Discussion in 'Compendium Of Kerrrr-azy Conspiracies' started by Barking_Mad, Aug 25, 2007.
Robert Fisk questioning the truth about 9/11 thats about as shocking as Pete Docherty doing drugs .
I hope the editor turns up soon to put us right about this fruitloop 'Fisk'.
Sorry, I must have missed his references to holographic planes, invisible people invisibly installing invisible explosives, perfectly faked phone calls and all the other idiotic bullshit that terminally gullible mugs swallow wholesale from moronic sites.
I didn't know about that (hence didn't see that text either).
But that is indeed truly very very weird. Hardly believable, in fact.
There is a point there though.
There are quite a few fishy things about 911 but the conspiracy theorists have in my opinion made the subject toxic with their ravings.
I'm amazed that Fisk has even mentioned it, because the potential smear by association, e.g. with the likes of prisonplanet, is now and forever going to be used to discredit his all-too-sane journalism about the Middle East.
Harry's Place will be wetting themselves with joy.
Trouble is, all the examples I quoted have been posted here multiple times by self proclaimed 'truth seekers' and can also be found repeated on just about every 9/11 'truth seeking' site.
So there goes your 'point.'
'Truth seekers' or just Dr Jazzz?
Time and time again it has been proven that the majority of people here believe the official version of 9/11 doesn't ring true. You know this.
Any voice of question is stamped on by your dangerous extremism.
i have a lot of time for fisk, his books on lebanon and the middle east are excellent
who are these 'Two prominent American professors of mechanical engineering '
tried google but all i get is the fisk article
havent really got the patience to go through all the 911 sites looking for it
but im sure some one will know
1. You brought up 'fruitloops.' I responded to that definition.
2. You'll find that many posters have made claims about holographic planes on these boards - you'll find most of their comments residing in the bin. You'll also find no shortage of similar claims on a host of sites elsewhere.
3. "Dangerous extremism"?!!
Get a grip, for fuck's sake.
funnily enough I picked up "The GWofC" again today, I had to lay off it for 4 months due to its depressing effects. Fisk is right as far as I can see, but if he goes on like this he's gonna get bumped. FACT.....
You mean like all those other truth seekers who have got too close to the truth have been bumped off by The Man?
Oh, hold on. That hasn't happened at all. FACT.
The thing is that so many of his questions have been answered here, let alone in the total extremis of the internet, for an investigative journalist it's rather disappointing.
The routefinder thing again.
Answered in the NIST report if you look for it. IIRC
If he wants answers to his questions then he should look for them rather than assuming none exist.
And if he's right, what next?
Send George Bush to the electric chair??
Let's hope the non conspiracy loons (NCL's) are right
In the face of zero supporting evidence, have you now abandoned your claim that "he's gonna get bumped. FACT....."?
Yes and yes.
One can only hope the general public can make the distinction between a man who earned his credentials long ago and arm chair generals defending far-sought nonsense.
All investigative journalists expose themselves to risks, Fisk has had a couple of close shaves already. I hope he doesn't get bumped, but making claims like this certainly won't make him any less of a target for pro war, right wing extremists.
the fact bit was wrong, I apoligise
Whilst I think we should all keep a more open mind on a subject as globally significant as 9/11, I'm surprised at Fisk trotting out long-debunked theories like the 93 debris trail and entertaining no-planes (at the Pentagon) and all that implies. He didn't speak of holograms or space beam weapons, but then I honestly doubt that any sane person can seriously consider these theories - it even seems dumb having to say that.
It is however deeply sad that any discussion on the subject has to be ruined by stubborn hot heads on both sides of the debate who won't accept that they could be wrong. Also Fisk is taking a real professional risk in the manner he's jumped into this subject, given his brief. There's so much crap out there and he seems to have swallowed some of it.
I'll stick with my position on the subject of "I don't know", but those horrible atrocities of 6 years ago certainly allowed the Bush administration and the PNAC folks who pull the strings to put their pet plans into action. Since the Iraq invasion and the terrible aftermath, it almost seems like the NeoCons have been neutered somewhat, but the "mission" isn't finished in the middle east and I can see 9/11 or a similar attack continuing to be used to justify further slaughter of innocents for the foreseeable...
agree word for word.
i've been saying for years that the conspiracy theorists have destroyed all possibility of getting any proper investigation done.
theres so much dodgy stuff there but so many of the truth movement have made such mental claims that for many people asking questions gets you lumped into that movement.
I thought his views seemed entirely rational. What's the 'crap' he's swallowed?
I must be on a lot of ignore lists.
But, they are fair and rational questions. He doesn't claim to have the answers. He's merely pointing out that there are valid questions to be answered. I don't have enough interest to go Googling for answers. I'm happy to accept the inspectors (whoever they are) findings.
The Pentagon thing is a valid question also. Initial reports were of a rocket attack, so it's entirely understandable that people start asking questions when it's reported as a plane crash.
The collapse of WTC 7 is a bit more suspicious.
I think he is just making the point that it's very understandable that controversy surrounds the events of 9/11. Then when Karl Rove comes out with "we're an empire now – we create our own reality" it only fuels the suspicions.
The Third paragraph of the article pretty much shapes how I read the rest:
He isn't claiming to have answers, simply arguing that it's understandable that there are many questions being asked.
He's not. He's asking questions that have already been answered. He's either ignorant of the answers because he hasn't looked for them or he's ignorant because he swallowed the shite on conspiraloon sites that says none exist.
You say you're happy to accept the inspector's answers, that's fair, so am i when they make sense. But i would not be so cavalier as to assume they haven't done so without checking. He has done exactly that.
But, he hasn't claimed to have the answers. Fucked if I can find anything reliable with a quick Google. He uses terms like "if it is true" not "I believe"...
There are still some very valid questions that remain unanswered.
Robert Fisk has done enough good work to be allowed the odd lapse/imprecision.
As has been stated above, the toxic effect of 9/11 cult activities has been to delegitimise trivialise & side-line the important questions that can be asked about 9/11 as with any other event. A good book which asks important questions rationally is James Ridgeway's 'Five Unanswered Questions About 9/11'.
On a fundamental level, like Michael Moore's apparent wobbling recently, Fisk asking questions that have in some cases already been answered is testament to the pernicious power and influence of the 9/11 cult. Which needs to be opposed.
A rather large difference between fisk and loons is that he is simply asking questions (albeit they appear to outdated uninformed questions). He's not filled in the gaps himself with some paranoid madeness as far as i can see.
(And the obvious corrorally to this is, just because Fisk has done great work in his forgein reporting it doesn't follow that all he writes about every subject is correct or worth bothering with.0
Also, 'Even I question the 'truth' about 9/11' appears only in the headline and doesn't really follow the content of the article and is just a bit of polemical READ THIS!!! nonsense really.
He's claimed they don't exist;
He then lists things that ARE COVERED in the official narrative.
He's not making things up, but if he's going to write about it then he has an obligation to do his research. Which he hasn't. Conspiraloon no, an instance of bad journalism yes.
Separate names with a comma.