Quote:
|
Originally Posted by robitusson
I know which part of this quote I would highlight
|
I know which part you mean.
Actually I agree with that, and I now think the "crazed" ones were thrown out there intentionally to muddy the waters...so to speak.
I hear ya on wiki too robi....I was just being lazy. (edit: and under the influence of Mr. J. Daniels
)
I found this:
Quote:
But – here we go. 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?
Again, I'm not talking about the crazed "research" of David
Icke's Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster –
which should send any sane man back to reading the telephone directory.
I am talking about scientific issues. 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? The American National Institute of Standards and Technology
was instructed to analyse the cause of the destruction of all three
buildings. They have not yet reported on WTC 7. Two prominent American
professors of mechanical engineering – very definitely not in
the "raver" bracket – are now legally challenging the
terms of reference of this final report on the grounds that it could
be "fraudulent or deceptive".
Journalistically, 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. OK, so let's claim that
was just hearsay reporting at the time, just as the CIA's list of Arab
suicide-hijackers, which included three men who were – and still
are – very much alive and living in the Middle East, was an initial
intelligence error.
But what about the weird letter allegedly written by Mohamed Atta,
the Egyptian hijacker-murderer with the spooky face, whose "Islamic"
advice to his gruesome comrades – released by the CIA –
mystified every Muslim friend I know in the Middle East? Atta mentioned
his family – which no Muslim, however ill-taught, would be likely
to include in such a prayer. He reminds his comrades-in-murder to say
the first Muslim prayer of the day and then goes on to quote from it.
But no Muslim would need such a reminder – let alone expect the
text of the "Fajr" prayer to be included in Atta's letter.
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.
It would stop people kicking over chairs.
|
from:
Robert Fisk: Even I question the 'truth' about 9/11 - Robert Fisk, News - Independent.co.uk