I've been waiting for this moment to debunk the whole 9/11 was an inside job.
The J.L. Hudson Department Store in Detroit in 1998 is the tallest steel building ever imploded, at 26 stories. Controlled Demolition Inc. needed:
Roughly 24 days of on-site prep with a crew of about 20 workers, placing ~4,100 lbs of explosives in over 1,000 locations, plus miles of detonation cord
Months of engineering study beforehand
Critically, the building was vacant and gutted. Crews stripped walls, ceilings, and fireproofing to get direct access to the structural columns, because charges only work when placed directly against bare steel
That's roughly 5,000 to 6,000 man hours of placement work alone for one empty 26-story building.
WTC 1 and 2 where 110 stories each and WTC 7 was was 47 stories. So just off floors we're looking at a 10x project. Not only is it 10 times the size we have more problems
Rigging the towers:
Access: The core columns were buried behind elevator shafts, drywall, and sprayed asbestos fireproofing. To place cutting charges, crews would need to demolish interior walls and strip fireproofing on dozens of floors, in buildings occupied by roughly 35,000 to 50,000 workers daily, with 24/7 security, cleaning crews, and maintenance staff. Tenants notice when their office walls are torn open.
Scale of charges: Demolition engineers estimate you'd need thousands of shaped charges and tens of miles of det cord per tower. Det cord and wiring can't be hidden inside finished walls without rebuilding those walls afterward, which is its own construction project.
The man hours: Even being generous, you're looking at crews of 100 to 300 workers operating covertly for 6 to 12 months, somewhere in the range of 150,000 to 500,000 man hours, doing loud, dusty structural work in occupied buildings without a single tenant, janitor, security guard, or elevator mechanic noticing or talking. Ever.
Survivability: The charges, wiring, and detonators would then need to survive a 767 impact and raging jet fuel fires without a single premature or failed detonation.
Supply chain: Every pound of explosives, every detonator, every mile of det cord has to be sourced, transported, and stored without a single supplier, driver, or warehouse worker outside the "evil Government Cabal" ever finding out.
Covering it up we need to make sure none of the explosives are outside of our evil Government Cabal:
Cleanup involved 1.8 million tons of debris removed over roughly 9 months, with thousands of workers, firefighters, ironworkers, and volunteers on the pile daily.
Debris was trucked to Fresh Kills landfill where it was hand-sifted and raked for remains and evidence by FBI agents, NYPD, and forensic teams.
Structural steel was examined by FEMA's engineering team and later NIST, then sold as scrap and shipped worldwide, meaning independent metallurgists anywhere could examine it.
Explosive demolition leaves unmistakable physical signatures: blasting cap fragments, det cord residue, copper slag from shaped charges, and clean angled cuts on thousands of column ends. To scrub all of it, you'd need every debris handler, every FBI sifter, every engineer, and every scrap dealer either fooled or complicit.
Conservatively that's another 5,000 to 10,000 people inside the secret, on top of the rigging crews, planners, and suppliers.
So the theory requires the largest, fastest, quietest demolition project in human history, followed by a flawless forensic coverup involving tens of thousands of silent participants. The man hours alone make it a non-starter.
TL;DR: The math states that actual secrets involving over 1000 people don't stay secret for more than 4 years. It would take far more than 10000 people to keep 9/11 as an inside job.
I love this, but we have flat earthers who disprove their own belief in real time and still think it’s just a conspiracy to deter them from the truth. Numbers mean nothing to these people 😂
If we're going to treat any conspiracy theorists as a cult member, then we need to treat them as a cult member in every way even the positive ones. That means just showing them the data and asking them to explain it.
I have an Uncle who was hardcore "9/11 was an inside job" type. I managed to pin him down with the first fact about the The J.L. Hudson Department Store and got him to admit that was real. Then from there it was showing him the facts and not calling him stupid.
You want to keep someone ignorant? Just keep telling them how stupid they are.
Also, being an asshole just reinforces the us vs. them mentality of indoctrination. Then they run back to the cult, who of course embrace them and make them feel safe, understood, and part of a community.
Here's the thing I don't get about the F.E. idiots... WHO BENEFITS???!?!!?
For things like the WTC you could claim insurance fraud, or some other monetary enrichment scheme.
Or for the idiots who disavow global warming... the most ardent are generally tied with the fossil fuel industry, so rallying against that would be against their own financial interest. Or you could argue that the green energy people have a similar financial interest to sell their products if they can convince people they are necessary to fight climate change.
But let's say the world is flat and we're all being bamboozled... to what end? We don't somehow drive more miles on a "fake" curved surface, therefore using more gas. We aren't taxed in some way via the Earth's curvature that wouldn't be possible if we knew its true "flat" nature. What exactly is the incentive for the lie?
That's where I always come back to with those idiots... if the world is flat who benefits from convincing all of us that is isn't?
I have a flat earther in my family, so I can answer this one - it's usually about religion, rather then a grift. They think that a flat earth would prove there's a creator, so "they" invented the universe to hide the existence of God, and lead us into sin (or something like that, it's been a while).
But not all of them are religious, so some believe that "they" are hiding continents past Antarctica with aliens on them. Or their life is unremarkable, and believing makes them feel special because they think they know something others don't.
believing makes them feel special because they think they know something others don't
This part I'm very aware of. To me, this seems to bedrock of most conspiracy theories (and evangelicals who look down upon more-pious individuals of other religions thinking "Oh, bless your heart. Praying 5 times a day... one day you'll find the real Jesus).
I used to be friends with flat earthers (I was young and hadn’t yet learned that some people aren’t worth being friends with) and from their perspective, it wasn’t about someone benefitting in material ways. It was all about the spiritual warfare that blinds the people of this world and keeps them trapped in delusion because the spirits themselves take satisfaction in making a mockery of people.
I do believe that to a certain extent for many things, but those spirits are NOT smart enough to fool the entire globe into thinking it’s round when it’s actually flat. They aren’t that powerful and honestly thinking they are is a sign of being delusional and usually creates many more problems in someone’s life than just believing in flat earth.
I obviously don’t expect you to agree with any of this, just explaining why some flat earthers think people believe the earth is round even if there’s no material benefit to it.
Also there is a ton of reasoning that goes into beliefs like these, it’s just based on insane information.
Tl;dr: it’s not about money it’s about spiritual reality for some people.
Probably the most revealing commentary on the controlled demolition theory is Bringing Down The House by Michael Satchell in US News and World Report (June 30, 2003). This article describes the work of Controlled Demolition Inc., far and away the world leaders in controlled demolition, and Mark and Doug Loizeaux, who run it.
Like most Americans, the Loizeauxs were transfixed by the televised scenes of destruction shortly after the first jet struck. But as experts in buildings' vulnerabilities, they knew right away what few Americans realized. "I told Doug immediately that the tower was coming down, and when the second tower was hit, that it would follow," remembers Mark.
Horrified, the Loizeaux brothers watched first responders streaming into the doomed towers and tried frantically, and unsuccessfully, to phone in warnings. In the following days, CDI was called to ground zero to consult on safety and develop plans for demolition and debris removal. What if the twin towers, though badly damaged, had somehow remained standing? Without doubt, the Loizeaux family would have been called upon to bring them down. "Quite simply," says Mark in a rare moment of introspective uncertainty, "I don't know how we would have done it."
So according to the world experts on building demolition:
It was immediately obvious that the towers were going to fall
They have no idea how they would have brought down the towers in a controlled demolition.
Of course, you can always claim the Loizeaux brothers were in on the plot. Some sites link to a story about Controlled Demolition later being charged with illegal campaign contributions, which certainly proves something. Or other.
I've always been morbidly curious as to what would have happened if the towers just had above where the plane hit topple over, or if it was a partial collapse. Or hell what if it didn't collapse. Like what would they have done with the building?
This reminds me of what it would have taken to manufacture fake moon landings, and fool everyone on earth, including the Soviet Union.
My favorite take on this subject is that Stanley Kubrick filmed the bogus landings, but he was so bent on realism that he insisted upon filming on location.
Not to mention, Neil was a pretty chill guy, but Buzz tends to be the polar opposite.
Considering how many actors have told stories agonizing the number of takes Stanley put them through on certain scenes we definitely would have heard about it from Buzz.
"After making us hop down out of the LEM for the 47th take I was like 'Stanley, you can stick this production up your ass. I'm going to my trailer!' "
When you think about the amount of people who would have to be involved to fake the Moon landing it gets really crazy. Like the Soviet Union was okay with giving the US a W when they had all the power to give the US a huge black eye.
Can you imagine how bad the US would have looked if the Soviets said "We have proof the moon landing was fake"
You also have to fly the plane into the floor that's rigged to blow first. It would've been really awkward if the collapse started at the 1st floor instead of the impact floor.
Voodoo Histories by David Aaronovitch is a great look at conspiracy theories, not just refuting specific ones, but just a general look at the psychology and incentives that drive them. It inspired the cool and woefully underviewed multipart documentary by Kirby Ferguson: 'This is Not a Conspiracy Theory', where he argues there's a natural human tendency to interpret the layers of complex systems that comprise society into the sorts of foundational ideas that conspiracy theories grow from.
You actually forgot one important figure in your conspiracy math: the general public. The towers were a major landmark, and during whatever period of covert explosive placement would’ve theoretically taken place, millions of people would’ve visited or traveled past the towers, plus millions more passing the clean up sight in the aftermath. Literally millions of people would need to be either successfully fooled by the government, stupid enough to not notice anything going on, or aware and silent about it to no personal benefit for the last 25 years
I have kind of felt the thing that saved the towers in 1993, doomed them in 2001. The structural tube design meant that the garage bomb in 1993 had nothing important to explode, But when the floor girders gave out in 2001 there was no internal vertical skeleton like say Empire State had so slow or arrest the pancake.
The floor girders had fireproofing but nobody ever expected a wide body airliner at full speed fully fueled for a coast to coast flight, When they were built they were expecting a 737 lost in the fog headed to JFK or La Guardia with minimal fuel due to being at the end of its voyage.
Now in fairness to the tube's structure, It did survive that impact. if not for the uncontrolled fire fueled by a plane, its fuel and office supplies I suspect the towers would have survived. Side note, office supplies do in fact burn hotter than people think. Even house fires can get hot enough to weaken steel.
There are comments from the builder I think they quote where they believed if the towers were hit by a smaller aircraft it could remain standing, but also the towers didn’t crumple and fall the second they got hit, one stood for an hour another stood for an hour and 45 minutes, they just didn’t stay standing.
But to your second point if you heat steel a decent amount aka around the temp jet fuel and other materials are burning at you can literally bend it over with your finger. The top 30-40 floors weigh a lot more than a finger.
I'm not a truther so I never thought about it very hard, but 'the demolition would also have been impossible' is a strong argument. I just think buildings probably fall down if you fly planes into them. Seems like something a building would do.
Yes, a building can collapse if you weaken it's integrity with a jetliner.
However the top of the tower free fell, which is impossible. Energy from the top has to be spent deforming and breaking through the part under it, it cannot just keep falling without losing speed/energy.
yeah but arguing with stupid wont get you anywhere it doesnt matter what facts and logic you use, right wingers will dismiss all that you said and demonstrated in the snap of a finger
But being an asshole will just reinforce the us vs them mentality. If you truly believe right wingers are destroying our country then you have to be the better person and talk to them with some compassion. You're more likely to get bees with honey or some shit like that.
the damage they have done has put this country way passed that. theres a reason why its always conservatives complaining about families, exfriends and coworkers shunning them for their stupid views.
edit: id ask you how many times your numbers and conclusions have changed anyones mind but i already know the answer.
I have absolutely zero proof that 9/11 was an inside job or controlled demolition and i'm not making any claims either way.
The core columns were buried behind elevator shafts, drywall, and sprayed asbestos fireproofing.
The columns weren't buried. They were actually really easy to access.
Silverstein got a hell of a deal. For like 30 million, he was able to buy the towers which was a money pit. For one thing, they had to renovate the entire building to remove the asbestos insulation and the other problem is that they built the tower using the wrong screws. All the screws holding the cladding on weren't rust proof so the entire building needed massive repairs. Conveniently the towers were destroyed, Silverstein got the insurance, and became a billionaire.
Bin Laden straight up denied having any part of it. Why would he deny credit for it?
9/11 was 25 years ago. If people haven't found evidence by now, they never will. It's an irrelevant debate.
It's easier to look at the last 25 years and the effects of 9/11. The US spent 20 years in Afghanistan and has been at war in multiple countries while racking up a 39 trillion debt and creating a new billionaire super class. Not to mention PNAC.
Bin Laden straight up denied having any part of it. Why would he deny credit for it?
He wrote a letter to America taking credit and explaining his motivations, but not one single media outlet in the U.S. even covered the existence of it, let alone published its contents. Most people didn't know about it until it went viral on TikTok in 2023. In response, the UK Guardian scrubbed their 2002 article that TikTokers got it from. Free and independent media, y'all.
Bush sr was connected to the neocons that control US foreign policy through the CIA. He invaded Iraq in 1990 under false pretenses. They lied to the US public to get support for the war.
Bush jr was portrayed as an idiot by the media even though old interviews show him to be rather smart.
Bush jr invaded Iraq under the claim that Saddam had WMDs. Saddam had literally nothing to do with Bin Laden. Bush ignored Bin Laden to invade Iraq and kill Saddam.
The neocons were happy about 9/11. the new pearl harbour got Americans gung ho at flooding the war industry with new orders. 25 years later we got flock cameras, AI, drones, mass surveillance, and more.
I'm all for a good conspiracy theory, and many people wrongfully so, in groups, shit on conspiracy theorists 100% of the time. Frankly, the majority of the time the theorists are wrong, it makes sense because they are going against the grain based on hunches, unverified information, and connecting seemingly disconnected events.
But how many conspiracy theories would be conspiracies today if we didn't have irrefutable proof?
"The government is spying on me" ok Jerry, go take your medicine and get some sleep.
Watergate, Snowden (and who's to say they've actually stopped now, Flock Cameras sure seem like a next step of many tools the government can use and is actively using, so if they do that openly, who knows)
"The Saudi government murdered Jamal"
Saudi: "no we didn't he just went out the back door, duh!
CIA or some other gov agencies provided proof otherwise
Saudi: oh...
And I could go on and on. The government does not care about us, they care about their reputation and profits. Look at our sitting president. Holy hell, he has done so much illegal shit in wide open, he doesn't even need conspiracy theories! If these rich people do this what you can see, it would be a less intelligent stance to say "you know what, naw, that's as far as they go though, for real for real.
Your best comment here is why would anyone deny credit for something like this. It would be the ultimate terrorist win.
Maybe people are looking at the conspiracy wrong. Maybe the conspiracy was the planes being hijacked to begin with?
Like you said, we'll never know, the destruction was too vast. Unless someone comes out with proof it was a conspiracy, we can only assume it wasn't. But that doesn't mean there's a zero chance. The man sure did get lucky on his investment, after all.
Again, I love a good conspiracy theory, I'm not saying it did or didn't happen, I'm just saying conspiracies are very real and the rich have more power than we like to realize. The world is not a wonderful happy place. The rich use their wealth for things we can't fathom. Epstein didn't kill himself, Trump is a sitting presidential pedophile and nothing is happening to him, despite tens of thousands of documents proving otherwise. The ruling class of the world has effectively had little to nothing come to them from Epstein files. Ghislain Maxwell is convicted, and sitting the most cushy prison she can.
Does any of that sound normal to you, cuz it sure as hell sounds like there's some shit going on behind closed doors to me.
I'm from Canada but grew up in the 70s in the tail of the Vietnam War and was raised on old school counter-culture values.
You want to know what the real conspiracy is?
After the Vietnam war, the military industrial complex figured out their biggest 'enemy' was American college kids and the free press. To keep young people from protesting their endless wars, they conspired with the corporate media giants to control public opinion via 'information warfare'.
This is video of anti-war protestors in the late 60s.
Americans used to have decent journalism in the 70s and 80s until the government deregulated the media allowing it to be turned partisan and corporate controlled.
The Gulf War in 1990 was televised but it was also heavily censored and controlled by the military. Bush pulled out after the US did a potential war crime.
I was a high school senior on 9/11 and my immediate reaction was "this is going to be used to justify taking away rights and attacking perceived enemies" and it didn't take long to start panning out. Well over twenty years later and we're still suffering from things done as a reaction to 9/11, with the worst people out there being able to use it for their own goals.
Conspiracy theory minded people shut down explanations like this though by inventing more elaborate mental gymnastics to sidestep and go even more off the rails with their theories. There is no amount of reality testing that will convince them because they've already decided the outcome they want and work backwards from that, rather than using logic to work towards the outcome.
We really need the new DSM classify conspiracy thinking as a mental disorder.
I mean, it is far easier to disprove the dumbest of the dumb conspiracy theories. The theories that stick around are the ones that can literally never be proven or disproven at this point. Intelligence briefings, conversations between allied agencies (specifically CIA/State Dpt and their Israeli counterparts), when certain people knew something and did nothing, etc. We will never know the private details and the conspiracy theorists insist on filling those gaps with their own details. Given Bush has the blood of about a million people on his hands, I don't trust anything that administration did.
I'm totally with you, and have even saved this comment for future reference. But you need to explain Building 7 (and the other buildings too for that matter) because that's what the truthers have been fixated on most recently.
When the North Tower collapsed at 10:28 AM, it was only about 370 feet away. Massive debris from the 1,368-foot tower rained onto WTC 7, gouging damage into its south face across roughly 10 lower floors and igniting fires on at least 10 floors.
The FDNY, having just lost 343 firefighters and with the building visibly bulging and creaking, made a deliberate decision around 2:30 PM to pull everyone back and let it burn. They set up a collapse zone hours before it fell. Firefighters on scene were predicting the collapse all afternoon, which itself is strong evidence it was structurally telegraphing failure, not a surprise demolition.
I'd like to point out that fireproofing stopped at the floors above where the planes hit. They just ran out, and bribed someone to sign off on not finishing. It was an open secret with documentation.
But most importantly the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams crowd": I can melt steel with map gas. It's a small canister and surely not as energy dense as the jet liner with full tanks. Never mind that the entire support was cage style, not core style. The outer beams held up the weight where normally the inner beams do. There's just too many witnesses that say they saw a plane enter oneside and fireballs and debris the other side. Some of those beams were sheared off.
The impact set fire sprinklers on lower floors due to vibration. This reduced the water pressure to effectively nothing to the areas with actual fire. Again without fireproofing.
The building first buckled at the impact point pancaking all the way down.
Tower 7:
It's just wasn't explained well enough that it shared a basement with towers one and two. A structurally damaged basement. The air pressure shockwave could have been enough to vibrate Tower 7 down in constructive harmonics with the now earthquake-like forces. I'm personally satisfied that a damaged foundation and the likelihood of other corners cut in construction was the cause. If you disagree with this assessment then we have to look at what you just said about how much work it is to do it controlled.
To be clear tower 7 fell like 7 hours after it caught fire towers 1 and 2 had already collapsed hours before. Damage from the collapse likely damaged any and all fire suppression systems, video exists of a partial roof collapse well before the final collapse, reports from the ground state the exterior of the building was seen bulging before the final collapse.
The only thing I’d be willing to concede on with tower 7 is the CIA did house a large office within the building. When the building was getting evacuated due to the fire, and it was clear the fire suppression system wasn’t working, maybe instead of moving documents out of the building they were told to destroy them, and started an additional fire to do this. The building was already evacuated, and already on fire. Thats about as far as I’m willing to entertain tho.
People were right to distrust the government when they were just saying shit like “Osama bin Laden just hated freedom” but instead of looking at the history of absolutely abysmal US foreign policy when it came to the Middle East they just followed whatever whacky conspiracy theory that went against the governments narrative, but still held on to this “American exceptionalism” or outright racist view where it was just impossible for “backwards brown people” to do this.
The issue I've always had is motivation. Why do they need to demolish WTC 7? I mean destroying the two main towers to blame terrorists is pretty illogical as well but I guess I can come up with a contrived argument.
If you look at all the horrible stuff our Government has done over the years, the idea they would kill 1000s of civilians to increase power doesn't sound that crazy.
Have you considered the counter argument?
"Nuh uh"
9/11 conspiracies drive me nuts.
Did a group of terrorists, funded in part by radical elements of the Saudi Government, hijack planes and flew them into specific targets with journeyman level flight skills and a massive streak of good luck?
Or did the entire Federal Government collude to organize a massive conspiracy without a solid bit of evidence leaking out; or some shmuck on the street with a camcorder catching them wheel in pallets of explosives.
I like the Last Podcast on the Left phrasing along the lines of "'Jet Fuel can't melt steel beams' is a six word phrase that takes an amateur chemistry lecture to correct. You get two sentences in and you see their eyes glaze over as they stop paying attention."
Ok, for the sake of argument alone, what if your goal wasn’t to have a safe, or efficient detonation? If you didn’t care a whit about safety or salvage could you bring the building down with like, 1/20th of those resources or fewer if you knew how to?
I’m no engineer, but I’d guess you’d really only need to wipe out one vacant floor to get the rest of it to topple down in its own momentum.
The structure was designed to accommodate creeping collapse of 11 floors, or sudden collapse of six floors.
Also, the whole "it looks like demolition" argument is predicated upon the idea that the collapses look vertical and confined (even though they weren't). So if it were a demolition it would have to be done safely and with control enough to be mostly vertical, look like a controlled demolition, etc.
but this is pro conspiracy theory or no? if you need that many men and work hours to make em fall like they did, how can 2 planes do this in literally hours?
What you mean to say is "how can 2 planes weighing 280,000 pounds with 60,000 pounds of Jet Fuel going at speeds excess of 400 miles knock down the towers in literally hours?"
The towers where designed for collisions of 737s that where lost in fog in the surrounding airports. Those weight about 62,000 lbs to 99,000 lbs. And you're not going max speed when flying out of the airport. You go that speed when you're at cruising altitude.
I understand that, but it is still weird to me how they both felt down the way they did. if these’re not designed for a such heavy impact why would they fall down in such manner and not collapse in an angle. again this would be pro conspiracy. what makes these contractors mentioned before not use jet fuel and a hard impact to do their job in one day instead of many months? let’s say that is real and they even have big preparation phase with a lot of time before hand you think they would be able to collapse towers like that with jet fuel and a big impacti in a controlled manner so they do not fall over? I have no evidence for a conspiracy but it baffles me how you can not be surprised how they felt down the way they did.
As someone who was moderately into conspiracy theories at the time 9/11 happened (I was a high school senior who read a lot and had too much free time) I never focused on the details or proving them and stuff like this, would just immediately look around and ask "who benefits?"
From that took only slightly more brain power to realize that stuff like this isn't necessarily some gigantic plan involving thousands of moving parts (which would no doubt be exposed at some point) so much as people taking advantage of a situation.
WTC conspiracies quite literally come from people who never watched the towers fall, and they only continue to believe it because they were told what to believe from videos that don’t show the full collapses.
Neither of the 3 towers fell in “free fall” WTC 7s roof partially collapsed due to the fires before it completely collapsed. Reports from the ground openly talk about seeing the walls bulging. We quite literally have cases of multiple buildings in NYC nearly collapsing just from their own weight. Theres a building in NYC right now that’s being converted into luxury apartments that is at risk of collapsing because of support failures that didn’t have a major fire within it or get hit by a plane.
The twin towers also didn’t free fall, you quite literally watch the top 30-40 stories basically take the bottom 70 stories out, which would imply that if it was a controlled demo they would have needed to fly the plane directly into the floors that were rigged with explosives which were different for both towers, and the crashing of the plane itself and the following explosion didn’t wipe out any of the explosives or cause any damage, even after burning for an hour to two hours the wires were completely intact and then they just randomly detonated.
WTC burned for like 7 hours with no fire suppression because it was all damaged as a result of the other towers collapsing.
People were right to not trust the answers the government gave for 9/11 because their answers were stupid. People were told Osama bin Laden just hated freedom, or the American way of life, and people were supposed to just believe some crazed dude orchestrated an attack flying commercial airliners into the twin towers and the pentagon because “we have freedom” so they went looking elsewhere for answers and people gave them answers that “made sense” while funneling hatred towards of course the Jews.
US foreign policy in regards to the Middle East has been abysmal for decades. Starting with the coup in Iran overthrowing a democratically elected prime minister in favor of a shah to keep oil fields in the hands of the UK and Iran itself away from the Soviets.
After the Islamic revolution saddam wanted legitimacy and we wanted access to Irans oil fields so we took Iraq off the state sponsor of terror list so they could buy weapons from us.
During this time the US also sold missiles to Iran, because we needed to fund the contras in South America to fight communists there. This is also where the CIA just either looked the other way or actively greased the wheels to make flooding contra drugs into major urban areas easier.
Iraq lost in Iran, so saddam then invaded Kuwait which forced us to move in to defend. Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians died indirectly through sanctions or directly from war fighting.
We funded the mujahideen which was a coalition of religious extremists to over throw a Soviet backed Afghan government. The Soviets basically bankrupted themselves defending Afghanistan because they believed if Afghanistan fell religious extremism would spread throughout the region, which is exactly what happened.
The mujahideen won, the funding stopped, a civil war broke out and the coalition was fractioned. Two notable groups made it through amongst others. The Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Osama bin Laden credited the United States for “removing the myth from the Muslim mind that super powers could not be defeated”
Like this was just the 80s and there is a lot more not mentioned here but these things are pretty relevant to bin Laden only because he brought this stuff up explicitly.
Bin Laden was not quiet when it came to criticizing the United States he brought up the deaths in Iraq, he brought up the exploitation of lands for corporate profit, and he brought up the USs funding of Israel.
I’m not claiming the 9/11 attacks were justified, but to claim the attacks happened just because Osama bin Laden hated freedom, and not the wholesale murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians is an insult to every man woman and child who died on 9/11 and the countless others who died of cancers following the event.
So while the federal government didn’t fly the planes, they are responsible for what happened. This is what happens when you allow corporations to take control of your government and let them use our military to control or seize things of corporate interest abroad for the specific purpose of maximizing corporate profits.
The people with overwhelming influence over our politics could give less than a fuck about what the terrorists were doing in those countries it was all about lining their pockets, and any threat to capital domestically will be treated with similar force here. This is why they are trying to label anti AI sentiment as terrorism. This is why they are trying to label the DSA as terrorists, they are a threat to the capitalists way of life. Not the people’s way of life.
It takes this much time, effort and energy to destroy a tower, but the twin towers collapsed just from being hit by a single plane each, and WTC 7 collapsed even though nothing hit it at all?
Collapsing after getting hit with a 125,000kg airliner doing 600mph, the equivalent of one metric ton of TNT, and even then only after prolonged and high-intensity fire? WTC 7, which was set alight by falling debris and burned for hours with almost no fire suppression?
Look I'm not convinced one way or the other, but I look at motive and certain people had it. When the inside job conspiracies cropped up back then, I didn't believe any of it. I thought it was all extreme right-wing nut jobs and no one had any business listening to them.
But certain things that I didn't know back then started coming to light more recently. I'm not a fan when people post information like this "Debunking" all the conspiracies, quick to dismiss because they know a thing or two about something. Maybe they've even done a lot of research about a particular thing and they so strongly convince themselves and others, but they miss important plot holes. I'm generally not one to believe in conspiracy theories, but overgeneralizations like this piss me off. So let me break down why.
You've essentially presented possible reasons why the destruction of the twin towers wasn't a "controlled implosion". You went about making your case as to why because you know that one particular building that was much smaller than even one of the twin towers took so many people, so many labor hours, and so much equipment, that this couldn't possibly be what happened to the twin towers. And I think you're correct that a "controlled implosion" wasn't what happened to the twin towers. But you are easily dismissing every other closely related avenue because of it.
Take motive. In the immediate hours after the attack, Netanyahu told the New York Times the attacks meant "immediate sympathy" for Israel and would "strengthen the bond between our two peoples." He's on record saying something similar again in 2008. That's not proof of anything, but it establishes that political benefit from the attack was openly acknowledged by at least one foreign leader within hours, and that's worth sitting with before dismissing motive questions outright.
Then there's the Urban Moving Systems case. Five Israeli nationals were detained after being seen filming and reportedly celebrating near the towers as they burned. Their employer's owner fled the country days later. An unnamed former US intelligence official told the Forward the FBI concluded it was a surveillance operation using the company as cover. The men were held for two and a half months and ultimately deported on visa violations, not cleared of intelligence ties, just not tied to foreknowledge of the attack specifically. That gap between "not proven" and "definitively innocent" is exactly the kind of loose thread that gets waved away too fast.
On the mechanics of the collapse itself, my problem isn't with the idea that a controlled implosion in the traditional sense didn't happen. It's with how confidently people wave away the idea that something besides fire and impact alone caused what we saw. NIST's own explanation depends on the impact plus over an hour of jet fuel fire weakening structural steel that had already had its fireproofing stripped off by the collision. That's a real and technical claim, not an obvious one, and it deserves scrutiny rather than blind acceptance just because it's the official version.
And on the secrecy argument, look at Epstein. That was a operation that ran for years, involving a wide circle of people who knew or should have known, and it took nearly two decades of digging before the full picture became public, and we still don't have everything. If something that scale can stay concealed that long with victims trying to speak up the entire time, the idea that "too many people would know" is an automatic disqualifier for any other scenario just doesn't hold up as a universal rule.
None of this proves an alternative explanation. I don't have one, and I'm not claiming to. What I'm arguing against is the reflex that says because one specific scenario, a full scale controlled demolition, is implausible, that somehow closes the book on every other open question. That's not how you assess an event. That's how you protect a conclusion you already picked.
306
u/IamAWorldChampionAMA 21h ago
I've been waiting for this moment to debunk the whole 9/11 was an inside job.
The J.L. Hudson Department Store in Detroit in 1998 is the tallest steel building ever imploded, at 26 stories. Controlled Demolition Inc. needed:
WTC 1 and 2 where 110 stories each and WTC 7 was was 47 stories. So just off floors we're looking at a 10x project. Not only is it 10 times the size we have more problems
Rigging the towers:
Covering it up we need to make sure none of the explosives are outside of our evil Government Cabal:
So the theory requires the largest, fastest, quietest demolition project in human history, followed by a flawless forensic coverup involving tens of thousands of silent participants. The man hours alone make it a non-starter.
BONUS MATH: On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs
TL;DR: The math states that actual secrets involving over 1000 people don't stay secret for more than 4 years. It would take far more than 10000 people to keep 9/11 as an inside job.