Quote:
|
Originally Posted by robitusson
Why is that relevant?
|
come on robi, you really don't get why it would be relevant?
I know that the original purveyors of the 'official explanation' are proven liars and dissemblers.
yes I've read some of Fisk's writing. My question to you, is it possible that reporting partial truths is another way of lying? Can you also lie by acts of omission?
Is the British press really that much more superior to the American press
any more? Britain is/was part of aftermath of 9/11 too, you don't think there was pressure for the media to 'go along to get along' there as well?
Fisk works for the Independent right?
But just for the record it does seem that Fisk has some doubts about the 9/11 official story himself:
Quote:
In August 2007 Fisk publicly expressed, for the first time, doubts about the historical record of the September 11 attacks. In an article for The Independent, he raised such concerns as missing aircraft parts, the melting point of steel, the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, and other familiar criticisms that have circulated within the 9/11 Truth Movement, although he said that many other criticisms were "crazed".[13]
|
from:
Robert Fisk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia