Why were so many people believers in the conspiracy that 9/11 was an inside job
Why were so many people believers in the conspiracy that 9/11 was an inside job
When Al-Qaeda themselves claimed responsibility, even with overwhelming evidence aside? Why were so many people still reluctant, I was researching about this stuff and was shocked to see people who I respect a lot believe in this
You're viewing a single thread.
Also the usual pattern (seen in many countries/empires, not just USA) - since civil war war-profiting (closely related to the two parties & why the switch happened) the industry was always hungry and in need of a good loosing-ish war (or - only short periods without a war).
It always follows the same pattern --> need for profits/power expenditure rises --> if public is (fuded) on board, great, if not, we need a terrorist-like attack, seemingly unpreventable yet utterly publicly show before it happened.
Like in WWII, USA had stakes on both sides, but also not 'as big' of a military budget as they could have. The problem was that the public was super against entering the conflict (80~90% against, this is the time when the civil war was well within lining memory with soldiers and widows on proper military pensionsv still alive, regular parades, etc). So for the first time ever they decide to put all their ship-eggs in one Pearl-basket & advertise that move a lott, how they did that, where they did that (how much time they are gonna wait there, lul), and what defenses are there, how the seamen were sent home etc. All under the disguise of showing their military power to Japan (that's like exposing your balls to an enemy that is already attacking you). Ofc the attack successfully happened, propaganda machine spun up (still today we get movies about that, 'the horror'), the public option switched over night and politicians could hike the military budget substantially. (Movies that we don't get is about what/how USA did to japan - like how they killed more civilians with regular carpet bombing per day compared to the killed in blasts of atomic bombs - the most destructive single air attack in human history ... and USA dropped about 4× as much bombs total in Vietnam)
The same with 9-11, public is anti war, you have the two towers and movies detailing how easy it would be to crash a plane into specifically the towers. Or Vietnam proxy war, which lasted for so long that the public turned back against it (hippies) and government had to demonize them (the ridiculous anti weed laws/enforcement, "satanism", etc).
Funding and assisting a foreign terrorist group for profit is shockingly common. Sometimes you even have to manufacture a new group because the existing don't suit your needs.
Oh, and the atrocities compared are always like x killed in domestic attack, xxxxxx killed in the foreign bombarding campaign. When public opinion isn't that big of an issue a smaller trigger point is needed - usually USA sends literal military personnel into sovereign foreign countries & when the invaded county returns fire in the invading force USA counts that as an act of war (huh, I guess technically that is correct).
Sort of like how Israel has been funding Hamas?
I'd be willing to entertain the 9/11 theory of the US funding Al-Qaeda except for two facts:
- Al-Qaeda was sufficiently well-funded and supported without US involvement
- I saw that video of Bush hearing the news and sitting, indecisively and in shock. The man was not that good an actor; he was pretty obviously at a complete loss about how to react.
It requires more suspension of disbelief that the head of state would be utterly unaware of such a program or plan, and if he was aware, he'd certainly have a better photo-op reaction planned than sitting there like a stunned cow for several minutes.
Al-Qaeda was absolutely a product of US intelligence agencies, but not to this end. We created them to cause grief for the Russians, and once spawned, they grew their own agendas, some of which were turned against their creators. I doubt any US agency had any knowing involvement with 9/11. What we did have is indirect involvement, and a shit-ton of hubris.
They do have a lot of rules in supplying aid to Hamas if you actually look into it, most the criticism of them proping up Hamas come from ultra right wing criticism of providing aid and medical support to Palestine.
If you believe all Palestine is Hamas it makes sense and you'd have to say allowing aid in is bad but I don't think you want that.
I have to think about these responses, although they may come out being brief.
I absolutely do not believe all Palestinians are Hamas or support Hama's, and even if I did think they were, and even included Palestinian children and infants, I would say Israel's response is disproportionate.
In any case, Israel has been murdering non-combattants and protesters non-stop for years, and settlers have been murdering Palestinians with no consequence and stealing Palestinian land for decades. Hamas is merely a group of terrorists propped up after Israel saw the value of having a name to put on the enemy, following 9/11 and Al-Qaeda.
I see no justice or relief for Palestine from any quarter; the world has abandoned them.