Monday, August 27, 2007

Independent promotes 9/11 conspiracy theories

I forgot to mention that on Saturday I read the single most hilarious Robert Fisk article ever. The piece was titled "Even I question the 'truth' about 9/11" in which Fisk hilariously asserts,

Let me repeat. I am not a conspiracy theorist. Spare me the ravers. Spare me the plots. But like everyone else, 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.
"I'm not a conspiracy theorist but....". Seriously, read the whole thing, it really is hilarious. He talks about all the conspiracy theories but frames them as "serious questions". What I find a strange is that a journalist who acts like he's well informed has not read Popular Mechanics or purchased their publication (cover pictured) which comprehensively rips apart every single one of the mentalists' theories about the supposed "questions" around 9/11.

I mean, I'm not a fan of the Independent's angle on the news generally. But what on earth is Simon Kelner and the Comment Editor playing at letting their paper be used to promote idiotic conspiracy theories that don't stand up to scrutiny? I mean, it didn't like being attacked by Blair as a "viewspaper", but on Saturday it published an article that made it something else entirely.

23 comments:

Sir James Robison said...
27 Aug 2007 09:38:00  

Dizzy, as one of the uber-bloggers, enjoying enormous respect, including mine, you are more usually right than wrong.

But on this you are wrong.

For a start, descending to "conspiracy theorist" labels is not sharp analysis. Secondly, there has been no satisfactory explanation of the Israeli warning, nor of Blair's movements in those eight days.

There were anomalies posted on the day of the disaster, on the net and they've since disappeared, e.g. police getting forewarning admittedly only 11 seconds ahead of the blast but that was published and I read it.

Now you can't find it. This is not to do with direct culpability - it's to do with the natural creaky machinery of reaction failing to take note of clear warnings.

It is the easiest thing in the world to place normal constructions on these events and I could make out a case very easily that there was no collusion at high levels.

I equally smell a rat and there was some evidence to support that. The whole machinery of state wishes the scenario to be that there was no culpability of Blair.

I beg to differ because all his movements at that time are consistent with it being so but it can't be proved and neither can it be disproved.

Therefore better to keep one's counsel on this and not revert to ridicule or to the last resort of those without facts at hand - the charge of conspiracy theorism.

Are you saying there is no collusion in government?

dizzy said...
27 Aug 2007 10:13:00  

For a start, descending to "conspiracy theorist" labels is not sharp analysis."

Actually I didn't. It was Fisk who said "I'm not a conspiracy theorist but..." and then went on to list a number of myths that have been absolutely destroyed.

On the point of the "Israeli Warnings" I strongly suggest reading the 9/11 Commission - although what concerns me is the use of a phrase like "no satisfactory explanation", who decides hat is satisfactory? The nature of conspiracy theory is that they is already an assumed acceptance that "something is being hidden", therefore whatever is given the response is "that is not satisfactory" unless it proves the already assumed conclusion the questioner has drawn.

"police getting forewarning admittedly only 11 seconds ahead of the blast but that was published and I read it."

Just because it was published doesn't mean it was true. As I say, I strongly suggest reading the 9/11 Commission which goes through all the stuff like "timings" etc. Also, 11 seconds? How exactly has that been established? If, as you say, the evidence has been removed, then how was it established in the first place? I;d say that's base don the flawed assumption that "live" actually means "live" on the wire or whatever.

For example, you only have to turn on a Digital channel then flick to analogue to see it's not true and there is a significant time lag between the two. So 11 seconds "pre-warnig" might not actually be anything of the sort, and the only way one can conclude that it is, is if one take the starting assumption that something is being hidden.

Therefore better to keep one's counsel on this and not revert to ridicule or to the last resort of those without facts at hand - the charge of conspiracy theorism.

Sorry, but every single one of the conspiracy theories, or should I say "questions" that Fisk raises have been dealt with, particularly in the case of the supposedly inconsistent scientific things like the melting point of stealing etc.

Are you saying there is no collusion in government?

What in general, or specifically in relation to 9/11? I think it's dangerous intellectually to assume that there is, and also dangerous to keep one's counsel if no evidence is produced to prove that there isn't because that way you;re asking for a negative to be proved which is obviously impossible, because no matter what is said it will never be "satisfactory".

I'm not going to address the stuff about Blair because I'm not quite sure what your going on about. I note though that you say I'm "wrong" on this, which suggests to me your mind is already made up that there is more to it than what is known and something has been covered it, as such I am in an impossible position because your position is impenetrable because that is the nature of conspiracy theories.

And it's not just some pejorative charge either. Conspiracy theorum is, by its nature, impossible to penetrate. Once someone has decided there is a conspiracy then all things presented to them are viewed through the assumed prism that things are being hidden. Take for example aliens, if the Government rolled out a grey alien and said "These guys have been visiting us for years, this one is called Ralph" there would be people who would question it and claim that it was part of some greater conspiracy.

drk said...
27 Aug 2007 10:34:00  

A few years ago the same sort of people were running around promoting stories about the USA being involved in a conspiracy with "Grey Aliens" who were abducting people in droves in exchange for alien technology ...

The "9/11 Truthers" are evidence that somethings never change - gullibility and the need to "pull the wool over their own eyes" means there will be a never ending supply of fools who are willing to belief in any kind of nonsense.

Croydonian said...
27 Aug 2007 10:54:00  

Looks to me as though James is at cross purposes to the post, in that he looks to be referring to the London July bombings rather than the NYC/DC attacks.

JuliaM said...
27 Aug 2007 11:25:00  

"Looks to me as though James is at cross purposes to the post, in that he looks to be referring to the London July bombings..."

It's sooo hard to keep your conspiracy theories straight, isn't it...?

And, I guess, they are like cream cakes. You can't just have one....

JuliaM said...
27 Aug 2007 11:56:00  

I think this pretty much sums up my view on the matter of the Truthers:

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/001184.html

anthonynorth said...
27 Aug 2007 14:49:00  

I've never come across a conspiracy theory that holds up under analysis, except any government's attempt to cover up their cock-ups after the event, which may well fuel them in the first place.
Mindst you, I am fascinated with them, and have written at length on the subject.
Conspiracy theories should not be ignored, because, although fantasy, you get a good grasp of society from such theories - what are our hopes, our fears, etc.
Theorists often take me to task for my scepticism on such matters, but I point out that, of course, all governments conspire - it is the nature of government. But this is politics - nothing more, nothing less. And certainly not sensational.

Travis Bickle said...
27 Aug 2007 15:22:00  

I just don't know where anybody could get the idea that either of the current governments in US or UK would ever lie to the people.

I don't know if there was collusion over 9/11 or not but somehow can't quite make that leap of faith that some bloke holed up in an Afghan cave managed to coordinate all this without some covert assistance..

Like JFK we'll be arguing over this one for years to come, and agencies will always have the right answer to rubbish conspiracy theories, even I suspect where real conspiracies are uncovered.

So long as TV quiz lines or X Factor votes aren't rigged the vast majority of the apathetic public couldn't care less. (which is why another 5 years of this rotten government awaits)

Anonymous said...
27 Aug 2007 16:47:00  

"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."


Talking in the third person, you have got to be amused by the size of his ego.

Anonymous said...
27 Aug 2007 16:56:00  

The Fisk article is indeed odd; anyway, here are two responses to it:

http://twentysixh.wordpress.com/2007/08/25/fisking-fisk/

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/012080.php

Sir James Robison said...
27 Aug 2007 20:04:00  

Dizzy:

…I strongly suggest reading the 9/11 Commission which goes through all the stuff like "timings" etc…

I understand that you don't know me well because you'd never think I'd post such a comment without first reading my material. Others who visit my site know my tactics. So yes, I've read it plus the Warren Report and other reports "officially sanctioned", like the Diana joke. And what, old son?

...I think it's dangerous intellectually to assume that there is [collusion]...

No one's speaking of assuming - only of accepting evidence as is instead of sweeping it under the carpet, e.g. in the Diana matter.

...Conspiracy theorum is, by its nature, impossible to penetrate...

That's why I never deal with it but provide evidence for each statement and I state that there was an unusual time lapse at key junctures in the reactive process.

...On the point of the "Israeli Warnings" I strongly suggest reading the 9/11 Commission - although what concerns me is the use of a phrase like "no satisfactory explanation", who decides hat is satisfactory?...

Precisely, Diz. You've been sucked in by the "Official Inquiry" move, when pure logic dictates that if there is something untoward, one of the first key moves is an "Official Inquiry", not an "Independent Inquiry". Again, on Diana, the British and French inquiries differed on a number of key elements of timing and statements taken from witnesses which never saw the light of day.

Here, there is a prima facie case that all is not well so an "Official Inquiry" assures us it is well. It's like someone charging Iain Dale with a crime and you and Guido hold an official inquiry.

Nixon called the Warren Report the greatest work of fiction he'd ever read.

...I'm "wrong" on this, which suggests to me your mind is already made up that there is more to it than what is known and something has been covered it, as such I am in an impossible position because your position is impenetrable...

Not impenetrable at all - I've been posting on Blair ad nauseam. But I was referring to being wrong to ridicule certain points that are put that all is not well and the only thing you have to point to that everything's fine is the Official Inquiry - a whitewash. Are you saying there are no whitewashes in Britain? Menezes?

Your position is just as impenetrable because the Inquiry says one thing but the logical train of events and the "delay tactic" which was also used at Beslan, 911 and Port Arthur is not dealt with and rebutted. This is the nature of this tactic and if you've moved with the security services you'd know that, Dizzy. It's well nigh impossible to sheet home.

Lastly, Dizzy, impenetrable or not and even if I concede here, on the claim of knowledge of procedure, not only does this not negate the veracity of the call that not all was above board but it involves just the same innuendo that those who were clumsily putting the other side have fallen into.

The issue is that there are suggestions that all was not well. You say they've been addressed. No they haven't - they've been lightly touched on and passed over but the key points put by the inquiry were covered in detail. This is slanted and your blog has a reputation for exploring the truth without fear or favour.

It does not put paid to the legitimate concerns and until they're dealt with, as with Diana, it must go on because truth will finally out.

flashgordonnz said...
27 Aug 2007 20:15:00  

"Like JFK we'll be arguing over this one for years to come"

Don't you mean, "some folk will bang on about it for years whilst the rest give a little shake of their head, a wry smile and pass on by?"

dizzy said...
27 Aug 2007 20:33:00  

Sir James, you've made my point for me.

Sir James Robison said...
27 Aug 2007 21:03:00  

No, Dizzy, I have not made your point. I have shown you that you cannot rely on one source as your key source when that source is not independent and is recognized as such.

On my site I ran a poll with 34 respondents, of whom 27 believed that Blair knew at least something of what was happening before it happened.

I don't claim that as proof but it certainly puts paid to your ridicule of calls that not all is above board.

You yourself said, Dizzy: "which suggests to me your mind is already made up". And yours is not? And why, Diz? On what basis? An Official Denial?

No, my mind is not made up and I'm still open to any fresh evidence.

Tory Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said: "We must have an inquiry which allows us to know what the facts are and not feel, as we might do today, that we have been misled."

This is not a "ludicrous diversion".

Also, how to account for 7 of my eight key sources [on a site I should have downloaded at the time]having the article unloadable, the only one available being the Scotsman?

They were not archived - just deleted. But some of the material remains.

How do you and the Inquiry explain the Koran mistakes, the bomb drill [Canada Free Press - now pulled], the Reuters claim of the origin of the bomb [now pulled], the BBC and Times discrepancies on story on July 9th, the Herald Sun article on the timeline [which I can give you the ref for]which differed from the British press version until it was pulled, the inconclusive "they" explanation as to who phoned through the warning, the original - not the later explanation by Netanyahu as to his movements vis a vis the Grand Eastern, before we even start on the timeline of the official reaction to the events.

You say "just because something is published, doesn't make it true" and thus you've made my point for me - you are assuming something is true when these matters have both not been addressed and subsequently all reference to them which did exist [I read them a year and a half ago now but kept the links] now is failing to appear on the web.

I have no personal interest in thing but I do like the truth to be told and cover ups not to take place and available docs removed.

Lastly, just go to any of our fellow bloggers' sites about Blair's activities and the way he lied through his teeth as a matter of course. I have him in one direct lie or are you saying he's always truthful?

Dizzy, there are clear anomalies, they haven't been addressed and therefore it requires an attitude of wait and see.

That's the only point I was trying to make.

Sir James Robison said...
27 Aug 2007 21:05:00  

Sorry - have to go to bed now - after midnight here. I'll look in tomorrow morning. Good to see you again, Diz.

Anonymous said...
27 Aug 2007 21:15:00  

Dizzy, you'll never satisfy conspiracy theorists. People still argue about the Princes in the Tower and that was over 500 years ago, for Heaven's sake.

Henry Rogers

dizzy said...
28 Aug 2007 06:31:00  

Sir James I hgave a few coment. Firstly you seem to blurring between 7/7 and 9/11 as if they are the same thing. This post is about 9/11 and nothing else.

You've told me you've read the Warren Commission, the 9/11 Commission and the other "officially sanctioned" reports (why did you put it in quotes?) as well as "the Diana joke". Sounds to me, particular on Diana that you're convinced that it was more than a tragic accident. And you're use of quotations to denote an officially sanctioned report suggests an assumed conclusion that it is a cover-up.

I;ve read your questions, so can you tell me something. What do you think happened on 9/11? What do you think is missing? The see questions apply to 7/7. Seriously, you say there are "anomolies" and you've mentioned Israel, so what connection are you making?

JuliaM said...
28 Aug 2007 07:05:00  

"Seriously, you say there are "anomolies" and you've mentioned Israel, so what connection are you making?"

Oh, you've done it now! Better up your bandwidth....

Seriously, conspiracy theorists are like cockroaches - you can never get rid of them.

SACKERSON said...
28 Aug 2007 09:59:00  

Dizzy - a pedantic point: your penultimate paragraph refers to "mentalists" - isn't this an old-established term for intellectual Buddhists?

dizzy said...
28 Aug 2007 10:03:00  

Quite possibly although I use it in the south London sense meaning people who tend to be a corner flag short of a football pitch.

Anonymous said...
28 Aug 2007 10:28:00  

Fisk is clearly a nutcase, so is James Robinson. Heres the most comprehensive rebuttal of all the conspiracy theories behind 9/11:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=af07

Sir James Robison said...
28 Aug 2007 13:15:00  

Dizzy, what we have here today is the classic non-starter. You are totally convinced of one thing and I see the opposite and there is an audience inimical to one side or the other. We are in entrenched positions, someone comes in and calls me a cockroach [see above], thinking that this somehow scores him points with you and it's a w-nk.
This is not debate. Debate is not pushing the other to put up evidence only for him to say: "Well I don't accept that because the Official Report says this …" I retort: "Dizzy, look at the wording of the report here - address-lite. It skirts around it, not addressing it."
Example, the bomb drill on the day.
You'll say: "Well it looks fine to me," and we're coming from different directions. I stress modus operandi and the context of the events within the policy direction of the major Allied governments within a relatively short time frame [including Port Arthur, Beslan , 911 and 7/7]. You say they're not connected.
I say they are very much connected by modus operandi - the ignored warnings, the reports lost in the machine, the strange breakdowns of surveillance equipment, the reportage coming out [e.g. the officer in the underground who said he was warned to get out 11 seconds before the first blast, who told a reporter that and then was never heard from after that], the progressive elimination of hard news links from the web but leaving the kook sites intact because they are counter-productive, the slow reaction time compared to earlier exercises and non-standard chains of command and so on and so on.
Then the language of the Israeli wording which was reported one way but made a subtle shift to vagueness in the next two days, the problem of the Koran verses misquoted when a group suddenly popped up to take the heat and was then never heard from again in that form. Ne's warning and decision on the basis of what he was told and then his movements on the afternoon of 7/7 vis a vis the conference at the Grand and so on.
Ne isn't sure who warned him. This rings true as I've seen my own Min take calls and it's relayed through the system. The code was right and that was all that counted. There is very little evidence that there was anything any more nefarious than this on the Israeli side although they were silenced in the next two days - meaning they went vague on details.
Then there is sheer logic. If, let's suppose for argument's sake, Blair does know the basic outline days earlier and is out of town, who in their right mind would expect his tracks not to be covered in something on this scale. There is going to be an available and plausible answer covering any contingency. To get any facts to the contrary is pushing s--t uphill. And yet some did get out - not theory but, in a minor example, a man interviewed who says he was warned 11 seconds before the first bomb.
You ask: "So where is this man?" Sigh. Herein lies the entire problem in a nutshell. You know the answer to that. I don't have him here in my pocket, do I? Scarcity is not an indicator here that it never happened because I read it on the day [before I used to blog] but never thought it would be important later. This is not negated because I can't produce him. For the next one, I promise I'll cut and paste it.
Even the scramble to produce a group to take the heat, after so long, is classic Brit Gov bungling and short-sightedness. How many times have you seen Al Qaeda groups take that long to claim responsibility and then to respond in those words?
I said there were anomalies. I didn't say you were wrong in the facts. I did say there was no place for ridicule because until there is an independent inquiry, these matters have not been resolved. This does not make me a cockroach but someone wishing to get to the bottom of the matter in an investigative manner, using the whole context of events and not just reportage.
If all these minor anomalies had not existed, you might argue, then it really would have seemed too "pat". Minor anomalies occur in any highly charged situation. They do but they can't then be dismissed out of hand or suppressed. They have to come out but Blair labelled this process "ludicrous".
Lastly, there is the unfortunate blurring between the lover of conspiracy theories and the independent researcher who wishes to know more and not let it descend into a slanging match.
Thus the situation is unsatisfactory and calls to "let it rest and get on with life" are a bit hollow and only come from one lobby. Haven't these people heard of closure? There is no closure here.
I'm happy to deal with this matter further with you personally or on my site but not in your comments section - your readers don't need anything further from me, I'll be bound. Thanks, Dizzy, for the way you handled this.

JuliaM said...
28 Aug 2007 15:10:00  

"...someone comes in and calls me a cockroach [see above], thinking that this somehow scores him points with you..."

'Him'...? Your tinfoil hat is on a bit too tight, chum.

And your claims (they aren't unique, you know know that, I hope..?) have been refuted time and time again, on this blog and on many others.

"...the unfortunate blurring between the lover of conspiracy theories and the independent researcher who wishes to know more ..."

But you are not such a person. You've been asked what you believe happened, and you retort with the usual: 'Dunno, but it all seems iffy to me, know what I mean..?'

Trot over to Harry's Place - they have a thread over there, where someone raised genuine questions, and then realised after questioning from commenters that what he was seeing was probably a trick of photography. He noted this, and moved on.

You cannot do the same, so you retreat.


 

dizzythinks.net is a participant in the Amazon Europe S.à.r.l. Associates Programme, an affiliate advertising programme designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.co.uk/Javari.co.uk.