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

[ymu]

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.

LOL!

Show me where I expressed an opinion about "what really happened" and I'll kiss your arse. Otherwise, face it, you're the mirror-image of Fisk's ravers.

Sublime? Ridiculous? YOU DECiDE.

 

[butchersapron]

LOL!

Show me where I expressed an opinion about "what really happened" and I'll kiss your arse. Otherwise, face it, you're the mirror-image of Fisk's ravers.

Sublime? Ridiculous? YOU DECiDE.

You've certainly suggested that there's a large conspiracy, one that has official backing - that's the sort of thing that Fisk dismisses as coming from 'ravers'.

You can't have him both ways you know.

 

[ymu]

You've certainly suggested that there's a large conspiracy, one that has official backing - that's the sort of thing that Fisk dismisses as coming from 'ravers'.

You can't have him both ways you know.

Quote me, or you'll look like a raver. Go on - you know I said it so you must know where I said it.

 

[butchersapron]

Quote me, or you'll look like a raver. Go on - you know I said it so you must know where I said it.

Where you've said what exactly?

Are you really going to argue that you've not suggested that there's a large conspiracy, one that has official backing?

Do fuck right off if so.

 

[ymu]

Where you've said what exactly?

Are you really going to argue that you've not suggested that there's a large conspiracy, one that has official backing?

Do fuck right off if so.

Yes, I am claiming that I have not suggested that there's a large conspiracy [E2A: with official backing, just to be crystal clear and not be accused of loophole leaving]. If you want to claim otherwise, it's only courtesy to offer proof when it is so easily available.

Raver.

 

[butchersapron]

The proof, if you, or anyone seriously needs it is in your posts on this very thread. Your posts about heads rolling, for example, suggest a larger agenda at work - one backed up the rest of your posts.

(ooh i'm trapped)

 

[butchersapron]

Even the loons refuse to admit that they're loons now.

 

[ymu]

Keep digging BA. You'll find a way out eventually I'm sure.

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

 

[butchersapron]

Already out my man, beaming at you from the top of the grave.

 

[ymu]

Can't see you yet BA. You made it to China?

It's an easy mistake to make. It's a 7 page thread - you can't be expected to remember what every single person said in every single post. To add to the mitigating circumstances, there has been no influx of the resident conspiraloons yet, which makes the assumption a lot more forgiveable; this is an urban 9/11 thread after all.

It's also an easy mistake to rectify. You 'fess up and apologise.

But you chose to make it difficult. No evidence to back your claim was available, so you questioned my honesty about the opinions I hold. You repeated this a couple of times. And then claimed you had proved something.

Because you're a raver.

 

[butchersapron]

Ok.

 

[8den]

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

Oh do fuck off dwyer you obnoxious cunt, I'm very familiar with the Tonkin incident including Robert Mc Namara's account as detailed in the documentary "the fog of war"

Don't assume someone looking at an event and drawing a different evaluation of what occured as unfamiliarity, you ignorant little twat.

 

[editor]

It doesn't matter one little bit.

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

I'd like you to explain your emphatic accusation that, "Any voice of question is stamped on by (my) dangerous extremism," please.

Y'see, I find that deeply insulting, so I do hope you're able to back it up with something substantial. I'm particularly interested in finding out how my supposed "extremism" (whatever that is) is actually dangerous.

 

[ymu]

The proof, if you, or anyone seriously needs it is in your posts on this very thread. Your posts about heads rolling, for example, suggest a larger agenda at work - one backed up the rest of your posts.

(ooh i'm trapped)

Returning late to this because it puzzled me and got me thinking. Apart from the sublime LOLness of the conspiranoid undertones, it did make me think about my "agenda" for wanting heads to roll. Is it just petty revenge fantasies because I hate them so much?

No, although there is a fair bit of spite in my feelings on the subject - I can't deny that. I concluded that it's my hopeless optimism again. I've been so incredibly angry about this for nearly 6 years now - surely if everyone felt like the same we'd have marched on our capitals long ago?

I don't think the system will spontaneously change for the better simply because "proof" of something awful comes to light. I don't want the system to change for the better. It's fundamentally flawed; I want it gone. I want a trigger for spontaneous global revolution.

If it turned out that it happened because Bush cancelled Clinton's anti-terrorism initiatives to divert money into tax cuts for the rich; held no meetings on anti-terrorism prior to 9/11 because he spends fuck all time at work; some idiot in the Pentagon thought it was a good idea to run such largescale training exercises that the US was left with virtually no air cover; noone thought to inform the Pentagon exercise planning types that multiple foreign security agencies were passing on intel concerning an imminent attack using aeroplanes; etc etc ad bloody nauseam ...

It would at the very least force closer scrutiny of the White House. Power has been continuously leeched from legislature to executive since Johnson, most obviously in foreign policy and the waging of war. Reversing this would be A Very Good Thing.

[hopeless optimism]
If elements of the USG "let it happen on purpose" or "made it happen on purpose", bingo - revolution.

If it was a Mossad operation (far and away the most plausible, IMO), Palestine would be free by the end of the day; Israelis and Palestinians would be embracing in the street and celebrating their fantastic good fortune that the nutters finally managed to get so out of line that even the US had to abandon them and set everyone else free.
[/hopeless optimism]

Naive? Most certainly. But I can dream, can't I?

 

[London_Calling]

I’m having trouble with logic again; why is it that if some elements don’t yet make sense to *us*, the next step is to question the entire immensely complex whole, rather than to try and understand why we don’t understand those few bits. For example;

If it is true, for example, 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?

He doesn't know the answer, I don't know the answer and I doubt many - if any - do. So why not concentrate on expanding our knowledge base. We're not exactly flush in experience of large planes flying into 100+ storey buildings?

In trying to approach the issues logically, context is important. How many direct and indirect things happened as they should in the given scenario and, equally, as importantly, didn't happen as they shoud in the given scenario - did plane doors blow out ? no, did 10 million other things function as you'd imagine they would? yes.

Is the CIA capable of forgery (the Atta letter) - do me a favour.

But thee are a few pieces in a 10 mile X 10 mile jigsaw that we haven't quite understood yet. It doesn't mean the jigsaw is fake.

 

[ymu]

But thee are a few pieces in a 10 mile X 10 mile jigsaw that we haven't quite understood yet. It doesn't mean the jigsaw is fake.

That sentence is pretty much a summary of the Fisk article (as I read it, anyway).

 

[Aldebaran]

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.

It is in my view very much the case with this governments especially.
It is also no secret that the USA is and always was far too self-absorbed arrogant to take intelligence coming from the outside serious (exception made for the Mossad since the CIA could use them as their teachers a bit more).
It is therefore a common joke that whenever something or someone gets blown up while the target of the assasination isn't even close, people say "That must have been the CIA".

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

This sort of emotional blackmail really gets on my tits.

Makes me wonder what you would do. Take it in silence, I suppose, and call any investigation or call for investigation "emotional blackmail".

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

Is the CIA capable of forgery (the Atta letter) - do me a favour.

Can you do me the favour of explaining what you mean exactly.

But thee are a few pieces in a 10 mile X 10 mile jigsaw that we haven't quite understood yet. It doesn't mean the jigsaw is fake.

I think, seen the complexity of the issue, that it involves quite some more than "a few" pieces and that any useful, truly independent and non-biased investigation shall only be possible over time, if ever.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

That sentence is pretty much a summary of the Fisk article (as I read it, anyway).

Exactly.

salaam.

 

[London_Calling]

Can you do me the favour of explaining what you mean exactly.

The CIA don't exist to tell the truth, it isn't their job.

 

[ymu]

Can you do me the favour of explaining what you mean exactly.

I'm fairly sure he means ... Do bears shit in the woods?... Is the Pope Catholic? ... Is there any point in asking a question to which the answer is so well known and so entirely uncontroversial?

salaam



E2A: oops, sorry LC - didn't realise you were still here.

 

[Aldebaran]

The CIA don't exist to tell the truth, it isn't their job.

No, but such doesn't prevent people - let alone a journalist - of pointing that out to the gullible who firmly believe it is their job to be "honest" and to "protect the Good Old USA, Land of the Free, God's Chosen Nation".

salaam.

 

[butchersapron]

Makes me wonder what you would do. Take it in silence, I suppose, and call any investigation or call for investigation "emotional blackmail".

salaam.

What?

 

[London_Calling]

Alde - Well, he could just say 'you can ignore this letter, because the providers don't come with clean hands'. Insteat, what he tries to do is weave it in with other 'unanswered questions' as if, together, they could form a strong case.


btw, the phrase is a colloquialism, (possibly) predominately of the London area, as in 'Do me a favour . . . and don't waste my time with such transparent nonsense'.

 

[ymu]

Things all urban 9/11ers should know: #68

Feigning obtuseness is also an excellent means of avoiding actually answering a point when you know you can't. NB: there is no other plausible reason to do this on a 9/11 thread, so use with care.

 

[ymu]

Alde - Well, he could just say 'you can ignore this letter, because the providers don't come with clean hands'. Insteat, what he tries to do is weave it in with other 'unanswered questions' as if, together, they could form a strong case.

Fisk has no theory - he doesn't claim to know what happened any more than most sane people.

It's obvious that an intelligence agency faked it. If forensics could distinguish CIA from Mossad handiwork it'd be a bonus, but even then it's not evidence in favour of any single theory anywhere on the 9/11 spectrum. This is the only bit of the whole article that is very very clearly important, not a load of tenuous bollocks and which clearly points to propaganda overdrive in the aftermath of 9/11.

The article is about 9/11 and someone on the newsdesk chose a godawful headline; doesn't make him a conspiraloon. Read what he says, not what you assume he's going to say.

 

[London_Calling]

But what about the weird letter allegedly written by Mohamed Atta – released by the CIA –

For a man who has managed to keep the CIA in a sensible context throughout his journalistic career, the above is not great.

Read what he says, not what you assume he's going to say.

Thanks for the advice. Again. If it's okay with you, I think I'll continue to read the text, the subtext and between the lines.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Ymu: You're wrong consistently here.

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.

Then they should find a new job. I found the answers to some of the questions Fisk asks within minutes of starting to search.

Fisk has no theory - he doesn't claim to know what happened any more than most sane people.

He hasn't even tried to find out what the official report says but he does, explicitly state that it does not answer certain points.

Why on earth are you wasting time trying to defend an article that would be ripped to bits if Jazzz or friends had posted it up? Just because Fisk did some good work once upon a time is no excuse for sloppy half arsed ignorance to be published in a leading newspaper.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

If it is true, for example, 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?

He doesn't know the answer, I don't know the answer and I doubt many - if any - do.

He damned well should, the answers are in the NIST report.