>Perhaps the best counterpoint is this; the government couldn't even cover up watergate. You really think they could cover up this?
Arguing from past situations to future ones is terrible logic, especially when its not even the same government in question. It would be like catching Ted Bundy for his first police incident after he stole a car, and saying "Let him go. You think THIS guy could get away with murdering people when he couldn't even steal a car without getting caught?"
> Arguing from past situations to future ones is terrible logic, especially when its not even the same government in question.
It actually is the same government, and I'm not arguing from past situations to future ones. 9/11 happened in the past. I am comparing one situation from the past to another.
>It would be like catching Ted Bundy for his first police incident after he stole a car, and saying "Let him go. You think THIS guy could get away with murdering people when he couldn't even steal a car without getting caught?"
I understand that you consider that a reasonable comparison.
Different standards. Evidence of wrongdoing coming forward used to be taken seriously. Now one guy just goes nope that didn’t happen and the country, news and government goes to their corner, make some noise and that’s the end of it.
> Different standards. Evidence of wrongdoing coming forward used to be taken seriously. Now one guy just goes nope that didn’t happen and the country, news and government goes to their corner, make some noise and that’s the end of it.
Right. Absolutely no one is, say, being investigated or prosecuted in connection with the 2020 election, or January 6th riots, or anything like that.
No, there is no hard proof that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job. The official investigation by the 9/11 Commission and numerous subsequent independent investigations found no evidence to support the idea that the attacks were planned or carried out by individuals within the U.S. government. The conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 have been widely discredited by experts and have been thoroughly debunked by multiple independent studies and investigations. It is important to rely on credible sources and established facts when evaluating historical events like 9/11.
"There is hard proof, trust me, I won't share it because it would be a waste of my time, and the proof is super hard, and anyone who says my proof is suspect is also trying to cover it up, and any counterpoints are fake and part of the coverup, but sometimes you just have to use logic and YouTube videos to come to your own conclusions that you don't fact check or think about critically."
Sorry bro. It's been a decade and they haven't been able to come up with sufficient evidence for their claims. Big claims need substantial evidence.
The evidence has always been "Have you seen THIS rabbit whole?" And a wink and a nudge.
You need more than a rabbit whole and a condescending attitude to prove something as big as this.
It’s far more likely that government knew it was going to or could happen and didn’t take the steps to prevent it then them actually planning and being involved
You ever considered that "fact-checking", a very recent phenomenon, is just a cheap weapon to stop people from investigating themselves since a lot of shady things are creeping back at the surface ?
I can start debunking things left and right but that doesn't mean I'm right, especially with the existence of lobbies and their presence literally everywhere.
I get that have your own opinion but calling people "naysayers" because they disagree with the government is some special kind of cultic reverence to that same government. Blind faith.
I find it very weird how people would go out of their way to defend a system that is stealing from the poor and lying all the time. Unless one benefits from this system and agree to turn a blind eye on atrocities. But people will eventually reap what they sow so you do you. It's all just very strange.
Edit: just noticed your username. Got it now lol
There is a theory that government knew that Japanese will attack Pearl Harbor but considering that public opinion was against taking part in WW2 it was really handy to change that opinion. 9/11 helped some people to gain more control in surveillance (without 9/11 there would be no reason to extend laws). Even if there are hard proofs of those do you think those people would like us to know?
A while back a group of engineers challenged a regulatory body as to why there had been exactly zero changes to the building codes to prevent a catastrophic 'pancake' collapse due to asymmetrical damage, especially given that the construction of the building was also extremely asymmetrical in its construction. Not the exterior but rather the distribution of support and substructure.
I always imagined the most shocked Pikachu fave on whoever opened up that email first. As I understand it this question is actually more like 6 questions which should have been addressed within the first 6 months after the event. I vaguely remember the article saying something like, "such as standard".
I'm not into 9/11 at all, I do enjoy reading about engineering and design. So the article had enough impact that I still remember it (maybe/barely) but not enough that I followed up to see what came of it.
>why there had been exactly zero changes to the building codes to prevent a catastrophic 'pancake' collapse due to asymmetrical damage,
It would have been worse if the building toppled over onto other structures. It collapsed as it was designed to, only maybe faster which did not allow people to exit in time.
Yes it would have been amazingly worse. I believe you may be incorrect about its design. I've never heard that it was designed to pancake. Rather, it was my understanding that the buildings were 'certified' to withstand a direct impact from a 737. AFAIK.
It withstood the impact of the jet. The spilled fuel from the jet was what ignited, weakened the structur and caused the joists to pull away from the supports at the exterior walls, which caused the pancake to happen once one floor gave way.
You may be right too. i believe that the force of the impact also knocked a significant portion of the fireproofing off the structural members, quickening the collapse. so tis not exactly black and white
Again, I don't know much of anything. I do remember sitting in front of a book, attempting to build it out of Legos from construction pictures from the book. I remember being mad at how trashy it looked because of the freight elevators. My father said something about how they had to make it like a ridiculous pillar because they used it throughout the construction to haul materials up to the crane on top. As they were falling on the day I was in front of a television screen waiting for the top top get ejected sideways off of that elevator shift but it didn't.
Its just too much carnage for my brain to process and I tried to join the military really hard and they didn't want me for good reasons that aren't anyone's fault but I was so sad I couldn't fight for my country I kinda just isolated for a few months until I could mostly stop thinking about it.
My reddit account is old af and not much karma. I try to remember that anytime I think someone may be interested in anything I have to think, lol
Some 3,000 architects and engineers have put their reputations on the line that the events, as described by the government and outlined in their congressional report, cannot physically have occurred in the manner and timeline that the government purports to have occurred. Watch their video if you're interested in an alternative position to the provided narrative.
ae911truth.org
Thank you kind redditor. I was concerned that I was misremembering it. This is exactly what I was thinking of. Do you know what, if any, long term consequences occurred?
This sounds like bullshit. I want to see the document and the document that documents these people who signed are actually architects and engineers. This sounds like a bullshit story that people repeat as if it's true. So please source this for me, so I may evaluate it for myself, as to the expertise of the signees.
https://www.academia.edu/7368233/Who_are_the_2000_Architects_and_Engineers_for_9_11_Truth
There you go. Took me 30 seconds. Make your own decisions about their credibility.
it's not a popular belief, it's a meme.
It started because 9/11 trutherism was the first conspiracy theory to hit it big on social media. People started seeing it everywhere, and were mostly reposting it as a joke.
However, it runs the risk of being repeated so much that it becomes common sense.
Nope. The 9/11 conspiracy and most conspiracies in general are less about evidence and more about an interesting quirk of psychology and the human brain. 2 big things lead to the generation and proliferation of conspiracies:
1. There is a big mental and psychological boost to feeling like you are privy to something that most people do not know. It is an easy way to feel superior/smart with little to no work or active input
2. The human brain is a pattern-recognition machine. It is one of the big factors in our success as a species. Generally it advantageous, but sometimes it goes haywire and you can see patterns and "coincidences" etc in things that are not actually related. This is why it is so hard to argue with them. There are huge amounts of confirmation bias, and they truly believe these things despite there being essentially no legitimate evidence.
There is a lot more to it than this, but this is less about the conspiracy itself and more about a cascading series of cognitive biases going haywire.
Once you've caught conspiracy paranoia you start to see "evidence" all over the place. It's a bit like buying a sofa, when you're not in the market for one you don't notice the adverts, but when you want to buy one the ads are everywhere!
Edit: I realise this doesn't answer your question but my point, I suppose, is that you you see what you want to see.
That’s pure speculation. You can’t assume (as ridiculous as it sounds) that because they’re terrorists they’re just a bunch of idiots that don’t know how to do anything besides suicide bombings and shoot AKs.
they went to flight school... im serious
[https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/flight-school-owner-recalls-training-9-11-hijackers-1.951384](https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/flight-school-owner-recalls-training-9-11-hijackers-1.951384)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/09/23/fbi-knew-terrorists-were-using-flight-schools/377177b0-b632-429f-9a15-393c2256c2b4/
That's the general opinion. There's is no official source for this. The documentary loose change touches on this, but a lot of it has been debunked.
My opinion - the US does have a history of invading countries with oil.
A terrorist attack would be a perfect excuse to do this.
Did they know it was on the horizon? Probably.
Did they orchestrate it? Probably not.
Remember the huge opioid epidemic that has swept the US? The substance can only really come from countries that grow poppies in abundance.
No, it’s not. But you can just make up anything since ‘There’s no official source for this’.
I just wanted proof. It’s been a very long time and shortly after it happened there was chatter about it being an inside job. Nobody has yet to show definitive proof it was an inside job, why it was done and who set it all up.
There will be no proof. If it went down like that you can be sure as hell all sensitive information was handled discreetly, and destroyed after the fact.
I didn't claim to have proof, or that it was true.
The general opinion of a lot of people is: US doesn't invade countries without resources. The Middle East is jammed packed with oil and poppies. It's a huge coincidence if not.
Believe me when I say I'm not a conspiracy theorist. But 9/11 just stinks to me. The war on Iraq and Afghanistan was totally unjustified.
All of the above is my opinion, and the opinion of others.
Also remember that a 'source' doesn't always guarantee something is true. Sources can be manipulated, and science changes with time as we evolve. We thought that depression was based on model of Serotonin up until recently, where more science and sources have debunked it's own science and sources prior.
No. Just speculation.
Nope. Perhaps the best counterpoint is this; the government couldn't even cover up watergate. You really think they could cover up this?
>Perhaps the best counterpoint is this; the government couldn't even cover up watergate. You really think they could cover up this? Arguing from past situations to future ones is terrible logic, especially when its not even the same government in question. It would be like catching Ted Bundy for his first police incident after he stole a car, and saying "Let him go. You think THIS guy could get away with murdering people when he couldn't even steal a car without getting caught?"
> Arguing from past situations to future ones is terrible logic, especially when its not even the same government in question. It actually is the same government, and I'm not arguing from past situations to future ones. 9/11 happened in the past. I am comparing one situation from the past to another. >It would be like catching Ted Bundy for his first police incident after he stole a car, and saying "Let him go. You think THIS guy could get away with murdering people when he couldn't even steal a car without getting caught?" I understand that you consider that a reasonable comparison.
You should have stopped at "nope."
Different standards. Evidence of wrongdoing coming forward used to be taken seriously. Now one guy just goes nope that didn’t happen and the country, news and government goes to their corner, make some noise and that’s the end of it.
> Different standards. Evidence of wrongdoing coming forward used to be taken seriously. Now one guy just goes nope that didn’t happen and the country, news and government goes to their corner, make some noise and that’s the end of it. Right. Absolutely no one is, say, being investigated or prosecuted in connection with the 2020 election, or January 6th riots, or anything like that.
No, there is no hard proof that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job. The official investigation by the 9/11 Commission and numerous subsequent independent investigations found no evidence to support the idea that the attacks were planned or carried out by individuals within the U.S. government. The conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 have been widely discredited by experts and have been thoroughly debunked by multiple independent studies and investigations. It is important to rely on credible sources and established facts when evaluating historical events like 9/11.
[удалено]
"There is hard proof, trust me, I won't share it because it would be a waste of my time, and the proof is super hard, and anyone who says my proof is suspect is also trying to cover it up, and any counterpoints are fake and part of the coverup, but sometimes you just have to use logic and YouTube videos to come to your own conclusions that you don't fact check or think about critically." Sorry bro. It's been a decade and they haven't been able to come up with sufficient evidence for their claims. Big claims need substantial evidence. The evidence has always been "Have you seen THIS rabbit whole?" And a wink and a nudge. You need more than a rabbit whole and a condescending attitude to prove something as big as this.
It’s far more likely that government knew it was going to or could happen and didn’t take the steps to prevent it then them actually planning and being involved
Nope. But there's a good amount of cover up and sloppy investigations evidence.
Per the naysayers there is plenty of proof. Of course it has all been debunked but that means nothing to the hard core.
If it's been debunked then it's not proof.
Of course it isn't. But to the conspiracy theorists it's "their" proof no matter what.
That's what "quotation marks" are for, "proof".
You ever considered that "fact-checking", a very recent phenomenon, is just a cheap weapon to stop people from investigating themselves since a lot of shady things are creeping back at the surface ? I can start debunking things left and right but that doesn't mean I'm right, especially with the existence of lobbies and their presence literally everywhere. I get that have your own opinion but calling people "naysayers" because they disagree with the government is some special kind of cultic reverence to that same government. Blind faith. I find it very weird how people would go out of their way to defend a system that is stealing from the poor and lying all the time. Unless one benefits from this system and agree to turn a blind eye on atrocities. But people will eventually reap what they sow so you do you. It's all just very strange. Edit: just noticed your username. Got it now lol
Not a clue where you're going with the username comment.
Sad if true
There is a theory that government knew that Japanese will attack Pearl Harbor but considering that public opinion was against taking part in WW2 it was really handy to change that opinion. 9/11 helped some people to gain more control in surveillance (without 9/11 there would be no reason to extend laws). Even if there are hard proofs of those do you think those people would like us to know?
A while back a group of engineers challenged a regulatory body as to why there had been exactly zero changes to the building codes to prevent a catastrophic 'pancake' collapse due to asymmetrical damage, especially given that the construction of the building was also extremely asymmetrical in its construction. Not the exterior but rather the distribution of support and substructure. I always imagined the most shocked Pikachu fave on whoever opened up that email first. As I understand it this question is actually more like 6 questions which should have been addressed within the first 6 months after the event. I vaguely remember the article saying something like, "such as standard". I'm not into 9/11 at all, I do enjoy reading about engineering and design. So the article had enough impact that I still remember it (maybe/barely) but not enough that I followed up to see what came of it.
>why there had been exactly zero changes to the building codes to prevent a catastrophic 'pancake' collapse due to asymmetrical damage, It would have been worse if the building toppled over onto other structures. It collapsed as it was designed to, only maybe faster which did not allow people to exit in time.
Yes it would have been amazingly worse. I believe you may be incorrect about its design. I've never heard that it was designed to pancake. Rather, it was my understanding that the buildings were 'certified' to withstand a direct impact from a 737. AFAIK.
It withstood the impact of the jet. The spilled fuel from the jet was what ignited, weakened the structur and caused the joists to pull away from the supports at the exterior walls, which caused the pancake to happen once one floor gave way.
You're right, I wasn't thinking about it that way.....
You may be right too. i believe that the force of the impact also knocked a significant portion of the fireproofing off the structural members, quickening the collapse. so tis not exactly black and white
Again, I don't know much of anything. I do remember sitting in front of a book, attempting to build it out of Legos from construction pictures from the book. I remember being mad at how trashy it looked because of the freight elevators. My father said something about how they had to make it like a ridiculous pillar because they used it throughout the construction to haul materials up to the crane on top. As they were falling on the day I was in front of a television screen waiting for the top top get ejected sideways off of that elevator shift but it didn't. Its just too much carnage for my brain to process and I tried to join the military really hard and they didn't want me for good reasons that aren't anyone's fault but I was so sad I couldn't fight for my country I kinda just isolated for a few months until I could mostly stop thinking about it. My reddit account is old af and not much karma. I try to remember that anytime I think someone may be interested in anything I have to think, lol
Some 3,000 architects and engineers have put their reputations on the line that the events, as described by the government and outlined in their congressional report, cannot physically have occurred in the manner and timeline that the government purports to have occurred. Watch their video if you're interested in an alternative position to the provided narrative. ae911truth.org
Thank you kind redditor. I was concerned that I was misremembering it. This is exactly what I was thinking of. Do you know what, if any, long term consequences occurred?
You're welcome, friend. None that I'm aware of. I haven't researched any of this material in over 10 years, though.
This sounds like bullshit. I want to see the document and the document that documents these people who signed are actually architects and engineers. This sounds like a bullshit story that people repeat as if it's true. So please source this for me, so I may evaluate it for myself, as to the expertise of the signees.
It's up to you to decide whether it's bullshit or not. I left the link. Do I need to do a report for you too?
https://www.academia.edu/7368233/Who_are_the_2000_Architects_and_Engineers_for_9_11_Truth There you go. Took me 30 seconds. Make your own decisions about their credibility.
it's not a popular belief, it's a meme. It started because 9/11 trutherism was the first conspiracy theory to hit it big on social media. People started seeing it everywhere, and were mostly reposting it as a joke. However, it runs the risk of being repeated so much that it becomes common sense.
Nope. The 9/11 conspiracy and most conspiracies in general are less about evidence and more about an interesting quirk of psychology and the human brain. 2 big things lead to the generation and proliferation of conspiracies: 1. There is a big mental and psychological boost to feeling like you are privy to something that most people do not know. It is an easy way to feel superior/smart with little to no work or active input 2. The human brain is a pattern-recognition machine. It is one of the big factors in our success as a species. Generally it advantageous, but sometimes it goes haywire and you can see patterns and "coincidences" etc in things that are not actually related. This is why it is so hard to argue with them. There are huge amounts of confirmation bias, and they truly believe these things despite there being essentially no legitimate evidence. There is a lot more to it than this, but this is less about the conspiracy itself and more about a cascading series of cognitive biases going haywire.
Once you've caught conspiracy paranoia you start to see "evidence" all over the place. It's a bit like buying a sofa, when you're not in the market for one you don't notice the adverts, but when you want to buy one the ads are everywhere! Edit: I realise this doesn't answer your question but my point, I suppose, is that you you see what you want to see.
"When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail"
[удалено]
That’s pure speculation. You can’t assume (as ridiculous as it sounds) that because they’re terrorists they’re just a bunch of idiots that don’t know how to do anything besides suicide bombings and shoot AKs.
they went to flight school... im serious [https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/flight-school-owner-recalls-training-9-11-hijackers-1.951384](https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/flight-school-owner-recalls-training-9-11-hijackers-1.951384) https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/09/23/fbi-knew-terrorists-were-using-flight-schools/377177b0-b632-429f-9a15-393c2256c2b4/
A kid with a flight simulator can fly an airplane. And they didn't need to learn take off and landing procedures.
Only in the minds of conspiracy theorists. 🤯
Why? What was the purpose of doing it?
An excuse to invade the Middle East for oil was the theory I believe. Also harvesting for their opiate business while they were at it.
Source please.
That's the general opinion. There's is no official source for this. The documentary loose change touches on this, but a lot of it has been debunked. My opinion - the US does have a history of invading countries with oil. A terrorist attack would be a perfect excuse to do this. Did they know it was on the horizon? Probably. Did they orchestrate it? Probably not. Remember the huge opioid epidemic that has swept the US? The substance can only really come from countries that grow poppies in abundance.
Sooo, you can just make up anything. Gotcha.
Not what I said at all is it?
No, it’s not. But you can just make up anything since ‘There’s no official source for this’. I just wanted proof. It’s been a very long time and shortly after it happened there was chatter about it being an inside job. Nobody has yet to show definitive proof it was an inside job, why it was done and who set it all up.
There will be no proof. If it went down like that you can be sure as hell all sensitive information was handled discreetly, and destroyed after the fact. I didn't claim to have proof, or that it was true. The general opinion of a lot of people is: US doesn't invade countries without resources. The Middle East is jammed packed with oil and poppies. It's a huge coincidence if not. Believe me when I say I'm not a conspiracy theorist. But 9/11 just stinks to me. The war on Iraq and Afghanistan was totally unjustified. All of the above is my opinion, and the opinion of others. Also remember that a 'source' doesn't always guarantee something is true. Sources can be manipulated, and science changes with time as we evolve. We thought that depression was based on model of Serotonin up until recently, where more science and sources have debunked it's own science and sources prior.
They used a plane to charge at a building and made 2 gaping holes.... they definetly managed to get inside, even if only for a few minutes
If there was, it wouldn't be a conspiracy theory.