Robert Fisk, in his article 'Even I question the 'truth' about 9/11' seems to be denigrating, by association, the many science and engineering professors, airline pilots, ex-air traffic controllers, ex-military personnel and other intelligent people who have been questioning the official story of 9/11 ever since they first noticed far more of the many discrepancies than he points out.
Read his article here:-
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18252.htm
Extract:-
"I am increasingly troubled at the inconsistencies in the official narrative of 9/11. It's not just the obvious non sequiturs: where are the aircraft parts (engines, etc) from the attack on the Pentagon? Why have the officials involved in the United 93 flight (which crashed in Pennsylvania) been muzzled? Why did flight 93's debris spread over miles when it was supposed to have crashed in one piece in a field? Again, I'm not talking about the crazed "research" of David Icke's Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster – which should send any sane man back to reading the telephone directory.
I am talking about scientific issues. 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? (They collapsed in 8.1 and 10 seconds.) What about the third tower – the so-called World Trade Centre Building 7 (or the Salmon Brothers Building) – which collapsed in 6.6 seconds in its own footprint at 5.20pm on 11 September? Why did it so neatly fall to the ground when no aircraft had hit it? 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"."
Robert Fisk insists he is not a conspiracy theorist. This does not sit well with all his very real problems with the official line on 9/11; that these problematic impossibilities should be fed out as the truth implies conspiracy both in their formulation and propagation, and also lack of questioning by the media. But 9/11 aside, is Mr. Fisk unaware of precedents throughout history? Hitler's burning of the Reichstag (not personally!); his ordering fake attacks on German bases and a radio station to frame Poland and give a pretext to attack; the 'Gulf of Tonkin Incident', used by LBJ to massively escalate the Vietnam war and which is now shown as a fiction: Pearl Harbor (see 'Day of Deceit', Robert Stinnett), enticed by FDR, and with all Japanese naval codes broken; Nero burning Rome, and blaming the Christians? But the killer for Mr. Fisk should be the USS Liberty.
In 1967 Israel launched a murderous attack on the USS Liberty, attacking it with HE bombs, napalm, machine gun fire, cannon, rocket and even brought in 3 MTB's who torpedoed it, and machine-gunned the liferafts both on deck and in the water. The US threatened the survivors with courts martial, prison OR WORSE, if they breathed a word to anyone, even their families, about the attack. To this day there hasn't been a proper inquiry. He may know all this already; what he probably doesn't know is that the US Sixth Fleet launched nuclear-armed planes to bomb Egypt in 'retaliation' for Israel's (but to be blamed on Egypt) attack, and they were recalled with 3 minutes to target. He should check out the sites below, and also Peter Hounam's book 'Operation Cyanide', which should be required reading for all students or reporters on the Middle East.
This stuff is really dynamite, and very useful in exposing US/Israeli machinations, with an immediate application in throwing a spanner in plans to attack Iran. PLEASE CHECK THIS STUFF OUT. The survivors have a website, and are still trying to get a proper inquiry.
Here are a couple of sites on the subjest: (See 'Loss of Liberty'
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7267134620652018859 and 'Dead in the Water' http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5073.html ) 'Dead in the Water' is BBC programme commissioned from Peter Hounam (who broke Mordechai Vanunu's story about Israel's nuclear arsenal) who also wrote the excellent 'Operation Cyanide' on the same subject.
I hope someone ensures Mr. Fisk is made aware of this post.
---
www.patriotsquestion911.com
Now let's see what IMC's ADL talking heads like Big Lizard and 'anarchist' can make of this. Anyone want to bet that they'll just trash Fisk and avoid the message? It's a certainty, IMO.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18252.htm Extract:-
"I am increasingly troubled at the inconsistencies in the official narrative of 9/11. It's not just the obvious non sequiturs: where are the aircraft parts (engines, etc) from the attack on the Pentagon? Why have the officials involved in the United 93 flight (which crashed in Pennsylvania) been muzzled? Why did flight 93's debris spread over miles when it was supposed to have crashed in one piece in a field? Again, I'm not talking about the crazed "research" of David Icke's Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster – which should send any sane man back to reading the telephone directory.
I am talking about scientific issues. 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? (They collapsed in 8.1 and 10 seconds.) What about the third tower – the so-called World Trade Centre Building 7 (or the Salmon Brothers Building) – which collapsed in 6.6 seconds in its own footprint at 5.20pm on 11 September? Why did it so neatly fall to the ground when no aircraft had hit it? 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"."
Robert Fisk insists he is not a conspiracy theorist. This does not sit well with all his very real problems with the official line on 9/11; that these problematic impossibilities should be fed out as the truth implies conspiracy both in their formulation and propagation, and also lack of questioning by the media. But 9/11 aside, is Mr. Fisk unaware of precedents throughout history? Hitler's burning of the Reichstag (not personally!); his ordering fake attacks on German bases and a radio station to frame Poland and give a pretext to attack; the 'Gulf of Tonkin Incident', used by LBJ to massively escalate the Vietnam war and which is now shown as a fiction: Pearl Harbor (see 'Day of Deceit', Robert Stinnett), enticed by FDR, and with all Japanese naval codes broken; Nero burning Rome, and blaming the Christians? But the killer for Mr. Fisk should be the USS Liberty.
In 1967 Israel launched a murderous attack on the USS Liberty, attacking it with HE bombs, napalm, machine gun fire, cannon, rocket and even brought in 3 MTB's who torpedoed it, and machine-gunned the liferafts both on deck and in the water. The US threatened the survivors with courts martial, prison OR WORSE, if they breathed a word to anyone, even their families, about the attack. To this day there hasn't been a proper inquiry. He may know all this already; what he probably doesn't know is that the US Sixth Fleet launched nuclear-armed planes to bomb Egypt in 'retaliation' for Israel's (but to be blamed on Egypt) attack, and they were recalled with 3 minutes to target. He should check out the sites below, and also Peter Hounam's book 'Operation Cyanide', which should be required reading for all students or reporters on the Middle East.
This stuff is really dynamite, and very useful in exposing US/Israeli machinations, with an immediate application in throwing a spanner in plans to attack Iran. PLEASE CHECK THIS STUFF OUT. The survivors have a website, and are still trying to get a proper inquiry.
Here are a couple of sites on the subjest: (See 'Loss of Liberty'
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7267134620652018859 and 'Dead in the Water' http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5073.html ) 'Dead in the Water' is BBC programme commissioned from Peter Hounam (who broke Mordechai Vanunu's story about Israel's nuclear arsenal) who also wrote the excellent 'Operation Cyanide' on the same subject. I hope someone ensures Mr. Fisk is made aware of this post.
---
www.patriotsquestion911.com
Now let's see what IMC's ADL talking heads like Big Lizard and 'anarchist' can make of this. Anyone want to bet that they'll just trash Fisk and avoid the message? It's a certainty, IMO.
Comments
Hide the following 10 comments
been there
27.08.2007 11:57
done that
Apologies to Danny but...
27.08.2007 13:10
http://tinyurl.com/yt2gwa for A3 version
Conspiraloon - not even a word.
Truther - how easy it is to 'defuse reality' by turning the positive into a negative. It seems to be stock in trade for well-honed propagandists.
And where did Tin Foil Hat come from? Same stable as poorly armoured Humvees perhaps?!
jefferson's ghost
Bad vocabulary
27.08.2007 14:54
Fisks use of the word 'raver' is similarly dismisive for one so skilled at writing who is admitting his own doubts. It is also a bit dated given most of his readers are young enough to associate 'raves' with dance events instead of diatribes.
Nonetheless, my article took some major criticism for both arguable and totally irrelevant reasons. Chances are at least one of the Fisk quotes is going to be hidden. I'd be happy if either of them were allowed to stand and I hope you feel the same now that I've explained my choice of title.
Danny
Danny, it's a shame in some ways that...
27.08.2007 16:04
Methought it was just another Zionist-apologist rant...
Did ya notice that Cheney has called up an air defense battalion to 'defend' DC next month? From whom, I wonder; Fulford's ninjas coming out of the skies? sept11.org? Or maybe he's just feeling lonely? :)
.
jefferson's ghost
"one leading idiot introducing another"
29.08.2007 23:18
Chomsky introduces Robert Fisk (hence the quoted title) at the Tech & Culture forum at MIT.
It's worth watching if only for the humour. At any rate, it shows how worried Fisk will be about making himself a target of ridicule.
Washo
"Even I" Fisk and 9/11
30.08.2007 06:03
Last time I looked at the reactions concerning Fisk's aricle, that's 07.00 o'clock (GMT) Thursday morning August 30, 2007, there were 519 - Five-hundred-nineteen - and that shows the enormous interest. - Haloscan comments - Url.:
Concerning 9/11, the unreliable Fisk wrote: "I am the Middle East correspondent of The Independent, not the conspiracy correspondent." This concerning the 'inside job' of 9/11 and the massacre of first 3000 people, and now ten thousands more because of the enormous cloud of poisonous dust covering Manhattan etc. when the three buildings - with all the asbest - were 'pulled' in a controlled demolition. And now Fisk is calling people who ask about scientific proof and the law of nature 'ravers'? Like the other Chomsky's of this world?
Maybe we better ask Fisk and his UK collaborators to explain the D-Notice to us? And the bad effect it has on the UK media? The total control which the UK Crown, the so called UK government, the Home Office, the military, secret services etc. have on all UK media? - Url.:
I've said it before and will gladly repeat it: none of those so called 'liberal' papers in the UK: The Independent, The Observer and the Guardian, none of those 'alibi' rags can be trusted one way or the other. The alternative information on Internet - like on sites by 'Information Clearing House' - is much better.
THEY ALWAYS COLLABORATED WITH THE SECRET SERVICE SPOOKS
Look at their deeds, not their words: for instance at the late Observer owner, Tim 'Tiny' Rowland, who was one of the influential press barons for the multinational group of war 'Lords' in London, running the wars and profits. Rowland helped wrecking Africa and always collaborated with MI5 and MI6. Plus with the CIA, Mossad etc.:
I've seen Fisk in Beirut during the time I lived and worked as an independent correspondent for ten years in the area, based in Tunis, the capital of Tunisia. (And neighbor to Libya.) And it's a fact that people like Fisk, Chomsky etc. already work for decades for the group wrecking mankind - like in Chomsky's case MIT, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a university-complex which 'fabricated' him and put him on a piedestal while wheeling and dealing as one of the main contractors with the military industrial complex. You really think they'd make and pay Chomsky for decades, if they don't like what he's doing? Gimme a break!
THE FULL STORY OF 9/11
Fisk thinks the WTC drama was not the criminal work of the US/UK junta with Israel's help, and finishes as usual with some questions: ''I would like to know the full story of 9/11, not least because it was the trigger for the whole lunatic, meretricious "war on terror" which has led us to disaster in Iraq and Afghanistan and in much of the Middle East. Bush's happily departed adviser Karl Rove once said that "we're an empire now – we create our own reality". True? At least tell us. It would stop people kicking over chairs."
"At least tell us." Fisk writes. But that's also contrary to logical and journalistical knowledge: one has to investigate, because they're not spilling their beans voluntarily. Especially not the criminal beans.
And Fisk could at least tell us that the phrase: "We're An Empire Now...We Create Our Own Reality" could be read in the NY TIMES MAGAZINE in an article by Ron Suskind, who was quoting an aide in the White Haus. Not Rove, even if he's a bad genius, the propaganda minister and Goebbels of the plutocrats.
But in the article it's the usual Fisk c.s. ambiguity: 25% correct and the rest is ads and propaganda, the 'liberalism' like some sugar making the medicine go down. And make people think those computer 'coolies' (Chinese term meaning 'bitter labor') really are 'liberal'...
Because what Fisk produces is not honest reporting, it's propaganda covered with 'journalism'.
In Sweden they call an unreliable person like that 'en full fisk', an ugly fish...
And I think they're right.
Henk Ruyssenaars - former Mideast correspondent
e-mail:
fpf@chello.nl
Homepage:
http://images.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22Henk+Ruyssenaars%22&btnG=Search
Fisk, the "Patriots" and WTC7
30.08.2007 10:44
One thing that struck me about Fisk's article is that he clearly hasn't really studied the matter for long and this is backed up by what he was reported as saying just a month ago, that "he does not have time to look into it [9/11] as he is too busy reporting on events on the ground in the Middle East"
The refusal of many on the left to look at the evidence from the 9/11 truth movement is nothing new, it's is the attitude of Chomsky to the killing of JFK, Michael Parenti put it like this:
"Chomsky is able to maintain his criticism that no credible evidence has come to light only by remaining determinedly unacquainted with the mountain of evidence that has been uncovered."
That it took lots of people ranting and raving at Fisk's public meetings to get him to finally look at the evidence is understandable, from both sides -- of course it would be better if everybody had open minds on the matter to start with but they don't. One thing to bare in mind is that all the "ravers" no doubt believed the official story of 9/11 to start with -- this is partly why they end up "raving"! The "ravers" need to calm down though -- look at the comments on Fisk's article on Information Clearing House, this is grim reading, most people totally miss the point, the following comment being an exception to this:
"Some people here need to pay attention to context. If this was just a post on ICH.com, yes it would be a pretentious piece of nothing. Fisk is what the NYTs has described as "perhaps the most famous foreign correspondent in Britain" and is writing in a mainstream British newspaper, the kind that gets printed on actual paper and read by 'captains of industry' and the like. Robert Fisk is using his clout, reputation and access to inform some very skeptical, very sheeplike people about some very important facts, and to raise doubt in peoples minds about what really happened on that day. Yes, I'm sure many of you, if you had the chance, would write an editorial in The Independent titled "Bush is Satan and the Zionists helped him Slaughter Millions!!!." And people would be *less* likely to believe what you're saying, because youve forgotten about a thing called context. There's a saying, 'don't look a gift horse in the mouth.'"
leftlibertarian | 08.26.07 - 8:46 pm
There are a lot of careless errors in Fisk's article, no doubt since he hasn't spent much time looking into 9/11, for example the collapse times for the buildings -- the ones he quotes are too short, see:
Regarding the article above which promotes the website PatriotsQuestion911.com -- there is a problem here -- the site mixes disinformation with good information, see this essay about it:
Discrediting By Association: Undermining the Case for Patriots Who Question 9/11
Fisk is correct to identify the structural failure of WTC Building 7 (AKA the Salomon Brothers Building, Fisk spells the name wrong) as a key issue -- there is more on the collapse of Building 7 in this Indymedia feature article from last year:
11th September 2001, Five Years On
And of course remember that BBC World reported that it had collapsed before it did!
The bottom line is that the building was clearly blown up. As for who exactly was behind it -- who knows, I don't, but it was obviously done to win support for the, already planned, next stage of the Imperial domination of the Middle East -- it was a staged event to justify the next round of genocide to be perpetrated by the Anglo / US Empire. This context has been explained by Nafeez Ahmed, see for example this recording:
Creating Terror
Chris
Other progressives questioning 9/11
30.08.2007 13:29
Bravo! Mr. Fisk - Robert Fisk and 9/11
Even I question the 'truth' about 9/11
And Kim Petersen:
The Puzzling Suspension of Incredulity to the “Official” 9-11 Theory
And, in reply to an attack on Fisk in CounterPunch:
Robert Fisk's Skepticism vs. Manuel Garcia Jr.s Shameless Propaganda
Surfer
Chris
30.08.2007 14:03
I'm biting my tongue on Fisk's recent announcement. Chiefly because, despite very occasionally not quite seeing things his way (unlike Pilger who I very often have problems with, but trust his motivation), I think he's probably the best FC in the Middle East and quite obviously not any easy mark for nutty theories.
But, it doesn't take a genius to rumble the NeoCons as pathological liars, lying is their open doctrine (see Kristol & Strauss) and reason alone to suppose that perhaps a major element of 9/11 was part of their Noble Lie.
Not wishing to fan a flame war, but I see much of the WTC-centric "research" as being at best largely irrelevant and at worst a dangerous marginalisation of calls for a real investigation. Much of it has been long discredited or unsupported by the research communities that are relevant and in itself too bound up in some sort of holy war to prove itself right, in reverse- mainly b shouting louder than any opponents.
Even if I'm wrong about demolition I'm sure we'd both agree that really big question is "WHO did it?"
Anyway, maybe Fisk will be the first prominent journo to actually dig down behind the cushions of the 9/11 couch. But, I'll be very disappointed if he turns up in Loose Change v325.22pb with nothing better than a "Yeah, I agree!" posture.
CHOMSKY
The silliest counter-smear I have so far heard is that Chomsky is too scared to speak out on 9/11 because he has a body of work to protect. People seem often to be unaware that Chomsky has no significant income from "his" political output. The guy is already a living legend in linguistics and in the linguistics field he's largely acknowledged as a genius but with the caveat always tacked on "... not that I agree with his politics" and sometimes with the intonation to indicate he's the mad uncle kept in the attic. In his professional sphere you are nothing but a source of peer-reviewable papers and for the really sad people, a collection of letters after your name. And that was the case well before 9/11.
Chomsky is an academic and a scientist and has spent the majority of his life sifting data, formulating repeatable evaluations and tweaking protocols. The vast quantity of 9/11 output is so far speculative (and will remain so until an open inquiry). In that context, I can easily see why he has looked at the hypotheses that Sheen was endorsing and just shook his head.
I think there is going to have to come a time where 9/11 Truth comes through a schism and a purge of the loony brigade, the agenda brigade and the snake oil peddlers before it can progress to wider endorsement. Perhaps after that, any kneejerk culture from the science community will soften.
I hope Fisk is a sign of that change and that he hasn't just "done an Icke."
P.S.
I suspect you aren't aware that the word "patriot" in the US has some negative associations with the NWO-obsessed militias. It often translated as: racist, paranoid, gun nut who would like to see the return of Apartheid and believe that black helicopters are controlling people's mind with microwaves. It's that kind of association that scares many people away .
Washo
Henk
30.08.2007 23:19
Call yourself a journalist ? There are your leads.
Danny