Curious where the majority of this site falls. No need to struggle or anything, I just wana see what y'all think.
Yep, it was hanlon's razor. Each of the state apparatuses (CIA, FBI, MI6 etc) fucking hate each other and were dumbasses so they just didnt work together. This resulted in homeland security being built. But turns out they are also incompetent so now we just have another department built to abuse immigrants and silence dissenters.
It's become part of the new cultural zeitgeist. You can say "They knew the attacks were coming, but 'allowed' it to happen to hammer through the Patriot Act and invade Afghanistan/Iraq to secure resources" and be met with little pushback.
It's a different world from when I was saying the exact same thing in 2001.
I mean, pick your incentive:
- The Saudis had been absolutely salivating at the idea of US boots-on-the-ground for decades
- Over the years, multiple scholars expressed the view that the Iraq War was conducted to re-assert the dollar hegemony in the wake of Saddam Hussein's attempts to switch from petrodollar in the oil trade and to sell Iraqi oil in exchange for other currencies or commodities
- Who was the dude in the Bush administration that outright admitted that without the Iraq War, they wouldn't have had the support to pass most of their agenda (specifically the Bush Tax cuts)?
- The entire republican looting strategy revolves around profiting from disaster
I think that the 'safest' normie interpretation is that our long history of overthrowing democracies and funding terrorist groups (i.e. the CIA and the Mujahideen) came back to bite us in the ass.
The more complete explanation is that we never stopped meddling in the Middle East and even if the US wasn't involved directly, 9/11 was either orchestrated with the explicit blessing and financial backing of the Saudis, or that and things were simply 'allowed to happen' with the Saudi's implicit blessing and financial backing, much in the same way that the CIA would back a coup.
I think the US was already looking for literally any hint of retaliation against decades of interventionist policy that they could find to manufacture consent for perpetual war and they got it and then some.
I just avoid 9/11 entirely when talking to normies; there's plenty of other stuff to radicalize people with.
I've always found this to be plausible, maybe even likely. Pulling off an inside job is hard, looking the other way is easy.
All of the loose change stuff is bs from people who don't understand engineering but america certainly created the conditions that let 9/11 happen and they were in decades in the making.
I'm more of a calculated blowback person. I don't think they actually planned or did 9/11, but they absolutely created the conditions for it to happen. They may have known it was gonna happen in advance, I don't know where I land on that. But they absolutely seized on the opportunity and did the anthrax shit.
I am absolutely 100% certain that Bush did it. However, all of my evidence points toward Jeb! doing it.
Personally I think...
-
It's most likely that it was a mixture of incompetence and complacency on the Bush admin's part. It was absolutely done with more Saudi involvement that just 'black sheep' Osama Bin Laden though.
-
It's definitely plausible that a small number of people associated with the US (intelligence personnel with ties to the oil & war economy or vice versa) had a hand in it or created the conditions for a possible such attack. This become less likely the more people you assume we're involved though.
-
It's not out of the realm of possibility that people within the military industrial complex and Bush admin allowed something to happen and possibly got more than they bargained for.
-
It seems extremely likely Flight 93 was shot down in the confusion or deliberately to prevent another strike and they covered it up to avoid the fallout and preserve the strength of the victim narrative going forward.
-
I'm absolutely positive that the Anthrax attacks there after were a US intelligence operation (or executed on their behalf) to pass the Patriot Act and set the current sinister security agenda.
-
I'm not that old, but I remember when you could walk into the airport terminal with your friend and hug them just before they boarded the plane without needing a boarding pass of your own.
That question is so ridiculous that it's always tempting to reply with a joke, but I'm on enough lists already.
Here's a study from University of Alaska-Fairbanks on the collapse of WTC building 7. Quote:
"The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse."
WTC 7 is bizarre enough--all that's necessary for me to question the official narrative is the footage of the collapse--but what rarely gets talked about is the attack on the Pentagon, which is much stranger. The Pentagon takes up several acres and is only five stories tall, any terrorist trying to do max damage would crash directly downwards into the building. That's not what happened. The hijacker--who had no experience flying a 757--flew so low to the ground he was clipping streetlights and crashed into the side of the building, directly into the offices where investigations were taking place into the trillions of dollars announced "missing" from the pentagon's budget the day before. Shortly after the accident g-men went to all the gas stations/convenience stores that had cameras pointing toward the crash sight and confiscated the footage. After multiple FOIA requests this is the only footage that's been released. It's hard to say, as the plane is only in view for one frame, but more damning imo is the governments obviously bullshit excuse for not releasing more: it would be too painful for the families of the survivors (??).
This insane aerial maneuver spawned the group Pilots for 9/11 Truth, just as the improbably collapse of WTC 7 spawned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, who sponsored the UAF study linked above. These are people who know a hell of a lot more about these subjects than I do and their expertise has lead them to believe against the ENORMOUS backlash--present also on this site--that comes with questioning the official 9/11 narrative. Check their respective websites for more info on the technical aspects of 9/11 truth. There is much, much more about the official narrative that doesn't make sense, it's a serious rabbit hole.
However, what we as materialists should examine is the historical context: just how outrageous is the claim that 9/11 was a false flag? Nazi Germany staged a false flag to justify their invasion of Poland, just as Imperial Japan did to justify their invasion of Nanjing, just as the United States itself did to justify the invasions of Cuba, Vietnam, and Syria. Given this context, we should take nothing for granted about the most impactful justification for war in US history.
We probably won't know the truth about the attacks for decades, and it's possible we never will. But just like with the JFK assassination, there's too many holes in the official narrative for it to be anything but a coverup. The motivation for this coverup has been discussed at length by other posters in this thread: war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Bush personally hijacked both planes and just hopped out at the last second.
Fred Durst was clearly a computer-generated celebrity manufactured by Andrew Niccol. Like Kubrick, he even made an elaborate confession to the fraud in the form of a major motion picture.
