• NewSocialWhoDis@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    20 hours ago

    This thread is impossible. The amount of people posting sarcastically without denoting it and the amount of people sincerely posting conspiracy theories (believable theories and dumb theories that belie a lack of understanding physics) appear in almost equal measure.

  • gastroglizzy@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    Also, forget about the massive amount of puts that were purchased against the only two airlines involved in the hijackings just days before the attack.

    Oh, and forget about the fact that the building owner profited $300 million by purchasing an exorbitant insurance package after buying the building only nine months before.

    Also, definitely forget that Building 7 and the section of the Pentagon that was targeted were housing all the personnel and evidence involved in the biggest financial crimes investigation of the century.

    • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Oh and don’t forget to forget that a large number of agencies that were the ones to deal with that emergency just so happened to be wargaming something very close to the unprecedented event that actually happened that same day: dealing with a terrorist attack that uses airplanes as missiles and flies them into buildings.

      NORAD was one of them. Iirc NY firefighters were another.

    • BussyCat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      19 hours ago

      To be fair if you just bought a building that was a target of a terror attacker just a few years earlier it does make sense to purchase an insurance policy

    • fake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      biggest financial crimes investigation of the century.

      Oh come on, even if that were true we’ve had the panama papers and literally nothing happened.

      • Amarlune@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        1 day ago

        That’s blatantly not true. One of the journalists involved with the Panama Papers died in a car bombing shortly after the Panama Papers were released. That happened.

  • masterclass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Just follow the money, there’s documented evidence of unusual pre-9/11 trading that profited from short bets.

    Allen Poteshman’s peer-reviewed study in The Journal of Business (2006) concluded: “there is evidence of unusual option market activity in the days leading up to September 11 that is consistent with investors trading on advance knowledge of the attacks.”

    • gandalf_der_13te@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      that is consistent with investors trading on advance knowledge of the attacks

      ugh. that language does not actually say anything. the question is: is it inconsistent with investors trading without advance knowledge of the attacks? i.e. could they also have behaved that way if they had not known of the attacks

    • Poxlox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      You cant post anything that slightly resembles 9/11 conspiracy on this site without a slew of downvotes. I made a post just asking if people believed the official story and got verbatim some of the same comments and a slew of downvotes. Presuming they’re not with other malicious motives, I think they’re just close minded dicks

      • SirLeToet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        21 hours ago

        People here started again about building 7.

        Which had the roof of the north tower fall right on top of it, that piece of tower was a about the same size as building 7.

        Weird how it “collapsed and burned to the ground”. Must be a conspiracy.

        It’s still entertaining to read tho.

      • porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        20 hours ago

        Orrrrr… They and everyone else have had twenty-five years to consider your nonsense and it’s boring and distracting from important things

      • fake@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        You’ll have to forgive us close minded fucks, we’ve been listening to people spew uninformed shit about jet fuel and steel beams for 25 years and we’re kinda tired.

        • Poxlox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          23 hours ago

          Go ahead and keep believing everything the government tells you, I’m sure that will work out great.

          • KatakiY@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            19 hours ago

            I don’t believe most of what the government said. I also don’t think that tower 7 was some sort of inside job. I simply don’t believe the finance bros and the government are capable of keeping these things secret

  • 58008@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 day ago

    It’s both hilarious and disturbing that, 25 years later, we still have a significant number of people believing controlled demolition took down the WTC towers and building 7. But then again, it’s been nearly 70 years since the JFK assassination and most people still think Oswald was a patsy 🤷‍

    Conspiracism is like gossip, but on a national level. It’s pure poison. It can lead to anything ranging from destroyed personal relationship and reputations, to the Holocaust (think of the shit said about Jews for centuries leading up to it). We shouldn’t be so blasé about that shit.

    And the Epstein case had something 9/11 truth doesn’t: evidence, court-worthy and verifiable evidence. Prosecutable evidence. Undeniable evidence. Show me a bomb-planter who did 9/11 and the paycheque he received for his work from Dubya, and then we can talk. Otherwise, all you have is gossip.

    • Pacattack57@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      I mean is it a coincidence that prior his assassination, Kennedy was trying to derail Israel’s nuclear program? A case could be made to suggest that Israel helped plot the assassination.

    • Karmanopoly@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      1 day ago

      The official story has a few questionable things…

      The Pentagon is definitely sus… not only the destruction doesn’t look like a plane hit it… But also how rumsfeld a few days prior talked about missing trillions of dollars

      Building 7… Larry Silverstein talking about “pulling” the building…(never mind his incredible timing on insuring the towers against a terrorist attack.

      George Bush talked about how he watched the first plane hit the building on TV and he thought what a terrible pilot… But he didn’t have much time to think about it as he had to go talk to some kids in grade school

      There’s a lot more I could go on but I won’t

        • Karmanopoly@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          20 hours ago

          He said he watched the first plane hit the building because the TV was on.

          The first plane impact wasn’t televisied until much later

      • Hansae@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        Yeah I dont subscribe to the whole controlled demolition thing but there was 100% some very dodgy stuff going on around it.

  • tired_n_bored@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    I used to think that it was a hoax because of WTC7 but I did something that people don’t usually do: challenge my own views and yeah, it was burning for the entire time + rubble hitting it. The steel bar exceeded the containment of concrete causing a structural collapse

    • ImgurRefugee114@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      136
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Bullshit. Don’t lie to me. You think “fire” can just “burn” a building and it will collapse because “gravity”? I bet you believe in other fairy tales too, like public healthcare and the moon

    • TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      It was also smacked by debris from the falling tower that ended up damaging several support trusses and simultaneously igniting like a dozen floors on fire at the same time. Tbh it’s kinda amazing the building lasted as long as it did.

      • SirLeToet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        20 hours ago

        Was it the WTC7 sized chunk of the north tower that fell on top of it?

        Crazy how they conspiracied that.

      • W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        2 days ago

        The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

      • Shindo66@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        Theres been so many studies by incredibly reputable people. They aren’t going to believe no matter how much is said. At this point they’re worse than the maga people. Their believing in the lie has cost millions of deaths in the middle east through global imperialism. They dont want that blood on their hands and its finally gone into a war with Iran that will never end. The people who you are asking to tell you the truth wouldnt even tell you that the building was so full of hazardous building materials that it was going to give untold amounts of people cancer.

    • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      40
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      It was “pulled” (audio recording of him calling it) by Zionist WTC owner Larry Silverstein, with announcement of its destruction press release read on TV with WTC 7 visibly still standing in background image. Most experts believe the operation would need several days of preparation instead of the few hours that took place until a bit past 5pm the same day, and because of this, Silverstein’s $1B asbestos problem that 9/11 solved, could have provided a “backup solution” for the 2 main towers melting beams from jet fuel.

  • heartSagan5@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    According the an accountant, Building 7 was collecting information about black ops budget items, and it was doing so when it got demo’d during the WTC incidences.

  • AppleTea@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    Since we’re all fighting about it, the version of WTC 7 I heard:

    Buildings above a certain height tend to have magnesium charges installed, so that in the even of catastrophe (like say two hijacked airplanes), they can be brought down in a controlled manner with as little collateral as possible. I’ve heard WTC 7 was accidentally wired up alongside the twin towers, so when the call was made, it came down as well.

    Is that true? No fucking clue.

    • kestrel7_7@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      19 hours ago

      No, Building 7 was just poorly designed. I used to find it a compelling point, then I actually read about how poorly thought out it was. They built a 40+ story building on a foundation meant for 25 stories, it’s surprising it lasted as long as it did.

    • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      19 hours ago

      No, it’s not true. You wouldn’t ever use magnesium for that anyways, you’d use an actual demolition charge if you were dumb enough to rig every tall building with explosives. But no, nobody is that dumb - the kernel of truth at the heart of that one is that some large buildings have demolition plans drawn up when they’re constructed (important note: the WTC didn’t have that, it’s both very rare to do and a much more modern practice than the WTC buildings), which are just a reference for if/when the building is demo’d in the future. They’re not rigged to blow, though. Hell, aside from all the obvious reasons you wouldn’t do that, chemically most explosives would become uselessly unpredictable after being strapped onto a building for that long. Just an absurd idea.

    • tazeycrazy@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Like a system like the swiss bridges? They have marked points but don’t just leave the charges on the bridge. It flies in the face of conventional engineering to plan a failure point on something that should never fail. So all building are wired to go at any moment? You would think there would be a few more accidents and this would require a large and obvious agency to manage and monitor in secret. Considering how much demolition work costs it is not “easy” to bring a building down.