They recovered four, three of them AT the crash sites! How. The black boxes didn't even survive. cat-confused

  • Frank [he/him, he/him]
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    They recovered all kinds of shit.

    https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/history/2021/09/10/since-9-11-small-things-recovered-items-mean-so-much-victims-families-jacksonville-richard-guadagno/8262286002/

    Like seriously all kinds of shit.

    9/11 conspiracy stuff sucks. Come up with something cool with aliens or something.

      • imogen_underscore [it/its, she/her]
        ·
        7 months ago

        and the domestic and foreign intelligence on the attackers, the timing of the patriot Act, the anthrax attacks... easy to dismiss the passports as a wacky detail (and it is just a small piece of circumstantial evidence) but acting like 9/11 truth shouldn't be discussed on here is high level lib shit

        • Frank [he/him, he/him]
          ·
          7 months ago

          Great then I am a proud liberal. I will vote for Hillary Clinton twice. I will pokemon go to the polls. I am having brunch right now while discussing Euphoria and planning my next "Live Laugh Love" sign.

          Don't front, I've been tits deep in this shit for 23 years. I am not impressed with stale ideas that were boring a decade ago.

        • D61 [any]
          ·
          7 months ago

          Pretty sure the USA Patriot Act was just a retread of a shelved thing from after the Oklahoma City bombing in the 90's.

          • Frank [he/him, he/him]
            ·
            7 months ago

            It was literally already written and waiting in a folder for the next time blowback came along and gave them an excuse. 9/11 was inevitable, someone was going to blow something up sooner or later. They were just waiting for an excuse.

    • imogen_underscore [it/its, she/her]
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      lol i would say the passports thing is a minor detail that doesn't prove anything on its own but dismissing 9/11 truth out of hand is LIB shit. the commission was a massive coverup and the public deserves to know the truth, acting like it shouldn't be a valid topic of discussion on here is doing state Dept work for them.

      literally conflating 9/11 truth with aliens lol. at least try to uninternalise the yankee propaganda in your brain about this before speaking on it, I know it's a topic where that's been fed to you in a particularly intense fashion but if you think critically that makes it all the more important to question official narratives.

      • MattsAlt [comrade/them]
        ·
        7 months ago

        It seems like some wrap up 9/11 truth conspiracies into a bundle and throw them all away based on the most absurd ones, like the planes actually being taken away to some black site with all the passengers still alive.

        In reality, if you view some of the details like the entire scenario surrounding the striking of the Pentagon, the very odd timing of air defense training/drills drawing fighter jets away from the region, and all the warnings from other intelligence agencies paired with Rumsfeld and friends' actions that day, it seems just as absurd to say those were a ton of wacky coincidences

      • RyanGosling [none/use name]
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        What truth do you want exactly? We already know that 9/11 was blowback, Bush had dealings with the bin Laden family, the feds were already surveilling the terrorists, and multiple intelligence agencies including the Taliban warned the US of a major attack. Most other things don’t matter at all. Hell none of these truths even matter because the country is brain dead and no one gives a shit.

        What difference does it make if it was revealed that the Air Force shot down a plane and lied about the circumstances to make the victims heroes? We move on. We consume product. Then they argue about who becomes president and close down Guantanamo. Then we don’t do it. Feel free to prove me wrong. My proof is look around you. What happened after Snowden? What happened after Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib? What happened after MKULTRA? Kent State? All the mass shootings? FBI grooming mentally ill Muslims?

        • Frank [he/him, he/him]
          ·
          7 months ago

          Right? I am so tired of this. there's no exciting grand conspiracy, it's just the normal bs the US does every day. It's not a conspiracy because it's all legal and they admitted to it. What "truth" to people expect to find? The US does a bunch of evil intelligence bullshit? That the US alphabet soup is a bizarre combination of frightening cold blooded competence and laughable keystone kops?

          Like even putting aside that kinds of random shit survives fires, floods, plane crashes, nuclear bombings, what are we even talking about? How did they recover the passports? They picked them off the ground, just like they did huge amounts of other debris. This isn't even a debunking, there's nothing to debunk, stuff survives airline crashes and building collapses and every other kind of disaster. It's completely banal, a leading question that leads nowhere.

          Like, every event in the US is full of this. People are talking about the true-anon series about 9/11, and yeah, it's full of weird shit because it's America and we're up to our eyeballs in spies, cops, foreign influence operations, terrorists, gusanos, Banderites, the scum of every coup and color revolution. This is a nation of assassins, thieves, spies, crooks, and criminals. You can find evidence of conspiracies everywhere because there are conspiracies everywhere. except, most of the time, it's not a conspiracy because it's legal and they admit to it. But it's just boring shit; killing protest leaders, cops framing political enemies, insider trading, regulatory capture, intelligence failures, FBI entrapment bs. None of this is obscure or hidden or suppressed, it's been front page news for decades. PREDATOR and ECHELON were conspiracy theories right up until Snowden spilled the tea, but after that the NSA wiretap scheme was blown wide open, all over the news. That UN investigator who locked himself inside a bag from inside the bag in the woods then died was screaming that Iraq had no WMDs, and people knew it at the time or shortly after. They didn't care, they wanted blood and didn't care whose blood it was, but it was in the news. Is it a conspiracy that he was killed for trying to fuck up the grift? Dude was found locked inside a duffle bag and they called it a suicide. That's not a conspiracy, that's a government that knows it's untouchable and doesn't care enough to cover its tracks. When the regime didn't find WMDs they just moved the goal posts, right out in the open, where everyone could see it, and they got away with it. The Iraq war protest movement was one of the largest in history up to that time. Why doesn't anyone remember it? It's not a conspiracy, the US Media just deliberately didn't cover it. No coverage, no impact on public awareness. Its' not a conspiracy because it was legal and they did it in full view of the public.

      • AssortedBiscuits [they/them]
        ·
        7 months ago

        literally conflating 9/11 truth with aliens lol. at least try to uninternalise the yankee propaganda in your brain about this before speaking on it, I know it's a topic where that's been fed to you in a particularly intense fashion but if you think critically that makes it all the more important to question official narratives.

        Quit fronting. Nobody except for Burgerlanders give two shits about 9/11. "Why do Americans care so much about the 9th of November" is the extend most non-Burgerlanders acknowledge 9/11.

        • imogen_underscore [it/its, she/her]
          ·
          7 months ago

          my friend when it literally affects the whole world people care about it lol. I have to take my shoes off at the airport because of these mfs. I'm not saying we should all shed tears but it's something worth analysing

    • aaro [they/them, she/her]
      ·
      7 months ago

      ^this. The furthest extent that there is some kind of 9/11 conspiracy is that the Bush admin might have been expecting some type of domestic event or other to happen that they could use as just cause for an invasion. They did not expect - let alone orchestrate - 9/11.

      Humans have pattern matching brains. It's easy to find stuff like the building owner having a dermatologist appointment that day. And then you completely fail to analyze it in the context that he probably also had a dentist's appointment the last week too. Same goes for every other thing.

      • imogen_underscore [it/its, she/her]
        ·
        7 months ago

        LIB

        9/11 truth isn't just "Bush did 9/11". it's undeniable that there is more to the story than the commission (coverup) told people. people deserve to know the truth. acting dismissive of this is your yankee lib brain at work.

        • Frank [he/him, he/him]
          ·
          7 months ago

          Who even cares what the commission said? I never read it, I don't care. al-Qaeda came up with a novel attack strategy and pulled it off because no one expected anything like that to ever happen because it had never been done before. It was blowback for US foreign policy fuckery. "people deserve to know the truth"? I wish them all luck. I hope they find whatever they're looking for. But in 2024? It's not relevant to contemporary politics.

        • RyanGosling [none/use name]
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          What people? Americans? You can show them Jesus and they’ll ignore you. The rest of the world? None of them cares because who gives a shit that 3000 Americans were killed? How many of their countrymen were killed by Americans? What’s lib shit is obsessing over a handful of Americans dying. The psyche of America won’t be change unless similar events happen again. The truth won’t matter.

      • TrashGoblin [he/him, they/them]
        ·
        7 months ago

        They were expecting something, and deprioritized/ignored investigations that might have prevented it. I think they were only surprised by the scale of it.

        The bigger and more obvious conspiracy was the package of actions they had pre-planned to take advantage of whatever happened (the Patriot Act, the Iraq War).

    • Torenico [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Come up with something cool with aliens or something.

      Someone on this site (a couple of months ago) came up with a clever theory: Both the US Govt and Al Qaeda planned the attack, but both did it separately and not knowing each other's plans. The date was a pure coincidence as well, both parties attacked on the same day but on different towers.

      Tower 7 and the Pentagon are your imagination fooling you. They never happened.

    • SirKlingoftheDrains [he/him]
      ·
      7 months ago

      This is your take? I mean, the insider trading stuff is pretty heavy evidence that people knew ahead of time. People with money and resources to act on this foreknowledge. And the case that we are presented with by the commission is, well, a story of people close to important state actors conspiring to commit the crime. The state dept story is a conspiracy theory, even if truncated, obfuscated, covered-up, that is still what they presented us with. Oh yeah, and that many in the intelligence community knew of the attackers presence in the US, others knowing of an impending attack, and the attackers being closely related to Saudi intelligence, ya know, the intelligence service buttresses with US technology and training in close partnership. But yeah, just like “UFO’s”.

      Some folks are presented with facts which should cause alarm and suspicion but instead reel and dismiss, and I can only point to a lack of intellectual curiosity, ideology, or a motivated viewpoint based on a perceived in-group’s general opinion which steers then into taking the state department position, and that of the Atlantic Monthly. “Actually it’s all chaos and accident, and our pattern seeking brains project meaning onto events which are random.” I’m nit saying that’s your position, but it is a common refrain to dismiss real conspiracies, and reminds me of Parenti’s take on historians who talk about “the reluctant US empire who rose to the occasion at a critical juncture to bumble its way into global dominance”. Like, no calculation or conspiring required.

      As if these shit hole leaders are braying at every opportunity to make money dropping bombs. Just god smiling on them I guess. Nothing to see here.

      • Frank [he/him, he/him]
        ·
        7 months ago

        Ey bro I've been around the whole time. I know all this shit. I'm not impressed. "Take your lack of intellectual curiosity" somewhere else. 9/11 was blowback for America's adventures in the Middle East and Afghanistan. Bunch of guys flew planes in to buildings. No one in the alphabet soup put it together because 1.) al-Qaeda was trying to blow up the WTC all the time. 9/11 was, what, their second? Third attempt? 2.) the US Intelligence agencies aren't magical all knowing wizards and no one group had all the pieces needed to figure all of this out and 3.) There's like 500 conspiracies related to 9/11, but "9/11 was a false flag" or "9/11 was an inside job" or "Jet fuel can't melt steel beams" is just silly bullshit. US intelligence letting Saudi intelligence play games with them? Sure. USAPATRIOT being pre-written and just waiting for the inevitable excuse because there was always going to be some excuse, because the US pisses off so many people? Sure. The US intel agencies had all the information they needed but didn't put the pieces together? Sure. US Intel being too arrogant to understand what their catspaws are up to? Sure.

        There were all kinds of conspiracies going on. Boring, banal conspiracies that the US gets up to all the time. Not cool guy stuff like the US, idk what the contemporary bs even is, remote controlling the planes? the planes were holograms? The pentagon wasn't actually hit? I have no idea, because I stopped caring literally a decade ago.

        • SirKlingoftheDrains [he/him]
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

          • Frank [he/him, he/him]
            ·
            6 months ago

            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?

            • SirKlingoftheDrains [he/him]
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              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)

              • Frank [he/him, he/him]
                ·
                6 months ago

                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.

          • LaughingLion [any, any]
            ·
            7 months ago

            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.

            • SirKlingoftheDrains [he/him]
              ·
              7 months ago

              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.

          • Frank [he/him, he/him]
            ·
            6 months ago

            Don't know, don't care. Oswald is plausible but so are a dozen other scenarios. A lot of the "magic bullet" bs is very confident people who don't know how wacky ballistics can be. Eyewitness testimony is worse than useless due to the way memory works. Every removedin the world was in Houston because it's a major city, an oil city enmeshed in US imperialism, because the president was there, and because the US is full of crooks and spies.

            It's all silly bullshit. Who cares who turned Kennedy in to a meme? What matters is what happened as a result; The repercussions on civil rights, the Vietnam war, all those shitty Time magazine articles on The Kennedys. Who pulled the trigger is a historical curiosity, a fun factoid for trivia night. It ultimately isn't important. Who pulled the trigger on the gun that killed Dr. King? Doesn't matter, the feds did it whether they were the ones that pulled the trigger or not. They stood to benefit, they exploited the situation to the fullest. Doesn't matter if the gunman was FBI or some random white supremacist, if it was a planned op or stochastic violence. Dr. King was removed. Who shot the Romanovs? We know exactly who, when, where, and why. And it doesn't matter because there were still rumors and BS about surviving Romanovs for decades afterwards, even though everyone knows exactly what happened. Who pulled the trigger on Darren Seals? Doesn't matter, the cops killed him whether they pulled the trigger or just set up the material circumstances in which is death became useful to the state. What would we change if we figured out which pig did it? Nothing. Ferguson wouldn't change, America wouldn't change. We know who the killers are. The people pulling the trigger are just foot soldiers in the class war. The ruling class, the capitalists, are the ones driving all of this. There's not going to be some great revelatory moment where it's revealed that Allen Dulles personally fired the brain-explodey gun to take out Kennedy and everything changes. That's not how the machine works.

            • AssortedBiscuits [they/them]
              ·
              6 months ago

              I think conspiracies are a great way to radicalize certain types of people away from liberalism and electoralism, but at a certain point, it's just arguing over minutia by people who have no real means of ascertaining whether that minutia is true or not. "Was Malcolm X assassinated by the NOI or by the FBI?" is a simple question if we rephrase it as "Did the FBI engineer Malcolm X's assassination?" or "Was the FBI planning to remove Malcolm X from the picture" (the answer to both is yes), but it becomes a matter of minutia if we start asking whether the people who shot him were FBI agents distinguished as NOI members or FBI informants recruited from the FBI. Was Louis Farrakhan a federal asset or were members of his closest circle who persuaded him to order the hit federal assets? Did Farrakhan explicitly order the hit or was it more of a "will no one rid me of this troublesome priest" type of deal? All minutia, and outside of getting unredacted FBI records, there's no real way for an investigative journalist to conclusively figure out.

              The glaring hole for 9/11 Truth is motive. The US doesn't need to establish casus belli, especially during the 90s-00s when the US was the sole hegemon. Where was the casus belli when the US invaded Grenada or Panama during the 90s? Maurice Bishop was authoritarianTM? Noriega was a drug lord? Just look at how the US shamelessly lie and cover for the Zionist entity right now. And this is with social media that the US doesn't completely control (Tiktok). Travel back to 2001 where social media didn't exist outside of rando forums and cable news was starting to become a thing. The US had complete control over media. They could easily just tap in to the average American's Islamophobia, and the closest thing they have to opposition would be Parenti writing articles in magazines and publishing books nobody reads.

            • DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              I think this is the attitude we should look at with all conspiracies. The actual "nuts and bolts" the minutia, is something people spend years of their life overanalysing and memorising, but when you ask them what the consequences were, and how the US government used this event to further their own interests, you get blank stares or generic boilerplate conspiracy ranting about "them."

      • imogen_underscore [it/its, she/her]
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        just don't bother arguing with the Yankees about this, their brains can't really process the arguments. the materialism part of their mind turns off when it comes to 9/11, it's a unique case.

  • buh [she/her]
    ·
    7 months ago

    Passports are fireproof, if you don’t trust me try it with your own

    • HamManBad [he/him]
      ·
      7 months ago

      Wow, you're right! I didn't believe you until I tried. It also works with hundred dollar bills, it makes a really cool effect though

  • TrashGoblin [he/him, they/them]
    ·
    7 months ago

    If they had planted passports, they would have been Iraqi passports. So weirdly, this one part of the story has to be true.

  • crispy_lol [he/him]
    ·
    7 months ago

    Paper is uniquely suited to surviving plane crashes due to its physics (low density, high surface area).

    black boxes from 9/11 planes were uniquely suited to being scooped up by the deepest reaches on the deep state never to be seen again.

  • FnordPrefect [comrade/them, he/him]
    ·
    7 months ago

    "Oh bother! I just realized if we fly into the buildings while holding our passports, they'll be able to identify us!" said Terrorist 1

    "That's a good point!" said Terrorist 2 "Here, hand them to me."

    Then he quickly rolled down the window and threw them out, right as the plane impacted the tower, thinking he had committed the perfect crime.

    fedposting "That's our story and we're sticking to it. Now go to bed." (not really, I don't know what the official explanation actually is)

      • aaro [they/them, she/her]
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams. But metal loses it's strength while retaining its solid phase as it is heated. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-temperature-strength-d_1353.html

        This is the issue with laypeople speculating on complex engineering failures. The mechanisms of action that one might intuit from looking at a complex systems failure and the ones that actually cause it are oftentimes not related to or even opposite.

        • Frank [he/him, he/him]
          ·
          7 months ago

          My favorite comment on this was a blacksmith heating a steel bar to a few hundred degrees and then pushing it around with his pinky. Also, the sheer number of people who don't have any conception of what a blast furnace is or how it works, how oxygen and fire interact. Idk, I always thought the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" thing was absurd on it's face. It's such a silly premise. I've forged metal on backyard wood fires, you just need to set the airflow up to get incredibly hot fires.

          • DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            My favorite comment on this was a blacksmith heating a steel bar to a few hundred degrees and then pushing it around with his pinky.

            Ouch. 🔥

  • aaro [they/them, she/her]
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    This really isn't that hard to believe. The black boxes were bolted to the plane chassis and stuck around through the entirety of the fire and collapse. Personal effects like passports and clothing were subject to the intense drafts that any building fire causes and were blown around - possibly out of the plane or building, possibly away from the fire into a cooler part of the rubble. These are virtually certainly not the only paper documents they found, as another user mentioned, they found a roll of undeveloped film.

    • Frank [he/him, he/him]
      ·
      7 months ago

      One passport was recovered in new york, the other two were recovered from the wreckage of flight 93 along with thousands of other objects.

      Like people need to put this in context; Vesna Vulovic fell TEN KILOMETERS after the plane she was working on was ripped apart by a bomb. She survived and made a full recovery aside from a limp. That is weird. Finding intact documents from an airline crash is not weird. It's normal and unexceptional, but people are fixated on finding something interesting or exciting about 9/11 so they don't bother to learn that finding intact documents, clothes, bodies, is not unusual or remarkable.

      • Aradina [She/They]@lemmy.ml
        ·
        6 months ago

        There are literally pictures of body parts that fell to the street from the day too. Not to mention things from inside the buildings, paper, office supplies. I don't think people fully comprehend how fast the planes hit and how that scatters the contents. The stuff not bolted down just keeps going unless something stops it.

        One passport surviving? If anything, I'm surprised there weren't more. The black box? It was physically attached to the thing, it isn't going to go far.

  • Wolfman86 [none/use name]
    ·
    7 months ago

    My mates brothers sister heard from a friends cousin that they fell out the plane before impact and fell on the ground in a little pile.

  • imogen_underscore [it/its, she/her]
    ·
    7 months ago

    noooo don't question the state department narrative around the only time my country has been attacked on its own soil!!! I haven't deprogrammed my yank brain about that yet!!!!!!

      • Frank [he/him, he/him]
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        The Germans sabotage bombed a bunch of stuff during WWI. 9/11 was al-Qaeda's second or third attack on the WTC specifically. There were dozens of wars between the US and indigenous nations over the centuries. Then there's all the false flag bullshit, domestic terrorism, The American Civil War, tons of insurgency shit like the KKK, the regulators, bleeding kansas, Jim Crow, All the fighting and terrorism during the Civil Rights years.

        Edit: and the huge amount of "terrorism" during the Vietnam war years, just constant bombings that have been swept under the rug of the US's public memory of the Vietnam War era.

  • AssortedBiscuits [they/them]
    ·
    7 months ago

    Explanation 1: When the planes crashed the buildings, the passports fell out of the plane unscathed and managed to survive entirely intact.

    Explanation 2: The passports were planted by feds, but instead of using Iraqi and Afghani passports, they used Saudi, Emirati, and Egyptian passports because the feds ran out of fake Iraqi and Afghani passports and the fed intern was too lazy to climb 5 flights of stairs to get a new batch of fake Iraqi and Afghani passports at the adjacent building.

    • Frank [he/him, he/him]
      ·
      7 months ago

      Also, in order to make it convincing, the feds planted thousands and thousands of other intact and partially intact items around the flight 93 debris field so people wouldn't suspect that the passports were planted.

  • imogen_underscore [it/its, she/her]
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    few state Dept volunteer workers in this thread I see 🫡 Americans just can't resist it when it comes to this topic lol. critical thinking brain just stops working

  • Xx_Aru_xX [she/her, they/them]
    ·
    7 months ago

    They could've said something like "we stored passenger information before the flight" or they could've said Al Qaeda informed them who did the attack yk.

  • aaro [they/them, she/her]
    ·
    7 months ago

    Okay 9/11 truthers, since it seems that there's a lot of you here, why would the Bush administration do it? To justify an invasion? We could have invaded anywhere we wanted any time we wanted. Thinking that we needed a lot of people to die on domestic soil in order to justify an invasion in the public eye is lib shit. So what's left? Was the government whacking someone in the towers?

    • imogen_underscore [it/its, she/her]
      ·
      7 months ago

      acting like 9/11 didn't change anything is incredible wilful ignorance. it revolutionised the capabilities of the American security state, domestic and global. i super don't want a debate about this but I recommend the trueanon series as a good primer to de-lib your brain about this

      • invo_rt [he/him]
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Adding on, it's important for younger comrades to know that shit like the TSA, DHS, and all those fusion centers (which somehow seem to be used against every major protest movement from Occupy to Pro-Palestine) did NOT exist before 2001. Also shit like the FISA bill which, after the PATRIOT Act, allows the security state to monitor anyone's communications in the US despite security state officials perjuring themselves to claim the opposite for years and was JUST renewed.

        • Frank [he/him, he/him]
          ·
          7 months ago

          I spent, literally, twenty years refusing to go through Chertoff's milimeter scanners hoping that a tall white guy getting frisked might, idk, make someone wonder why this was all happening, how it became normal. Spent a decade with people looking at me like I was a crank as I ranted about how the TSA was a massive expansion of federal power, the first time most people came in to regular contact with a federal law enforcement agency. How it was all completely useless security theater that amounted to little more than a jobs program wrapped around an extension of the police state. It's all so goddamn frustrating, and now there's a whole generation of kids who don't remember anything else. We used to be able to go to the gate, greet our families as they got off the plane. It all sucks so much.

      • Frank [he/him, he/him]
        ·
        7 months ago

        What truth do you think is being concealed? This is all wikipedia page stuff. USAPATRIOT was already written and waiting for signatures. The Bushes and their cronies had been frothing for an invasion of Iraq for years. This isn't hidden, this was mainstream news throughout the 00s.

    • TechnoUnionTypeBeat [he/him, they/them]
      ·
      7 months ago

      To justify an invasion? We could have invaded anywhere we wanted any time we wanted

      This makes it sound like you were born after 2001

      Yes, in theory, the US could have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan any time they wanted, but wars in the US always require an excuse of some kind for The International Community (tm), and inevitably are unpopular with one party

      The revanchist fury that soaked into the West right after 9/11 is hard to describe if you weren't there. That shit was bipartisan, every liberal went full holden-bloodfeast overnight. News was 24/7 bloodlust, with the initial sucker punch on Baghdad playing live on every news outlet

      What followed was 20 years of the biggest MIC grifting the world had ever seen. Billions in failed Future Soldier shit, billions in new weapons. Contractors selling pens valued at a thousand times their worth just to grift a few million more. And then came the PATRIOT Act and other surveillance methods which were accepted to wide acclaim because of 9/11, with no mainstream pushback. It further solidified the vassal relationship of the rest of NATO/the EU to the US as the US dragged others in and began militarily grifting them as well.The pre-9/11 world would be just unrecognizable to anyone born afterwards

      Nobody is legitimately arguing that Bush personally contacted the Saudis and asked for Bin Laden. The usual argument is that the Bush regime had intel that they chose not to act on

      • MeowZedong@lemmygrad.ml
        ·
        7 months ago

        Also, multiple bush regimes set up the circumstances that led to 9/11 starting with funding and arming the mujahideen. Bin Laden didn't come out of nowhere and the invasion of Afghanistan was completely unnecessary in terms of catching him and others who orchestrated the attack. Even Al-Qaeda offered to hand him over before the invasion and they weren't the last group to offer handing him over.

        Bush Sr, Bush Jr, and many other ghouls indirectly setup 9/11 and then made the fallout larger than it needed to be to achieve their stated goals. The blood of millions is on their hands and 9/11 was a drop in the bucket. They deserve to be tried, convicted, and locked away as war criminals, not to sit out retirement painting and pretending they did no wrong.

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
      ·
      7 months ago

      The bloodlust immediately after 9/11 was the highest I've seen in my lifetime, much like Oct 7th has been for the Zionist project. I could maybe buy that 9/11 was orchestrated to not just invade countries but to rally Americans around the flag and secure the empire as the End of History.

      Except Bush didn't do that. He could have pointed the finger at anyone and used that to orient the imperial project, but instead of using his biggest political windfall to start a war with Iran he blew his political capital on Afghanistan and then Iraq. Maybe he thought those would be easier occupations and he could use them to build momentum for Iran, but I don't see it. It just seems opportunist, rather than planned.

      • imogen_underscore [it/its, she/her]
        ·
        7 months ago

        I'll say again, the meme boiling-down of the broad category of 9/11 truth to "bush did 9/11" has been a disaster. that's not what we mean when we say there is more to the story lol. the commission was undeniably a massive coverup and the people deserve to know the truth of every aspect of the story, that's what we mean.

        • aaro [they/them, she/her]
          ·
          7 months ago

          we know it wasn't literally Bush slipping some hijackers a twenty under the table and asking them to hijack planes. We understand that you're proposing a complex and long-running plan that would have originated prior to the start of his term. He just would have had to be complicit, and as the head of state at the time, the turn of phrase is the easiest by saying that he did it.

          • imogen_underscore [it/its, she/her]
            ·
            7 months ago

            i just want Americans to stop blindly reinforcing the state department narrative around this lol. I know it's hard and you've been very heavily propagandized about it but try to apply the same level of critical thought you would to something less close to home

            • BobDole [none/use name]
              ·
              7 months ago

              The 9/11 Truth well has been thoroughly poisoned in America by the the insistence on repeating bad engineering concepts: the “jet fuel can’t melt steel beams” memes, the “squibs” as air compressed by a falling building blew out windows and the “basement explosions” caused by the same, the insistence that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon because the plane didn’t leave a perfectly plane shaped hole like a cartoon and the security camera with terrible frame rate and resolution. These crank memes that don’t hold up under scrutiny don’t help anyone’s case, and yet they’re always all over every thread about it because people don’t investigate, just repeat.

              • imogen_underscore [it/its, she/her]
                ·
                7 months ago

                wow I wonder what caused people to start theorising wildly about what happened, it could be the fact it's completely obvious the official report is a cover up and a crock of lies. the things you're pointing at are symptoms of the people being lied to about this, not just "wow those 9/11 people are so wacky"

      • MeowZedong@lemmygrad.ml
        ·
        7 months ago

        Iraq and Afghanistan are just two of the countries in the region that US politicians have openly been plotting to invade for decades. Syria, Yemen, and Iran are also on this list. They've plotted this since the 70s and have openly admitted to it in interviews since then.

        Iraq was part of the bigger picture, like Iran. It wasn't just opportunistic, it was part of the plan from the beginning.

        • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          So why didn't he invade Iraq first? Or further, why didn't he skip all that and just invade Iran?

          Why Afghanistan? It has some strategic importance but it's certainly not that important.

          That's what makes it look opportunistic. It's like no one really thought out how to best use 9/11 because it wasn't actually planned out. They just had a political opportunity fall in their laps and then blew it on lesser targets.

          • MeowZedong@lemmygrad.ml
            ·
            6 months ago

            They did strike Iran to destabilize them around that time period and multiple times before and after the 2000s. Iran is also a much more difficult target than Iraq because they are (and were) much more powerful. Part of the point of the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is not just to destabilize those countries, but to destabilize the entire region.

            Iran is flanked on either side by Iraq and Afghanistan, having countries on two opposite borders collapse didn't leave Iran untouched. These actions are connected. Sure, I'm not saying they had everything planned out well beforehand, but they've had their targets planned for a long time and Iran wasn't even close to the same level of difficulty as Iraq and Afghanistan were. It makes more sense to go for the weaker targets and use these to weaken the tougher targets.

          • Frank [he/him, he/him]
            ·
            7 months ago

            Iran was a much harder target than Iraq. More mountains, more unified populace, a whole bunch of factors. Iraq had been crushed by a decade of sanctions and as far as I know never really recovered from the destruction wrought in 91. I have no idea how smart anyone in the Bush admin was, whether they had any idea what they were actually up against. Their complete, buffoonish ignorance about Iraqi culture and politics was a constant topic of discussion back in the day. The whole yellow cake kayfabe.

            It's hard for me, at least, to say how much of Iraq was planned and how much was a raft of fools stumbling from one disaster to another but always having unlimited funds and materiel to throw in to the chaos to keep things going. I've heard people who were there talk about the absolute clusterfuck at every level - From US soldiers who never really understood what they were doing, from people who worked in the "reconstruction" effort and described just mind-blowing levels of cultural ignorance and ideology. Views on the motive for the invasion have changed a lot over the years. It went form oil, to MIC grifting, to a large scale strategic plot to destabilize the region.

            it was probably equal parts planned, plans going bad, culturally ignorant and incurious Americans, and the chaos of an inept state with an inpet military doing something really stupid with no clear objective. The US government isn't a monolith, it's neither helplessly foolish nor hyper competent. And probably a lot of cases where people's expertise in one area didn't translate to general competence.

            Like I remember the absolute fiasco when un-armored Humvees that were never supposed to be anything but scout and utility vehicles started getting owned by IEDs. There was this whole period were the public found out that soldiers were welding scrap metal to their trucks to try to protect themselves from bombs. They found out there was really no defense against IEDs, the whole concept of an IED entered the public consciousness. I think the body armor thing was happening at the same time, where infantry didn't have worth while body armor. Just cheap flak vests from the 80s if they had anything. It was a huge public relations disaster for Bush. They had to dump a lot of resources in to procurring body armor and MRAPs (Mine resistant ambush protected, a kind of large truck looking APC). The MRAP thing was a fiasco, every firm in the US that knew how to weld was building these over-weight, badly engineered, barely functional monster trucks. The US Army's hardware is notoriously shit, from what I remember all they had at the time for infantry transport was unarmored trucks, bradley IFVs, and shitty old M113s. maybe a few of whatever the predessecor to the strykers was.

            So they put in all these procurrement orders for any truck with armor and a V-hull, and they get tons of shitty overweight trucks that couldn't go off road due to their massive weight and being massive top heavy, they couldn't go on many roads in iraq for the same reason, they were all slapped together by MIC grifters so there were all kinds of parts problems, it was a huge mess on every level.

            What happened there? Did the regime not anticipate the use of bombs and mines to ambush patrols? Did they think the Iraqis would just surrender and they wouldn't need armored vehicles or body armor? Did they anticipate those things but believe that the US public would accept the resulting casualties? I have no idea. There are probably documents somewhere. How much of it was ignorance, how much was foolishness, how much was poor planning, how much was calculated indifference?

            • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Everything you said just makes it all seem opportunistic to me, like they were just going for low hanging fruit to try to score "easy" wins. The fact that they were too ignorant and uncoordinated to stand a chance against the insurgency in Iraq reveals how unplanned everything was. What that says, to me, is that 9/11 was a happy accident that the Bush administration wanted to use but that they had no actual long term plans.

              • Frank [he/him, he/him]
                ·
                6 months ago

                My take is that the US political class was operating on the correct belief that their violence would lead to an event that would give them the excuse they needed to launch USAPATRIOT and the GWOT, or something like it. I guess you could compare it to, idk, flooding of a drained swamp. You know that a swamp will flood next time there's a big rain upstream. You don't have to destroy the dikes. You just wait for your moment. Like a predator employing an ambush hunting strategy. They know prey will come along and they're content to wait.

                Analyzing the occupation and invasion is hard for me. If you assume their goal was to remove Saddam and create a stable regional "democratic" ally under US hegemony they clearly fucked up and were totally incompetent. If you assume their goal was to get filthy stinking rich, prop up the MIC, expand the US police state, and they didn't really give a shit about Iraq or about the US military, then they succeeded spectacularly. Idk how much of each is true.

                • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  They can get filthy stinking rich doing nothing, though. They're basically all insider trading and getting richer ever day no matter what, with or without a war. I'm sure there are some hungry ghosts who just yearn for an ever greater "more" and are not satisfied with just getting richer if they aren't also getting richer faster, but they don't have any plans bigger than that. Just more, forever.

                  If their goal was to expand US influence and dominance over the world, they failed. If their goal was to acquire cheap resources, they failed. If their goal was to assert US hegemony, they failed. If their goal was to stabilize trade and resource extraction, they failed.

                  I just don't think they planned any of this out. They just bumbled from event to event and tried to opportunistically profit on a case-by-case basis, in turn being unable to build a long-lasting project, and that's why it eventually became a debacle and had to be abandoned.

                  That also doesn't really answer my original question: why did they start with Afghanistan? If the goal was Iraq, why bother? Just start there!

                  • Frank [he/him, he/him]
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    From what I remember Afghanistan started out very small, with a very small number of troops on the ground allegedly looking for bin Laden, then... I think we started supporting the Northern Alliance warlords against the Taliban for some reason, and things snowballed? idk, I really haven't looked in to the history of Afghanistan in a long time.

      • Rod_Blagojevic [none/use name]
        ·
        7 months ago

        It's true. Any action in the middle east or central Asia would be completely unquestioned as long as a lot of people got killed. So we got a giant money laundering scheme disguised ad wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.