Tuesday, August 28, 2007

"Noooooooo, Robert Fisk. Don't go down the black hole!!!"

Robert Fisk is getting a lot of flack these days, and it is not coming from those one would expect -- those shrill "ravers" as Fisk likes to describe those people who like to throw chairs and tables around ranting about why nobody takes them seriously when they express their doubts about 9/11. No, this time the flack is coming from those esteemed defenders of the official myth of 9/11 in the so-called "left".

In case you missed it, Fisk wrote a quasi-polemic piece titled: "Robert Fisk: Even I question the 'truth' about 9/11," which generated a backlash from the keepers of the faith like Manuel Garcia Jr. and Andrew Bolt from the "Herald Sun."

Fisk's story can be read here: news.independent.co.uk/fisk/article2893860.ece

Fisk starts his piece tepidly enough, saying how he doesn't think the Bush administration could have pulled off 9/11 because of their incompetence in the Middle East. He writes:
"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?"
... however, Fisk proceeds to lay out a case for the opposite conclusion -- that maybe they are not as incompetent as they seem:
"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?"
Here Fisk, though not exactly practicing "doublethink" (the ability to hold on to two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously and accepting both of them) is coming very close to practicing that talent.

But, I don't want to rant or "rave" on Fisk however. I actually admire him for taking a step into the "blackhole" with the rest of us "troofers," as the counter-9/11 conspiracy types like to call us (I am not sure what that implies, but I guess it is their lame attempt at humor). No, this article has to do with the attacks by the "left" on Fisk for doing "crimethink," which is the worst crime one can commit according to the Outer Party in Orwell's 1984. By Fisk thinking out of the box(cutters) and expressing doubts about the official story he is, in effect, committing a horrible, unspeakable act which must be rectified at all costs.

And, who should come to the rescue to save Fisk from his doubting-thomas self but Manuel Garcia Jr. who can barely contain himself in his latest piece posted on CounterPunch.org (ouch!): "You Are Now Entering a Black Hole: 911 Emergency! Calling Robert Fisk!"

("Fisk, grab my hand! don't go there, I can pull you baaaaaak!")

In this article Garcia shares his correspondence between Carmelita McQuillan with the readers of CounterPunch.org. McQuillan seems to be saying that "look, maybe there is something wrong with the official story because even Robert Fisk has his doubts about what happened on 9/11." Garcia counters that "Robert can find all of his answers (to his 9/11 Truth questions) at: wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

(This may come as miraculous news to all those Truth activists who for so many years were diligently looking for the fount of 9/11 truth. Now you have it. Garcia has found the oracle of truthiness, and it is just one web-link away. Hallelujah! Just make sure the fumes from the oracle don't knock you off your tripod into the abyss of dialectic sophistry.)

Garcia proceeds to enlighten Fisk in his article with his unparalleled logic and supernatural understanding of physics. Here he lays down an explanation for why debris from flight 93 was found over a wide area of Pennsylvania:
"On flight 93 parts spread over miles, not so surprising. When a big jet plows into the ground at full speed, one can expect a large explosive force that can scatter aluminum shrapnel far and wide. Also, when an airplane is overstressed (which may have happened with Flight 93, I don't know) it might begin to break up in flight, and pieces can fall off. I have seen a landing gear door on the freeway, from a small plane, clearly recently dropped (freeway next to an airport)."
Oh really, Garcia? So, if a plane hits at high speed into the ground you are going to have a debris field over many miles in a STRAIGHT LINE instead of radially spread out? Are you living on earth or on some parallel universe where metal, and organic debris, follow some other force of nature?

Also, Garcia's "over-stressed plane" scenario is just unsubstantiated speculation. When in history have we ever seen a plane begin to break up into small debris in mid-flight when it hasn't been hit by a missile? His small plane losing a door on the freeway doesn't cut the empirical-truth mustard either.

But, like so many other defenders of the official story of 9/11, cartoon physics are applied regularly to explain phenomenon that defy logic, and, because people are so desperate for someone to tell them that their government couldn't possibly do such an unspeakable act, they turn off that part of their brain that one would normally use for higher cognitive thinking.

And, Garcia isn't the only one who has taken a swipe at Fisk recently (and, I am sure there will be more of that to come). Andrew Bolt from the Herald Sun wants all such nonsense-talk nipped in the bud as it is upsetting liberals like himself and Tony Blair. He writes: "Are they all mad?":
"Unlike Sheen, Fisk can't be dismissed as just another crank who represents no one.

He is welcome in almost any ABC studio even today, his documentaries are reverentially presented on SBS, his books sell well in modish shops, and even at the end of his bizarre Sydney speech, the audience gave him a long and loving ovation.

This is the kind of madness in the Left that so worries Blair. And if it worries even a leader of that Left, it sure frightens me."

www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,18636966-25717,00.html
Now this may come as news to many readers: Tony Blair is the leader of the Left?! Wait, let me do some quick doublethinking to fully appreciate Bolt's assertion: Tony Blair's liberal government helped kill a million Iraqis; Tony Blair's liberal government is the Iraqi people's savior. 2 + 2= 5.

Ahhh, yes, that's better.

This is what is being asked of us today; the powers that be are hoping we will voluntarily do doublethink and turn off our capacity to question reality without having to resort to physical torture in Room 101.

But, if enough of us, especially those with Fisk's reputation and creditials begin to dig deep into the morass of 9/11, and, as a consequence excavate the horrible truth and are vocal about it, we will be a unbeatable force to reckon with.

• • •


For an excellent commentary on Robert Fisk and 9/11 censorship, see:

"Robert Fisk and the closet of media 911 self-censorship":
wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/3183

29 comments:

Anon-Paranoid said...

You are right of course. I don't remember seeing any plane parts lying on the ground at the Pentagon after it got hit.

And all the tapes from cameras in the area were confiscated and never released.

I think what hit the Pentagon was a missile and that's my story and I'm sticking too it.

God Bless.

Winter Patriot said...

It's an excellent post.

I respectfully disagree with your assessment that Fisk's column was attacked "from the left" by the people you quoted.

Those attacks were from the "faux left". Yeah, I know ;-)

Anyway, in addition to the excellent link you posted at the end of your piece, I thought you might also enjoy this post:

Where Fisk Goes Wrong About 9/11

... and if you don't enjoy it, that's fine too. No penalty.

redpill8 said...

Hi Winter Patriot: That's why I put quotation marks around "left" as to distinquish it from the real left. But I am not sure I even know what that means anymore.

And thanks for the link. I will check it out.

Best!

Winter Patriot said...

I've read your post again and you're exactly right ... um ... you're exactly correct!!

My apologies!

Meanwhile ... this is a really good site you have here ... thanks for all your hard work putting it together.

Visible said...

ah...good news.

thanks for helping to keep this issue out front.

Fisk doubting the official story is going to have a real impact unless they get to him. Wait until he gets down into the mine a ways... heh heh... we all affect our peers and in his case that's going to really have an impact.

Keep up the always sterling work.

Anonymous said...

Nice to hear the gatekeepers are having trouble keeping their own in line.

It's perhaps a bit too optimistic to think that once R. Fisk starts digging into 9/11 truth he will then be vocal about it. The more usual pattern would be that he go strangely quiet after doing enough research. That's what happened to Bruce "gung ho" Willis. The best he could do was say that he would no longer be such a vocal supporter of the war.

Still hoping that Fisk won't lose his voice upon discovering the truth though.

robert said...

Many untruthers have their heads in the ground(or worse)The painful reality of 911 and those who were involved in it are to much to realize. They will seek the path of least resistance. They will believe in their "leadership" at all costs. The evidence,when objectively evaluated,only points to an inside job. They just hope that things don't get worse. But they will

The Sea Dreamer said...

Reluctant as I am to post a comment in such august company as the Winter Patriot (or should that read such January company...?) the reference to George Orwell and Doublethink puts me in mind of another Orwellism, brought to my attention again recently by Arthur Silber:

"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments...and of being bored and repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

I will leave it to loftier pens than mine to weave this into the present narrative.

redpill8 said...

Thanks WP for the link. I love this quote:

"I am glad that we in the reality-based community do not associate ourselves with fringe journamalists like Robert Fisk. All those people who gave him degrees and awards must be feeling pretty foolish now."

You know, didn't someone once say: "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

Keep studying y'all!

http://www.cs.umass.edu/~immerman/play/opinion05/WithoutADoubt.html


And, thanks Sea Dreamer for the quote by Silber. That's very perceptive on his part.

nota said...

I read the piece by Mr. Fisk the other day and the first thing that came to my mind was CounterPunch and/or George Monbiot is going to attack him. (I recalled The 9/11 Conspiracists and the Decline of the American Left and The 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts by Alex Cockburn AND the Monbiot raving titled Bayoneting a Scarecrow: The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a coward’s cult.

Lo and behold, CounterPunch came through quick. Still waiting for Monbiot...

Anonymous said...

Robert Fisk is merely doing damage control. And likely at the behest of his paymasters.

At wakefromyourslumber (to which you linked), some feel that Fisk and his paper are *courageous* for having published his "spare me the ravers..." essay.

Bollocks I say! Courage, real courage has been consistently demonstrated from day one by many (particularly non-mainstream) writers. Mike Rivero of WRH is but one who immediately comes to mind.

btw, I went to a (book promo) lecture of Fisk's. Walked in a fan. Walked out at the end, in disgust. There's no denying his intelligence, charm, or cleverness. But courageous? Not!

Meanwhile Fisky takes almost 6 years to write his tepid and self-contradictory piece. Please. Furthermore, how many MILLIONS of innocent people have had their lives ruined, shattered, or obliterated in these last 6 years...while the Fisks of "journalism" carry on with business as usual? How many? grrrr

I've never been one to feel grateful for paltry, putrid scraps from the tables of the elite. Non merci! I'd rather straight out starve to death than swallow any of their tainted offerings.

Spare me the lukewarm, mealy-mouthed platitudes and protests of ravers like Robert Fisk!

Peace...if we can make it.
annemarie

p.s. Almost forgot me manners. Thanks for this provocative essay. ;)

Anonymous said...

I read the Fisk piece when it came out. He was smart the way he wrote it. He didn't offer any unprovable theories, which become fair game to critics. But instead he said that things just didn't add up.

I think that's all any of us can really say in the absence of any evidence. We can offer theories about lasers and missiles, and that Bush did it. But in reality, the best argument for a 9/11 truther is that no reasonable person can (or should) believe the "official" version of the events of that day.

Mark T.

Anonymous said...

anon paranoid, let me give you some facts, tons of AA airlines debris was found including peices that have the AA logo, no1 saw a missile, absolutely no1, 0, over 100 saw a commercial airplane, 26 specifically saw an AA plane. Every single body was identified on flight 77 at the crash site, including the terrorists, i'd love for any1 to explain that. luggage at the site was returned to the families. the black box was found. NO missile debris was found. the tapes of the crash cant be released because they still are owned by the road camera people, the gas stations, etc. their are still copies of the crash that belong to the people they just dont release it. dont u think one person, jus 1, would come out if there was a missile on the video. plus, missiles dont carry tons of jet fuel that burn at very high temperatures. so please feel free to change your mind, any1 that refutes me speak,

Anonymous said...

robert wat evidence point to an inside job. please speak up.

Winter Patriot said...

LOL w/ Sea Dreamer: "January company" indeed!

Here's my two cents on the analysis, for what it's worth. I've been reading Fisk for some time now (although I rarely mention him on my blog) and I get the feeling that he mixes ignorance and arrogance in equal and very plentiful proportions. Yet I wonder sometimes if this is what's needed to be a good reporter in this bent day and age. (Notice I didn't say a "great reporter". To be one of those you need a lot less of both ignorance and arrogance IMVHO.)

The Independent seems a cut or two above most English-language dailies, and four or five cuts about most of the mainstream US dailies, but in my view this is much more due to Patrick Cockburn than Robert Fisk.

Patrick Cockburn is a gem and a half and even though I disagree with him sometimes ("Bloody Mess: The Surge Is A Success") I really appreciate what he's doing.

I can't tell whether Fisk's 9/11 column was artful or merely rambling; there's an art of rambling of course (RIP Hunter S. Thompson) but I mostly get the sense that he's rambling. He throws out all these questions -- questions which he's apparently been asked many times but has never checked into -- and he admits that he doesn't know the answers -- WHICH IS GOOD! especially since he clearly doesn't know the answers! ... so there's lots of good to say about it, even though it's ignorant and arrogant, as usual.

I loved the arrogance embodied in the first word of his title: "Even I question the 'truth' about 9/11" ... what is "Even" supposed to mean?

And I wonder why if he knows there are real conspiracies happening "in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Iran, the Gulf, etc," does he assume a conspiracy in Manhattan would be "imaginary"?

My prognosis for Fisk's effectiveness as a proponent of 9/11 truth is not very optimistic but for a different reason than you might expect.

I've long had the opinion that Henry Waxman was comfortable investigating what happened to Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch because that might lead back to the Pentagon, and he was equally comfortable investigating what happened to Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame because that might lead back to the White House, but he was not about investigate what happened to Sibel Edmonds because that might lead to Israel.

Similarly, as we can see, Greg Palast rips Bush about everything from the legitimacy of his so-called elections to what appears to have been the deliberate destruction of New Orleans, but he can't bring himself to look at 9/11 with anything approaching an open mind.

Lots of others (including a well-known blogger I used to work with) will just rip the shreds out of electronic voting and the war in Iraq and many more things too, but they never even question 9/11, and perhaps this is because of all the evidence of what appears to be not only Israeli foreknowledge but actual complicity.

In other words they will go after anything else as long as it's more or less guaranteed to lead to something domestic rather than something with a six-pointed star on it ... that's the sort of stuff that gets buried even in the "alternative media". ("Gatekeepers Bury Dancing Israeli Movers And Bogus Art Students On DN!")

But Fisk appears to be different from the run of the mill "dissidents" in the mainstream press. He has repeatedly said things about Israel that are seen as very harsh, so I don't think he's necessarily cowed by AIPAC and the JDL and so on, or at least not as much as the others. And I think it's pretty clear that this is the most important reason why he is seen as courageous.

But on the other hand he's so damned arrogant and he despises the internet so much, that I just don't get the feeling he's intending to do any research on the questions he's posed.

In fact I would be a bit surprised if he ever wrote about 9/11 again.

I hope he proves me wrong, though! Even if he pulls a Monbiot out of his hat, there's no such thing as bad press at this point. MVHO as usual, and I'm speculating wildly ... rambling a bit too. ;-(

Sorry about that. Oh well. You can always sue me.

But you won't, will you?

I'm really enjoying your archives, if that makes any difference!!!

:-)

Winter Patriot said...

Anonymous said

robert wat evidence point to an inside job. please speak up.

I'm not Robert but I can speak up a bit.

If you really want evidence of an inside job you might want to start here:

Meet Jerome Hauer, 9/11 Suspect Awaiting Indictment

Of course there are a thousand other places you could start ... if you really want the evidence.

damien said...

Andrew Bolt deserves all the caning he receives. I wrote to him under my own name last year following his hatchet job on Fisk. The response was abusive. So I then wrote as --

Stephen Hadley - Pres.Bush's National Security Advisor (asking for Bolt's thoughts on Iraq).

Michael Ledeen - neocon (warning Bolt not to take Hadley's letter too seriously)

Col.Thomas Pappus - found guilty of offenses at Abu Ghraib (agreeing with Bolt that the torture was isolated).

Sibel Edmonds - an FBI translator and leading 9/11 conspiracy theorist (bemoaning 9/11 conspiracies).

Mike Feghali - Sibel's boss (sympathizing with correspondent Sibel Edmonds)

Douglas and Can Dickerson - Turkish spies identified by Sibel Edmonds (on holidaying in Turkey).

Sahtam Al Suqamis -- 9/11 hijacker who's passport was found in the street (it's hard for Muslims to get passports).

Amanda Keller -- Mohammed Atta's girlfriend (terrorists need girlfriends).

Wally Hilliard - owner of Huffman Aviation, home of the 9/11 terrorists.

Bolt recognized none of these names. Absolutely NONE. Having styled himself as a 9/11 expert he was unable to recognize any of these historical persons from the events of 9/11. Bolt knows nothing. He is a fraud.

Here's his response to my Sibel Edmonds letter. And here's Bolt taking to Stephen Hadley and Michael Ledeen about Iraq.

It was fun, but I'm over it now.

Winter Patriot said...

BRILLIANT!! EXCELLENT!!

thanks, damien, you've made my day.

Anonymous said...

winter patriot, the link you showed me is pathetic, is that what you bases ur inside job claims on, coi cidences on 9/11. stop trying to turn anomalies into hard fact. show me real evidence of a conspiracy.

paul said...

oh come on, go out and buy a large quantity of kerosene, go to a tall steel reinforced concrete building of your choice, now try and turn that ENTIRE building into powder and the contents into nothing larger than a phone keypad using FIRE ONLY on a few floors before being arrested for arson.
THEN come back and ask why its an inside job!

Anonymous said...

ya paul maybe then i should fly a jumbo jet into it too, it seems like all conspiracy therists u forget that. then we'll watch it collapse

redpill8 said...

Thanks Damien for the info about Bolt. Yeah, what an expert on 9/11 ;O However, this seems to be the modus operandi with the "debunkers". They conveniently pick and choose whatever evidence they feel they need to tell the story, ignoring those inconvenient but significant parts that are indispensible.

Thanks for calling him out!

Winter Patriot said...

Here's the interesting thing about Coincidences and Anomalies: If you're a good Coincidence and Anomaly Theorist (CAT) you never have to admit anything.

I say 2 + 2 = 4.

CAT says no it isn't.

I take two balls and put them on the table. Then I take two more balls and put them on the table. Then I count the balls. 1, 2, 3, 4. Here's my proof, I say: 2 + 2 = 4.

CAT says no it isn't.

But I just laid it out on the table, says I. That's the proof.

CAT says no that's just a coincidence.

So I do it again. Get the same answer. Is that a coincidence too? I ask.

CAT says no that's an anomaly.

Turns out you can pile up as many coincidences as you like and CAT says that's just an anomaly. Or you can pile up a bunch of anomalies and CAT says that's just a coincidence.

~~~

In real life the notable thing about coincidences is that they hardly ever happen. That's why they're remarkable. And the notable thing about anomalies is that they happen even less often than coincidences. An anomaly is an indication that something very strange is going on, and in science it's usually considered a good cause for rigorous (not to mention vigorous) investigation.

I'm not one of the people who say "in politics there are no coincidences" because clearly there are, sometimes. But normal rational people expect coincidences to occur relatively rarely.

So if we see a coincidence here and there we don't think much of it. But if we see several coincidences and several anomalies happening on a single date or centered around a single event, that's enough to raise serious suspicion.

When we see hundreds of coincidences and hundreds of anomalies all happening on a single date or centered around a single event, that's more than suspicion.

In other words, there's a point where the accumulated coincidences can no longer be explained away as an anomaly, and we've passed that point long ago.

In light of all the hundreds of "coincidences" and "anomalies" connected to this event, anyone who still claims there's no evidence for saying it was an inside job should be able to answer a few very simple questions ... like:

Who scheduled all the wargames that took the Air Force away from the Eastern Seaboard that day? Did Osama bin Laden schedule the wargames?

118 first responders (fire and medical personnel) who were at Ground Zero on the moring of 9/11, reported seeing or hearing bombs or explosions in the buidlings before they crumbled. Why is that? Is this a conspiracy or eyewitnesses?

Why did Bush and Cheney insist on testifying together, and not under oath, and why did they insist that no notes of their testimony could be kept? If they weren't trying to hide anything, why would they act like they were trying to hide something?

The FEMA report says that its best hypothesis about the "collapse" of WTC7 has a "low probability" of occurrence. In other words the report itself admits that its conclusion is incorrect. Six years after the event NIST still hasn't even issued their report about it. And while we were waiting we found out that BBC broadcast a report of the fall of WTC7 before it even happened. I say these are massive indicators of coverup and foreknowledge, respectively. What do you think they are? Coincidences? Or anomalies?

Winter Patriot said...

Here you go Anon, a great post for you from Jeff Wells at Rigorous Intuition:

The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11

Anonymous said...

winter patriot and damien,

Superb! My hat's off to both of you :)

annemarie

Winter Patriot said...

:-) thanks, annemarie

OT (but not really) ... a couple of false-flag terror-related stories of note:
7/7 Press For Truth Begins
Survivors and families of the victims of the 7/7 London subway bombings "began legal action on Thursday to force the British government to hold an independent inquiry" ... [and more, including a few good links and a couple of damning videos]

Also:
Report Says Fate Of Alleged Liquid Bomber Mastermind Will Be Decided Today!
After more than a year of detention, Rashid Rauf, alleged mastermind of the so-called "Liquid Bombers plot", will be brought before Pakistan's Federal Review Board later today, according to a report from the Daily Times. [and more on the bizarre background of this case ... remind me why you can't take a bottle of water on an airplane?]

... all this and much much less, at please don't read my blog

Larry Silverstein said...

"Anonymous said...
ya paul maybe then i should fly a jumbo jet into it too, it seems like all conspiracy therists u forget that. then we'll watch it collapse

August 30, 2007 8:20 AM "

Anonymous: Did a jet fly into WTC-7??? I DIDN'T KNOW THAT!!!

Larry Silverstein said...

Also, anonymous, you're telling me that 4 hijacked jets flew around for hours, but our state of the art security can read the back of a dime from a satellite, and we're planning 1,200 precision bombings of Iran? How can we do this!!! If we can't even detect 4 jumbo jets flying around for a couple of hours??? We don't seem to be competant enough!!!

Also, how come we haven't had an attack since 9/11? We beefed up security? Or is it the illegal wiretaps of Americans...that haven't turned up anything?

Winter Patriot said...

It's pretty clear why we haven't been attacked again.

The terrorists have already won.