When Al-Qaeda themselves claimed responsibility, even with overwhelming evidence aside? Why were so many people still reluctant, I was researching about this stuff and was shocked to see people who I respect a lot believe in this
Because Bush and company did everything they could to protect the Saudis and the Bin Laden family, and then made massive fortunes attacking Iraq which had nothing to do with the attack.
At best, the Bush administration were opportunistic war-profiteers who abused the situation for their own gain.
That doesn’t validate any of the absurd theories about demolitions or RC planes.
I didn’t actually believe this, but it was fun to entertain the idea.
Here’s why. At the time, there were a bunch of very odd coincidences. I’ll do my best to remember the best of them.
- The CIA/NSA (one of the “secret” agencies) put out a budget report showing a large amount of money that was not trackable, in the billions.
- Coincidentally, the section of the pentagon hit by the “plane” was reportedly where financial records were stored.
- By “plane”, I mean object. If you watch the 1 video that got out (all other videos were confiscated) from the nearby gas station, the thing that hits the pentagon does not look like a plane but instead a missile.
Next!
- reportedly, the owner of the twin towers took out a massive insurance policy against the buildings the day or week before 9/11 (I forget exact timing)
- also, the building was covered in asbestos, the cost to remove was in the billions, and the cost to keep the building occupied always also increasing
Next!
- building 7 (I think that’s the right one) collapsed under what appeared to be demolishing conditions
- building 7 was never hit by a plane or anything else, it just dropped like it was purposefully demolished
Edit: forgot one!
- the towers were obviously hit by planes, we have plenty of video evidence of this. The controversy is around how the towers actually fell. This is where the “jet fuel can’t melt steel beams” meme comes from.
There are more, but it’s been 20 years and my memory is hazy.
Overall, there were some oddities around the whole event that, when allowing yourself to think completely outside of reality, make sense as to why it was an inside job.
Finally, personally I believe the Saudis did it in cooperation with Bin Laden and their goal was to bankrupt America. They did a pretty good job, from their perspective.
I can’t vouch for the veracity of most of your content but I wanted to add that building 7 was also announced to have collapsed before it actually did.
I can’t vouch for the veracity of most of your content but I wanted to add that building 7 was also announced to have collapsed before it actually did.
Yep. There was also the quotes from Rudi Guilani where he said something along the lines of “Pull Building 7”, where pull is demolitions parlance to set off the charges. This was like a day of audio snippet. Its also basically impossible to find the original footage that isn’t pure conspiracy drivel, but I remember it from the time when all of this was happening. There was so much going on in the wake of 9-11, with the country pretty much instantaneously jumping into war mode, being immediately handed a narrative around al-Qaeda with no investigation into the causes or veracity of the government claims around al-Qaeda.
The push back on questioning the narrative was surreal. Like, you would be drawn and quartered publicly for doing so. The ‘feeling’ at the time was that the investigation into what actually happened and how felt like a complete sham that the government didn’t really want to do because so many people weren’t accepting the party narrative.
Also, keep in mind the context. There was a strong anti-war sentiment in 2003 going into the invasion of Iraq. The “9-11 was an inside job crowd” found themselves running with the anti-war crowd as general anti-institutionalists. This was when Alex Jones was just finding his footing and definitely wasn’t quite fully right wing. He was more accurately (at the time, in historical context) anti-establishment. The modern right-wing movement hadn’t fully formed, although it found its roots in this historical period (the Tea party would also come out of this period).
So just broadly consider the different vectors operating on public perception at the time. We were basically instantly construction a “Going to War is the Solution” narrative within hours of 9-11 happening, and the narrative around that construction was found to be fully formed as soon as it emerged, almost as if the institutions of the US government and its surrounding media had been prepared for this exact moment. Push back against this was effectively an instantaneous scarlett letter and there basically was none in US mainstream media*. There was a strong push back against any kind of independent investigation into the events leading up to the event. We got reports from the CIA and FBI, but considering the context, like, if those are the parties in question, do you believe them? Then you had the Saudi Bush family connections, the fact that we were basically going to war with Afghanistan when we knew it was the Saudis that did 9-11, which was like a pretty big red flag. Then there were the reports that globally, many governments warned about this happening to US intelligence agencies, but it seemed like they just kind of let it happen. Which is really where the conspiracy was focused. These days it gets too wrapped up in ‘inside job’ etc, but the general scheme was more about 9-11 being allowed to happen as an excuse for a Bush invasion into the middle east. This wasn’t a conspiracy that was built in hindsight, the speculation was built in real time (before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq), and then go figure, Bush invades the middle east, and specifically, goes after Iraq. This basically fully validates the theory, and to put a cherry on top, the evidence on Iraq was all just… fraudulent. So if you limit the scope of the theory to 9-11 was ‘allowed’ to occur to justify a military industrial complex incursion into the middle east, its kind-of like “well yeah duh” because thats exactly what happened.
Wild fukin time and wild bit of history. Important to keep context in mind, and to have sources of information about the past which aren’t ‘edited’ to reflect newthink.
*Democracy Now did exist by this time (finding its establishment after the Seattle WTO protests). If you want to really understand what was going on at the time, this would be the media source I would recommend.
Do you write? I really enjoyed reading your comments, just flowed naturally talented
Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it.
I’m a scientist, so I do ‘write’ professionally, but its a very different kind of writing than I do here, and I would say that they are entirely seperate (excepting my discussion sections where I afford a bit more liberty to style, although I tend to be more focused on methods in my publications, where I don’t give myself as much liberty).
I attribute my writing style to years of participating in forums and threaded discussion boards, starting in the early 90s. I try to use quotes from who I’m replying to, hyper links, bold and italics for emphasis, but to use a conversational/ editorial style. When I was coming up on the internet, I truly believed that the internet allowed for the democratization of ideas, in that, on the internet you have no appeal to authority on your credentials or name or background. The only weight you can provide is rhetoric and whatever evidence you can scuff up, and because of that, the best ideas should find their way to the top. Boy was I wrong, but I still believe in the virtue of good ideas, and that belief is part of my motivation for being involved in places like (formerly) reddit or (currently) lemmy.
As a scientist, how did you feel at the time about the railroading of scientist Bruce Ivins for the Anthrax scare?
I would attribute not to all the writing you’ve done, but all the reading.
the towers were obviously hit by planes, we have plenty of video evidence of this. The controversy is around how the towers actually fell. This is where the “jet fuel can’t melt steel beams” meme comes from.
Of course, the meme is a parody of anyone who thinks that’s a legitimate argument. You don’t need to liquify a material for it to lose its structural integrity.
No, people actually believed it from day 1.
Yes, people believed “jet fuel can’t melt steel beams”, but the meme is a parody of people who believed it.
Sometimes parodies are just literal reflections.
It certainly wasn’t a plane that hit the Pentagon.
I watched live TV coverage (online) of the pentagon prior to the fire department showing up. There was a 10-15ft hole and NO wings, NO fire, a small hole only. Somewhere on an old drive I have all the videos available online that day. Have showed those to many people over the years, they all said WTF!!
Watching these videos it was clear there was no plane that hit the pentagon
I don’t think the surface level observations of someone who has no clue what they’re talking about overrides actual evidence.
Where did the wings and engines of the plane go? Did they neatly fold in to fit into the narrow hole, and then hide under the rubble?
I don’t have much of an opinion on this topic, I haven’t really looked into it.
But as soon as I saw this image, the El Al Flight 1862 which crashed in the Bijlmer in Amsterdam in 1992 immediately came to mind. The shape of the hole is very similar!
This image shows the likely position of the Bijlmer plane during the crash:
The image you posted of the Pentagon seems to me consistent with what I have seen of the Bijlmer accident, and so the shape of the hole and the absence of wings in the photo does not persuade me personally that no plane was involved.
Interesting. However in this case the plane came down vertically so the wings/engines would hit the ground beside the building. In case of the pentagon, the plane supposedly flew horizontally at ground level, so the wings should crash directly into the building.
Fair enough. I just looked it up and if the scale in this image is correct, I agree that the size of the hole looks small in comparison. I also looked at the security video of the crash itself and it is frustrating how little we can see from it.
Since this was such an important event and there seems to be a lack of specific pieces of essential evidence - either because of bad luck or because of a cover-up - I understand the skepticism. And I am not a fan of blindly believing any official narrative. But, without any context, if I see that photo and someone tells me that a plane crashed into that building, I would find it probable simply because the shape is so similar to the photo of the Bijlmer accident that I’m familiar with. A plane crash seems to me like a very chaotic process, so I don’t have a good expectation of what the damage should look like.
Maybe I’ll look for a pentagon crash documentary some time.
I think it’s because people would rather believe the world is secretly controlled by some truly awful people than acknowledge no-one’s steering the bus.
I think it is because of the bizarre way the towers collapsed. Just like a controlled demolition looks like. The way the WTC7, that did not get hit by any plane, also collapsed. Supposedly because it caught on fire too.
I think this is really the cause of suspicion, it was just pretty bizarre. A lot of people came forward to explain that a fire couldn’t brind such a massive structure down.
Also, the US is known for doing weird shit behind everyone’s backs. The CIA is constantly doing shit like taking governments down or causing a drug crisis in black neighborhoods. You gotta admit the US agencies are sneaky in general, so it wouldn’t be a surprise if they were actually responsible for the twin towers. There’s no evidence but I’m pretty sure the CIA was somehow involved with the Nord Stream pipeline
Here is an interview with a Dutch demolitions expert, who claims that WTC 7 was clearly brought down in a controlled demolition.
I think you need to reassess these people you respect a lot. Belief in 9-11 conspiracy theories is not common.
The Venn Diagram overlap between anti-vaxxers, 9-11 ‘truthers’, and flat earthers is nearly a circle
Some would call them “independent thinkers”
What’s more admirable, to conform and be right or to think independently and be wrong?
I think the weaponization of ignorance is a more nuanced subject than a binary choice.
There is no merit in pushing significantly disproven ‘theories’ like flat earthism.
No doubt. But dang, when they call themself right because they quote the most popular authority, I feel a strong impulse to play it wrong.
I mean, I’d push flat-eartherism just to highlight the absurdity of the popular epistemology. But that’s generally a pearls-before-swine situation.
Funny you mention that, there is a Flat Earth society that was started as a joke with members just arguing for fun.
They were mostly all replaced by true believers by the late 90s, I got to watch it happen.
And it plays out the same way in so many ‘ironic stupidity’ forums.
The true believers have more zip than the careful contemplators, unfortunately.
This is a flaw in human nature that needs to be resolved before we move forward as a species.
It is no longer a survival benefit to follow loud, angry people.
Also the usual pattern (seen in many countries/empires, not just USA) - since civil war war-profiting (closely related to the two parties & why the switch happened) the industry was always hungry and in need of a good loosing-ish war (or - only short periods without a war).
It always follows the same pattern --> need for profits/power expenditure rises --> if public is (fuded) on board, great, if not, we need a terrorist-like attack, seemingly unpreventable yet utterly publicly show before it happened.
Like in WWII, USA had stakes on both sides, but also not ‘as big’ of a military budget as they could have. The problem was that the public was super against entering the conflict (80~90% against, this is the time when the civil war was well within lining memory with soldiers and widows on proper military pensionsv still alive, regular parades, etc). So for the first time ever they decide to put all their ship-eggs in one Pearl-basket & advertise that move a lott, how they did that, where they did that (how much time they are gonna wait there, lul), and what defenses are there, how the seamen were sent home etc. All under the disguise of showing their military power to Japan (that’s like exposing your balls to an enemy that is already attacking you). Ofc the attack successfully happened, propaganda machine spun up (still today we get movies about that, ‘the horror’), the public option switched over night and politicians could hike the military budget substantially. (Movies that we don’t get is about what/how USA did to japan - like how they killed more civilians with regular carpet bombing per day compared to the killed in blasts of atomic bombs - the most destructive single air attack in human history … and USA dropped about 4× as much bombs total in Vietnam)
The same with 9-11, public is anti war, you have the two towers and movies detailing how easy it would be to crash a plane into specifically the towers. Or Vietnam proxy war, which lasted for so long that the public turned back against it (hippies) and government had to demonize them (the ridiculous anti weed laws/enforcement, “satanism”, etc).
Funding and assisting a foreign terrorist group for profit is shockingly common. Sometimes you even have to manufacture a new group because the existing don’t suit your needs.
Oh, and the atrocities compared are always like x killed in domestic attack, xxxxxx killed in the foreign bombarding campaign. When public opinion isn’t that big of an issue a smaller trigger point is needed - usually USA sends literal military personnel into sovereign foreign countries & when the invaded county returns fire in the invading force USA counts that as an act of war (huh, I guess technically that is correct).
Sort of like how Israel has been funding Hamas?
I’d be willing to entertain the 9/11 theory of the US funding Al-Qaeda except for two facts:
- Al-Qaeda was sufficiently well-funded and supported without US involvement
- I saw that video of Bush hearing the news and sitting, indecisively and in shock. The man was not that good an actor; he was pretty obviously at a complete loss about how to react.
It requires more suspension of disbelief that the head of state would be utterly unaware of such a program or plan, and if he was aware, he’d certainly have a better photo-op reaction planned than sitting there like a stunned cow for several minutes.
Al-Qaeda was absolutely a product of US intelligence agencies, but not to this end. We created them to cause grief for the Russians, and once spawned, they grew their own agendas, some of which were turned against their creators. I doubt any US agency had any knowing involvement with 9/11. What we did have is indirect involvement, and a shit-ton of hubris.
They do have a lot of rules in supplying aid to Hamas if you actually look into it, most the criticism of them proping up Hamas come from ultra right wing criticism of providing aid and medical support to Palestine.
If you believe all Palestine is Hamas it makes sense and you’d have to say allowing aid in is bad but I don’t think you want that.
I have to think about these responses, although they may come out being brief.
I absolutely do not believe all Palestinians are Hamas or support Hama’s, and even if I did think they were, and even included Palestinian children and infants, I would say Israel’s response is disproportionate.
In any case, Israel has been murdering non-combattants and protesters non-stop for years, and settlers have been murdering Palestinians with no consequence and stealing Palestinian land for decades. Hamas is merely a group of terrorists propped up after Israel saw the value of having a name to put on the enemy, following 9/11 and Al-Qaeda.
I see no justice or relief for Palestine from any quarter; the world has abandoned them.
Because there was some legit sketchy shit:
-
Bush was warned at least a month in advance that an attack was coming. He deliberately did nothing. This was documented publicly in a Senate hearing afterwards. We don’t know whether he did nothing because of incompetence or malice, and we don’t know who else knew in advance as well, but either way, at least he and the people who briefed him knew.
-
The dirty secret of skyscrapers is that they’re mostly made of nothing. They’re almost entirely air. It takes precious little to weaken them and bring them down. The Bin Laden family was in the construction business and they knew this fact very well.
-
As others have noted in the thread, Bin Laden and the Muhjadeen had been funded, trained, and armed by the USA. They were our creation.
Usually when people are suspicious, they’re right to be suspicious. They’re not always right about what to be suspicious about.
I’m confused by this comment, what exactly is sketchy?
W is/was an incompetent fool that didn’t feel the threat was worth acting upon. Instead of imagining some 4D conspiracy its much easier to see and understand that him and his administration were inept.
There have been numerous documentaries and analysis about skyscrapers and planes and the conclusion was that the towers actually performed ABOVE average. People don’t seem to understand the power involved in a fucking jerliner slamming into a building.
Bin Laden was trained and armed to fight the Russians, which he did. He then decided to turn on us because he always was always a lunatic.
Again, nothing about 9/11 is mysterious to me and I don’t get the conspiracy thinking.
-
I think one reason people believe that and I heard a lot of people talking about the day it happened is, the twin towers would not ordinarily have imploded the way they did just because of an airplane impact. A lot of fuel leaked from the burning planes, but many speculated there had to already be explosives planted along many of the building’s inner seams for them to explode and collapse the way they did.
I don’t know if we’ll ever know for sure, but there COULD be some plausibility to inside homegrown terrorists having aided this atrocity.
It’s easier to believe the people in charge are secretly in control of everything than to believe they’re barely in control of anything.
And yet, this all powerful government couldn’t even fake finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to “validate” their invasion reasons.
Government incompetence is the main reason I didn’t go down the conspiracy rabbit hole. They’re too stupid to pull most shit off without tripping over their own dicks.
