A little truth
It turns out that journalist Robert Fisk is a bit of a lunatic:
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?…
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?…
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.
His last point above, about the flight attendant, is incandescent in revealing the lunacy of Mr. Fisk. The normal mind cannot conceive of a conspiracy so enormous, complex, well-planned, haphazard, and immune to the laws of physics that it would produce such bizarre evidence.
August 25th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
This article gives one a good idea of how much credence one ought to put in the rest of what Fisk has to say.
August 26th, 2007 at 8:38 am
Robert Fisk is a poster child for West-hating Western elites. This post-9/11 article, originally published in The Independent, caused a verb to be named after him.
August 26th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
911 is unbearable for Fisk and his like because it undercuts their favourite narrative. This holds that the West (or, preferably, the US) can only be oppressors and that suffering must always occur among the designated oppressed. Any suffering that occurs among the oppressors is therefore either deserved or unbelievable. It is, in any case, self-induced.
911 was so outrageous an act that, according to this world-view, only the oppressors (ie The US) could be responsible. Thus the need to find that not only was it deserved, but also (despite the contradiction) self-inflicted.
Prediction: If Iraq emerges, as a result of American action, a reasonably functional state, the need to “uncover the truth about 911″ will become overwhelming.
August 27th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Why don’t you answer the questions that Fisk raises instead of just slinging mud? How is it that the insults, “lunatic, moron, idiot, coward, etc.” always come from those who try to support the official account of 9/11? Have you heard anyone from the other side using those terms? We all know the explanation. If you have no way of attacking the message, you attack the messager; but you’ll never impress an intelligent audience by that manoeuvre. I suggest that you grow up and begin to talk some sense.