I think everyone here believes 9/11 conspiracies to a certain extent. Hell, I think most people believe in certain variations of them. The extent of which is where your mileage may vary.

  • Bush/Cheney/Rumself knew about it and intentionally did nothing to stop it
  • The Saudis did it

These two are pretty universally accepted in these circles (and beyond them). But I'm curious to where everyone here feels about the more nitty gritty theories:

  • Do you believe that the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld-lead cabal actively coordinated in ways to make it easier for the hijackings to be successful (such as disrupting the NORAD response, intentionally allowing the hijackers into the country and coordinating freely, etc...)

  • Do you believe in the controlled demolition theory?

  • Do you believe Flight 93 was shot down?

  • Do you think the people the official narrative claims were flying the planes were actually flying the planes? This seems to breakdown to two different scenarios:

    1. The hijackers were never actually flying the plane (Which is a theory I don't support)
    2. The hijackers were "flying" the plane but it was actually being piloted as an autonomous drone (I think this is way more likely)

  • Do you believes the planes that crashed into the buildings weren't actually the reported planes and the passengers were disposed by other means?

  • Do you believe a missile hit the Pentagon?

  • Do you believe that certain people were aware of what was going to happen and tipped off about it, allowing them to execute lucrative securities trading?

For me, I believe:

  • That the involvement of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld-lead cabal definitely took active measures to make sure it succeeds
  • Flight 93 was shot down
  • The planes were being autonomously piloted

I am agnostic to the controlled demolition theories. The physics and engineering component of it goes a bit over my head, so I'm left to trusting certain peoples analysis. I've seen people I trust provide arguments for both sides.

I'm curious to hear where everyone else falls on this spectrum?

  • reddit [any,they/them]
    ·
    3 years ago

    Saudi govt knew, I think some portion of the US govt knew something was coming but honestly probably underestimated it. Doubt they knew details.

    No controlled demolition or anything necessary, see the 9/11 ep of :wtyp-gang:

    93 was probably shot down

    • RandyLahey [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      i was listening to that last night, great episode but holy shit the bit where roz finds out ruth bader ginsberg just died and becomes completely jokerfied live on air was truly incredible :michael-laugh:

    • Hoodoo [love/loves]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Hard to imagine they would allow 9/11 to happen.

      History has proven again and again they need NO EVIDENCE AT ALL to push the American people to war.

      The idea that they'd need to concoct a false flag, essentially, is ignoring how stupid and murderous the American people are. It's a-historical.

      • RandyLahey [he/him]
        ·
        3 years ago

        if you read the pnac documents written prior to 9/11, theyre really fucking mask-off (and remember pnac includes cheney and rumsfeld)

        they talk at length about wanting a new "pax americana", and are itching to do a bunch of invasions and transformations of the american military machine

        and they explicitly say "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor"

        i think its not hard to see how they might see evidence of such an event coming and choose to turn a blind eye to it "for the greater good" of furthering their batshit vision for america

      • Ziege_Bock [any]
        ·
        3 years ago

        America doesn't do shit on account of how Americans feel or are. It's not a democracy.

        I also think it's crazy that you'd say that it's "ahistorical" to claim that we wouldn't need consent manufacturing to go to war, because there are actually a lot of historical examples of this very thing happening!

        9/11 as an excuse to go to war on terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq, HW's administration encouraged Saddam to invade Kuwait before launching the gulf war in response along with the Nariyah testimony, the Gulf of Tonkin incident was instrumental to really gearing up the Vietnam War, there's plenty of conjecture about the extent to which FDR knew Pearl Harbor would happen to facilitate the entry of America into WW11. The Lusitania for WW1, the USS Maine for the Spanish American war, the USS Leopard for the war of 1812! The US ruling elite manufacturing outrage over incidents in order to build public support for foreign wars and empire building is something that is completely supported by historical events. You've got a real uninformed opinion there, friend.

        As the newspaperman William Randolph Hearst said about the prospects of America going to war with Spain in the 20th century "you furnish the photographs, and I'll furnish the war,"

        • NPa [he/him]
          ·
          3 years ago

          It's not only to drum up domestic support, but also to maintain a plausible story when the international community comes knocking. Their allies need plausible deniability and their enemies need to be reassured that this is a 'one-time thing' so to speak, that they have a clear goal and aren't just turning on the murder machine for shits and giggles.

      • Hexbear2 [any]
        ·
        3 years ago

        Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld all admit it, Bush in his book, decision points, Cheney and Rumsfeld during interviews that can be found on youtube. Also, the debris field is consistent with mid-air breakup, being strewn across many tens of miles, and we know for sure F-16s were scrambled to intercept flight 93.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vV3fjfeb9Q

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNuosBnlw5s

        • Neckbeard_Prime [they/them,he/him]
          ·
          3 years ago

          Forget why -- I'd like to know how, considering the USAF doesn't typically fuck around with live munitions on training flights over the continental US (especially during peacetime), and they didn't have armed fighters on 24/7 standby back then. There are also some inconsistencies in the stories:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93#Fighter_jet_response

          • bigboopballs [he/him]
            ·
            3 years ago

            and they didn’t have armed fighters on 24/7 standby back then

            ah, the good ol' days of pre-9/11

        • SolidaritySplodarity [they/them]
          ·
          3 years ago

          Because even theories about much wider conspiracies don't require everyone to be "in on it", so that would be a normal response from a military trying to prevent some terrorism.

          And then it would be covered up because it's a bad look for the military to intentionally kill a bunch of Americans.

          • Hotspur21 [he/him]
            ·
            3 years ago

            Ah. I was assuming people that think the plane was shot down would also think that the government was in on it and wouldn’t care what it did