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

[butchersapron]

What's this deference to academics as specialised species not susceptible to hysteria or other bollocks anyway? Oh no, an academica has started a court case!!! Do you go weak kneed when you see a policeman? How abiout if 99% of all these other infallibles say the opposite?

 

[butchersapron]

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.

I can think of a few.

I've argued for the last 6 years that what we've seen in terms of of US foreign policy is directly related to 911 and also other wider and more meaningful agendas. Do you think that the *scales* have just fell from my eyes because of this fisk stuff?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

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).

They deserve to be called idiots if they fall for low-grade conspiracy bollocks though. Sure, people can be woken up a bit by the issues whilst having no particular knowledge of history or analysis, have a sense that they're being lied to and, for a bit, go around with the truthers, and then wake up properly a bit later... but while they are talking crap they need to be told they're talking crap.

I mean, christ, it's not like I was born fully-formed and politically wonderful, I'm not today for that matter. We've all had our embarrassing early experiences. But you don't learn unless people point out to you where you're talking crap.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I think it would matter only if it were possible to hold someone to account, either for massive incompetence or just possibly for guilty knowledge. It's not going to be possible though. The people who we absolutely know lied their arses off to take us to war aren't going to be held to account even though the evidence is available to more or less everybody.

It's therefore vanishingly unlikely that anyone is going to be held to account for something much harder to prove and much more effectively obfuscated by the ravings of thousands of loons who wouldn't be able to recognise Occam's Razor if it cut their foot off.

All the passion and effort that goes into 911 'truth seeking' would be much better spent where it might do some good.

 

[ymu]

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.

The only point is that the court case is still ongoing and might be interesting given that it has been launched by people who are not yet conclusively proved to be fruitloops. Is that really such a difficult conditional scenario to grasp?

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.

Whose heads have rolled? I mean in a "just deserts" sense, not a resignation/sacking to go to a cushty new job, or a junior fallguy taking a guilty verdict with a presidential pardon. People don't just want to know that there has been some dodgy shit - they want to know the full extent of that dodgy shit and to see someone take responsibility for it. It's not unreasonable, and it's not stupid either, given the enormous global impact this war has had.


I must have expressed myself really badly if these points weren't obvious first time. Sorry - I'll work on cutting to the chase a bit quicker.

 

[ymu]

They deserve to be called idiots if they fall for low-grade conspiracy bollocks though. Sure, people can be woken up a bit by the issues whilst having no particular knowledge of history or analysis, have a sense that they're being lied to and, for a bit, go around with the truthers, and then wake up properly a bit later... but while they are talking crap they need to be told they're talking crap.

I mean, christ, it's not like I was born fully-formed and politically wonderful, I'm not today for that matter. We've all had our embarrassing early experiences. But you don't learn unless people point out to you where you're talking crap.

Straw man.

Not responding further.

 

[butchersapron]

Whose heads have rolled? I mean in a "just deserts" sense, not a resignation/sacking to go to a cushty new job, or a junior fallguy taking a guilty verdict with a presidential pardon. People don't just want to know that there has been some dodgy shit - they want to know the full extent of that dodgy shit and to see someone take responsibility for it. It's not unreasonable, and it's not stupid either, given the enormous global impact this war has had.

Can you spot the assumptiuon behind this?

 

[DrRingDing]

It doesn't matter one little bit.

We're all fucked into an ending of guilt and despair regardless.

 

[butchersapron]

I'm not.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

The only point is that the court case is still ongoing and might be interesting given that it has been launched by people who are not yet conclusively proved to be fruitloops. Is that really such a difficult conditional scenario to grasp?

The fact that they've launched court cases is no more interesting than the fact that they said things in the first place.

Whose heads have rolled? I mean in a "just deserts" sense, not a resignation/sacking to go to a cushty new job, or a junior fallguy taking a guilty verdict with a presidential pardon. People don't just want to know that there has been some dodgy shit - they want to know the full extent of that dodgy shit and to see someone take responsibility for it. It's not unreasonable, and it's not stupid either, given the enormous global impact this war has had.

Nobody's heads have rolled. And there has been an immense amount of evidence indicating without doubt that there have been huge lies and deceptions.

Isn't _that_ the thing that needs to be addressed, rather than people hoping that, no, really, this time, this bit of evidence, that'll _really_ make sure they go down? In other words, trusting in the inherent rightness of the system but just thinking that the message hasn't got through, for some reason?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Straw man.

Not responding further.

It's not a straw man in the slightest, it's responding precisely to your point. People want to know what's going on; they can go down all sorts of paths when they try, and some of those paths will be bollocks.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip>

Nobody's heads have rolled. And there has been an immense amount of evidence indicating without doubt that there have been huge lies and deceptions.

Isn't _that_ the thing that needs to be addressed, rather than people hoping that, no, really, this time, this bit of evidence, that'll _really_ make sure they go down? In other words, trusting in the inherent rightness of the system but just thinking that the message hasn't got through, for some reason?

Dead on.

 

[ymu]

What's this deference to academics as specialised species not susceptible to hysteria or other bollocks anyway? Oh no, an academica has started a court case!!! Do you go weak kneed when you see a policeman? How abiout if 99% of all these other infallibles say the opposite?

Another straw man! Sublime.

I said in the post that they might well be fruitloops "(plenty of those in academia)". I am an academic - I know exactly how nutty they can be.

The court case is ongoing. Why do you feel the need to conclude that they are fruitloops before the outcome is known.

 

[EddyBlack]

What is this court case ymu? Do you know anything about it? Fisk doesn't tell us much.

 

[butchersapron]

Another straw man! Sublime.

I said in the post that they might well be fruitloops "(plenty of those in academia)". I am an academic - I know exactly how nutty they can be.

The court case is ongoing. Why do you feel the need to conclude that they are fruitloops before the outcome is known.

I didn't loopy, i said that that whether they were or not is entirely relavent, contra you own claim.

 

[ymu]

It's not a straw man in the slightest, it's responding precisely to your point. People want to know what's going on; they can go down all sorts of paths when they try, and some of those paths will be bollocks.

It's a straw man because you were not referring solely to conspiraloons in the post I responded to. So why do you only refer to them in your come back?

What about the millions of sane ordinary sceptical-of-both-extremes people I was referring to, because you were (originally) referring to them?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

It's a straw man because you were not referring solely to conspiraloons in the post I responded to. So why do you only refer to them in your come back?

What about the millions of sane ordinary sceptical-of-both-extremes people I was referring to, because you were (originally) referring to them?

It's not a straw man either way, and what I said was that anyone who did move on to loonery deserved to be told so. I didn't really think it was worth saying "but if they're being sensible then good on them".

You seemed to be implying that we shouldn't criticise anyone if they were motivated by wanting to know the truth. If that wasn't the case then fair enough, it was an irrelevant comment on my part. (Still wasn't a straw man.)

 

[ymu]

The fact that they've launched court cases is no more interesting than the fact that they said things in the first place.

Correct. The fact that people can't keep an open mind about their fruitloopery status until they've had a chance to read the outcome is bizarre though.

Fisk's article is peppered with disclaimers and "that might be bollocks but there's also this". How often does he need to put these in before the message gets through - so often it destroys the flow of his thesis? (which is that there are some questions that need answers, even if we're not sure what the right questions to ask are).

Nobody's heads have rolled. And there has been an immense amount of evidence indicating without doubt that there have been huge lies and deceptions.

Isn't _that_ the thing that needs to be addressed, rather than people hoping that, no, really, this time, this bit of evidence, that'll _really_ make sure they go down? In other words, trusting in the inherent rightness of the system but just thinking that the message hasn't got through, for some reason?

Of course. But how do we address this if the vast majority are oblivious to the fact that there's a problem?

No heads will roll until it's politically impossible for them not to. You make it politically impossible by making enough people sit up and take notice. How do you propose to do that? Loudly demanding answers to some reasonable questions seems like an OK tactic to me. Fruitloops make it harder for people to hear because most of us just tuned it all out after a while, but it's not a reason to abandon any attempt to get the public discourse back on a sensible track.

If you have the energy to engage in debates such as this, that is ... it's pretty tedious.

 

[ymu]

It's not a straw man either way, and what I said was that anyone who did move on to loonery deserved to be told so. I didn't really think it was worth saying "but if they're being sensible then good on them".

You seemed to be implying that we shouldn't criticise anyone if they were motivated by wanting to know the truth. If that wasn't the case then fair enough, it was an irrelevant comment on my part. (Still wasn't a straw man.)

But you said that it as a waste of time for sane people to ask questions. I disagreed. You came back with a diatribe about idiots falling for fruitloopery. I didn't see the need to respond to an irrelevant point, even if it was not a consciously constructed straw man (very few straw men are - people just know the arguments they want to make and go ahead regardless).

 

[butchersapron]

Fisk's article is peppered with disclaimers and "that might be bollocks but there's also this". How often does he need to put these in before the message gets through - so often it destroys the flow of his thesis? (which is that there are some questions that need answers, even if we're not sure what the right questions to ask are).

No it's not. I cant see anything like that.

I do see:

My final argument – a clincher, in my view – is that the Bush administration has screwed up everything – militarily, politically diplomatically – it has tried to do in the Middle East; so how on earth could it successfully bring off the international crimes against humanity in the United States on 11 September 2001?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.

 

[butchersapron]

Of course. But how do we address this if the vast majority are oblivious to the fact that there's a problem?

No heads will roll until it's politically impossible for them not to. You make it politically impossible by making enough people sit up and take notice. How do you propose to do that? Loudly demanding answers to some reasonable questions seems like an OK tactic to me. Fruitloops make it harder for people to hear because most of us just tuned it all out after a while, but it's not a reason to abandon any attempt to get the public discourse back on a sensible track.

If you have the energy to engage in debates such as this, that is ... it's pretty tedious.

Heads roll for what?

 

[ymu]

What is this court case ymu? Do you know anything about it? Fisk doesn't tell us much.

I think they've come up in threads here before - can't remember if it was interesting. Didn't know about the court case until Fisk mentioned it. Probably googlable, but I'm not gonna bother. These threads have a little of the car crash fascination about them, but, like car crashes, they're a lot more "fun" as a spectator. I should never have bothered posting in the first place - it puts the damn thing on the subscribe list. Bit of a schoolboy error. *slaps self*

 

[ymu]

Heads roll for what?

If I use FM's words to respond, will you leave me in peace?

Nobody's heads have rolled. And there has been an immense amount of evidence indicating without doubt that there have been huge lies and deceptions.

Isn't _that_ the thing that needs to be addressed

 

[butchersapron]

Flipping hell.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Fisk's article is peppered with disclaimers and "that might be bollocks but there's also this". How often does he need to put these in before the message gets through - so often it destroys the flow of his thesis? (which is that there are some questions that need answers, even if we're not sure what the right questions to ask are).

He needs to remove the references to the stuff that's easily countered as nonsense, downplay the stuff that's dubious and amplify the things which are pretty undeniable. That's not too controversial surely.... Constantly issuing disclaimers isn't the point unless you're presenting a list of "dubious claims" - we had vague disclaimers on the statements leading up to the Iraq invasion after all, "intelligence reports _suggest_" etc, but it's plausible deniability.

Of course. But how do we address this if the vast majority are oblivious to the fact that there's a problem?

No heads will roll until it's politically impossible for them not to. You make it politically impossible by making enough people sit up and take notice. How do you propose to do that? Loudly demanding answers to some reasonable questions seems like an OK tactic to me. Fruitloops make it harder for people to hear because most of us just tuned it all out after a while, but it's not a reason to abandon any attempt to get the public discourse back on a sensible track.

No. I disagree. We've gone beyond the stage where any rational human being needs to say "hold on, wait, I've just noticed that there are holes in this whole thing". There are massive gaping gaps through which entire road convoys pass every day, and it hasn't caused any real problems. Tinkering around the edges isn't going to do anything, demanding answers to edge-tinkering questions isn't going to do anything and I'm pretty sure that it's never going to be shown that BUSH KNEW or whatever. If people haven't sat up and taken notice yet you need to start addressing _why_ (which a lot of people have started doing, there's been a lot more interest in media theory and so on).

I can understand the desperation, people looking for some huge, undeniable truth in the face of media blackout and an unresponsive system, but a lot still seems to be on the basis that the system would respond if it only _knew_. If only King Richard knew about what was going on here, he'd come back and save us!

 

[ymu]

I'm not going to debate Fisk's style - he's always had his woolly moments, and neither of us know what he intended to achieve with that article anyway.

No. I disagree. We've gone beyond the stage where any rational human being needs to say "hold on, wait, I've just noticed that there are holes in this whole thing". There are massive gaping gaps through which entire road convoys pass every day, and it hasn't caused any real problems. Tinkering around the edges isn't going to do anything, demanding answers to edge-tinkering questions isn't going to do anything and I'm pretty sure that it's never going to be shown that BUSH KNEW or whatever. If people haven't sat up and taken notice yet you need to start addressing _why_ (which a lot of people have started doing, there's been a lot more interest in media theory and so on).

I can understand the desperation, people looking for some huge, undeniable truth in the face of media blackout and an unresponsive system, but a lot still seems to be on the basis that the system would respond if it only _knew_. If only King Richard knew about what was going on here, he'd come back and save us!

This is all true. But I still believe that the only way the "system" will change is if enough people demand that it does.

Examples of how we have been/are being duped are useful to theorists - they need them to develop a theory or it's all just hypothetical. Devastatingly awful examples which can be proven and pinned onto the current leadership are needed to actually bring about significant change. The theory is necessary, but not sufficient.

Anger is an energy, and it'll take one fuck of a lot of energy to make any practical difference to the current situation.

Ah fuck it. I'll just give up. It's easier.

 

[ymu]

No it's not. I cant see anything like that.

LOL. You don't even bother to read the OP on these threads before launching in.

Journalistically, there were many odd things about 9/11. Initial reports of reporters that they heard "explosions" in the towers – which could well have been the beams cracking – are easy to dismiss. Less so the report that the body of a female air crew member was found in a Manhattan street with her hands bound. OK, so let's claim that was just hearsay reporting at the time, just as the CIA's list of Arab suicide-hijackers, which included three men who were – and still are – very much alive and living in the Middle East, was an initial intelligence error.

 

[butchersapron]

LOL. You don't even bother to read the OP on these threads before launching in.

Uh, yeah i did, that's whay i've just pointed out the large picture of what fisk is actully saying - from the article like

And no, there's no serious disclaimers around those claims, they were atmosphere disclaimers - designed to build up an atmoshphere of doubt and disbelief. If he didn't believe them why incldue them?

I notice that you chose to ignore the bit where he called you a gullible fool -why was that?

 

[ymu]

Uh, yeah i did, that's whay i've just pointed out the large picture of what fisk is actully saying - from the article like

And no, there's no serious disclaimers around those claims, they were atmosphere disclaimers - designed to build up an atmoshphere of doubt and disbelief. If he didn't believe them why incldue them?

I notice that you chose to ignore the bit where he called you a gullible fool -why was that?

We can agree to disagree on his style - well, I can. I think he made it pretty clear that he's a sceptic and you agree. You may have more information (oh yeah, you think an impostor wrote it), but I for one don't know what his intention was with the article, 'cos it sure as hell doesn't help him ward off the "ravers".

Where did he call me a gullible fool? I did a search and Firefox reassures me that it isn't in the article. If you tell me the bit you're paraphrasing, I might be able to respond.

 

[butchersapron]

Of course it's my own paraphrase - here's the bit in the article that i didn't read and that you did that i used:

My final argument – a clincher, in my view – is that the Bush administration has screwed up everything – militarily, politically diplomatically – it has tried to do in the Middle East; so how on earth could it successfully bring off the international crimes against humanity in the United States on 11 September 2001?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.