TrueAnon turned me into a truther. Am I crazy?
Adding to all other comments, a lot of the suspicious Bush administration's immediate reaction (i.e. PATRIOT act) can be understood as them being always ready for whatever calamity in order to justify either invasion or neoliberal "reforms".
Naomi Klein (liberal) goes into detail in her book (Shock Doctrine) about what she calls "Disaster Capitalism" and how a lot of effort is put into laying down the groundwork, both legally and ideologically, for whenever crises make them possible, besides constantly agitating for chaos which can lead to said crises.
She has a documentary which summarises her book, if you want a peek. You can easily draw parallels between the events she describes and what's happening now in Argentina, Ukraine and Ecuador, among others.
Now, with regards to what motivates this conspiracy theory: it's a patriotic distraction. As US citizen lives are treated by US society as inherently more important, portraying Bush as a traitor is an attractive pitfall to fall into, whitewashing the constant crimes of the US, internally and abroad, as the acts of "a bad president". Even if Bush had personally pushed a button to launch missiles at the WTC, it would not be even remotely close to the social murder caused by his administration, or any other admin before or after.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Honestly, does it matter? It simply wouldn't of occurred without US imperialism, and was used as a pretext for the continuation of the circumstances that caused it. Bush is to blame whether he knew it was gonna happen or not.
Most likely imo is the perpetrators were involved in some other capacity with the natsec state hence why they were able to slip through so many cracks. Double agents essentially. The taliban and the us go way back so it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the CIA was telling other branches to look the other way on these guys for some unrelated reason. And the attackers used that to their advantage.
The whole thing was basically blowback for covertly backing the overthrow of the socialist gov of Afghanistan back in the 70s and pouring arms into the region to fight a proxy war against the Soviets through the mujahideen (eerily similar to Ukraine actually). It makes sense that the guys slipping through were just another extension of that.
Even if bush did 9/11 which he didnt killing 3000 people isnt even close to his most demonic act, which would be using that attack as justification for launching an unprovoked attack on uninvolved Iraq. Millions of deaths on his hands. Piece of garbage deserves piss bags thrown at him everywhere he goes but instead he gets feted by liberals bc he hands out Werther's just like meemaw used to do.
All the controlled demo stuff is crackpot shit.
Blowback season 4 is probably the single best piece of media you can consume about 9/11 albeit indirectly
A somewhat similar scenario, is in the documentary No Stone Unturned, about the UK's use of double agents as part of their war on Ireland during the troubles.
Basically a couple of terrorists murdered some innocent catholic civilians in a pub in a small town in northern Ireland. Turns they were loyalist terrorists that were active in the british army, and were being employed by the brits as informants. Its doubtful that MI6 ordered the attack, but as part of sweeping their counter-intelligence fuckery under the rug, they deemed these terrorists as untouchable, and protect them to this day. It took the victim's families refusing to accept the brit's explanations, and a lot of good journalists to discover who these terrorists were.
Bush? Nah
Cheney? Probably
At the very least they knew about it and let it happen. There were so many warnings beforehand.There's a reason why dubya left the game and Dick stayed in
In addition to communication between intelligence agencies, we know Bush himself was warned: https://www.rt.com/news/468133-putin-warned-bush-911/
We know Putin warned Bush two days before the attack: https://www.rt.com/news/468133-putin-warned-bush-911/
I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility to suggest that someone in the Bush administration might have had an idea, and still let it happen (after all, it made a convenient rationale for wars in the Middle East), and in that sense one might say "Bush did 9/11".
However, I don't think the U.S. government was actually directly responsible though.
Think about the legacy of 9/11 — Bush's popularity skyrocketed (rally around the flag effect), they launched decades-long wars in the Middle East, surveillance programs (NSA, TSA, etc.) expanded to ordinary Americans on a massive scale (e.g. USA PATRIOT Act, REAL ID Act), etc.
It did a lot for the Bush administration, and may have been responsible for his 2004 re-election.
Truthers and general 9/11 conspiracy theories have always read to me as american exceptionalism, like you cant conceive another group of people in a different country hate your country so much they would fly a plane into the twin towers.
Whats more likely, the conspiracy or that the people you have been waging genocidal wars against for the last 50 years finally had enough?
Its just a distraction from americans genocidal foriegn policy, I strongly advise you get a grip.
The conspiracy theories like "controlled demolitions" or "hologram planes" or whatever are all nonsense, but the idea that the US ruling class knew about it beforehand and benefited from it fits into their usual M.O. and isn't any sort of leap in logic.
The last line starts to come closer to the truth, that the upper class knew; sure.
But its more they just 'knew' that installing dictators and repeatdly invading a region will destabilize it and create generations of people who are willing to commit acts of terror against you.
I have 0 patience for people posting any analysis of this that ignores the big fact that someone like, flew a fucking plane into the towers.
I think you misunderstand me, I agree with you about the conspiracy theories. It's absurd nonsense. Once you start getting to that level of "all the planes were faked and all the pilots were made up" or whatever you're just ignoring reality, which ultimately, is what the US state department wants from people. Ironically, the conspiracy theories play into their hands perfectly.
But those are not mutually exclusive are they? I don't think anyone claims that Bush literally did all of it, at least I wouldn't. Yes, the planning was most likely not carried out by the US government itself but by Al-Qaeda who really hated the US a lot but to say that there was no foreknowledge of what was going to happen and no coverup in the aftermath doesn't match with a lot of the stuff that has come out since. Why did the CIA not inform the FBI that potentially dangerous terrorists had entered the country? How were the suspects identified that quickly? How tf do the hijackers passports get found on the sidewalk the next day? Why are there obvious flaws in the NIST report as to how WTC 7 collapsed? Highrises don't collapse at free Fall due to fire. How were they so quick to pass the Patriot act, a 134 page legal document that was passed a month and 15 days after the attack? Considering the gates 9/11 opened for the Bush Administration it's hard to argue that they would not be tempted to at least let it happen if they were informed of it beforehand.
Asking me 200 questions of easily debunked nonsense isnt going to strengthen your arguement and is a typical response to a conspiracy theorist being called out, instead of wasting my time debunking all of this shit (which you wont care about anyway) I will instead just say that like most conspiracy theorists, you all agree on what happened but cannot agree on why it happened.
This is a mythology and is not serious analysis, you are engaging in religion not marxism.
Fair enough but can you point me to places where I can find rebutalls of this? Edit: particularly for the wtc 7 stuff, I just don't understand how a building that wasn't hit by a plan collapses.
There are a lot of explanations on building 7. It needed rennovation in the first place. When the planes hit the towers tons of burning debris came out. Some of which hit tower 7. Water to the area was knocked out when the towers fell and firefighters were not focused on getting the fire out. Building 7 was on blazing fire for something like 7 hours before it fell.
If you are interested just search for it there are a ton of reports on what happened with it. People will use a building has never fallen From Fire argument but, buildings dont usually burn for hours and hours with no one doing anythinf about it.
And the real question is why? Why blow up building 7? What would be the point? Just to fuel conspiracy theorists or what?
My advice?
Stop caring, it happened, america carried out a genocide in response and people are still faslely imprisoned in concentration camps on cuban soil as a result.
This entire thing is just a black hole designed to waste your time and is predicated on you having a bias and working backwards from there rather than starting with no assumptions and doing a proper analysis.
Comrade you can't just call someone conspiracy theorist and then answer "stop caring" on the good faith question about one of most important and impactful event of the century.
I can absolutely tell someone to get off the stream of making controlled demolotion theories, it is not a productive stream of thought to go down and only fills the head with utter nonsense.
most important and impactful event of the century.
In the american conciousness maybe, to most people in the world its barely a 4/10; the aftermath, sure, but given the first gulf war already happened I think they would have found any excuse if it didnt.
I agree that ultimately it don't matter since we will get the truth in some years or decades or maybe never, but you must admit USA have long list of false flag attacks or provocations perfectly fitting "qui bono" question and coincidental with their contemporary political line. And it also have a very long tradition to promoting conspiracy theories to obfuscate what's really happened. And at the same time turning legit theories into conspiracy ones, remember everything about Korea and Vietnam that was later proven?
And where they should get answers if not here? On some sites where they will hear that UFO did it? If you don't know the answer or it does not interest you at least don't bash people for searching.
If you don’t know the answer or it does not interest you at least don’t bash people for searching.
So far the pro-conspiracy theorists in the thread have posted theories by a guy who advocated IV'ing baking soda as a treatment for cancer, this train of thought is doing real phsycic damage.
The reason why its not even worth engaging in this nonsense is because you can just watch one of the hundreds of hours of recorded footage of the planes slamming into the towers to figure out 'what happened', entertaining anything else is just a black hole of nonsense that piles on 100's of questions of speculation and quasi-science in service of grifting.
Its as simple as we meddled in the middle east and they gave the US 1% of the taste of there own medicine, nothing deeper.
I agree that ultimately it don’t matter since we will get the truth in some years or decades or maybe never,
The truth really isnt that hard to grasp, the nonsense that comes in afterwards on the contary shouldnt be tried to grasp, it is a symptom of the lack of critical thinking taught to americans and the mass delusions they regularly engage in, in place of actually learning solid theory that could improve there lives, this is convienent for the upper class.
Just a minute—is your counterargument based on the idea that flying planes into buildings could be dangerous? I'm not American but I would need some evidence of this. I've seen planes in the air with my own eyes and when they're up that high in the air, they get really, really small.
Imo the conspiracy is the conspiracy, if that. America got caught with its pants down and Bush did 911, the planes were holograms, etc. is just there to detract/as cope from the fact that the US had spent the last decade doing nothing but masturbating over the corpse of the USSR.
The United States has NEVER needed a reason to invade another country, they've never met a false flag they didn't love
AFAIK the hologram and nuke stuff is disinfo just like flat earth (obviously flat earth existed before it just became signal boosted and there was funding to create more of that content)
not bush individually but american foreign policy. just read osama bin laden letter, it's fairly simple.
Just blaming it on foreign policy in fairly abstract terms doesn't go far enough imo. Bush and the people around him definetely knew of the attacks and covered up their knowledge. Theres also a good case to be made that they may have faciliated the attacks to some extent. The collapes of wtc 7 is really sketchy from what I've seen but I'm open to a good explanation as to how the official explanation of that holds. It was a very clean collapse for something that was not a planned demolition although I admittedly have no clue as to how such a thing would be carried out.
the US knowing that something was going to happen doesn't mean they can stop it. Its the same thing with Israel about them knowing about Oct7 and "letting it happen", the easiest conclusion is that both were incompetent and simply were not able to stop it. Lets stop viewing them as invincible and omnipotent.
Learning about the CIA in depth will quickly validate the viewpoint that they're as incompetent as they are evil
Never attribute malice when incompetence explains the event unless it's reactionaries, in which case it's both.
Cannot Assassinate Castro who refused to wear a bullet proof vest... Like I am sure the CIA cheered when old age got him and tried to spin it as their doing
Probably not. It was just like Pearl Harbor where they knew something was up but didn't really try to stop it.
This. Are we really buying that it was a huge conspiracy instead of just hubris of the American Empire making them lethargic with the fairly obvious signs of what was going to happen?
He was going to, but by sheer coincidence the Saudis beat him to it.
he was in on it definitely. if you're into following money trails look into the CIA front company "Ace Elevators" (doesn't exist anymore) that got the WTC elevator maintenance contracts instead of Otis Elevators, probably the biggest name in elevators and elevator repair.
if you're into architecture look into the collapse of WTC 7. According to NIST, it collapsed purely from an office fire, and that debris from WTC 1 and 2 nearby only did superficial damage. (Bots who argue it collapsed because of falling debris are figuratively "conspiracy theorists" that go against what the gov says)If you're into human interest stories there's a LOT of them as well
A final chapter in the 9/11 Commission Report aka the '28 pages' was declassified in 2015/2016 and it details close connections between the State of Saudi Arabia and the al-Qaeda hijackers who perpetrated 9/11. I read them when they were released and from my memory, it revealed that Saudi sorted out flying lessons for the hijackers and provided money to the hijackers. Some of the hijackers had Saudi intelligence and royal family members saved in their phones as contacts. What I took from the release is that it's very likely 9/11 was planned by Saudi Arabia and that they just used Al-Qaeda as an instrument to carry it out.
“The FBI has received numerous reports from individuals in the Muslim community, dating back to 1999, alleging that al-Bayoumi may be a Saudi intelligence officer…al-Bayoumi met the hijackers at a public place shortly after his meeting with an individual at the Saudi consulate and there are indications in his files that his encounter with the hijackers may not have been accidental. During this same timeframe, al-Bayoumi had extensive contact with Saudi Government establishments in the United States and received financial support from a Saudi company affiliated with the Saudi Ministry of Defense…That company reportedly has ties to Usama Bin Ladin and al-Qaeda.”
https://www.pastemagazine.com/politics/the-32-most-important-passages-from-the-un-redacte
I personally believe that people in the US Government knew in advance that 9/11 would happen and had already planned on using it as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein, similar to how the Zionist entity is using Oct 7 as a pretext to conduct Genocide against the people of the Gaza strip and to go on a killing spree across the Middle East.
That makes sense. But why were Saudis interested in doing or aiding a terrorist attack on the US?
As an engineer, I tell you the controlled demolition thing is much more plausible than the theories brought by the official reports. There is footage of incandescent molten steel being spewed from windows. That alone cannot be explained by a fire originated from the combustion of the plane fuel, because of the fusion point of the steal. Besides this, the way the three buildings collapsed, one of them not even being hit by a plane, looks exactly like a controlled demolition (coordinated sequential explosions, symmetrical collapse centered over the base of the building, near free fall acceleration etc.). Note that the only three high-rise buildings in history said to have collapsed by a fire are the buildings collapsed in the 911.
We also can't simply tell that the dozens of engineers and architects from https://www.ae911truth.org/ are all pseudoscience crackpots. There are two other sites analogous to this, one by firefighters and other by pilots. And then there is the research of Niels Harrit.
It's hard to explain how they would have mannaged to secretly put the charges in the buildings. But the fact is the evidence for controlled demolition does exist.
About hollogram planes: this is not needed in the controlled demolition explanation. The planes could have hit the towers as part of the false flag, and then after some time they would initiate the controlled demolition.
Did you know Michael Jackson was supposed to be in the WTC durring the 911? He had a scheduled meeting there, but he missed it because he overslept. While this might be a mere coincidence, what if they arranged Michael Jackson to be there just to make the "attack" cause more public commotion? (This part is just speculation, of course).
A nice docummentary on the subject: 9/11 - Decade of Deception.
Note that the only three high-rise buildings in history said to have collapsed by a fire are the buildings collapsed in the 911.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edif%C3%ADcio_Wilton_Paes_de_Almeida
Debunked, this one collapsed.
As an engineer maybe you should take some social sciences classes that focus on research methods before running your mouth and directing people to nonsense generators who only seek to distort the truth, peddle nonsense and steal money from the vulnerable.
Seriously, if your litmus for this shit is just 'some grifter told me in a documentry' and you didnt bother to even fact check such a blatantly false claim you should really reconsider the foundations of what you're engaging in.
I didn't know about this one. But this is a very old building and much smaller than the three WTC towers; it's very understandable that this compromised building fell in the described way. You just adressed one point and proceeded to tell I'm just believing some nonsense. If you read better what I said, you will note I didn't even say I believe it was a controlled demolition. I said it is much more likely than the official explanations.
My advice to you is to just use your own eyes and brain, dont take anything anyone is saying as 'more plausable', start at the most basic assumptions and consider history; do some materialism here. Someone makes a claim, do your own research, seriously challenge the claim for yourself; if it holds up, it is good.
Do not make appeals to authority, plenty of people use degrees in one subject then grift the academic credentials they have to spin nonsense to the guilable, unless its peer reviewed and reproduced by a lot of different people its without merit; even then it would need to be pretty compelling to outright beat a simple historical analysis of what the US has done to the middle east prior to 9/11 and video footage captured of the event.
The issue with conspiracy theories, and why im not going to spend time debunking every question you threw at me is the Brandolini's law; it takes 10x's the amount of energy to debunk unevidenced claims than it does to make them; the onus is on you to provide compelling evidence for your claims, not for me to debunk them.
My take on the towers has been outlined in the thread, I guarentee you its closer to base reality than anything post on the pro-truther side of this.
peer reviewed
Niels Harrit research was peer reviewed. See this.
debunk unevidenced claims
Are you assuming the points are "unevidenced" without actually analysing them? Or did you really analyse them? E.g., did you have an explanation for the molten steel coming out of the windows here, or for the other claims of the specialists in the documentary? (I'm citing the documentary because it puts togheter a lot of the points and has the footages, but of course my sources are not just the documentary; I actually only saw this documentary recently).
I recognize there is some points hard to explain in the demolition theory, like how they managed to put the charges in the building. But it's harder to explain how that three huge, robust buildings, with footprints about the size of soccer fields, fell by fire with temperature lower than the fusion point of steel, symmetrically and reaching free fall or near free fall acceleration.
It's not only engineers, firefighters and pilots. People from geopolitics also talked about this. Pepe Escobar hinted more than once (to portuguese-speaking audiences) about the official history of 911 being wrong (he avoided entering in details).
There was also a recent tweet from someone that works for Chinese government (at the time I didn't see which was his position, and I don't have the tweet anymore) that explicitly tells USA did 911. It was a joke about what each country thinks USA does. For each country USA invaded, the answer was a photo of the invasion. For USA, the answer was superman saving the world. Then, there was "What you really do", and it was an image of WTC collapsing. This was just a joke, but the joke does tell that USA did 911. Of course, this does not prove anything, since it is just someone claiming something, even if this person works for Chinese government; but it's at least interesting.
Do not make appeals to authority
When you thrust the government reports without actually knowing if the physical model and simulations they made for the collapse are right, you are thrusting them for their authority.
The appeal to authority is you saying that you're an engineer, implying that you know better and that non-engineers don't have a say.
Niels Harrit research was peer reviewed. See this.
-
its peer reviewed by fellow peers, that is to say, its reviewed by people who already agree with the initial conclusion, this is bias.
-
they do not use a null hypothesis, this is basic scientific investigation and without one its complete garbage. A null hypothesis is basically asking 'is this studies initial observation even correct or could it be other things', without even considering this its bad science as you dont account for the bias of the researcher, which is basic research methods
-
the study doesnt even definatively say anything, just that it might have been thermite but they dont actually know, you can try and hide this behind academic language but nothing in that paper is definitive.
t’s not only engineers, firefighters and pilots. People from geopolitics also talked about this. Pepe Escobar hinted more than once (to portuguese-speaking audiences) about the official history of 911 being wrong (he avoided entering in details).
Again none of these peoples opinons actually mean anything, I could make up anything I want about it, there is still video evidence of the planes flying into the towers and video evidence of the burn that happened for hours afterwards, as i've demonstrated previously there IS examples of steel buildings falling over as a result of uncontrolled burns.
When you thrust the government reports without actually knowing if the physical model and simulations they made for the collapse are right, you are thrusting them for their authority.
I dont need to trust government reports or bunk studies by grifters trying to capitalize on a tragedy, I can see it with my own eyes.
-
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Hey just out of curiosity what field of engineering are you, I am only asking because "engineer" can refer to alot of feilds with almost no overlap within them. For example I have an uncle who is a plastics engineer, and can tell you anything about the plastics he worked on and most anything about the rest, however if I ask him about road design, or stop and go light timeing, he is near clueless, same with electricity ect ect. So I ask because the Field of engineering is important for your area of credibility to be established.
Second as you mentioned the high rises that have collapsed due to fire, we are starting to get into the periphery of what I know though agian I stress this is only the perefery, however highrises tend to not burn down due to how they have to be constructed, that being in a manner that is highly fire resistant so that the occupants could suvive a typical fire. I would like to note however that this is not a typical fire, we also have an aircraft that barreled in causeing an added impact force, and took out both some fire breaks and extra suport, so this is not within the staandard code developments, nor would I say it collapsed due to fire. Second as someone has pointed out, Highrises HAVE collapsed due to a fire, agian they are not often, but it does happen, do you know how distructive fire even is?
Yes I can say that all the Engineers on that CONSPERCY THEORY website are incorrect. I would not say they are crackpots, but I would say that they are wrong. There are psychological elements on why its easy to fall into beliveing and arguing for that, assuming that website is in good faith, as for the websites for pilots and firefighters, same, well except for the pilots I really hope they are not crashing into high rises. I can discuss my knoledge of Cons and why people fall for them with you, and I use Con in the most braud sense of the word. I would also like to point out numbers ... you bring up "Dozens" There is a scientific paper with I think about 100 maybe 1000 scientists, many of who are climate scientists saying that climate change is not real, and if it was it would be a bennifit to society, I am sure I could find a few dozen bilogists who assert evolution is wrong, HECK I know of a few dozon mathimiticans who think the consept of infinity is wrong. What I am saying is that dozens is a really small number when we are talking about a feild as big as ALL ENGINEERS (and architects as far as I care to disern is a type of engineer), that is hardly an argument.
Harrit is a quack, first off his argument for why this is not the airplanes is that thermite was present, thermite is Iron Rust, and Aluminum, I would not be surpised if both of those where there, not as thermite but existing, in a building made of steal, in a rapid oxidation (Fire) and with an airplane that is made in whole or part with Aluminum, just to think of sources off my head. Also Thermite creates fire the same thing you said could not cause a collapse. Second the Journal that it was published in had to retract that article due to failing proper peer review, and third over 20,000 engineers and architects signed there name to a counter article refuting that claim (you may note tens of thousands is far greater than dozens). This being to say I do not find his paper to be any sort of relyable, especialy when his "smoking gun" would be expected.
You mention that it would be hard to put a controled demolition up, and this is correct, its kind of hard to get thousands of people to all willingly go to there death, without anyone having any sort of log or having told someone before the event "Yeah honey, I am not going to work tomorrow, they where putting in explosives and I am not sure I trust that." Also you mentioned much more plausable this way... agian ... Aircraft have LOTS of energy both as chemical and Kennetic, and you are saying that the energy stored in a flying aircraft taking down a building is less likely than thousands of randos not spilling the beans?
Your the only one mentioning holographic planes, we all know there where no holographic planes
Also yes it was a coincidence, you know how many people where suposed to go there and did not, or get on a plane that went down, this is called survivors bias, we expect this, especialy given how high profile those towers where.
TL;DR, Learn Critical Thinking and please use that skill
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
from a pure structural engineering standpoint, it was a planned demolition. this guy describes it the best.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
No
Same director btw
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7794734/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3290338/?ref_=nm_flmg_job_1_cred_t_5
Also no im not watching a 4 and a half hour brain rot documentry by a cancer and moon landing hoaxer lol
Show
Im sensing a struggle session inbound
Oh dang, this reminded me I'm out of baking powder and need to get more when I go shopping. Thanks random witch doctor conspiracy theorist!
Conpiracy theorists swatting away any debunking, if you look at the review page for the 1st one I linked 90% of people are calling it 10/10 the best thing ever made with 100+ upvotes.
Its exploitative as fuck.
I didn't ask you to watch it, I presented it for people who are actually curious about the world.
