“Même” Robert Fisk a des doutes sur 9/11



Un commentaire est associé à cet article. Vous pouvez le consulter et réagir à votre tour.



Robert Fisk est ce fameux reporter du The Independent, spécialiste des questions du Moyen-Orient, à partir de reportages où il expose souvent l’aspect humanitaire des désastres que connaît la région. Fisk est un inlassable dénonciateur des politiques bellicistes et néo-impérialistes de l’Ouest, particulièrement des USA. Par contre, certains lui reprochent une certaine indulgence pour Israël, ce qui apparut notamment lors de sa “couverture“ de l’affrontement Israël-Hezbollah de l’été 2006. Enfin, il se reconnaît lui-même comme assez peu connaisseur des situations intérieures des pays qu’il dénonce, notamment des USA.

… Il y a notamment la question des attentats du 11 septembre 2001 et le débat autour de l’explication de cet événement: attaque réelle, attaque favorisée par les dirigeants US ou une partie d’entre eux, attaque complètement montée comme une provocation par ces mêmes dirigeants ou une partie d’entre eux. Fisk est souvent interrogé sur cette question lors de ses nombreuses conférences et répond en général par une prudente réserve où il refuse de se prononcer par principe, sinon par manque d'informations. C’est ce qu’il explique dans la première moitié d’un article qu’il publie aujourd’hui dans The Independant. Puis il change de ton.

Le titre de l’article nous dit tout: «Even I question the “truth” about 9/11.» C’est donc un article intéressant, une sorte d’événement vu la célébrité mais aussi la certaine prudence de Fisk qu'on a décrite: “même” lui met en doute la version officielle. Un point intéressant est de connaître la raison de la chronologie. Pourquoi Fisk publie-t-il aujourd’hui ses doutes sur une question qui n’est pas dans ces centres d’intérêt habituels, — aujourd’hui précisément? Un point intéressant, — anecdotique ou significatif c’est selon, — c’est que Fisk cite une phrase fameuse de Ron Suskind, qui représente une véritable définition du virtualisme tel que le pratique l’administration GW.

Voici la partie de l’article consacré aux doutes de Fisk:

«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.»

Mis en ligne le 25 août 2007 à 06H31


Nous avons récolté 502 € sur 3000 €

faites un don