|
I've seen various 9/11 conspiracy stuff over the years and some of it can be quite compelling, but the thing that always gets me is the pieces don't fit together. No one can ever collect all of the individually extremely weird poo poo surrounding it and piece it into a coherent framework that explains why it fits as part of a conspiracy. This trueanon episode was interesting because all of the individual items sound pretty damning, but no one takes the next step to ask why it was done that way https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_NHUShkl_E. Like, the manoeuvre the pilot of the plane that hit the Pentagon seems insane for a guy who was allegedly such a terrible pilot that his flight school was trying to have his certification revoked, but what does that mean? Was someone else, an expert pilot actually in the plane? If so where is any evidence to support that? One part I did find interesting was the WTC 7 stuff, this does appear to be a reasonably rigorous investigation that shows fire was not the cause of the collapse, rather it was the simultaneous failure of all of the structural columns for some unknown reason: https://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7. Is that study legit? And if so, what would explain its conclusions? The thing that nags at me is that if 9/11 did happen as stated, Bush and co are the absolute luckiest fuckers of all time. They had put a reasonable degree of effort into planning a policy agenda that they knew would only work in the event of an almost unprecedented black swan like 9/11, and it loving happened not even a year into his first term. But I guess that's the kind of insane coincidence that defines how our world is shaped, which is the reality conspiracy theories try to avoid.
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2021 22:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 00:53 |
|
|
Jaxyon posted:What do you find compelling about this? What agenda? To establish a more aggressively maintained imperial frontier in the middle east / central asia to protect the petrodollar, further privatise the military and feed the MIC, expand executive power with through the unitary executive theory, basically give a raison d'etre to the idea of a global capitalist hegemon in the post cold war era (and of course both Iraq and Iran were considered unfinished business for Bush in particular). The start of the podcast I linked goes into it in a decent amount of detail, but there is a particularly eyebrow-raising quote from PNAC (project for a new american century, an influential neocon think tank) that essentially states that their goals would require something along the lines of "a new pearl harbour" to secure public consent in the short term. I mean there are also publicly available memos from Rumsfeld pretty much the day of the attacks indicating he was looking for angles to tie 9/11 to Iraq. Now don't get me wrong, none of this constitutes evidence really, but it certainly does establish potential motive.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2021 23:08
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:this is how conspiracy theories function. they only need to seed your doubt with little fragments that smell like proof, and you can be relied on to supply the context. the theory doesn't need to be a coherent whole, you'll do that work yourself. no two theories match because they're all subjective and crowdsourced, and the most compelling fake bits of proof will rise to the top ("jet fuel cant melt steel beams") where the more absurd fake bits of proof will be discarded ("the planes were really holograms projected over missiles") I mean if you go and actually read the report or at least just watch the video of the authors presenting its findings it's pretty clear about what it is; it attempts to explain why the NIST report in particular erroneously came to the conclusion that fire caused the collapse and identifies the specific problems in NIST's methodology that led them to that conclusion. If you can show that "the most sensible conclusion" is scientifically wrong, which (and of course, I am not a scientist nor an engineer) seems to be what they have done, surely that warrants more than a handwave?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2021 23:17
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:None of those things were new or needed a "black swan" event. They are long term goals of the GOP that existed prior to the Bush admin. They were already in process. Of course they were, that was my point? To say that Bush's administration could have done what it did in Iraq and Afghanistan without 9/11, I don't see how. Not anywhere near as easily and quickly as they did. Jaxyon posted:How do you know that's what they have done, given your lack of background? I don't know, I thought it was pretty clear that was why I was asking in the first place? I don't know why you're being so hostile, like I said I'm not a 9/11 truther myself. I did however watch the entire presentation of that study, which to me with my non-background in the relevant fields, seemed to be a perfectly reasonable and well researched rebuttal of an earlier study. If someone could do something similar with this one, or simply point out any flaws in its own methodology or characterisation of the NIST study, then I would happily accept that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2021 23:37
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Hulsey is literally the only one who believes this and his study has been outright rejected by everyone else. This is literally "One study says something I agree with so they must be right!" fallacy of conspiracy theories. I'm not saying I believe it, I said I saw it and hadn't seen it refuted. If it has been then please, enlighten me. I thought that was the point of this thread?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2021 23:41
|
|
|
Ok lol I don't even know what's going on anymore. I come into a thread that appears to be about debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories, make clear that I don't believe in them myself but note that it's interesting that in isolation some of them can appear convincing and give one or two examples, and now suddenly I'm a loving idiot because I clearly believe in all of this 100% and none of this should even be discussed. Genuinely what is the point of this thread if no one is going to debunk anything, they're just going to tell you to gently caress off?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2021 00:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 00:53 |
|
|
I really don't know why you're trying to do an epic gotcha on what kind of person you have decided I am, since I was quite clear in my first post if you actually read it. Yes conspiracy theories are interesting and it can be fun to look at and discuss them, which is what I was trying to do lol. If you just think they're stupid and boring why are you in this thread other than to start a fight?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2021 00:26
|
|