For all his caveats I was also astonished by Robert Fisk's piece in The Independent, all the more so because I admire the guy tremendously. This is Robert Fisk, I mean, not any hack like Johan Hari and I wouldn't have expected such naivety from him.

Still, there is a comment from Howard Jacobson in today's Indy in which he tries to take a pop at Fisk (on another topic) and is less than convincing imo. But that's Jacobson for you: writes beautifully and makes me think but never really convinces me...

By  Arnaud, at Saturday, September 01, 2007 6:25:00 pm  

I didn't know that he was a Truther, but I did know that he was a jerk. He once wrote in Counterpunch that Osama Bin Laden was going to unite the Sunni and Shia of Iraq to defeat the US. I wrote to him that this was exceedingly unlikely, considering that Bin Laden considers Shia heretics and openly espouses killing them, not to mention that most Sunni disapprove of Bin Laden.

Mr. Roberts wrote back that I must be unaware of the polls which show that Osama is the most popular person in the Middle East. I wrote back that I certainly was unaware of these polls and I asked where I might find them. I resisted the urge to take issue with the haughty and dismissive tone of his response and remained polite.

Despite my efforts at decorum, he responded angrily, asking, "Who appointed me to be your research assistant? You could easily find this out for yourself. The reason you people are so ignorant is because you're so lazy." He did, however, do me the courtesy of appending an article which he imagined backed up his assertion.

However, the article was not actually news, but an opinion piece from the Washington Times, and it came nowhere close to saying that Osama Bin Laden was the most popular person in the Middle East, merely that in Egypt, he was more popular than George W. Bush.

So anyway, I came away from the experience with the conclusion that the respect for Paul Craig Roberts among some on the left is just as misplaced as some leftists' respect for Pat Buchanan. These guys may have some positions in common with leftists and progressives, but that is largely a coincidence, rather than a consequence of remotely similar reasoning or values.

By  Unknown, at Saturday, September 01, 2007 8:31:00 pm  

I note also that if the World Trade Center towers had fallen precisely vertically, we wouldn't have lost the Deutsche Bank Building, which is currently (six years later) being slowly but not carefully enough taken down. Slowly because it's a toxic waste site; "not carefully enough" because carelessness in the process has cost two lives so far.

But they'd probably find some way to weave that into the conspiracy claims as well.

By  Anonymous, at Saturday, September 01, 2007 9:19:00 pm  

I'm stunned whenever I hear these people doubting that planes brought down the towers, or the ones who say that Flight 93 landed at a secret military base and a missile was fired into the Pentagon for appearances; try telling that last one the families of the people who died on Flight 93.

I think the fact is that the truth about 9/11 is a lot more terrifying than the fantasy; people can handle the government out to manipulate their opinions, even if it means they do it through disturbing and terrifying means. The truth is that there are evil, evil people out there who want to kill innocent people for reasons too petty to comprehend and often based on nothing other than barely coherent fiction.

It's scarier than anything the conspiracy theorists can ever throw together and that's why they refuse to accept it.

By  Steven Alleyn, at Sunday, September 02, 2007 12:48:00 am  

I think much of what drives 9/11 Truth conspiracy theories is an awareness that the official story is lying about something; there was stalling, delay, and prevarication all over the process of producing the reports, and a comprehensive impression that those in power think they have something to hide.

As the awareness that those same people in power are perfectly willing to torture and wage aggressive war seeps in around the deeply entrenched imagination of being the good guys, so does the awareness that the cover up could be covering anything at all, that simple venality and protection of political advantage might not be the least hypothesis.

Which tends to create a desire to create motivations on the same emotional scale as the perceived crime.

By  Anonymous, at Sunday, September 02, 2007 1:32:00 pm  

Excellent summation, Ken. I'm reminded of the first time I listened to Naom Chomsky. It's amazing how something that you've never noticed before can be so obvious when it's pointed out.

By  TonyC, at Sunday, September 02, 2007 7:23:00 pm  

Hi I enjoyed reading your blog and would like to invite your readers to pop by and visit us here at 'An Unrepentant Communist', an increasingly popular Left blog from Ireland

http://unrepentantcommunist.blogspot.com/

I hope you will be able to link our blog to yours.

Greetings to all progressives reading this from County Kerry in Ireland!
Gabriel

By  Gabriel, at Tuesday, September 04, 2007 1:05:00 pm  

"Last summer I stumbled across 9/11 Truth ..."

You mean, for a full five years you had never doubted that the Bush gang was telling you the truth, the whole truth and nothing but? That is an astonishing admission. (I thought you were on the left?) We are talking, after all, about their Universal Casus Belli.

Then you go on to pretend that what you call "911Truth" consists solely in futile speculation about what made the Towers fall. Of course, it doesn't. You make no mention of the innumerable stonewallings of pre-9/11 terrorism experts, from Colleen Rowley and Robert Wright to the Able Danger team; no mention of the anthrax attacks (remember them?); no mention of the insider trading; no mention of the collapse of standard operating procedures; no mention of the truly extraordinary behaviour of Bush and Rumsfeld on that day; no mention of the 15-month resistance to any public inquiry; and no mention of the demonstrable mendacity, inaccuracy and inadequacy of the "official account" eventually produced by a squadron of handpicked toadies.

I suggest you ask yourself why Senator Max Cleland resigned from the Kean/Zelikow Commission, calling it "a scam" and "disgusting". I suggest you read Professor Benjamin de Mott's review of the shoddy work of fiction that Commission finally presented to the world:

"Whitewash as public service:
How The 9/11 Commission Report defrauds the nation"

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/10/0080234

I suggest you ask yourself why the 9/11 Truth Statement has been signed by such undeniably intelligent and impeccably-left people as Howard Zinn, Peter Dale Scott and Michael Parenti:

http://tinyurl.com/36ha28

And I suggest you stop pretending that the cant term "conspiracy theory" is anything other than what it is: a crude but effective thoughtstopper. Jamey Hecht describes it well:

Wrong In All Directions: The Term "Conspiracy Theory"

This phrase is among the tireless workhorses of establishment discourse. Without it, disinformation would be much harder than it is. "Conspiracy theory" is a trigger phrase, saturated with intellectual contempt and deeply anti-intellectual resentment. It makes little sense on its own, and while it's a priceless tool of propaganda, it is worse than useless as an explanatory category.

http://www.911inquiry.org/Presentations/JameyHecht.htm

Maybe that's why the likes of Bush and Blair are so terribly fond of it (but what's your excuse?):

Blair: Iraq oil claim is 'conspiracy theory'

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,875173,00.html

- Am I angry? You bet. It was all-too-predictable that Robert Fisk would be punished for his timid (but courageous) coming-out, by sniggering 'leftists' who know absolutely nothing about the subject in hand and are proud to display that ignorance.

But that's the British left for you. Luckily, Zinn, Parenti and Scott et al are a wee toty bit more sophisticated than that - not to mention various other (even-more-suspiciously furrin) foreigners, from Daniele Ganser and Guido Salvini to Thomas Immanuel Steinberg and Andreas Hauss:

Im Übrigen gilt: auch die Linke wird sich mit dem 11.September beschäftigen müssen.

http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/index1.html

(You're right, Andreas; but when?)

By  Qlipoth, at Tuesday, September 04, 2007 3:56:00 pm  

Thanks for printing my comment. As Hauss says, the left is not going to be able to run away from this issue forever. And Robert Fisk should know that his doubts are justified, and shared by many, many serious people. Most of them don't make the mistake of obsessing over the collapse of the Three Towers - or the even more elementary error of reversing the burden of proof.

Just a few examples:

1. Dr. Francis A. Boyle on the anthrax attacks:

http://qlipoth.blogspot.com/2006/12/dr-francis-boyle-and-anthrax-attacks.html

2. Professor Lynn Margulis, in a statement made on August 27th 2007:

"The 9/11 tragedy is the most successful and most perverse publicity stunt in the history of public relations. [...]

I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken."

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#Margulis

3. A response to Cockburn's screed, from Professor Michael Keefer:

"Perhaps it’s time that people on the left allowed themselves to be jolted as well — at the very least, into an honest and painstaking analysis of the evidence.

So, Alexander Cockburn: can we put these stupid boxing gloves away?"

http://journalof911studies.com/letters/e/ProfKeeferRepliesToCockburnCounterpunch.pdf

- I myself have responded to Cockburn's shameful performance here:

Suffering Cockburn: 9/11 and the Left's Collective Unconsciousness

http://qlipoth.blogspot.com/2006/09/suffering-cockburn-911-and-lefts.html

By  Qlipoth, at Tuesday, September 04, 2007 7:16:00 pm  

You mean, for a full five years you had never doubted that the Bush gang was telling you the truth, the whole truth and nothing but?

Nice.

A few points:

First, can you point me to one site - one - that questions the official story and is not chockful of links to amateurish and ludicrous if not manifestly deranged stuff, as most of the top 9/11 Truth sites are? (Serious request.)

Second, if there is such a site, or group, or whatever, what's stopping it from presenting its evidence to any significant public figures, intellectuals and so on who are prepared to listen, forming a high-profile committee of inquiry, and then starting a public investigation?

Third, what's stopping them from, via intermediaries if necessary, calling on the help of governments outside the US sphere? Most countries other than the US have embassies of Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran, for example. We can even travel to these countries! Even in the US, there are no laws preventing contact with the Russian Academy of Sciences.

So why, instead, do we have ... what I find when I Google '9/11 Truth'?

By  Ken, at Tuesday, September 04, 2007 8:38:00 pm  

Perhaps we have that for the same reason we had such outlandish "modern art" in the 70's, eh? Talk about your Illuminatus moments -- but after all, why not?

It's tempting to put together just such a site, Ken. Certainly we can all agree that there were lots of lies and cover-ups. Perhaps it really was just the fact that Guiliani wanted to hide the fact that the Towers weren't, ahem, actually built to code.

But the first 9/11-Truth site I ever saw -- and basically the last I spent any time with -- started with suspicion of coverup (obvious), went on to maintain it was a hidden demolition effort (kinda sorta plausible), went through the physical gyrations you got turned off from, proceeded to conclude that the Administration killed 3000 people for their Reichstag moment (I thought so at the time -- documented -- but since then I realize they aren't that competent) and then ...

then...

concluded that George Bush is an alien bent on the destruction of the human race as a whole.

And so I stopped wasting my time. But a collation site for non-insane people? That would be nice. Maybe it already exists. I dunno.

By  Michael, at Tuesday, September 04, 2007 10:48:00 pm  

"First, can you point me to one site - one - that questions the official story and is not chockful of links to amateurish and ludicrous if not manifestly deranged stuff, as most of the top 9/11 Truth sites are? (Serious request.)"

The first stop has to be the Complete 9/11 Timeline at Paul Thompson's Center for Cooperative Research:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

He explains the website's methodology and rationale here:

"9/11 and terrorism generally are flashpoints for what people call “conspiracy theory.” This 9/11 investigative project contains no conspiracy theories. In fact, it does not offer any theories at all. Rather it simply lays out the facts so readers can come to their own conclusions. [...] sometimes the most important news is not necessarily what makes the front pages of the newspapers. There is much the mainstream media has reported but not highlighted. One of the strengths of this timeline is that it contains important nuggets of information that have been rescued from the obscurity of back page reporting and placed in their proper historical contexts."

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

Thompson also appears alongside the so-called "Jersey Widows" in '9/11: Press for Truth' - easily the best single film on the topic. It's available for free (with German subtitles) at this site:

http://www.nuoviso.de/filmeDetail_pressfortruth.htm

As Thompson says, the Timeline contains a huge amount of information and may at first sight appear overwhelming. (It's best navigated by using keyword-searches - e.g. "Rumsfeld" or "Zelikow" or "wargames" or "anthrax".) So the 84-minute film is a very good, sober-yet-compelling introduction to some of the most shocking weaknesses in the 'official' account.

By  Qlipoth, at Wednesday, September 05, 2007 5:58:00 pm  

Beware: qlipoth's postings on this subject will get longer and longer and angrier and angrier until everybody agrees (which they won't).

By  ejh, at Thursday, September 06, 2007 9:12:00 am  

Comfortable on their couch, Justin and his cat never get angry about anything at all, thus demonstrating the way forward for the left.

Then come comrades, rally,
and the last fight let us face.
The IKEA sofa-bed
unites the human race.

By  Qlipoth, at Thursday, September 06, 2007 10:43:00 am  

It's not true. The football commentator on La Sexta makes us both very angry indeed.

By  ejh, at Thursday, September 06, 2007 11:53:00 am  

On the one hand, just as going into cover up mode was the automatic response of Nixon aides to Watergate, one that didn't need explicit central instructions, so also keeping the facts concealed was the mindset of government officials going into events of the 11th of September 2001. The presence of official concealment only speaks to SOP, not to something needing to be concealed (after all, if they had waited for that, they would have missed the boat in concealing it).

On the other hand, the presence of unconvincing explanations is no argument for the falsity of the point in question. Taking advantage of this mistake is why one standard disinformation technique is to provide forged evidence for something that is actually true, then discredit the forged evidence. People mistake that for a proof that the discredit also applies to the matter in hand. Imagine setting up a strawman argument, only more so.

P.M.Lawrence (temporarily between ISPs, so anonymous for now).

By  Anonymous, at Friday, September 07, 2007 6:59:00 am  

If I've deciphered your argument correctly, Mr. Lawrence, you're telling us that the very unconvincingness of the US government's explanation in fact proves (somehow) that they actually have a convincing explanation up their sleeve.

So, following Justin's Recumbency Strategy, you're proposing yet another way forward for the left: The Daddy-Knows-Best Gambit (Even if your rulers talk complete and utter shite, always give them the benefit of the doubt).

Remain, ye workers, in your slumber,
Relax, ye prisoners of want.
For reason in repose now slumbers.
So chill, unwind, be nonchalant.

Dick Cheney must be shitting himself.

By  Qlipoth, at Friday, September 07, 2007 12:36:00 pm  

qlipoth, thanks for the pointers. I'll follow them up when I have time.

Meanwhile, since you've brought up 'the left' again ... Why bother with small groups like the SWP, or marginal blogs like mine, when outside the US and UK there are much larger parties of the left - Rifondazione, the PCF, the SACP - not to mention actual socialist and/or radical states who could actually do something about investigating whatever there is to investigate?

By  Ken, at Friday, September 07, 2007 1:20:00 pm  

Sorry, Ken, I had meant to respond to your other points, but duty called elsewhere and I got distracted. Justin will titter, but this is going to have to be a lengthy reply.

"actual socialist and/or radical states "

Well, there aren't many of those around...

"who could actually do something about investigating whatever there is to investigate? "

There are literally none of those around! Take Cuba or Venezuela: How could they possibly investigate anything? They don't have a police force in Washington D.C. They don't have access to the Pentagon's strongrooms or the CIA's files. They don't have the power to subpoena Cheney or Rumsfeld, or Myers of USAF, or Frasca of the FBI. Those small foreign nations are quite incapable of forcing any kind of public inquiry, to say nothing of placing the US military and political élite on trial.

Both Castro and Chavez have in fact indicated (the latter quite strongly) that they don't trust a word of the Bush gang's account. But I have no connection to either country, so I don't see what good it would do for me to even contact them. (And how? By writing letters to the embassies?)

In any case, the grotesque feebleness of the Official Account is already apparent to everyone who's bothered to examine it. Unlike most left/liberal bloggers and academics, the average Latin American is under no illusions whatsoever about the extent of the US ruling class's ruthlessness. (Chileans, of course, had their own CIA-induced September 11th.) I am sure that if you took a poll in those three countries, you would find that a very large majority suspects 9/11 was an inside job. But most Cubans and Venezuelans have other priorities, understandably; such as feeding their families, or watching out for the next CIA-backed coup. And just imagine that either Chavez or Castro were indeed to devote a whole speech to the easy task of demolishing the Bush gang's cover-story; what would happen if they did? Nothing. It would either not be reported at all in the Western media, or else it would be dismissed as the ravings of a notoriously "anti-American" despot. And those leftist leaders would not have increased their popularity with the CIA.

When you suggest taking it to other left parties, well - that just seems to me, frankly, to be shifting the buck. If (for example) you or the SWP won't touch this topic, what makes you think that Die Linke or any of the other parties you mention would be any more hospitable to it?

Here's the problem: Most of these people placed all their eggs in one basket on the very day of the attacks: "Ha! Imperial Blowback! We told you so!" It was an instant, evidence-proof response that played right into the Bush gang's hands. (Bush: "They attacked us because they Hate Our Values." The Left: "Yes they did, and no bloody wonder!") Both sides agreed on the basics, and were happy to leave rationality, criminology and plain common sense out of it entirely. Those Nineteen Deathloving Superstudents were declared guilty without trial. Case closed. And unlike the Guildfour Four, the Birmingham Six and the Maguire Seven, they were all safely dead, so they couldn't demand a fair trial or any trial at all.

Alexander Cockburn demonstrates precisely what's at stake here: his vanity. He would rather see the War on Terror continue forever than admit a mistake. That's no exaggeration - and sadly, he's not alone there. Of course, there are many who nurse their doubts in silence; but most of them are still very effectively disabled by their own fear of the "conspiracy theorist!" thoughtstopper.

Still, as Andreas Hauss says: the left, too, is going to have to face up to this issue sooner or later. It's not going to go away.

Best wishes.

P.S. If you're pushed for time, do please take a look at that film. I consider it unanswerable.

By  Qlipoth, at Friday, September 07, 2007 2:27:00 pm  

Nobody believes the administration is completely blameless; they've acted with such thorough incompetence that everything about 9/11's been mishandled; the fact of the incompetence itself speaks to their inability to plan something this elaborate without screwing it up, royal.

Milgram's biased & botched experiments aside, very few americans - or people working for the americans - would be able to go through with such an atrocious act without outright going against the administration itself. Like I said, the truth is far more terrifying than any conspiracy by the government.

The truth is that evil exists, not just corruption. It's terrifying.

By  Steven Alleyn, at Saturday, September 08, 2007 2:36:00 am  

It's not going to go away.

Not of its own accord, anyway.

By  ejh, at Saturday, September 08, 2007 11:04:00 am  

It's wearying to hear this "incompetence" nonsense churned out again and again and again. Look what their "incompetence" has gained them since 9/11: a massive boost to Bush's popularity, a supine populace, a Patriot Act, a Homeland Security Act, a massively-increased military budget, a huge rise in oil-company profits, a free ticket for their long-planned wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, a second election victory, and too much else to list.

By  Qlipoth, at Saturday, September 08, 2007 11:10:00 am  

"Not of its own accord, anyway."

Justin, thank you for abandoning the supine position long enough to share your thoughts with us, in their entirety. Or maybe they were your cat's thoughts.

In other news, Osama bin Laden has dyed his beard.

By  Qlipoth, at Saturday, September 08, 2007 10:43:00 pm  

What boost to Bush's popularity? The Patriot act is a show of incompetence in government - all accross the board - with it's focus being far too broad (making it virtually impossible to glean any useful information out of the tangled heap of collected data sources without a large, dedicated processing centre and very restrictive search parametres) an its ratification having been a joke in the first place.

The department of Homeland Security was a token gesture to reassure the US population in the wake of 9/11 - it is still far from being able to accomplish even a fraction of its mandate.

The incompetence isn't about what they've accomplished, it's about what they've been able to do with those accomplishments.

By  Steven Alleyn, at Sunday, September 09, 2007 2:34:00 am  

"What boost to Bush's popularity?"

Steven, do you follow American politics at all?

"Just before the attacks on New York and Washington, Bush's job approval was at 51%, the lowest of his tenure. Then it rose to 90% Sept. 21, a record for presidents in the Gallup Poll. It stayed above 80% until March 4 and above 70% until July 22 [2002]."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2003-01-13-bush-poll_x.htm

- and rose again during and immediately after the invasion of Iraq.

"The Patriot act is a show of incompetence in government - all accross the board - with it's focus being far too broad (making it virtually impossible to glean any useful information"

Nonsense. You are buying their grotesque major premise: that the point of the Patriot Act is to deter Islamist terrorism. Of course the whole point of it is in fact to improve their control over the domestic population of the USA.

"The incompetence isn't about what they've accomplished, it's about what they've been able to do with those accomplishments. "

What have they not been able to do? Very, very little indeed! Ask almost any American - for example, Bernard Weiner:

"In short, Bush&Co. used and then grossly abused the awful events of 9/11 -- and continues to do so -- in order to expand and maintain power, to move aggressively in the world, to pay off corporate and wealthy-individual supporters through huge tax breaks (in the middle of a war!), to create a one-party system of government, to neuter the legislative and judicial branches and thus violate our time-honored checks-and-balances system that provides a brake on executive excesses, to amass more and more police powers in federal hands, to effectively control the mass-media and the vote-counting system in this country, etc. etc."

http://www.crisispapers.org/essays6w/twentythings.htm

The natives are getting restless, though. So, with Bush's approval ratings now back in the doldrums, it's no surprise that several right-wing commentators are openly yearning for another 9/11. For example, Stu Bykofsky in the Philadelphia Daily News:

"One month from The Anniversary, I'm thinking another 9/11 would help America."

http://tinyurl.com/2loczp

By your logic, Steven, the main thing about the Nazis was their incompetence. For did they not, eventually (after twelve years and 60 million deaths), lose the war and forfeit power? Therefore, this proves (somehow, by your logic) that they weren't responsible for the Reichstag fire and that they didn't stage the attack on their own border-post at Gleiwitz.

Or what?

By  Qlipoth, at Sunday, September 09, 2007 11:36:00 am  

The Sphere of the Qlippoth is known for their unceasing and inane chatter.

So it's not like you weren't warned.

By  Anonymous, at Sunday, September 09, 2007 9:02:00 pm  

Ah. I see. I was still writing from the assumption that the administration didn't orchestrate the attacks of 9/11 . I understand where you got the boost in popularity thing, now.

The Nazis may have eventually lost the war (and they did preempt a war on a second front that it would have paid them not to), but they didn't bungle every piece of legislation or every major tactical decision that they had to make. There's a reason Bush's approval ratings are in the shitter right now; he squandered that boost in popularity.

So yes; the administration is incompetent. Every time they've tried to do anything, it's gone to hell; unfinished war in Afghanistan, thorough quagmire in Iraq, leaks in the CIA and corruption throughout their judiciary appointees - to start with.

By  Steven Alleyn, at Monday, September 10, 2007 1:34:00 am  

"If I've deciphered your argument correctly, Mr. Lawrence, you're telling us that the very unconvincingness of the US government's explanation in fact proves (somehow) that they actually have a convincing explanation up their sleeve."

No, that's the same fallacy the other way around; you didn't decipher it correctly (and I'm sorry it wasn't clear - that's a consequence of this being a deliberate muddying technique).

The fallacy the first way round is, "that argument's wrong, therefore the thing being argued is false". Your way round, it's "it could be a deliberately weak argument, therefore the thing being argued is correct". But it's the "therefore" that's false. You simply cannot conclude either way. The point is, you have to determine the truth or falsity on the back of independent data and argument, not on simplistic stuff like "the government's for it so it must be wrong" or "the government's for it so it must be right".

By  Anonymous, at Monday, September 10, 2007 1:43:00 am  

Steven Alleyn: "So yes; the administration is incompetent. Every time they've tried to do anything, it's gone to hell; unfinished war in Afghanistan, thorough quagmire in Iraq, leaks in the CIA and corruption throughout their judiciary appointees - to start with."

You seriously think these people are worried about dead GIs or dead Iraqis or "corrupt" lawmakers? Those "corrupt" judicial appointees were the Bush gang's own appointees. Having performed their tasks with admirable effectiveness, they have now been shunted off to other lucrative posts.

And you think the Bush gang ever intended to leave Afghanistan? You think they ever intend to leave Iraq (aka The Prize)? If so, I can only say that you are extremely naive and underinformed. What you call a "quagmire" is a source of enormous profit to the people who matter, and only people who don't matter are being killed or maimed there.

Moreover: that "quagmire" is not optional. The US already imports over 60% of its oil. It consumes 24% of the world's fossil fuels, and rising. As Bush senior said, at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992: "The American way of life is not negotiable." And if it's not going to negotiated, then it's going to be fought for, using any means necessary. (Why do you think not one of the Democratic leaders is arguing for a full withdrwal of US troops at any time? Why?)

In Autumn 1999, while he was still CEO of Halliburton, the oilman Richard Cheney gave a speech to the Institute of Petroleum in London. As you would expect, he was very well-informed about the true state of the world's energy reserves, and about the projected huge growth in demand worldwide. He was also far from naive about how the US would guarantee the security of its own oil & gas supplies:

"For the world as a whole, oil companies are expected to keep finding and developing enough oil to offset our seventy one million plus barrel a day of oil depletion, but also to meet new demand. By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from?

Governments and the national oil companies are obviously controlling about ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies; even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow"

http://www.energybulletin.net/559.html

That's not how incompetence sounds. That's the voice of ruthlessly effective Realpolitik. Little Boy was not "incompetent" because it devastated Hiroshima, and Dick Cheney was not incompetent when he devastated Iraq. Power has a habit of doing whatever needs to be done.

By  Qlipoth, at Monday, September 10, 2007 11:32:00 am  

P.J. Lawrence wrote:

"The point is, you have to determine the truth or falsity on the back of independent data and argument, not on simplistic stuff like "the government's for it so it must be wrong" or "the government's for it so it must be right". "

Well, I never did anything of the sort, so I don't need that point explained to me. And arguing on the basis of independent data is precisely what I've been doing all along, hence the numerous links.

"You simply cannot conclude either way. "

So let's all go back to sleep. The Recumbency Strategy and the Daddy-Knows-Best Gambit seem to be amazingly popular on the left these days. Ours not to reason why.

By  Qlipoth, at Monday, September 10, 2007 11:38:00 am  

maybe they were your cat's thoughts.

Far be it from me to aspire etc

By  ejh, at Monday, September 10, 2007 12:53:00 pm  

"Far be it from me to aspire etc "

¡Hola, Justin! The Society of the Spectacle would be nothing without its spectators. But if you find the channel so annoying, why not just switch over? It is, after all, a free world. (If you can't find the remote, look under the cat.)

By  Qlipoth, at Monday, September 10, 2007 2:38:00 pm  

Yes but on this channel I get subtitles. And the kittypuss likes watching the mouse.

Did I mention that my one published book opened with a quotation from Debord?

By  ejh, at Monday, September 10, 2007 3:43:00 pm  

"Secrecy dominates this world, and foremost as the secret of domination."

Guy Debord, Treatise on Secrets: Commentaires sur la societe du spectacle.

Guardian: September 12th 2007:

Castro says US lied about 9/11 attacks

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,,2167355,00.html

AP, September 12th, 2006:

Chavez says U.S. may have orchestrated 9/11

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13401534/

By  Qlipoth, at Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:15:00 am  

Qlipoth, there's no chicken inside the trifle.

By  ejh, at Wednesday, September 12, 2007 3:16:00 pm  

There are, as Steve Alleyn said, people who are simply evil. They will kill others as well as themselves in order to obtain their 72 virgins. What exactly do they plan to do with these 72 virgins? Buy them flowers, write love letters? Marry all of them? Apparently humans are in desperate need of new metaphors to supplement their religious beliefs with less condescending and more modern rewards.

The U.S. Marines have a new gold coin, "72 Virgins Dating Service, We'll hook you up...Express Delivery Available."

Not surprising at all and a direct correlation to the death cards from Vietnam.

And quoting a character (my favorite character, 2nd only to Iain's Dizzy Sma) from Ken's novel "
I think about being evil. To them, I realize, we are indeed bad and harmful, but-and the thought catches my breath-we are not bad & harmful to (ourselves),
and that is all that matters, (to us). So as long as we are actually achieving our own good, it doesn't matter how evil we are to our enemies. Our federation will be, to them, the evil empire, the domain of dark lords and I will be a dark man in it. Humanity is indeed evil, from any non-human point of view. I hug my human wickedness in a shiver of delight. Wearing the black hat saves you a lot of soul searching. As long as you avoid hitting your own side, you're doing the right thing. Perhaps we're like the Indians, doomed but brave, a drag on the wheels of progress. Shooting arrows at the iron horses of Manifest Destiny."

I think an Islamic fascist would agree with that statement. The U.S. Marines are definitely in line with that sentiment. But that's just me and I could be completely wrong.

By  Anonymous, at Thursday, September 13, 2007 2:57:00 am  

Explanations That Explain Nothing, Vol. 253:

anonymous:
"There are, as Steve Alleyn said, people who are simply evil. They will kill others as well as themselves in order to obtain their 72 virgins."

I suspect anonymous is Martin Amis. At any rate, he is a True Believer.

Justin, you remind me of the Pope, as quoted in Ulysses:

"I'm infallible! Kiss me arse!"

(Just change 'infallible' to 'omniscient'.) Anyway: it's you, your cat, your omniscience and your Fawlty Towers videos versus me, Castro, Chavez, Margulis, Fisk, Parenti, Zinn, Peter Dale Scott and too many prominent people to list, including the 9/11 Commissioners themselves, who now freely admit that what they wrote and published was a work of fiction.

You may have written a book yourself, Justin, but did you ever read one? Try it sometime. It makes a change from the telly.

By  Qlipoth, at Thursday, September 13, 2007 4:48:00 pm  

Following in Anon's example, I'd like to offer Qlipoth a quote from one of this blog's author's best-written characters: "There is no conspiracy."

By  Steven Alleyn, at Thursday, September 13, 2007 6:18:00 pm  

A quote is no substitute for argument and evidence. It is not up to you, or to a fictional character, to decide ad hoc whether - in any particular case - there is a conspiracy or not.

But for the sake of argument, let's take you at your word. You inform us that 9/11 was not the result of a conspiracy. So you're arguing that those 19 Deathloving Superstudents met up by chance on the planes? Or what?

P.S. I am wondering if anyone has actually taken the trouble to watch that film, or to consult a single one of the links I posted.

By  Qlipoth, at Thursday, September 13, 2007 8:13:00 pm  

Faith is a fine thing, but reason is better.

Or so my cat tells me.

By  ejh, at Thursday, September 13, 2007 9:04:00 pm  

So you're arguing that those 19 Deathloving Superstudents met up by chance on the planes?

I reckon so, yeah. And they all realised they had one thing in common!

I can already see the posters...

By  ejh, at Friday, September 14, 2007 9:36:00 am  

Hateful, superstitious people doing evil things for hateful, superstitious reasons.

They had a plan and were acting in concert, but it certainly wasn't a conspiracy in the traditional, paranoid sense of the word.

By  Steven Alleyn, at Friday, September 14, 2007 12:41:00 pm  

I see, Steven. When "hateful, superstitious people" (i.e., Muslims) have a plan and act in concert, then it isn't a conspiracy; it's something else.

You confirm yet again that only racism explains the ease with which the grotesque 9/11 fairytale was swallowed in North America and Britain. ("Young Arab Males? Well, they're eeeeevil, aren't they? Capable of anything, that lot.") If those 19 allegedly Deathloving Superstudents had been natural-blond atheists, some actual serious evidence would have been demanded before everyone agreed that they were guilty. For the inferior races, lower standards apply.

"it certainly wasn't a conspiracy in the traditional, paranoid sense of the word"

The word "conspiracy" is not traditionally paranoid, in any sense whatsoever. You are talking complete and utter rubbish. What you mean, but won't say, is that our white rulers do not engage in conspiracies. Which is demonstrably and laughably false.

By  Qlipoth, at Friday, September 14, 2007 1:25:00 pm  

You are talking complete and utter rubbish. What you mean, but won't say, is that our white rulers do not engage in conspiracies.

"Discuss the second of these two sentences with reference to the first."

By  ejh, at Saturday, September 15, 2007 8:06:00 am  

"Discuss the second of these two sentences with reference to the first."

"Discuss Justin's penchant for thought-free, archly catty one-liners with reference to his support for the Recumbency Strategy."

By  Qlipoth, at Saturday, September 15, 2007 11:28:00 am  

Occam's razor, guys. We've got "hit by terrorists that have attacked before, weakened by fire" versus "sinister government plot".

I'm not saying that I would be surprised if a real no-stone-left-unturned investigation was done and actual concrete evidence of some sort of shady dealings came up - but I would be surprised if there was impeachment and inquiry in America, instead of ignorance and apathy.

Anyways, there just isn't enough information to conclude that 9/11 was due to a conspiracy. And when searching for information, remember that assuming a certain conclusion - either the Party line or the theoretical conspiracy - isn't scientific.

The best way to make sure of the truth about 9/11 has a lot to do with the last two sentences of Ken's blog post, which I think elegantly illustrate what is the most important use of energy.

By  Anonymous, at Saturday, September 15, 2007 6:19:00 pm  

Discuss Justin's penchant for thought-free, archly catty one-liners with reference to his support for the Recumbency Strategy

She's right here on the table with me now. We're just considering whether to carry on at the PC watching live chess from Mexico City or whether we might prefer to go and catch the second half of Athletic v Zaragoza....

By  ejh, at Saturday, September 15, 2007 8:40:00 pm  

Auld Occam's not in with a shout;
Few care what he's really about.
'If simple, then right'
Is the vulgarised shite
That lazy sods gleefully tout.

By  Qlipoth, at Sunday, September 16, 2007 4:28:00 pm  

The New Criminology of the 9/11Falsers:

"I heard on the telly that Bin Laden dunnit. Therefore, Bin Laden dunnit. (Occam's Razor, guys...)"

Impressive, isn't it? A wonderful new labour-saving device. Strangely, though, the Federal Bureau of Investigations is still adhering stubbornly to the tried-and-tested methods of the Old Criminology:

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

"FBI says, 'No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11'"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060610&articleId=2623

"Now, not many people know that." (M. Caine)

By  Qlipoth, at Sunday, September 16, 2007 5:36:00 pm  

Phew!




.....what's on the other side?

By  ejh, at Monday, September 17, 2007 9:28:00 am  

For those without the mental stamina to actually read the last anonymous post (mine) in full, allow me to be more to the point: I'm not saying "Bin Laden dunnit". I'm saying its all pointless bloody speculation, and cold hard facts about 9/11 are thin on the ground (and you can speculate about why that is too, but it won't get you anywhere).

Muttering about conspiracies isn't productive. I invoke once again the last two lines of Ken's blog post (have we all read them?), and submit that the wisest course for any concerned global citizen is to find something more proactive to do. It is blatantly obvious that the current leaders of the superpower(s) are up to no good, and one's estimated ratios of stupidity to malice are entirely inconsequential. We don't need to concoct conspiracy theories to illustrate how dire the situation is; everyone who has been paying attention already knows.

By  Anonymous, at Tuesday, September 18, 2007 3:17:00 pm  

"cold hard facts about 9/11 are thin on the ground"

So you assert. But you didn't watch that film or follow any of the links, did you?

Cold hard facts about Scottish football are also thin on the ground, unless you actually take the trouble to go looking for them. If you stick to the front pages of CNN and the NYT, you might actually imagine that no such facts exist.

"Muttering about conspiracies isn't productive"

Well, the only one muttering about conspiracies is you:

"Anyways, there just isn't enough information to conclude that 9/11 was due to a conspiracy."

You mean, there isn't enough information on CNN for you to consider doubting the government's account. My tip: examine other sources.

"find something more proactive to do"

Hmm, yes... For example, we could all strike a blow against the "War" on "Terror" by brandishing a plastic teaspoon in cyberspace and pretending that a dead monk once used it to shave with.

Try selling it on eBay, anonymous.

By  Qlipoth, at Tuesday, September 18, 2007 6:15:00 pm  

Cold hard facts about Scottish football are also thin on the ground, unless you actually take the trouble to go looking for them.

Yeah, but it depends where you go looking for them, doesn't it? I'd be reluctant to start with Chick Young or anybody who supports RangersandCeltic (now there is a conspiracy).

By  ejh, at Wednesday, September 19, 2007 7:55:00 am  

So where do you go looking for them, Justin? Do say.

By  Qlipoth, at Saturday, September 22, 2007 7:51:00 pm  

Well years ago I used to go to The Absolute Game. These days I go to my Contact.

By  ejh, at Sunday, September 23, 2007 8:04:00 pm  

Maybe now time for a last word on all this? That is that there was a conspiracy, there was no conspiracy.

The conspiracy that was, was tew one about how the Bush Cabinet 'stole' 9/11 as a pretended basis to take the USA into an immoral, unjustified and ultimately tragic war with Iraq This was on the basis of an absolute lie - that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.

The conspiracy that never was, is the one (or the many variations) that so many clueless and fantastical folks have beavered away at... all based around supposed 'evidence' that, for example, the Towers collapsed the wrong way, or it was Mossad, or well, whatever.

The USA interests who so exploited 9/11 in the idealogically bigoted pursuit of Iraq, will have been delighted by all this 'conspiracy-that-did-not-happen' rubbish since it completely distracts any popular mood away from starting to wanting investigated the 'conspiracy-that-really-did-happen'

By  Anonymous, at Sunday, October 07, 2007 10:28:00 am  

"or well, whatever."

Er, right. Thanks for clearing that up for us, Ted.

By  Qlipoth, at Tuesday, October 09, 2007 11:52:00 am  

The best and the most important feature of this Christian Louboutin shoes
is that it has a feet ventilating capacity. For those who are highly active throughout the day need to be in Christian Louboutin Pumps
. But Christian Louboutin Boots
have an air circulation system. The Christian Louboutin Sandals
has been carefully crafted keeping in mind.6

By  Anonymous, at Thursday, June 17, 2010 1:04:00 am