Use my code MARS10 and link: https://bit.ly/curioBKMar22 to get 10% off (save up to $47!) your own authentic Japanese subscription box from Bokksu! Don't mis...
we are going to have a lovely discussion about this video >:3
Since everyone's feeling brave about conspiracy theories and not dismissing them out of hand for smug lib reasons, I'm going to bring up once again that the American government did 9/11, and it's nearly as cartoonishly obvious as the assassination of JFK when you actually look into it. Don't be cowards.
As many holes as you can poke in the official report I've yet to hear a cohesive conspiracy theory that doesn't wind up creating even bigger holes. Like for example: if America did 9/11 why did they make 15 of the 19 hijackers from Saudi Arabia?
Perhaps "facilitated" is the better term. I'm not sure if they outright coordinated with the Saudis, but they did literally everything imaginable to clear the path for them.
I'll concede it's not outlandish to think there was a general stand down to jump start a war. That becomes more plausible if you realize that they probably didn't realize the actual targets or how effective the attacks would be.
Still Hanlon's razor and the shock doctrine apply...so I still don't buy into that one.
So when you say that you've looked into the subject, what exactly have you consumed?
And I'm sorry, but Hanlon's Razor is some lib bullshit that will have you believing in the Ever-Stumbling Empire that constantly achieved all its goals on accident.
Hanlon's razor reduces a spectrum ranging from "stupidity" to :grillman: to malice into a binary, and forgives every action shy of a cackling supervillain pushing the "dunk people in vat of acid" button as "stupidity" but to do the opposite of that would be as much of a distortion of reality.
I've watched and read countless videos and posts for years on the subject and listened to subsequent counter arguments. Most of it pre YouTube. I was around for the early 00s internet days where these debates we're at their peak.
I would challenge your characterization on two grounds:
That seems to inevitably lead to a mindset that everything that happens is by conscious rational choice...which I would argue itself is in fact the actual liberal mindset.
unlike some other examples you can point to: I think the suggestion that America achieved all it's policy goals post 9/11 is a helluvah stretch. I grant you certain people made a shit load of money....but it's also becoming pretty clear how much it sped up the decline of the empire.
It's funny how most of the most important domestic incidents in the last century of American history have been perpetrated by Lone Nuts, and almost all of them advanced the interests of the security state. What a wild series of coincidences.
In what material ways has it sped up the decline of the American Empire? As far as I can tell, opposition has quite possibly never been weaker, possibly excepting the immediate aftermath of the domestic assassination campaigns of the 60s and 70s.
-Depends on how you want to define "lone nut". I don't think anyone is a "lone nut" in the purest sense, in the same way no body is a truly isolated invidual. This gets messy when you start talking things like jfk where Oswald pretty clearly had some kind of ties to intelligence.
In the case at hand hough: if you want to say America did 9/11 in that they created the material conditions that directly led to the attacks, preach it. If you mean: they planted bombs and thermite and hired crisis actors, this ain't it chief.
-....we're watching the collapse of the unipolar world right now?
-It collapsed from debris and fire. Answer my first point. Why were 15 of the 19 hijackers from Saudi Arabia if the whole thing was planned by the United States?
-Not really. I haven't really done a deep dive into it as a counter factual but just as a surface guy reading: kinda still think America would have tried to do regime change in Iraq cause they were always gunning for that.
Again: I just think it's a bit dubious to claim that 9/11 resulted in America achieving all of its goals.
Lmfao it collapsed from fire and debris. So you do literally believe the official story word for word.
I answered your question.
I wasn't saying that the US achieved all its goals in response to 9/11, I was illustrating an archetype who casts conspiracy theories aside in favor of coincidence theories, and seems to find it more plausible that the US constantly achieves nefarious domestic and international goals via accident than via conspiracy.
-I believe that it collapsed from fire and debris. Yes. That is the most plausible explanation.
-Where?
-You did say that though. I'm not pushing "coincidence theories". None of my arguments depend on coincidence. Do you think Americas military ventures in the middle east have been unmitigated top to bottom success stories for those in power?
Given where we know they really wanted to go with the war on terror, why not stock the plane full of Iraqis? More then that: why pick the ONE Muslim nationality that is basically a third rail in American politics such that the media subsequently did literally everything it could do to avoid talking about it? If you genuinely believe that 9/11 was a top to bottom inside job orchestrated by the CIA that seems like a bit of an oversight no?
So; here's the kind of question that I ask when I have to ponder these lines of inquiry. What is actually gained in making the much more ontologically/evidentiarily expensive claim that US Intelligence was actively involved in the planning/orchestration of 9/11, that cannot also be gained through knowledge which is already relatively "cheap" to find & disseminate?
Namely the reality of the United State's longstanding relationship with & support of reactionary movements in the Middle East which ultimately enabled 9/11 to happen.
The only real "gain" that can be said to result from trying to make this argument, as far as I can tell, is the cathartic release of being able to say that "The US Deep State is literally directly responsible for everything bad ever." (Which seems to be what Redbolshevik is trying to establish here). And that's not... Like I can get why it's emotionally salient, but it's not necessarily a rational, or scientific way of approaching the problem, and moreover I don't understand how it's useful in a way that simply noting the dynamics of material interest is.
Lol this is an insane argument. The benefit of uncovering what happened is knowledge of the truth and understanding how the world works. Maybe try psychologizing yourself, see why you don't want it to be true?
It's fascinating how Liberals do this thing where you jump straight past the possibility that you could be wrong into coming up with some psychological reason why the person who doesn't believe the stupid bullshit you believe has been led astray.
Again though: do you not see how you're actually creating more holes then you're filling in with these theories and speculations?
Maybe there are inconsistencies and discrepancies in the official 9/11 story. There are inconsistencies and discrepancies in the sandy hook shooting also but that doesn't mean the chuds conspiracies are right. There's a lot of self serving and cya shit going on in these things.
As a matter of fact, the most authoritative report from the NIST said the debris did no significant damage.
Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7. [Source: page xxxvii]
What I meant was that the falling debris didn't cause any direct kinetic damage to the building's structural integrity in the same way that WTCs 1 and 2 were damaged by the kinetic impact of the planes, and I felt like that is what you were implying. I wasn't denying that you said there was fire. It wasn't a "gotcha". I wasn't even trying to argue that the fires couldn't have caused the collapse. I was just trying to update you on the latest developments of the official narrative, because early reports by FEMA and Popular Mechanics claimed that WTC 7 was, in fact, kinetically damaged to a significant degree, but they were later contradicted by the final report.
spoiler
[U]sing NIST’s then-current thinking in order to claim that “WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated,” Popular Mechanics argued that critics could not reject the official account on the grounds that it would make WTC 7 the first steel-frame high-rise to have failed “because of fire alone,” because, Popular Mechanics claimed, the causes of WTC 7’s collapse were analogous to the causes of the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2: “A combination of physical damage from falling debris [analogous to the damage caused in the Twin Towers by the airplane impacts] and prolonged exposure to the resulting [diesel-fuel-fed] fires [analogous to the jet-fuel-fed fires in the Twin Towers].”24
Popular Mechanics called this twofold explanation a “conclusion” that had been reached by “hundreds of experts from academia and private industry, as well as the government.” This claim evidently impressed many people, including Chris Hayes and Matthew Rothschild, both of whom said that Popular Mechanics had disproved the claims of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Rothschild, repeating Popular Mechanics’ twofold explanation, wrote:
“Building... . is a favorite of the conspiracy theorists, since the planes did not strike this structure. But the building did sustain damage from the debris of the Twin Towers. ‘On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom - approximately ten stories – about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out,’ Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, told Popular Mechanics. What's more, the fire in the building lasted for about eight hours, in part because there were fuel tanks in the basement and on some of the floors.”25
Hayes, saying that “Popular Mechanics assembled a team of engineers, physicists, flight experts and the like to critically examine some of the Truth Movement's most common claims,” reported that these experts “found them almost entirely without merit.” This counter-claim by Popular Mechanics evidently settled the matter for Hayes.26
Also, although Terry Allen did not mention Popular Mechanics, her article was apparently dependent on it. Assuring her readers that she had found it “relatively easy” to undermine the “facts” employed by the 9/11 Truth Movement, she wrote:
“Many conspiracists offer the collapse of WTC Building 7 as the strongest evidence for the kind of controlled demolition that would prove a plot. Although not hit by planes, it was damaged by debris, and suffered fires eventually fueled by up to 42,000 gallons of diesel fuel stored near ground level.”27
Like Rothschild, therefore, she gave the same twofold explanation for WTC 7’s collapse that had been provided by Popular Mechanics.28
However, when NIST finally issued its WTC 7 report in 2008, it did not affirm either element in the twofold explanation that had been proffered by Popular Mechanics. With regard to the first element, NIST said: “[F]uel oil fires did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7.”29 With regard to the second element, NIST said: “Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 [the North Tower] had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7.”30
This second point means that, contrary to what Popular Mechanics had claimed it would say, NIST actually asserted that WTC 7 was brought down by fire, at least primarily. In NIST’s words, the collapse of WTC 7 was “the first known instance of the total collapse of a [steel-frame] tall building primarily due to fires.”31
One ambiguity needs clearing up: Although in these just-quoted statements, NIST seemed to indicate that the debris damage had a “little effect” on initiating the collapse, so that this collapse was only primarily (rather than entirely) due to fire, NIST generally treated fire as the sole cause: Besides repeatedly speaking of a “fire-induced” collapse,32 Also, in a press release announcing its Draft for Public Comment in August 2008, NIST called the collapse of WTC 7 “the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building.” This press release, moreover, quoted lead investigator Shyam Sunder as saying: “Our study found that the fires in WTC... . caused an extraordinary event.”33 The brief version of NIST’s final report said: “Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001.”34 The long version said: “WTC 7 sustained damage to its exterior as a result of falling debris from the collapse of WTC 1, but this damage was found to have no effect on the collapse initiating event.”35
It is not wrong, therefore, to say that NIST portrayed WTC 7 as the first (and thus far only) steel-frame high-rise building to have come down because of fire alone. NIST said, in other words, precisely what Popular Mechanics, knowing that claims about unprecedented physical events are deeply suspect, had assured people it would not say.
In doing so, moreover, NIST contradicted both parts of Popular Mechanics’ explanation for WTC 7’s collapse, which, according to Rothschild and Allen, had provided the basis for discounting the 9/11 Truth Movement’s claims about this collapse. To review: Rothschild said that the official account was credible, contrary to the Truth Movement’s claims, because “the building did sustain damage from the debris of the Twin Towers” and the “fire in the building lasted for about eight hours,” due to the “fuel tanks in the basement and on some of the floors.” Allen likewise said the official account was believable because, although WTC 7 was not hit by a plane, “it was damaged by debris, and suffered fires eventually fueled by up to 42,000 gallons of diesel fuel stored near ground level.”36
But then, when NIST later denied that either the debris-damage or the diesel fuel played a role in the collapse of WTC 7, Rothschild and Allen did not retract their prior assurances. It seems that they, in effect, simply said – like Gilda Radner on Saturday Night Live in the 1970s – “Never mind.” Their attitude seemed to be, in other words, that whatever the government says, that is what they will believe. Whatever kind of journalism this is, it is certainly not truth-seeking journalism.
One of the major facts that convinced me that 9/11 was an intelligence op is the presence of the NORAD drills (documented by Michael C. Ruppert). The drills were about intercepting hijacked airplanes that were being piloted into skyscrapers, and they were moved to the date of 9/11 from their original schedule. The confusion created by the drills that morning made the attacks possible, and only very senior national security officials would have had the authority to schedule those drills (definitely not Osama bin Laden). To believe that they were coincidentally scheduled by accident or incompetence is outlandish IMO.
Absolutely give me sources but just based on a google search this seems like a massive reach and conflation of separate events.
From what I can find there were no norad drills involving hijacked planes crashing into buildings. There was an exercise involving a hypothetical Soviet bomber, but the surface accounts I see are that it's impact to the response was fairly minimal and may have actually increased response time since all staff were at the ready and in place when a real world shift and adjustment became necessary.
It seems like this is getting conflated with a separate much smaller simulated exercise for the national reconnaissance office involving a hijacked plane crashing into one of their buildings and impacting satellite communications.
Again hit me with sources but unless all that's wrong your characterization sounds pretty misleading.
As it turns out, on September 11th, various agencies including NORAD, the FAA, the Canadian Air Force, the National Reconnaissance Office, and possibly the Pentagon were conducting as many as five wargame drills — in some cases involving hijacked airliners; in some cases also involving blips deliberately inserted onto FAA and military radar screens which were present during (at least) the first attacks; and which in some cases had pulled significant fighter resources away from the northeast US on September 11. In addition, a close reading of key news stories published in the spring of 2004 revealed for the first time that some of these drills were “live-fly” exercises where actual aircraft were simulating the behavior of hijacked airliners in real life; all of this as the real attacks began. The fact that these exercises had never been systematically and thoroughly explored in the mainstream press, or publicly by Congress, or at least publicly in any detail by the so-called Independent 9/11 Commission made me think that they might be the Grail.
That’s exactly what they turned out to be.
but the surface accounts I see are that it’s impact to the response was fairly minimal and may have actually increased response time since all staff were at the ready and in place when a real world shift and adjustment became necessary.
This is an outright lie by national security officials to cover their asses. It had the exact opposite effect.
From the book:
Aviation Week reported, “Senior officers involved in Vigilant Guardian were manning NORAD command centers throughout the US and Canada, available to make immediate decisions.”8 This confirmed the geographic scope of the exercise. Vigilant Guardian was played up in the press as though it had facilitated a quick- er response. It did anything but that.
That Vigilant Guardian had a direct impact on the Northeast Air Defense Sector in which all four hijackings occurred was confirmed in a December 2003 original story by NJ.com, a New Jersey-based service also summarizing all major stories published by New Jersey press outlets.
NORAD also has confirmed it was running two mock drills on September 11 at various radar sites and command centers in the United States and Canada, including air force bases in upstate New York, Florida, Washington, and Alaska. One drill, Operation Vigilant Guardian, began a week before September 11 and reflected a cold war mind-set: Participants practiced for an attack across the North Pole by Russian forces.9
The story never named the second drill, and the assertion that it was strictly a cold war-type exercise is belied by direct statements of many of the principals involved that day. The NJ.com story also raised another chilling issue.
Investigators at the September 11 commission confirm they are investigating whether NORAD’s attention was drawn in one direction — toward the North Pole — while the hijackings came from an entirely different direction.10
The National Reconnaissance Office, a joint creation of the CIA and the air force that operates US spy satellites, was also running an exercise on September 11 th. This one happened to involve a plane crashing into the headquarters of the ultra-secret agency in the Washington, DC suburb of Chantilly, Virginia, just outside Dulles International airport, the origin of Flight 77.
An Associated Press story dated September of 2002 was headlined “Agency planned exercise on September 11 built around a plane crashing into a building.”
Vigilant Guardian was a hijacking drill, not a cold war exercise
There were a number of direct quotes from participants in Vigilant Guardian indicating that the drill involved hijacked airliners rather than Russian bombers.
General Arnold had been quoted by ABC news as saying, “The first thing that went through my mind [after receiving the hijacking alert for Flight 11] was, is this part of the exercise? Is this some kind of a screw-up?”
Northern Vigilance pulled fighter aircraft away from NEADS and CONUS
I found two confirmations of this and a little more information about how extensive the deployment had been. The first, indirect and incomplete, was from NJ.com.
NORAD confirmed it had only eight fighters on the East Coast for emergency scrambles on September 11. Throughout Canada and the United States, including Alaska, NORAD had 20 fighters on alert — armed, fueled up, and ready to fly in minutes.20
A more specific confirmation had already come from NORAD itself from the Northern Vigilance website.
The North American Aerospace Defense Command shall deploy fighter aircraft as necessary to Forward Operating Locations (FOLS) in Alaska and Northern Canada to monitor a Russian air force exercise in the Russian arctic and North Pacific Ocean.21
The pieces were falling together rapidly. I remembered a story that the National Security Agency (NSA) had intercepted a message on September 10th between two al Qaeda members. CNN reported:
A message intercepted by US intelligence officials September 10 declared “The match begins tomorrow,” and another declared “Tomorrow is zero hour” — but the messages were not translated until one day after the devastating terrorist attacks.22
That conversation was between Khalid Shaikh Muhammad, the so-called mas- termind of 9/11, and Mohammed Atta, the reported lead hijacker.23 Could “match” have referred to a wargame? Honegger had suggested this in 2002. The new wargame information now made that conclusion much more attractive.
It certainly appeared that someone in authority had deliberately interfered with FAA/NORAD operations on September 11th to make sure that some of the attacks succeeded. Richard Clarke’s book, previously edited by the White House, had FAA administrator Garvey referring to as many as 11 off-course/out-of-contact aircraft. Was she saying that she couldn’t tell the wargame inserts from the real thing?
It would take only a day or two more to find damning evidence that this is probably what she meant. The fact that the CIA had been running a plane-into- building exercise simultaneously with all the military exercises made me very suspicious. The first question that leapt at me was, with all these related exercises running at the same time, who or what was coordinating them? Someone at DoD had to have a regular job of knowing all the exercises being carried out everywhere to avoid SNAFUs. That question and others would require interviews.
Know of any grounded articles or videos that cover this well? By grounded I mean not wild Alex Jones-like stories of remote control planes and explosives planted by in the towers. I’ve always been suspicious of it and especially the Saudi role, but there doesn’t seem to be a lot of evidence for some of these claims that certain 9-11 truthers have put forward.
I think this reaches some conclusions I don't agree with, but it's extremely thorough, detailed, and great for laying out the events of the day and getting you to question what happened.
if America did 9/11 why did they make 15 of the 19 hijackers from Saudi Arabia?
IMHO because it was primarily an Israeli driven op that was parlayed into pro-war propaganda by Bush. The Israelis were not interested in framing Iraq or Afghanistan specifically, but rather Muslims broadly, therefore they used memebers of Saudi intelligence with whom they already had a good working relationship. The CIA, Mossad, ISI, and GID have worked together since the 70s (the Safari Club).
At the very least the feds and the Carlyle Group knew about it before hand, the feds let it happen and members of the Carlyle Group used that advanced knowledge to do insider trading and make even more money than they already had.
Since everyone's feeling brave about conspiracy theories and not dismissing them out of hand for smug lib reasons, I'm going to bring up once again that the American government did 9/11, and it's nearly as cartoonishly obvious as the assassination of JFK when you actually look into it. Don't be cowards.
I have looked into it: it's not so obvious.
As many holes as you can poke in the official report I've yet to hear a cohesive conspiracy theory that doesn't wind up creating even bigger holes. Like for example: if America did 9/11 why did they make 15 of the 19 hijackers from Saudi Arabia?
Perhaps "facilitated" is the better term. I'm not sure if they outright coordinated with the Saudis, but they did literally everything imaginable to clear the path for them.
That is a bit more in the realm of possibility.
I'll concede it's not outlandish to think there was a general stand down to jump start a war. That becomes more plausible if you realize that they probably didn't realize the actual targets or how effective the attacks would be.
Still Hanlon's razor and the shock doctrine apply...so I still don't buy into that one.
So when you say that you've looked into the subject, what exactly have you consumed?
And I'm sorry, but Hanlon's Razor is some lib bullshit that will have you believing in the Ever-Stumbling Empire that constantly achieved all its goals on accident.
Hanlon's razor reduces a spectrum ranging from "stupidity" to :grillman: to malice into a binary, and forgives every action shy of a cackling supervillain pushing the "dunk people in vat of acid" button as "stupidity" but to do the opposite of that would be as much of a distortion of reality.
I've watched and read countless videos and posts for years on the subject and listened to subsequent counter arguments. Most of it pre YouTube. I was around for the early 00s internet days where these debates we're at their peak.
I would challenge your characterization on two grounds:
It's funny how most of the most important domestic incidents in the last century of American history have been perpetrated by Lone Nuts, and almost all of them advanced the interests of the security state. What a wild series of coincidences.
In what material ways has it sped up the decline of the American Empire? As far as I can tell, opposition has quite possibly never been weaker, possibly excepting the immediate aftermath of the domestic assassination campaigns of the 60s and 70s.
-Depends on how you want to define "lone nut". I don't think anyone is a "lone nut" in the purest sense, in the same way no body is a truly isolated invidual. This gets messy when you start talking things like jfk where Oswald pretty clearly had some kind of ties to intelligence.
In the case at hand hough: if you want to say America did 9/11 in that they created the material conditions that directly led to the attacks, preach it. If you mean: they planted bombs and thermite and hired crisis actors, this ain't it chief.
-....we're watching the collapse of the unipolar world right now?
What happened to Building 7?
So you're asserting that if 9/11 had not happened, the state of the American Empire would be more stable? Why is that?
-It collapsed from debris and fire. Answer my first point. Why were 15 of the 19 hijackers from Saudi Arabia if the whole thing was planned by the United States?
-Not really. I haven't really done a deep dive into it as a counter factual but just as a surface guy reading: kinda still think America would have tried to do regime change in Iraq cause they were always gunning for that. Again: I just think it's a bit dubious to claim that 9/11 resulted in America achieving all of its goals.
Lmfao it collapsed from fire and debris. So you do literally believe the official story word for word.
I answered your question.
I wasn't saying that the US achieved all its goals in response to 9/11, I was illustrating an archetype who casts conspiracy theories aside in favor of coincidence theories, and seems to find it more plausible that the US constantly achieves nefarious domestic and international goals via accident than via conspiracy.
-I believe that it collapsed from fire and debris. Yes. That is the most plausible explanation.
-Where?
-You did say that though. I'm not pushing "coincidence theories". None of my arguments depend on coincidence. Do you think Americas military ventures in the middle east have been unmitigated top to bottom success stories for those in power?
deleted by creator
Given where we know they really wanted to go with the war on terror, why not stock the plane full of Iraqis? More then that: why pick the ONE Muslim nationality that is basically a third rail in American politics such that the media subsequently did literally everything it could do to avoid talking about it? If you genuinely believe that 9/11 was a top to bottom inside job orchestrated by the CIA that seems like a bit of an oversight no?
deleted by creator
So; here's the kind of question that I ask when I have to ponder these lines of inquiry. What is actually gained in making the much more ontologically/evidentiarily expensive claim that US Intelligence was actively involved in the planning/orchestration of 9/11, that cannot also be gained through knowledge which is already relatively "cheap" to find & disseminate?
Namely the reality of the United State's longstanding relationship with & support of reactionary movements in the Middle East which ultimately enabled 9/11 to happen.
The only real "gain" that can be said to result from trying to make this argument, as far as I can tell, is the cathartic release of being able to say that "The US Deep State is literally directly responsible for everything bad ever." (Which seems to be what Redbolshevik is trying to establish here). And that's not... Like I can get why it's emotionally salient, but it's not necessarily a rational, or scientific way of approaching the problem, and moreover I don't understand how it's useful in a way that simply noting the dynamics of material interest is.
Lol this is an insane argument. The benefit of uncovering what happened is knowledge of the truth and understanding how the world works. Maybe try psychologizing yourself, see why you don't want it to be true?
It's fascinating how Liberals do this thing where you jump straight past the possibility that you could be wrong into coming up with some psychological reason why the person who doesn't believe the stupid bullshit you believe has been led astray.
Not to sound like a fallacy-obsessed debate nerd but holy hell is that a strawman.
Again though: do you not see how you're actually creating more holes then you're filling in with these theories and speculations?
Maybe there are inconsistencies and discrepancies in the official 9/11 story. There are inconsistencies and discrepancies in the sandy hook shooting also but that doesn't mean the chuds conspiracies are right. There's a lot of self serving and cya shit going on in these things.
As a matter of fact, the most authoritative report from the NIST said the debris did no significant damage.
Lol, so basically exactly what I said? debris and fire? You literally cutting off half of my sentence isn't a gotcha dude. It's just embarrassing.
Well, 50% of what you said.
What I meant was that the falling debris didn't cause any direct kinetic damage to the building's structural integrity in the same way that WTCs 1 and 2 were damaged by the kinetic impact of the planes, and I felt like that is what you were implying. I wasn't denying that you said there was fire. It wasn't a "gotcha". I wasn't even trying to argue that the fires couldn't have caused the collapse. I was just trying to update you on the latest developments of the official narrative, because early reports by FEMA and Popular Mechanics claimed that WTC 7 was, in fact, kinetically damaged to a significant degree, but they were later contradicted by the final report.
spoiler
If you have any interest in continuing to challenge your beliefs, I've found these resources to be the most persuasive:
Reading
Covert Action Magazine's articles by Professor Peter Dale Scott and two frequent TrueAnon guests:
Videos
The New Pearl Harbor
Excerpts:
One of the major facts that convinced me that 9/11 was an intelligence op is the presence of the NORAD drills (documented by Michael C. Ruppert). The drills were about intercepting hijacked airplanes that were being piloted into skyscrapers, and they were moved to the date of 9/11 from their original schedule. The confusion created by the drills that morning made the attacks possible, and only very senior national security officials would have had the authority to schedule those drills (definitely not Osama bin Laden). To believe that they were coincidentally scheduled by accident or incompetence is outlandish IMO.
Edit: A video source
Relevant chapter from Ruppert's book
Absolutely give me sources but just based on a google search this seems like a massive reach and conflation of separate events.
From what I can find there were no norad drills involving hijacked planes crashing into buildings. There was an exercise involving a hypothetical Soviet bomber, but the surface accounts I see are that it's impact to the response was fairly minimal and may have actually increased response time since all staff were at the ready and in place when a real world shift and adjustment became necessary.
It seems like this is getting conflated with a separate much smaller simulated exercise for the national reconnaissance office involving a hijacked plane crashing into one of their buildings and impacting satellite communications.
Again hit me with sources but unless all that's wrong your characterization sounds pretty misleading.
This video provides a summary of the drills I mentioned (timecode 7:06).
I've uploaded the relevant book chapter for you. There is far more than I can include in a single comment. I encourage you to read the whole 24 page long chapter.
This is an outright lie by national security officials to cover their asses. It had the exact opposite effect.
From the book:
Weird that our 9/11 expert friend never read or replied to these
The source is Michael C. Ruppert. Specifically from his book Crossing the Rubicon. I'll find the exact passage for you.
Know of any grounded articles or videos that cover this well? By grounded I mean not wild Alex Jones-like stories of remote control planes and explosives planted by in the towers. I’ve always been suspicious of it and especially the Saudi role, but there doesn’t seem to be a lot of evidence for some of these claims that certain 9-11 truthers have put forward.
Disconnecting the Dots: How 9/11 Was Allowed to Happen by Kevin Fenton
Edit: More resources
Thanks!
I think this reaches some conclusions I don't agree with, but it's extremely thorough, detailed, and great for laying out the events of the day and getting you to question what happened.
IMHO because it was primarily an Israeli driven op that was parlayed into pro-war propaganda by Bush. The Israelis were not interested in framing Iraq or Afghanistan specifically, but rather Muslims broadly, therefore they used memebers of Saudi intelligence with whom they already had a good working relationship. The CIA, Mossad, ISI, and GID have worked together since the 70s (the Safari Club).
Israeli spies met with Atta in Florida.
"Dancing Israelis" detained on 9/11
At the very least the feds and the Carlyle Group knew about it before hand, the feds let it happen and members of the Carlyle Group used that advanced knowledge to do insider trading and make even more money than they already had.