Thursday, 30 August 2007

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

The questions are finally starting to hit powerful mainstream commentators like Fisk. It's taken long enough! There is a good critique of the piece located here which does a point-by-point breakdown. I must say that I would rather have Fisk raising questions that others might hear than blindly supporting the "official story", even if he doesn't get it completely straight it's quite a big leap for him to even be saying what he's saying. The "incompetance" theory is one I hear a lot, people seem to think the US government is too stoopid to organise something like this, I don't buy it, that is exactly what they want us to think! Bush may be the biggest moron on the planet but Cheney isn't, and Cheney has an overactive evil gene so I would not put it past him!

Each time I lecture abroad on the Middle East, there is always someone in the audience – just one – whom I call the "raver". Apologies here to all the men and women who come to my talks with bright and pertinent questions – often quite humbling ones for me as a journalist – and which show that they understand the Middle East tragedy a lot better than the journalists who report it. But the "raver" is real. He has turned up in corporeal form in Stockholm and in Oxford, in Sao Paulo and in Yerevan, in Cairo, in Los Angeles and, in female form, in Barcelona. No matter the country, there will always be a "raver".

His – or her – question goes like this. Why, if you believe you're a free journalist, don't you report what you really know about 9/11? Why don't you tell the truth – that the Bush administration (or the CIA or Mossad, you name it) blew up the twin towers? Why don't you reveal the secrets behind 9/11? The assumption in each case is that Fisk knows – that Fisk has an absolute concrete, copper-bottomed fact-filled desk containing final proof of what "all the world knows" (that usually is the phrase) – who destroyed the twin towers. Sometimes the "raver" is clearly distressed. One man in Cork screamed his question at me, and then – the moment I suggested that his version of the plot was a bit odd – left the hall, shouting abuse and kicking over chairs.

Usually, I have tried to tell the "truth"; that while there are unanswered questions about 9/11, I am the Middle East correspondent of The Independent, not the conspiracy correspondent; that I have quite enough real plots on my hands in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Iran, the Gulf, etc, to worry about imaginary ones in Manhattan. 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. "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.

Within hours, al-Qa'ida attacked Baquba in battalion strength and slaughtered all the local sheikhs who had thrown in their hand with the Americans. It reminds me of Vietnam, the war which George Bush watched from the skies over Texas – which may account for why he this week mixed up the end of the Vietnam war with the genocide in a different country called Cambodia, whose population was eventually rescued by the same Vietnamese whom Mr Bush's more courageous colleagues had been fighting all along.

But – here we go. 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".

MUST READS
Where Fisk Goes Wrong About 9/11
"Noooooooo, Robert Fisk. Don't go down the black hole!!!"


Full story...

5 comments:

Winter Patriot said...

Hi. Thanks for posting this.

Personally I think he's got it all mixed up but and do a lot of others. But rather than simply calling him a moonbat I explain my reasoning here:

Where Fisk Goes Wrong About 9/11

Click if you're interested, no penalty if you're not.

Cheers
WP

Winter Patriot said...

OOPS! bad grammar there, sorry. I was trying to say:

I think he's got it all mixed up and so do a lot of others ...

Ewar Woowar said...

Don't worry about the grammar, this is the Internet! Thanks for your comments, I've added a couple of links to your piece into the post. I thought your analysis was excellent. Thanks again ;-)

Ewar Woowar said...

I've added your blog feed to the right-bar of the codshit blog. I think it's excellent.

Winter Patriot said...

Thanks very much both for the link and the kind words.

Best wishes
WP