Everyone was thinking "it was a controlled demolition" or talking about Lazer beams, trying to explain that the plane was edited in, maybe the towers never even existed and were invented by the media. But in reality it was a lot simpler, the Saudis sent people to fly planes into towers. Was the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams", like, purposeful misdirection or were conspiracy theorists just too imaginative for their own good

    • Sacred_Excrement [comrade/them]
      ·
      3 years ago

      I think so. Adding on to the above, US intelligence knew of an impeding terror attack on the US months in advance, but the Bush admin did fuck all to prevent it. The conspiracy here is that they wanted a big war in the Mideast to profit off of, for oil, as Cheney had been a CEO at Haliburton (and was kind of connected even after leaving, shocker), Haliburton being a massive oil company, before becoming GW's running mate (and Bush himself was descended from a bunch of oil magnates and likely still had his own ties there). US started with just Afghanistan, but built to Iraq because they deemed them part of the new 'Axis of Evil' for potentially having WMDs/harboring terrorists (US GAVE them WMDs to kill Iranians years prior lol and none of the hijackers were from Iraq), the 'Axis of Evil' thing being something the Bush admin invented (which consisted of Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea; explains quite a lot about diplomatic relations there, doesn't it).

      That's the conspiracy, as far as I am concerned; a number of aggressively self interested assholes let a terror attack on the US occur so they could justify invading one country (and later another, under false pretense) to steal their resources and profit from it.

      As for the Bin Laden being offered to us claim above, I genuinely forgot the Taliban offered him up in Oct 2001 lmao

      But I think you can probably draw that it was never about Bin Laden, that was just the excuse needed

      Edited to use an archive link for paywalled source

      • StalinistApologist [he/him]
        ·
        3 years ago

        Agreed, I just need to recalibrate my 9/11 understanding every so often.

        Does it seem like the 2001 article is more straightforward and offers more information than if it were written today?

        • Sacred_Excrement [comrade/them]
          ·
          3 years ago

          It does seem a bit like that, doesn't it. I did find this, unsure of how credible is. Of note are the Conclusion section and summary, as is chapter 3

          Conclusion ... It appears some negative effects – such as shorter, more emotive content – can be attributed to platforms; others – like pressures of the 24/7 news cycle – are largely an aspect of digitisation.

          Two aspects present specific future risks: sudden algorithmic changes which can severely disrupt conditions under which news is produced; and the potential devaluation of journalism through extractive summaries

          I do recall reading other things summarizing what this does essentially though; that is to say, the digitization of news and the 24 hour cycle incentivize the production of many short articles which 'grab' the reader, rather than longer and more technically informative stuff. The commodification of it probably also plays a role, as I notice some sites only allow so many 'free' articles per month before requiring subscription