Ok, dismiss everything. My point is that there is a ton of data points which should raise eyebrows of researchers, and to dismiss with such certitude in the face of unanswered/unanswerable questions is just as unreasonable as being credulous with every conspiracy theory posited. Your conflation of people troubled by these data points and questions with the fringest of conspiracy theorists reeks of unmerited condescension. A more reasonable position would be to state your personal feeling on the matter but acknowledge that there are unknowns and unknowables and certain evidence that make any sort of confidence one way or another impossible at this point in time. Instead it’s “this is just UFO shit” and I was surprised this is your take.
Dismiss what, exactly? OP is alleging that there's something unusual about recovering documents from the crash sites. There isn't. There's no question to ask here because there's no reason to think that recovered passports are evidence of something unusual.
What am I dismissing? The US had all the evidence and didn't put it together because of inter-service rivalries, compartmentalization, and it being the 90s when we were still banging rocks together to make fire? Bush was in tight with the Saudi's and the bin Ladens? al-Qaeda was mostly an invention of the US intelligence services, the US's perception of a clandestine military organization that formed during the Soviet-Afghan war with CIA assistance? al-Qaeda tried to blow up the WTC all the time, it was like their favorite hobby. Where is the new information? What's the truth that's being hidden? The US did it? it was a false flag? What is there to investigate or reveal?
Can we dial this back a little, because I respect the posting I’ve seen from you over the years and internet debating stresses me out. I think I may have used a couple loaded phrases to poke a little, and I would like to clarify where I have contributed to a misunderstanding.
I appreciated the first part of your response where you linked to information about the things that were found at crash sites. I found this as cogent reasoning and respectful practice, as I am not swayed by the passports, not to mention jet fuel etc.
I shouldn’t have said “dismiss everything” and I should have made clear that I took umbrage with what I interpreted as equivocation between legitimate paths of inquiry and irresponsible and wild conspiratorial speculation (UFO shit, as I put it). To me, you were saying all 9/11 questioning contra the official narrative is conspiracy theory. This irked me ngl.
When I said dismiss everythin in the fillowing response, I was alluding to you presenting a cohesive narrative with facts which didn’t really address some if the points my first response, in particular the point about insider trading. None of the facts I pointed out and none of the facts you pointed out are immiscible, and could be explained away under the paradigm of “the official narrative”. Like who knows what networks could’ve tipped off investors. I can accept that.
But I thank you for pointing out long standing relationships between Saudi’s and the Bush family, both in official state operations and myriad business ventures. Poppy and a select group of his closest pals in US intelligence and otherwise were absolutely instrumental and intimately involved in modernizing Saudi intelligence, and he was personally involved in seeing Saudi funds reintegrated into US investments. All of the networks that surround these people and their activities are characterized by subterfuge, lies, in dealing, fucking holes in the ground for energy, fraudulent investment schemes, and pursuing war for profit. Even if all evidence pointed to the straight forward narrative, one should be chilled with how much these folks directly benefitted from the expansion of the military budget and intensification of secrecy and surveillance at scale in the aftermath. We saw a 2 trillion dollar transfer of public wealth to the defense industry in as many decades, to give a sense of the incentive structure their cohort had to pursue such an open ended war in such a geopolitically important region. This does not include the private wealth pursued by like, every single general and JCoS asshole after their “service” to use soviet maps to strip mine the regions that had decimated and conquered for empire.
We could go on trading details toward this or that end, but to me the previous paragraph is sorta my reasoning as to why the official narrative should be critically evaluated, and where it is weak or points to troubling and unanswered lines of inquiry, well all the more reason to press. It is strange that these calculating and conspiring fucks were able to use their networks and conspiring to personally enrich themselves and pals over decades in adjacent and directly related industries, but this 2 trillion dollar gift from god required none of that. Maybe I am naive or somehow uncritical for this still being unsettling to me, and enough for me to keep an open mind to counter narratives.
It is pretty uncontroversial to say that people in a position to take advantage of this event for personal, political, and imperial aims did so the umpth degree. I think where we might disagree is whether it is necessary to pursue the question of “were these actors, who may have been in a position to tip the scales in favor of this event, act to or fail to act so as to contribute to this eventuality” as a legitimate line of inquiry, or if the facts as presented obviate the need to do so.
You’re cool and funny and I respect your posting. I don’t post much, and I lack the wherewithal to engage most the time. I hope this made any sense and that my good faith and lack of malice come through in the tone of this message.
My apologies. I allowed twenty years of... idk, dealing with "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" to color my perceptions of this discussion and I got really angry. That was not appropriate.
There is a lot of unknown and unknowable stuff but it all seems like bullshit to me. Like you said, that position is reasonable. I'm being the reasonable person here.
Word. That’s fair. I was just put off by what I interpreted as an unfair equivocation between attempting to apply material analysis to major historical events and undisciplined conspiratorial waxing. Having spent ungodly hours attempting to form a cohesive thought on the matter, even the most conservative interpretation of evidence leaves me with nothing like the confidence on display in advocating on behalf of “the official narrative”. “I think it’s bullshit but there is merit in pursuing questions with a critical disposition” seems way more honest and comradely a response than “even if there is a ton of contravening evidence problemetizing the official narrative, it is all bullshit and I am correct”. So thank you for your generosity.
Ok, dismiss everything. My point is that there is a ton of data points which should raise eyebrows of researchers, and to dismiss with such certitude in the face of unanswered/unanswerable questions is just as unreasonable as being credulous with every conspiracy theory posited. Your conflation of people troubled by these data points and questions with the fringest of conspiracy theorists reeks of unmerited condescension. A more reasonable position would be to state your personal feeling on the matter but acknowledge that there are unknowns and unknowables and certain evidence that make any sort of confidence one way or another impossible at this point in time. Instead it’s “this is just UFO shit” and I was surprised this is your take.
Dismiss what, exactly? OP is alleging that there's something unusual about recovering documents from the crash sites. There isn't. There's no question to ask here because there's no reason to think that recovered passports are evidence of something unusual.
What am I dismissing? The US had all the evidence and didn't put it together because of inter-service rivalries, compartmentalization, and it being the 90s when we were still banging rocks together to make fire? Bush was in tight with the Saudi's and the bin Ladens? al-Qaeda was mostly an invention of the US intelligence services, the US's perception of a clandestine military organization that formed during the Soviet-Afghan war with CIA assistance? al-Qaeda tried to blow up the WTC all the time, it was like their favorite hobby. Where is the new information? What's the truth that's being hidden? The US did it? it was a false flag? What is there to investigate or reveal?
Can we dial this back a little, because I respect the posting I’ve seen from you over the years and internet debating stresses me out. I think I may have used a couple loaded phrases to poke a little, and I would like to clarify where I have contributed to a misunderstanding.
I appreciated the first part of your response where you linked to information about the things that were found at crash sites. I found this as cogent reasoning and respectful practice, as I am not swayed by the passports, not to mention jet fuel etc.
I shouldn’t have said “dismiss everything” and I should have made clear that I took umbrage with what I interpreted as equivocation between legitimate paths of inquiry and irresponsible and wild conspiratorial speculation (UFO shit, as I put it). To me, you were saying all 9/11 questioning contra the official narrative is conspiracy theory. This irked me ngl.
When I said dismiss everythin in the fillowing response, I was alluding to you presenting a cohesive narrative with facts which didn’t really address some if the points my first response, in particular the point about insider trading. None of the facts I pointed out and none of the facts you pointed out are immiscible, and could be explained away under the paradigm of “the official narrative”. Like who knows what networks could’ve tipped off investors. I can accept that.
But I thank you for pointing out long standing relationships between Saudi’s and the Bush family, both in official state operations and myriad business ventures. Poppy and a select group of his closest pals in US intelligence and otherwise were absolutely instrumental and intimately involved in modernizing Saudi intelligence, and he was personally involved in seeing Saudi funds reintegrated into US investments. All of the networks that surround these people and their activities are characterized by subterfuge, lies, in dealing, fucking holes in the ground for energy, fraudulent investment schemes, and pursuing war for profit. Even if all evidence pointed to the straight forward narrative, one should be chilled with how much these folks directly benefitted from the expansion of the military budget and intensification of secrecy and surveillance at scale in the aftermath. We saw a 2 trillion dollar transfer of public wealth to the defense industry in as many decades, to give a sense of the incentive structure their cohort had to pursue such an open ended war in such a geopolitically important region. This does not include the private wealth pursued by like, every single general and JCoS asshole after their “service” to use soviet maps to strip mine the regions that had decimated and conquered for empire.
We could go on trading details toward this or that end, but to me the previous paragraph is sorta my reasoning as to why the official narrative should be critically evaluated, and where it is weak or points to troubling and unanswered lines of inquiry, well all the more reason to press. It is strange that these calculating and conspiring fucks were able to use their networks and conspiring to personally enrich themselves and pals over decades in adjacent and directly related industries, but this 2 trillion dollar gift from god required none of that. Maybe I am naive or somehow uncritical for this still being unsettling to me, and enough for me to keep an open mind to counter narratives.
It is pretty uncontroversial to say that people in a position to take advantage of this event for personal, political, and imperial aims did so the umpth degree. I think where we might disagree is whether it is necessary to pursue the question of “were these actors, who may have been in a position to tip the scales in favor of this event, act to or fail to act so as to contribute to this eventuality” as a legitimate line of inquiry, or if the facts as presented obviate the need to do so.
You’re cool and funny and I respect your posting. I don’t post much, and I lack the wherewithal to engage most the time. I hope this made any sense and that my good faith and lack of malice come through in the tone of this message.
*edited for clarity (i hope)
My apologies. I allowed twenty years of... idk, dealing with "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" to color my perceptions of this discussion and I got really angry. That was not appropriate.
Also apologies for where my communication fell short.
I'll take your reasonable position.
There is a lot of unknown and unknowable stuff but it all seems like bullshit to me. Like you said, that position is reasonable. I'm being the reasonable person here.
Word. That’s fair. I was just put off by what I interpreted as an unfair equivocation between attempting to apply material analysis to major historical events and undisciplined conspiratorial waxing. Having spent ungodly hours attempting to form a cohesive thought on the matter, even the most conservative interpretation of evidence leaves me with nothing like the confidence on display in advocating on behalf of “the official narrative”. “I think it’s bullshit but there is merit in pursuing questions with a critical disposition” seems way more honest and comradely a response than “even if there is a ton of contravening evidence problemetizing the official narrative, it is all bullshit and I am correct”. So thank you for your generosity.