• @Kind_Stone@lemmygrad.ml
    9•2 years ago

    …so-o-o-o-o… I’m not American, not too well-versed in the subject. But I heard some opinions like “9/11 - inside job” or something. Can someone elaborate? Bullshit or no?

    • @AmarkuntheGatherer@lemmygrad.ml
      14•2 years ago

      The collapse of the towers can be explained perfectly well engineering-wise. The planes start a fire, offices are basically full of kindling, the gypsum-based material used for insulation is also flammable, the fire doesn’t melt beams, it expands them, bending out of shape. At some point parts of the structure are so weakened they cannot hold. The rest is history.

      The real question is whether the US government and the intelligence agencies knew, which is barely a question. The US has a history of using real or faked attacks as justification to declare war, so it’s more than likely they expected and wanted a terrorist attack causing <100 casualties. On the other hand, an inside job, controlled explosions inside the towers etc are no less fiction than stable capitalism.

    • Ratette (she/her)OP
      11•2 years ago

      There’s a lot of hearsay around it.

      Personally I do not see how one of the most technologically advanced modern countries and THE most paranoid to boot allowed 4 guys with box cutters to steal 3 planes, fly them into three targets without any planes intercepting them especially after they were given prior warning by international intelligence agencies days before.

      It’s interesting that a lot of the huge financial companies owners took out insurance plans for their offices specifically in the trade centres days before the attack.

      Do I think the US government set out to fly planes into their own buildings? No.

      But given that the Americans have gassed (San Francisco fog chemical weapons tests) poisoned (basically everyone during prohibition) and planned to commit terror attacks against their own citizens (faking a Cuban terror attack to justify invading cuba) as well as plenty other abhorrent things, I don’t think its unreasonable to say that the Americans knew before hand or at least were very well informed of the attack given that other international agencies notified them and they chose to ignore the signs and essentially let the terror attack continue as it benefited their narrative and goals of kick starting a war on terror and everything that came after that to this day.

      • @Rafael_Luisi@lemmygrad.ml
        5•2 years ago

        Also, Osama Bin Laden said that he did not command to throw the planes at the bridge instead of the towers (with would be dozens of times worse to the US, as it would cripple the local economy) because he wanted something that would be shocking, appear on the news and be remembered. And we all know how Al Qaeda is funded by the US for decades, so they might have told to Bin Laden to aim especifically at the towers because it would be more easilly marketeable as propaganda against the middle east, and would be less damaging then the bridge or the pentagon.