately fabricated to further the propaganda cause, they want to know who did what and see some heads rolling.

If it was something even more sinister - well, I'm not sure many people in the West really want to face that option (unless they cream their pants over any conspiracy going), but there's a fair few outside the West who might at least hope it would change their world for the better if it was that and it did become known.

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis have paid for any deception anywhere along the line with their lives, whilst the rest are in a living nightmare with no prospect of waking up any time soon. Is it not only right that we demand answers and whatever limited form of "justice" is possible for these people?

Where's the actual content? What are you actually saying beyond a series of 'ifs' - what substance have i ignored in the above? That if the US govt did 911 their relationship with US citizens might change? That if it happened, people might be unable to handle it?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

That's all true - but it's not exactly relevant to the point Fisk was making. They've launched a court case challenging what they consider to be fraudulent claims in the NIST report. They may well be fruitloops (plenty of those in academia), but the outcome of the case may well be interesting - even if it only strengthens NIST's conclusions. He's just saying that there are people who are willing to back their doubts with their professional reputations (and commit academic suicide if they're wrong,l and quite possibly also if they're right).

I think it is, though. He seems to be implying that there's some significance to "proper scientists" doing this, rather than just any old sod, which is true to a _certain_ extent but out of context.

The court case bit doesn't impress me; if they really believed it they might well do that - hell, I would - it's just an indication of their level of belief rather than the rightness of what they're going on about. There are people launching court cases about all sorts of stuff after all, it's dedication rather than rightness.

If evidence was deliberately fabricated to further the propaganda cause, they want to know who did what and see some heads rolling.

But it's already been quite clearly shown that it was, without any need to refer to 911 at all. I am not at all sure that merely putting forward a new aspect, which will be easily countered for those who want to believe, will help. I suppose it all adds to the "overwhelming weight" but come on... if what's been shown so far isn't enough, you have to start thinking about alternative tactics.

 

[ymu]

It's pretty simple BA.

Like it or not, people do want to know for some really really good reasons. It's not just for a good bit of gossip. They don't deserve to be dismissed as idiots for not just shrugging and getting on with their lives (which IS an appropriate response to some other sorts of, lower level, shenanigans).

If you can't see why the massive changes we've seen in just under 6 years mean that it matters - a lot, for everyone, wherever they live - well, I doubt you can't see it, so there is no end to that sentence.