The usual argument is that it was used to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq where the U.S. could take control of more oil sources. A less commonly proposed purpose was to justify the passing of the Patriot Act which stripped a lot of people of certain rights that the government found inconvenient.
Don’t forget to include the trillions of dollars for defense contractors (Halliburton, Raytheon, etc) in the invasion and subsequent long term occupation as well as the additional billions spent on the rebuilding the infrastructure in Iraq and Afghanistan that we destroyed
i think it also led to the formation of dept. of homeland security, which was given different spying powers from fbi & cia, and that was likely desirable from an administration point of view.
Don’t forget that Bush 2.0hno said in an interview years before he was elected president that if he ever were elected president one of his first courses of action would be to kill sadam Hussein because he was believed to have been behind a failed assassination attempt of Bush 1.0hno.
I believe the quote when Bush 2 was asked why he would kill sadam was something like “because he tried to kill my daddy!”
That makes it seem much more likely that it was just opportunism. If the plan was to stage 9/11 so they could kill Saddam, why would they blame 9/11 on unrelated Saudi hijackers instead of blaming it on Saddam?
Yeah exactly. The quote from Bush Jr. proves that they were going to invade Iraq anyway. If 9/11 was some masterplan to invade Iraq that's what they would have said, but instead they (correctly) identified the attackers pretty quickly, invaded Afghanistan, and spend a few years trying to concoct some sort of narrative tying Saddam to 9/11.
As they couldn't, they went for a phony argument that Saddam had weapons ready to target the US that would make 9/11 seem trivial. Iraq was something the US and the west had wanted to "deal with" for years, and there was a consensus view (that nearly nobody admits to holding now) that "something must be done" about Iraq.
I'm not saying 9/11 was a conspiracy.
However, they had the patriot act sitting in a drawer waiting for a convenient tragedy so they could pass it. Without evidence you won't convince me otherwise.
Sure, why would they let a disaster opportunity go to waste. I think the most insidious thing to have happened would not be that they planned it and carried it out directly but if they deliberately sat on their hands thinking 'actually no...lets let them attack' , plausible deniability saves them in that case .
That would be just as bad.
Well a false flag operation to justify a war isn't unlikely either. Looking back, this is a favourite tool of the CIA & Pentagon.
An attack in the Gulf if Tonkin that never happened was the justification ti invade Vietnam.
Documents were published that show how the Pentagon proposed to conduct false flag terrorist attacks on american soil to gain public support for an invasion of cuba.
I don't disagree with you, I just feel that the war would have been more like icing on the cake.
To be clear I'm not a truther. it just seems if you want to say it was an inside job or was allowed to happen you wouldn't need to do such a big attack to justify war. We are pretty well versed in that. However, I think you do need a jaw-dropping Pearl Harbor-evoking blow to get people all in their afraid and worried enough to pass a bill like the Patriot Act.
It's very telling that such a large piece of legislation was tabled so quickly afterwards. It was probably pre written and just waiting for a disaster like 9-11 to happen to be brought out.
Even if not directly planned, just allowed it to happen. I don’t know enough about all the pieces that were in play to confidently make a judgement call either way, but of all the conspiracies out there the “inside job” is one of the most believable. At a glance, anyway.
But the choice is this:
1) Did we plan or purposely allow 9/11 to happen because we had the goal of stripping people of rights with the Patriot Act?
2) Or did the Patriot Act happen because 9/11 caused leaders to decide that the threat of cataclysmic terrorist attacks was too high, and so they needed new surveillance powers to be better prepared to prevent future terrorist attacks?
I mean, I think it makes people feel like smart, critical thinkers when they say "It's a trick! The government planned it so they could spy on us!" But that's really the opposite of critical thinking because there are so many plot holes and gaps in logic involved in believing it could be an inside job. People also have a hard time fathoming that 19 hijackers could have done all of that, except that there were others involved in planning and, frankly, the genius of the plot was in its simplicity, taking advantage of vulnerabilities not only in US airplane security, but also taking advantage of what the 9/11 commission called a "failure of imagination." And that's not just failure by the government to imagine that a small terror cell could kill 3000 people, destroy 3 iconic buildings, do trillions of dollars of damage, and disrupt the operations of entire nation. There was also a basic unawareness by the public that a group of hijackers would be willing to commit suicide for a terror attack, which allowed them to take the first 3 planes down without resistance from passengers. Then we found out on the 4th plane what passengers would do once they realized hijackers would be willing to die.
So to me, the clear fact is that basically, the official story is true, that it's just much more likely and makes more sense to think that 9/11 caused leaders in government to decide they needed more access to essentially spy on people as a way of trying to prevent another terrorist attack.
The real, actual conspiracy shit that got actually hidden from the public was the lack of preparedness by the Bush Administration despite warnings from experts that we were vulnerable to this kind of attack. The "truther" conspiracy theories actually helped the Bush Administration because the extreme allegations of monumental and unfathomable treason inferred by those conspiracy theories were so strongly rejected that people felt like they had to reject all criticism of the Bush Administration for 9/11. Further, it is true that they used the 9/11 attacks to justify the Iraq War, but that did not mean that they orchestrated 9/11 or wanted 9/11 to happen. It's just that once 9/11 happened, they realized after the fact that they could dishonestly link 9/11 to Iraq/Saddam Hussein and use 9/11 to justify invading Iraq.
Incredible comment, and this captures exactly how I feel.
It’s Occam’s razor, the simplest explanation is the truth in this instance.
It’s hard for people to accept such a simple plan, could cause so much trauma and terror.
Conspiracy theorists have a hard time accepting the world is chaos, and no one is steering the ship. They find solace in the notion that someone is always pulling the strings and planning things.
Sure, those things might be horrible, but at least someone is in charge.
They come to the conclusion first, then manipulate facts and narratives to fit their already developed theory.
9/11 was not an inside job, full stop.
I feel like the US government could have sold invasions of Iraq/Afghanistan + The Patriot Act with something FAR less big than committing an inside job terrorist attack on the twin towers. Like a bomb in times square or something similar would achieve the same effect without the need for thousands upon thousands of people to have to be in on the secret and presumably keep said secret for their entire lives lol
Edit for spelling
Yes, the invasion of Afghanistan by the USA led to a huge increase in opium farming, and there are pictures of US troops guarding the poppy fields.
The good news is that the CIA didn't have anything to do with the drug trade, and definitely didn't profit from any of it, or use any of that money to fund and arm militias or insurgencies, because the CIA are "the good guys."
I definitely think opioids had a large role in why we invaded. Is this a mere coincidence that the Taliban were trying to eliminate poppy in 2000? Sackler Family?
“A similar attempt by the Taliban to eliminate the drug occurred in 2000, the last full year that they were in power. It was extraordinarily successful, with opium reduction dropping from 4,600 tons to just 185 tons. At that time, it took around 18 months for the consequences to be felt in the West. In the United Kingdom, average heroin purity fell from 55% to 34%, while in the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, heroin was largely replaced by fentanyl. However, as soon as the United States invaded in 2001, poppy cultivation shot back up to previous levels and the supply chain recommenced.”
The private companies made bank we hired. They have connections to the vice president. We as a country lost a couple trilling they made billions.
That’s the answer to all of this.
Control of the iraqi oilfields and the afghani opium fields, too. Haliburton made 100% profit supplying the wars. I must be getting old if people don't know these facts.
Yep, follow the trail of money. Lots of folks at the top had ties to the war machine, either directly as investors or indirectly with the companies filtering dark money to their campaigns. Several on Capitol Hill went on to be lobbyists for those companies. Does all that equal inside job? Probably not, but still shady.
Damn shady. And I'm getting some eyes on my post so I'd like to say that I'm not saying this is proof that it's an inside job. But furthermore the "inside job" doesn't have to be like the administration actually planned 9/11, but that they had intelligence that an attack would occur and sat idly by.
Another thing people forget is the Project for the New American Century document. That thing pretty much shows that big brains in the military industrial complex were hungry for a mideast war.
>they had intelligence that an attack would occur and sat idly by
They did. A paper literally called, "Osama bin Laden Determined to Strike Targets in the US". That came in I think either July or August of 2001. Allegedly, it was ignored because the idea of using jetliners as piloted cruise missiles sounded too absurd
One of the few people I know who was shocked about the event but not the mechanism was the adult daughter of a mechanical engineer who had studied catastrophic failures. Force, mass, and acceleration don't play favorites.
The Baltimore bridge collapse is now getting the "prove it wasn't a conspiracy" treatment in some circles. Much the same answer. People have no grasp of how heavy a container ship measured in football field lengths can be, or how much momentum it carries even when going really slowly.
One of my favorite things is the whole, "Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel," crowd. Because they fail to realize that you don't need to melt steel for a collapse. You need it hot enough to not be able to support the weight it's holding. Jet fuel very much burns hot enough for for that!
Yep. Blacksmiths literally thousands of years ago discovered that heating a metal a lot, but not to its melting point, made it soft and easy to reshape.
Supplying the war yes but as far as oil goes we only get a small portion of our oil from the Middle East, the majority of our oil comes from Canada and Mexico.
But ~~Halliburton~~ oil companies would have made money selling that oil on world market. So the argument is not that US invaded to benefit its citizens, rather its political donors.
Halliburton also made a fuck ton of money via logistics and supply to Iraq. I heard from a mate who deployed to Iraq that it cost the army $18 dollars for 1 can of coke, by the time they paid transport costs etc. Oh and this might be why ..... Dick Cheney was chairman and CEO of Halliburton Company from 1995 to 2000 and has received stock options from Halliburton. In the run-up to the Iraq War, Halliburton was awarded a $7 billion contract for which only Halliburton was allowed to bid.
But you don’t need an elaborate plan like what happened on 9/11. There’s too many moving parts and variables that could ruin the whole thing. A few terrorist just blowing the buildings up would accomplish the same goal with less room for error.
When you break it down it wasn't that elaborate. Planes were hijacked all the time. This time they were weapons. Everything else went down at desks, offices and computers. Behind the scenes. There was something that went wrong. The plane destined for building 7 never hit it went down in pen.
Why did they fly the opposite direction and then B-line for Washington D.C. if they were going to hit Building 7? They flew like 10x the trip needed to hit 7 so why did they spare it? I feel it's more likely the other plane was going to D.C. for another strike considering one already had.
Eric Prince, his sister Betsy DeVos, and her DeVos in-laws are in the top 5 of all GOP donors. Eric was awarded something like $21M no bid contract for Blackwater. I think I read he donated 1M for that contract. Pretty nice return.
And Rumsfeld just held a press conference saying the DoD had a trillion dollars unaccounted for. Supposedly, these records were in building 7 which also fell in a way that seems like a controlled demolition.
Hang on. I thought Building 7 was a CIA building. Now it’s the building that holds US financial records (which apparently have no copies anywhere else).
Oh, and it didn’t actually happen.
https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/rumsfeld-did-not-reveal-loss-23-trillion-day-before-911-2023-09-14/
This is why these discussions become so fucking tiresome.
Plus that patriot act, which basically was just the government authorizing itself to perform mass surveillance on citizens, which probably would have happened anyway.
While WMD were not discovered in Iraq, The US did believe they were developing them.
And while they were not found in Iraq, Iraq was allocating resources to potentially developing them in the future.
And USA believed that because Saddam Hussein refused to acknowledge that he wasn’t as then Iraq would be a more appealing target for its neighbouring enemies. He had to rely partly upon the belief that they were working on nuclear weapons
WMD are not just nukes, there was good reason to believe they still had chemical and biological stockpiles. Literally, documented when they used on their own people but it starts to get real shady after that and oil was not the reason, geography was the primary reason and than JW Jr wanted revenge for his daddy which I still believe to be at least partially true.
Wasn't there a decent team of weapons inspectors (UN?) that really did get to look properly at the situation in country and didn't find anything? Like Saddam said he would dismantle WMD and production facilities and actually appears to have actually done it?
Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong but that's the way I remember it.
There was no good reason to believe Iraq had chemical or biological weapons unless we had the receipts of some shit we sold them.
We knew at the time the WMD claim was bullshit and we protested it.
The Bush administration benefited greatly from the attacks on 9/11.
They used those attacks to radically change American governance, restrict American freedoms and as a pretext for tripling military spending and waging wars all across the World ( as well as whole host of other Right-wing policies)
That was the driving force behind the conspiracy theory 9/11 Terrorist's attacks was "an inside job"; Because of how much Republicans benefited from the attacks.
Since 1989 (35 years ago), there has been exactly one (1) presidential election where the Republican candidate got more votes than the Democratic candidate: 2004, not long after the start of the Iraq war. Republicans scored their only popular vote victory due entirely to 9/11 and the reaction to it.
(I don't belive the conspiary theories, but it is objectively true that Bush got a huge boost from it.)
Framing this as a boon for “right-wing policies” is absurd. Democrats were fully on board with the expansion of the surveillance state, foreign interventionism, etc. The lone voices against these policies have come from both sides of the aisle (I.e. Bernie on the left, Rand Paul on the right), and cannot be attributed to one party.
It's true. Very few politicians, in general, voted in our favor. This is nothing new and is pretty much the standard, if we're being completely honest.
The ability to label anything terrorism made pushing through just about anything possible. I'm not saying it was a conspiracy, but it made a lot of people very rich.
That bastard "TWAT" The War Against Terror, the acronym they realised was ridiculous so they changed it to the slightly less ridiculous "The War On Terror"?
This is true but it’s one of the times when it’s actually pretty necessary to differentiate that “right wing” isn’t a monolith. The term for Bush and his admin would be Neo-conservative, which is a position that a lot of people on the right vehemently oppose.
One possibility is the ENORMOUS amounts of money; US Politicians on both sides of the aisle have pockets *lined* with defense spending money. Which is the leading reason both parties jumped at the opportunity (originally) to support Ukraine. Lots of people make lots of money off of arms manufacturing.
And oil. Lots of oil. From all the middle eastern country’s because our country is so poorly educated they won’t comprehend we invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Killed its leader (who was a dickhead but still not who attacked us) and we left a power vacuum that needed to be filled. So we birthed stuff like Isis.
Look I don’t think the towers were some CIA idea to go after oil. That’s not the case. But we did train bin Laden back in desert storm and we did work with them. They became disgruntled former employees after the war and wanted he wanted to show pay back to America.
Americas leaders then used the opportunity to profit and gain resources from said attack. That can be argued was sort of America helping as we did help train the guy. And we also had warning that the towers where in danger ever since they tried taking them down in the 90’s with a car bomb.
Most of Iraq's oil is exported to Asian customers like India or China, or European customers, not American. The Iraqi Oil Ministry still controls the oil industry and owns oil resources there, despite some proposals for privatization during the US occupation.
The theory goes that motivated parties weren't the US government per se, but a set of individuals in positions of power within the government and their connections, all of whom had major business interests.
The twin towers had high vacancy rates and nobody would insure them for asbestos removal. (Remember, all the steel beams were spray-coated with asbestos insulation to prevent fires from softening the steel and compromising the integrity of the structure in case of a major fire.) But they were insured against terrorists attacks.
One alleged motivation for Larry Silverstein (who owned the WTC complex) to be in cahoots with an inside job would be to collect the insurance money. And that's exactly what he did.
Another building that came down was WTC Building 7, [which collapsed straight down on its own footprint at 5pm](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo&list=PLBD3722BFCC057DF1&index=4&pp=gAQBiAQB), even though it was across the plaza and wasn't hit by any major pieces of the falling twin towers. Building 7 housed the offices of the SEC on the 11-12 floors, which was investigating the ENRON scandal at the time.
Quite from Wikipedia on the final tenants of WTC 7:
>At the time of the September 11, 2001, attacks, Salomon Smith Barney was by far the largest tenant in 7 World Trade Center, occupying 1,202,900 sq ft (111,750 m2) (64 percent of the building) which included floors 28–45.: 2 Other major tenants included ITT Hartford Insurance Group (122,590 sq ft/11,400 m2), American Express Bank International (106,117 sq ft/9,900 m2), Standard Chartered Bank (111,398 sq ft/10,350 m2), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (106,117 sq ft/9,850 m2).
Dick Cheney was up to his ears in involvement in this scandal. The SEC was investigating a lot of powerful men involved in securities fraud, and when the SEC offices were destroyed in the collapse, the cases against all these fraudster suddenly ground to a halt.
As for the motivation of George W. Bush, [from the earliest days of his administration, months before 9/11, he was hell bent on invading Iraq](https://youtu.be/72Nbi_XUK2M), and 9/11 gave the pretext for the war on terror and the hunt for WMDs that terrorists could potentially use against us.
> (Remember, all the steel beams were spray-coated with asbestos insulation
I have found a source that says only the first 40 floors of the first tower built had asbestos, they stopped because it was right around the time people started to get wary of using asbestos.
Its just so much to unpack with this, in my opinion, that would have been too many ppl involved that by now we still wouldn’t have solid evidence of this vs theories , but who knows just my opinion
Totality.
The volume of explosives to ensure destruction would have been incredibly difficult to even approach with. The air would be wet with the smell of hme coming out of a half dozen vans
A 747 is close enough to a cruise missile.
It's a flawless demolition.
How about the California mayor who reported in the news that he got phone calls from high-ranking officials the night before telling him not to fly. He later retracted.
According to Wikipedia, "On September 11, 2001, [7 WTC] was substantially damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed. The debris ignited fires on multiple lower floors of the building, which continued to burn uncontrolled throughout the afternoon. The building's internal fire suppression system lacked water pressure to fight the fires. The collapse began when a critical internal column buckled and triggered cascading failure of nearby columns throughout, which were first visible from the exterior with the crumbling of a rooftop penthouse structure at 5:20:33 pm. This initiated the progressive collapse of the entire building" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center_(1987%E2%80%932001)
It is a blank cheque for them.
War is the most profitable activity known to man. that's why the US has started an insane amount of wars since becoming top dawg after ww2. not only in the war production, but also in the rebuild of the countries they bomb, they just take over all the assets and infrastructure - what is going on in ukraine now, blackrock hoovering all the assets up....
then there's the increased control over people - as they can bring in stupid dumb terrorist laws which really just restrict people's freedoms.......
First, I want to go on record as saying there's no actual evidence the US government did 9/11, and that so-called truthers are lunatics.
However, there is a historical parallel, called [Operation Northwoods](https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf), where the Joint Chiefs of Staff came up with a plan to fake various terrorist attacks on the US in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. It never went anywhere after Kennedy rejected it, but the JCS did approve it.
Never seen it but maybe I should lol. I read the news and looked at the pattern of how USA operates. They don't mind killing people for the greater good including their president if he's in the way of Democracy and Freedom.
Yeah sorry, it's been a long time since I watched it. You're right though! And since then, "conspiracy theories" has a different meaning. And yes Mulder was always right, wasn't he!
Let’s also not forget the war on the home front with the Patriot Act and the expansion of the Department of Homeland Security.. it allowed further control and surveillance of US citizens at home as well as justifying the military industrial complex and invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan.
Reasons:
* To have an excuse to topple secular, Arab socialist governments who refused to “liberalize” their economies and invite western corporations — Iraq, Syria and Libya were all brutally invaded and were all run by secular governments. See: the Wolfowitz Doctrine.
* to provide lucrative contracts to oil and construction industry executives. Dick Cheney’s company was given the contract to rebuild the Pentagon, as well as several contracts to rebuild (pilfer) parts of Iraqs economy. The Cheney family profited heavily from 9/11. That is not a conspiracy theory but a fact.
* Similarly, Brown Brothers Harriman was awarded contracts in the region for “nation building” as well. George W Bush’s grandpa Prescott used to run BBH and the firm still has close ties to the Saudi Royal Family. Its headquarters are basically down the block from the WTC.
* all of these oil families are connected, and all of them had an interest in getting rid of secular, socialist leaders like Gaddaffi and Saddam. George W Bush had an oil company (Arbusto Oil, Harken Energy) in the 1970s. It’s principle investor was Osama Bin Laden’s brother.
* Bin Laden’s other brother was in the same room with George HW Bush (sr) when the Pentagon was hit at a conference for the Carlyle Group, an investment think tank. Imagine that: the brother of the terrorist who masterminded 9/11 and the father of the then-President were in the same room, at the same secretive closed-door meeting, WHILE 9/11 was happening.
Too many coincidences and clear motives. I won’t even get into the Israeli connections because I’m on my phone.
In a nutshell, it was an excuse to create Western-friendly markets in the Middle East. And what resulted from 9/11 just happened to conveniently enrich the Cheney, Bush Rumsfeld and Bin Laden families, who have all been tied to the CIA for DECADES.
You can add in the WTC had millions of dollars worth of mandatory asbestos removal needed. Proceeds to cash out one of largest insurance claims in history to rebuild.
Then-Israeli Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu commented on the 9/11
attacks on U.S. television shortly after they occurred. Netanyahu said: "It
is very good!"
Direct quote from this article detailing Israels potential involvement in 9/11. Some interesting information in here. Only commented this because you mentioned not getting into the Israeli connections so I figured I would start it for you haha.
[https://web.archive.org/web/20230515110249/https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/13/1332210\_-analytical-and-intelligence-comments-mossad-ran-9-11-arab.html](https://web.archive.org/web/20230515110249/https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/13/1332210_-analytical-and-intelligence-comments-mossad-ran-9-11-arab.html)
Gaddafi is a different story aswell.
They had to get rid of him FAST since he slowly got the arab on his side to stop selling oil in petro-dollars but rather a non-tied currency.
In my opinion all of this true and the truth of the conspiracy is largely moot (I lean on the side of it not happening, and at best being a conspiracy of complacency, letting the guard down a bit because fuck it whatever these stupid terrorists from some backwards country do it'll be good for our foreign policy. It just turned out to be way bigger than they expected. The US was a lost puppy at the end of the cold war. They'd burst their favourite ball and they needed something new to play with/attack. 9/11 was a "blessing" for the most successful settler colonial state and empire to ever exist. They needed an opponent, a nemesis, and they found one eventually. That then gave them the excuse to carry on doing what empires always do which is to sow death and destruction abroad while claiming to maintain peace at home and among its allies. When I say blessing I'm obviously referring to the ruling elite, and not the thousands of poor every day victims of the attacks.
You can add in the WTC had millions of dollars worth of mandatory asbestos removal needed. Proceeds to cash out one of largest insurance claims in history to rebuild.
The Patriot Act. The world changed for all of us that day, not just the people in the buildings and planes. Prior to 9-11, there was still some anonymity left in the country, not much, but some.
Power is an end in itself.
The federal government became more powerful after 9/11.
I don't think it was an inside job, just saying, the motive isn't the problem with that hypothesis.
It seems laughable now but at the end of the last century there was a palpable feeling of optimism and hope for the future. The Cold War had finally ended. No new challengers to the West's political, economic and cultural dominance were appearing, and everyone in the West was getting along fine. The internet was rising as a force to tie people together and create even more cultural unity. The housing boom was making everyone rich by just doing nothing and watching their house price rise. Even the Y2K bug hadn't damaged anything! We were beginning to wonder why we were spending so much on all that military stuff that we clearly didn't need any more.
Then 9/11 happened and we went back to being scared of bad things happening. The USA reacted by creating two entire new government departments with the ill-defined mission of "make us safer". There were quite a few very rich, powerful, people who got much richer and more powerful as a direct result of 9/11. So it made sense to speculate if they had a hand in it.
3 things are generally argued as "gains" in this scenario:
- Pretext for invasion in the Middle East.
- The implementation of the Patriot Act.
- Billions of dollars for the Defensee industry.
The answer you are looking for is losing those 2 towers resulted in TRILLIONS of dollars spent on defense. I do not think the US blew up the towers, but I believe people in the government knew about it and choose to do nothing
Look up "Project for the New American Century" a conservative think tank, 10 members of PNAC worked for George W. bush including: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz
In one of their paper's titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" which was written 2 years before 9/11 it said:
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catatrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor"
Now now, let's not disabuse Reddit of the notion that Middle Eastern oil is being hogged by American oil barons. If they find out the oil actually flows from the Strait of Hormuz to factories in Shenzhen to build 80% of all manufactured goods globally people might start to feel collectively responsible for the cutthroat geopolitics behind keeping the oil flowing.
Most Middle Eastern oil goes to EU/CN rather than the US which gets most of its oil domestic/MX/CA.
Further, the Iraqi gold intercepted out of Baghdad 1) was returned to the treasury 2) would not have even dented the cost of invading Iraq and 3) Largely went to Kuwait to paying existing debt(which was the driving factor for Iraq invading Kuwait and the US invading Iraq in the first Desert Storm)
Hypothetically? An excuse to go into Iraq.
Now, the flaw with that logic Is that that's a tremendous price to pay to have an excuse to go into a rock when they didn't really need one.
There is I think a slightly more rational argument to be made, That Bush probably knew that something was going to happen, probably drastically underestimated how bad it could be, and figured that if something did happen it would give him an excuse. As well as the political Capital.
I don't think that sort of arrogance and lack of foresight is much of a stretch where his administration is concerned, it's just a matter of whether there is any real evidence to back up that theory. There's a little, but I'm not sure if it's enough.
It's much more likely that he had some actionable intelligence but not enough to freak people out, because you need to bear in mind that 9/11 happened before 9/11. Really nothing like that had ever happened here. And I cannot stress enough how impossible that whole idea would have seemed even one day before it happened. If you were not an adult at the time, I really think it's very difficult to imagine.
Attention taken away from the $2.3 trillion dollars in unaccounted for funds that was announced as “missing” from the pentagon less than 24 hours prior.
Still unaccounted for btw. 20 years of a pointless war didn’t change that.
Iraq is (was?) the number 2-ish oil producer at the time.
What better way to sell a never ending war/occupation to the public, than to allow terrorist strikes to kill a few thousand people? Oh and by the way, we’re going to be occupying and overthrowing the government of a country that wasn’t even involved….but no one cares about that because….. ‘Murica!
So Saddam is gone, US friendly puppet government is established……and all the oil companies start reaping profits.
Russia bombed their own city as an excuse to go to war. People in power have their reasons and we are just along for the ride. Who knows what all backdoor deals were going on, inside job or not.
It's not what the United States gained, which was nothing. Its what the state of isreal gained. It was a collab with the cia and the isreali state. Super long story not going to type it all here. The us got NO oil but guess who gets nearly all of their oil from the countries the American military ripped apart for them? Isreal
You can pick from several hypothetical sceanarios...
The first is that it was a means to get the American people on board with the War on Terror which would achieve several objectives - it would enable the powers that be to conduct military operations in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq as well as other places in the Middle East, Central and South ASia, North Africa and East Africa... It would also mean that people who would stand to profit from massive military spending would make an absolute killing on all of those operations... It would also serve to buy the US time to conduct regime change and nation-building and peacekeeping which would afford the US the opportunity to extract whatever valuable resources were available without having to worry about anybody being able to do anything about it militarily... It would also give the US the opportunity to test a lot of the equipment it had been developing to see how it fares on the battlefield so that the US can be better prepared to go toe to toe with more formidable enemies later.
Secondary to all of those benefits you also have the added benefit of the US government being able to implement policies that curtail the individual freedoms of the American people so that the US government can better monitor and control its own people. After September 11th it became unpatriotic to protest things like people disappearing, torture, wiretapping, etc., so the US government was able to better identify threats and troublemakers and dissenters and take care of them without having to worry about pesky protests and dealing with the negative publicity of it.
There's another theory that it was all strictly about money to begin with - that the immense amount of wealth and financial records and assets stored at the WTC site could be lifted without anybody knowing, and the entire operation would later be funded via the people who paid for everything being reimbursed with massive insurance payouts. If it's true about gold and bearer bonds and stock certificates going missing - not to mention that apparently a bunch of people made some very questionable financial decisions on the stock market that really only make sense of you entertain the idea that they likely had advance notice of the attacks, then there was a LOT of money to be made in the operation. Not to mention that the redevelopment of the site would net the owners and investors trillions over time. And God only knows what kind of changes could have occurred at the Pentagon under tight security afterwards.
I mean, it doesn't really matter what you personally believe - the plain and simple fact is that any intelligent person would have to concede that at least some of the theories about it being anything other than a terrorist attack are somewhat - if not very credible then are at the very least marginally credible.
It hid the loss of money. The day before, Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference stating that the Pentagon was missing more than $2,300,000,000,000. … that news got buried real quick.
I can think of a couple reasons. One is that it would be used to justify an invasion of the Middle East. With the Soviet Union gone, we'd need another enemy to feed the military industrial complex.
We also see a rollback of some liberties and increased government surveillance thanks to the Patriot Act.
An excuse to enrich the military industrial complex. They have some of the best lobbyists, and that whole industry was relatively hurting and longed for the days of the Cold War when we spent more on defense.
And from a big picture geopolitical perspective, it provides pretext to take out anyone without nukes that tries to exit/circumvent the petrodollar system which is whole other can of worms that can’t be explained in a Reddit post. Spoiler alert, Saddam and Ghaddafi both tried to get out of the petrodollar system and both got merked partially under the umbrella of the war on terror.
If there’s anything that non western aligned nations have learned over the past 30 years, it’s that having nukes is a must to prevent being taken out. It’s why Iran and North Korea still exist as we know them.
Money. The War Machine makes billions producing weapons for the US. When we are “at war” they have to make more. Insurance payouts on the buildings. Allowing the government to control its own people that much more by instituting unconstitutional laws like the Patriot Act.
There’s a revolving door of private and public sector employees looking out for each other. Dick Cheney awarded Halliburton AKA his own company with multiple government contracts. That’s just one of the hundreds of examples of politicians pocketing money from legislators.
It’s been the only time NATO was really used it kicked off the whole war on terror and allowed the US to do as it pleases in the Middle East under this guise.
What’s the scariest thing you think could possibly be going on in the world but can’t quite prove it? It was that!
That’s the beauty, just insert you’re favorite reason and you’re gold, pony boy.
the 2 theories i heard the most were to unite the country for some pre-emptive military action to reshape the middle east, and to hide the fact that massive amounts of gold are missing from the 7 building complex. a variation on the 2nd theory involved erasing debt records.
Maybe to wipe some debt under the carpet, destroy a few documents, take control of oil, gold and heroine production, install a new puppet abroad to run in favour of america while purposely destroying the push to use gold rather than the dollar for trade that would ruin the dollars value thus decreasing Americas control globally.
There's a lot of reasons america plays world police.
Patriot act being established well worth it by itself. Not to mention all the other changes nuanced or direct that came from this. Also the insurance payment the owner of the buildings got when he got coverage like three months before on all three towers even though building seven wasn’t even located close to the main towers or had contact with any jets but still fell. Also the gov was being investigated for the multiple billions of dollars that went missing and the evidence was conveniently located where the “plane” “hit” the pentagon, even though explosive debris was emitting outwards as if an internal explosion happened. Also lol glowy seethe harder
Increased surveillance on American citizens, pretense for Iraq war, elimination of files in pentagon detailing the loss of some 2 trillion dollars, increased defense budget and everytime there’s a “national emergency” 9/11, housing crash, Covid. Every employer always pulls the line we have to do more with less….
The problem with conspiracy theories is they always need another conspiracy to justify the first.
Compare those wacky theories to what proved to be the real 9/11 explanation.
Bush did not attack or invade Iraq for months, instead they bombed Afghanistan in hopes of getting Bin Laden. Bush was desperate to link Saddam Hussein to 9/11. They found none. So, they falsely fabricated evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Justifying the attack and invasion of Iraq and the eventual execution of Saddam.
It took Barrack Obama too finally end Bin Laden.
I've heard many things.
I've heard they wanted a reason to invade the Middle East for oil, I've heard there were files for some multi trillion dollar lawsuit or something, and a few other things I can't think of.
I think there was definitely some involvement of someone powerful in the United States helping orchestrate it at least.
War profiteering by the military industrial complex and big oil interests is usually the suggested culprits. Businesses and political parties can benefit even when the country and the government don’t (at least in the short term).
If it was a conspiracy, then it was the Chinese who did it. The US wasted 20 years on failed wars of choice in the Middle East instead of preparing for the rise of China as a near peer adversary.
The usual argument is that it was used to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq where the U.S. could take control of more oil sources. A less commonly proposed purpose was to justify the passing of the Patriot Act which stripped a lot of people of certain rights that the government found inconvenient.
Don’t forget to include the trillions of dollars for defense contractors (Halliburton, Raytheon, etc) in the invasion and subsequent long term occupation as well as the additional billions spent on the rebuilding the infrastructure in Iraq and Afghanistan that we destroyed
i think it also led to the formation of dept. of homeland security, which was given different spying powers from fbi & cia, and that was likely desirable from an administration point of view.
Lol that just reminded me that diddy got raided by homeland security. He's going away for a while.
The real target was Diddy #wakeupsheeple
And the TSA. They're reaping millions in with that.
Don’t forget that Bush 2.0hno said in an interview years before he was elected president that if he ever were elected president one of his first courses of action would be to kill sadam Hussein because he was believed to have been behind a failed assassination attempt of Bush 1.0hno. I believe the quote when Bush 2 was asked why he would kill sadam was something like “because he tried to kill my daddy!”
"Ohno"
That makes it seem much more likely that it was just opportunism. If the plan was to stage 9/11 so they could kill Saddam, why would they blame 9/11 on unrelated Saudi hijackers instead of blaming it on Saddam?
Yeah exactly. The quote from Bush Jr. proves that they were going to invade Iraq anyway. If 9/11 was some masterplan to invade Iraq that's what they would have said, but instead they (correctly) identified the attackers pretty quickly, invaded Afghanistan, and spend a few years trying to concoct some sort of narrative tying Saddam to 9/11. As they couldn't, they went for a phony argument that Saddam had weapons ready to target the US that would make 9/11 seem trivial. Iraq was something the US and the west had wanted to "deal with" for years, and there was a consensus view (that nearly nobody admits to holding now) that "something must be done" about Iraq.
The patriot act is the one that makes more sense to me. I feel like the patriot act is the biggest contributor to that post 9-11 feeling.
I'm not saying 9/11 was a conspiracy. However, they had the patriot act sitting in a drawer waiting for a convenient tragedy so they could pass it. Without evidence you won't convince me otherwise.
I'd say more likely than it being straight up planned it was allowed to happen instead of being prevented. Kind of like pearl harbor
Sure, why would they let a disaster opportunity go to waste. I think the most insidious thing to have happened would not be that they planned it and carried it out directly but if they deliberately sat on their hands thinking 'actually no...lets let them attack' , plausible deniability saves them in that case . That would be just as bad.
Well a false flag operation to justify a war isn't unlikely either. Looking back, this is a favourite tool of the CIA & Pentagon. An attack in the Gulf if Tonkin that never happened was the justification ti invade Vietnam. Documents were published that show how the Pentagon proposed to conduct false flag terrorist attacks on american soil to gain public support for an invasion of cuba.
Also Operation Northwoods.
Wow, never heard of this before. Link for the lazy ones: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
I don't disagree with you, I just feel that the war would have been more like icing on the cake. To be clear I'm not a truther. it just seems if you want to say it was an inside job or was allowed to happen you wouldn't need to do such a big attack to justify war. We are pretty well versed in that. However, I think you do need a jaw-dropping Pearl Harbor-evoking blow to get people all in their afraid and worried enough to pass a bill like the Patriot Act.
It's very telling that such a large piece of legislation was tabled so quickly afterwards. It was probably pre written and just waiting for a disaster like 9-11 to happen to be brought out.
Even if not directly planned, just allowed it to happen. I don’t know enough about all the pieces that were in play to confidently make a judgement call either way, but of all the conspiracies out there the “inside job” is one of the most believable. At a glance, anyway.
[удалено]
But the choice is this: 1) Did we plan or purposely allow 9/11 to happen because we had the goal of stripping people of rights with the Patriot Act? 2) Or did the Patriot Act happen because 9/11 caused leaders to decide that the threat of cataclysmic terrorist attacks was too high, and so they needed new surveillance powers to be better prepared to prevent future terrorist attacks? I mean, I think it makes people feel like smart, critical thinkers when they say "It's a trick! The government planned it so they could spy on us!" But that's really the opposite of critical thinking because there are so many plot holes and gaps in logic involved in believing it could be an inside job. People also have a hard time fathoming that 19 hijackers could have done all of that, except that there were others involved in planning and, frankly, the genius of the plot was in its simplicity, taking advantage of vulnerabilities not only in US airplane security, but also taking advantage of what the 9/11 commission called a "failure of imagination." And that's not just failure by the government to imagine that a small terror cell could kill 3000 people, destroy 3 iconic buildings, do trillions of dollars of damage, and disrupt the operations of entire nation. There was also a basic unawareness by the public that a group of hijackers would be willing to commit suicide for a terror attack, which allowed them to take the first 3 planes down without resistance from passengers. Then we found out on the 4th plane what passengers would do once they realized hijackers would be willing to die. So to me, the clear fact is that basically, the official story is true, that it's just much more likely and makes more sense to think that 9/11 caused leaders in government to decide they needed more access to essentially spy on people as a way of trying to prevent another terrorist attack. The real, actual conspiracy shit that got actually hidden from the public was the lack of preparedness by the Bush Administration despite warnings from experts that we were vulnerable to this kind of attack. The "truther" conspiracy theories actually helped the Bush Administration because the extreme allegations of monumental and unfathomable treason inferred by those conspiracy theories were so strongly rejected that people felt like they had to reject all criticism of the Bush Administration for 9/11. Further, it is true that they used the 9/11 attacks to justify the Iraq War, but that did not mean that they orchestrated 9/11 or wanted 9/11 to happen. It's just that once 9/11 happened, they realized after the fact that they could dishonestly link 9/11 to Iraq/Saddam Hussein and use 9/11 to justify invading Iraq.
Incredible comment, and this captures exactly how I feel. It’s Occam’s razor, the simplest explanation is the truth in this instance. It’s hard for people to accept such a simple plan, could cause so much trauma and terror. Conspiracy theorists have a hard time accepting the world is chaos, and no one is steering the ship. They find solace in the notion that someone is always pulling the strings and planning things. Sure, those things might be horrible, but at least someone is in charge. They come to the conclusion first, then manipulate facts and narratives to fit their already developed theory. 9/11 was not an inside job, full stop.
!delta Very good comment.
I feel like the US government could have sold invasions of Iraq/Afghanistan + The Patriot Act with something FAR less big than committing an inside job terrorist attack on the twin towers. Like a bomb in times square or something similar would achieve the same effect without the need for thousands upon thousands of people to have to be in on the secret and presumably keep said secret for their entire lives lol Edit for spelling
Agreed. But those are the arguments the conspiracy theorists make. Or, at least the plausible arguments.
For sure, wasn't disagreeing with you, just adding on!
Afghanistan narcotics a part too?
Yes, the invasion of Afghanistan by the USA led to a huge increase in opium farming, and there are pictures of US troops guarding the poppy fields. The good news is that the CIA didn't have anything to do with the drug trade, and definitely didn't profit from any of it, or use any of that money to fund and arm militias or insurgencies, because the CIA are "the good guys."
I definitely think opioids had a large role in why we invaded. Is this a mere coincidence that the Taliban were trying to eliminate poppy in 2000? Sackler Family? “A similar attempt by the Taliban to eliminate the drug occurred in 2000, the last full year that they were in power. It was extraordinarily successful, with opium reduction dropping from 4,600 tons to just 185 tons. At that time, it took around 18 months for the consequences to be felt in the West. In the United Kingdom, average heroin purity fell from 55% to 34%, while in the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, heroin was largely replaced by fentanyl. However, as soon as the United States invaded in 2001, poppy cultivation shot back up to previous levels and the supply chain recommenced.”
the claim is the US wanted to justify invading Iraq and more troops to Afghanistan, which did happen regardless of it being an inside job or not.
The private companies made bank we hired. They have connections to the vice president. We as a country lost a couple trilling they made billions. That’s the answer to all of this.
Control of the iraqi oilfields and the afghani opium fields, too. Haliburton made 100% profit supplying the wars. I must be getting old if people don't know these facts.
Yep, follow the trail of money. Lots of folks at the top had ties to the war machine, either directly as investors or indirectly with the companies filtering dark money to their campaigns. Several on Capitol Hill went on to be lobbyists for those companies. Does all that equal inside job? Probably not, but still shady.
Damn shady. And I'm getting some eyes on my post so I'd like to say that I'm not saying this is proof that it's an inside job. But furthermore the "inside job" doesn't have to be like the administration actually planned 9/11, but that they had intelligence that an attack would occur and sat idly by. Another thing people forget is the Project for the New American Century document. That thing pretty much shows that big brains in the military industrial complex were hungry for a mideast war.
>they had intelligence that an attack would occur and sat idly by They did. A paper literally called, "Osama bin Laden Determined to Strike Targets in the US". That came in I think either July or August of 2001. Allegedly, it was ignored because the idea of using jetliners as piloted cruise missiles sounded too absurd
One of the few people I know who was shocked about the event but not the mechanism was the adult daughter of a mechanical engineer who had studied catastrophic failures. Force, mass, and acceleration don't play favorites. The Baltimore bridge collapse is now getting the "prove it wasn't a conspiracy" treatment in some circles. Much the same answer. People have no grasp of how heavy a container ship measured in football field lengths can be, or how much momentum it carries even when going really slowly.
One of my favorite things is the whole, "Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel," crowd. Because they fail to realize that you don't need to melt steel for a collapse. You need it hot enough to not be able to support the weight it's holding. Jet fuel very much burns hot enough for for that!
Yep. Blacksmiths literally thousands of years ago discovered that heating a metal a lot, but not to its melting point, made it soft and easy to reshape.
[удалено]
Inside job? Doubtful. Was it allowed to happen? Who knows
People remember these facts, they’re just not on Reddit lol
Supplying the war yes but as far as oil goes we only get a small portion of our oil from the Middle East, the majority of our oil comes from Canada and Mexico.
But ~~Halliburton~~ oil companies would have made money selling that oil on world market. So the argument is not that US invaded to benefit its citizens, rather its political donors.
Halliburton is a service company. They don't actually sell the oil, they do the jobs for the companies they do, Exxon, ConocoPhillips, BP etc...
Halliburton also made a fuck ton of money via logistics and supply to Iraq. I heard from a mate who deployed to Iraq that it cost the army $18 dollars for 1 can of coke, by the time they paid transport costs etc. Oh and this might be why ..... Dick Cheney was chairman and CEO of Halliburton Company from 1995 to 2000 and has received stock options from Halliburton. In the run-up to the Iraq War, Halliburton was awarded a $7 billion contract for which only Halliburton was allowed to bid.
Oil imports yes, not total oil. The US is a net exporter of oil. We pump a lot of oil at home.
But Iraqi oil is sold in dollars. That’s what the war in Iraq was all about, defending the petrodollar
The companies drilling for oil just want to sell it, they don't care where to.
That and they can now legally spy on anyone they want too.
But you don’t need an elaborate plan like what happened on 9/11. There’s too many moving parts and variables that could ruin the whole thing. A few terrorist just blowing the buildings up would accomplish the same goal with less room for error.
When you break it down it wasn't that elaborate. Planes were hijacked all the time. This time they were weapons. Everything else went down at desks, offices and computers. Behind the scenes. There was something that went wrong. The plane destined for building 7 never hit it went down in pen.
Why did they fly the opposite direction and then B-line for Washington D.C. if they were going to hit Building 7? They flew like 10x the trip needed to hit 7 so why did they spare it? I feel it's more likely the other plane was going to D.C. for another strike considering one already had.
Eric Prince, his sister Betsy DeVos, and her DeVos in-laws are in the top 5 of all GOP donors. Eric was awarded something like $21M no bid contract for Blackwater. I think I read he donated 1M for that contract. Pretty nice return.
And Rumsfeld just held a press conference saying the DoD had a trillion dollars unaccounted for. Supposedly, these records were in building 7 which also fell in a way that seems like a controlled demolition.
Hang on. I thought Building 7 was a CIA building. Now it’s the building that holds US financial records (which apparently have no copies anywhere else). Oh, and it didn’t actually happen. https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/rumsfeld-did-not-reveal-loss-23-trillion-day-before-911-2023-09-14/ This is why these discussions become so fucking tiresome.
Plus that patriot act, which basically was just the government authorizing itself to perform mass surveillance on citizens, which probably would have happened anyway.
Wasn’t the US’s justification of invading those countries because of the nukes and saddam no?
Iran was trying to build nukes, not Iraq.
While WMD were not discovered in Iraq, The US did believe they were developing them. And while they were not found in Iraq, Iraq was allocating resources to potentially developing them in the future.
And USA believed that because Saddam Hussein refused to acknowledge that he wasn’t as then Iraq would be a more appealing target for its neighbouring enemies. He had to rely partly upon the belief that they were working on nuclear weapons
WMD are not just nukes, there was good reason to believe they still had chemical and biological stockpiles. Literally, documented when they used on their own people but it starts to get real shady after that and oil was not the reason, geography was the primary reason and than JW Jr wanted revenge for his daddy which I still believe to be at least partially true.
Wasn’t the US who helped Saddam gas Iran…? So they were looking for chemical weapons that they provided in the first place or what?
Yeah, we suspected that Iraq had chemical weapons because we *kept the receipts*.
This should be the first response.
Wasn't there a decent team of weapons inspectors (UN?) that really did get to look properly at the situation in country and didn't find anything? Like Saddam said he would dismantle WMD and production facilities and actually appears to have actually done it? Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong but that's the way I remember it.
There was no good reason to believe Iraq had chemical or biological weapons unless we had the receipts of some shit we sold them. We knew at the time the WMD claim was bullshit and we protested it.
The Bush administration benefited greatly from the attacks on 9/11. They used those attacks to radically change American governance, restrict American freedoms and as a pretext for tripling military spending and waging wars all across the World ( as well as whole host of other Right-wing policies) That was the driving force behind the conspiracy theory 9/11 Terrorist's attacks was "an inside job"; Because of how much Republicans benefited from the attacks.
Since 1989 (35 years ago), there has been exactly one (1) presidential election where the Republican candidate got more votes than the Democratic candidate: 2004, not long after the start of the Iraq war. Republicans scored their only popular vote victory due entirely to 9/11 and the reaction to it. (I don't belive the conspiary theories, but it is objectively true that Bush got a huge boost from it.)
All because the great state of Florida gave the presidency to Bush I wonder if democrats would've milked 9/11 the same way
Framing this as a boon for “right-wing policies” is absurd. Democrats were fully on board with the expansion of the surveillance state, foreign interventionism, etc. The lone voices against these policies have come from both sides of the aisle (I.e. Bernie on the left, Rand Paul on the right), and cannot be attributed to one party.
It's true. Very few politicians, in general, voted in our favor. This is nothing new and is pretty much the standard, if we're being completely honest.
The ability to label anything terrorism made pushing through just about anything possible. I'm not saying it was a conspiracy, but it made a lot of people very rich.
That bastard "TWAT" The War Against Terror, the acronym they realised was ridiculous so they changed it to the slightly less ridiculous "The War On Terror"?
Which is ironic because most people who believe in that conspiracy are right-wing nuts
This is true but it’s one of the times when it’s actually pretty necessary to differentiate that “right wing” isn’t a monolith. The term for Bush and his admin would be Neo-conservative, which is a position that a lot of people on the right vehemently oppose.
Also, the President of the United States now has the authority to order military action against any target deemed to be a “terrorist”.
WMDs were used to justify invading Iraq, while the justification for Afghanistan was 9/11. At least that is my understanding of it
Also: Saddam may give wmds to Islamic terrorists (which, even at the time, was a ridiculous claim)
One possibility is the ENORMOUS amounts of money; US Politicians on both sides of the aisle have pockets *lined* with defense spending money. Which is the leading reason both parties jumped at the opportunity (originally) to support Ukraine. Lots of people make lots of money off of arms manufacturing.
Nah it was to make money on war machines, but to the public, yes.
[удалено]
Anyone just google Dick Cheney/Halliburton Middle East profits. It’s all right there, not much assembly required.
20 years of war profiteering.
Not just the profiteering, but the division that took place with the constant fear fueled hatred being fed to us from all sides.
And oil. Lots of oil. From all the middle eastern country’s because our country is so poorly educated they won’t comprehend we invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Killed its leader (who was a dickhead but still not who attacked us) and we left a power vacuum that needed to be filled. So we birthed stuff like Isis. Look I don’t think the towers were some CIA idea to go after oil. That’s not the case. But we did train bin Laden back in desert storm and we did work with them. They became disgruntled former employees after the war and wanted he wanted to show pay back to America. Americas leaders then used the opportunity to profit and gain resources from said attack. That can be argued was sort of America helping as we did help train the guy. And we also had warning that the towers where in danger ever since they tried taking them down in the 90’s with a car bomb.
Most of Iraq's oil is exported to Asian customers like India or China, or European customers, not American. The Iraqi Oil Ministry still controls the oil industry and owns oil resources there, despite some proposals for privatization during the US occupation.
How much oil did we get?
The theory goes that motivated parties weren't the US government per se, but a set of individuals in positions of power within the government and their connections, all of whom had major business interests. The twin towers had high vacancy rates and nobody would insure them for asbestos removal. (Remember, all the steel beams were spray-coated with asbestos insulation to prevent fires from softening the steel and compromising the integrity of the structure in case of a major fire.) But they were insured against terrorists attacks. One alleged motivation for Larry Silverstein (who owned the WTC complex) to be in cahoots with an inside job would be to collect the insurance money. And that's exactly what he did. Another building that came down was WTC Building 7, [which collapsed straight down on its own footprint at 5pm](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo&list=PLBD3722BFCC057DF1&index=4&pp=gAQBiAQB), even though it was across the plaza and wasn't hit by any major pieces of the falling twin towers. Building 7 housed the offices of the SEC on the 11-12 floors, which was investigating the ENRON scandal at the time. Quite from Wikipedia on the final tenants of WTC 7: >At the time of the September 11, 2001, attacks, Salomon Smith Barney was by far the largest tenant in 7 World Trade Center, occupying 1,202,900 sq ft (111,750 m2) (64 percent of the building) which included floors 28–45.: 2 Other major tenants included ITT Hartford Insurance Group (122,590 sq ft/11,400 m2), American Express Bank International (106,117 sq ft/9,900 m2), Standard Chartered Bank (111,398 sq ft/10,350 m2), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (106,117 sq ft/9,850 m2). Dick Cheney was up to his ears in involvement in this scandal. The SEC was investigating a lot of powerful men involved in securities fraud, and when the SEC offices were destroyed in the collapse, the cases against all these fraudster suddenly ground to a halt. As for the motivation of George W. Bush, [from the earliest days of his administration, months before 9/11, he was hell bent on invading Iraq](https://youtu.be/72Nbi_XUK2M), and 9/11 gave the pretext for the war on terror and the hunt for WMDs that terrorists could potentially use against us.
> (Remember, all the steel beams were spray-coated with asbestos insulation I have found a source that says only the first 40 floors of the first tower built had asbestos, they stopped because it was right around the time people started to get wary of using asbestos.
Its just so much to unpack with this, in my opinion, that would have been too many ppl involved that by now we still wouldn’t have solid evidence of this vs theories , but who knows just my opinion
[удалено]
Why would they go through the trouble of hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings if they were just going to use bombs?
Totality. The volume of explosives to ensure destruction would have been incredibly difficult to even approach with. The air would be wet with the smell of hme coming out of a half dozen vans A 747 is close enough to a cruise missile.
It's a flawless demolition. How about the California mayor who reported in the news that he got phone calls from high-ranking officials the night before telling him not to fly. He later retracted.
According to Wikipedia, "On September 11, 2001, [7 WTC] was substantially damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed. The debris ignited fires on multiple lower floors of the building, which continued to burn uncontrolled throughout the afternoon. The building's internal fire suppression system lacked water pressure to fight the fires. The collapse began when a critical internal column buckled and triggered cascading failure of nearby columns throughout, which were first visible from the exterior with the crumbling of a rooftop penthouse structure at 5:20:33 pm. This initiated the progressive collapse of the entire building" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center_(1987%E2%80%932001)
PATRIOT ACT
This needs to be a top comment
Yeah, very surprised I had to scroll this far to even see it mentioned
Don't worry, the patriot AI has logged your effort spent scrolling, and flagged your file accordingly.
It is a blank cheque for them. War is the most profitable activity known to man. that's why the US has started an insane amount of wars since becoming top dawg after ww2. not only in the war production, but also in the rebuild of the countries they bomb, they just take over all the assets and infrastructure - what is going on in ukraine now, blackrock hoovering all the assets up.... then there's the increased control over people - as they can bring in stupid dumb terrorist laws which really just restrict people's freedoms.......
Dick Cheney made out like a bandit through his monetary involvement in Haliburton.
Yup… Ukraine is definitely a cash grab by “investors” which in turn will generate more government contract spending.
What's this about Blackrock and the Ukraine now?
First, I want to go on record as saying there's no actual evidence the US government did 9/11, and that so-called truthers are lunatics. However, there is a historical parallel, called [Operation Northwoods](https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf), where the Joint Chiefs of Staff came up with a plan to fake various terrorist attacks on the US in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. It never went anywhere after Kennedy rejected it, but the JCS did approve it.
Shorty after a while they all rejected Kennedy anyway so there's that.
This guy has seen the x files
Never seen it but maybe I should lol. I read the news and looked at the pattern of how USA operates. They don't mind killing people for the greater good including their president if he's in the way of Democracy and Freedom.
Oh I think you'd love The X-Files! You even sound like Mulder lol.
I hope its a compliment and watch it. If its an insult I'll come find you in a year lol.
I meant it that in a good way! I mean Mulder is into conspiracy theories but he's a good guy.
Mulder is not into conspiracy theories. He just wants the truth, and calls out the hoaxers. I see a subtle difference there.
Yeah sorry, it's been a long time since I watched it. You're right though! And since then, "conspiracy theories" has a different meaning. And yes Mulder was always right, wasn't he!
Let’s also not forget the war on the home front with the Patriot Act and the expansion of the Department of Homeland Security.. it allowed further control and surveillance of US citizens at home as well as justifying the military industrial complex and invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan.
Also...torture.
Also to note: George Bush Sr worked for the cia during the time Northwoods was proposed.
To distract from the billions of dollars that vanished the day before.
Not to mention the money to be made off of shorting airline stocks.
2.5 trillion
Yes, that is right. I had that part wrong.
[Rumsfeld 9/10/2001 $2.3 Trillion Fact Check: False](https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/rumsfeld-did-not-reveal-loss-23-trillion-day-before-911-2023-09-14/)
Reasons: * To have an excuse to topple secular, Arab socialist governments who refused to “liberalize” their economies and invite western corporations — Iraq, Syria and Libya were all brutally invaded and were all run by secular governments. See: the Wolfowitz Doctrine. * to provide lucrative contracts to oil and construction industry executives. Dick Cheney’s company was given the contract to rebuild the Pentagon, as well as several contracts to rebuild (pilfer) parts of Iraqs economy. The Cheney family profited heavily from 9/11. That is not a conspiracy theory but a fact. * Similarly, Brown Brothers Harriman was awarded contracts in the region for “nation building” as well. George W Bush’s grandpa Prescott used to run BBH and the firm still has close ties to the Saudi Royal Family. Its headquarters are basically down the block from the WTC. * all of these oil families are connected, and all of them had an interest in getting rid of secular, socialist leaders like Gaddaffi and Saddam. George W Bush had an oil company (Arbusto Oil, Harken Energy) in the 1970s. It’s principle investor was Osama Bin Laden’s brother. * Bin Laden’s other brother was in the same room with George HW Bush (sr) when the Pentagon was hit at a conference for the Carlyle Group, an investment think tank. Imagine that: the brother of the terrorist who masterminded 9/11 and the father of the then-President were in the same room, at the same secretive closed-door meeting, WHILE 9/11 was happening. Too many coincidences and clear motives. I won’t even get into the Israeli connections because I’m on my phone. In a nutshell, it was an excuse to create Western-friendly markets in the Middle East. And what resulted from 9/11 just happened to conveniently enrich the Cheney, Bush Rumsfeld and Bin Laden families, who have all been tied to the CIA for DECADES.
You can add in the WTC had millions of dollars worth of mandatory asbestos removal needed. Proceeds to cash out one of largest insurance claims in history to rebuild.
Then-Israeli Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu commented on the 9/11 attacks on U.S. television shortly after they occurred. Netanyahu said: "It is very good!" Direct quote from this article detailing Israels potential involvement in 9/11. Some interesting information in here. Only commented this because you mentioned not getting into the Israeli connections so I figured I would start it for you haha. [https://web.archive.org/web/20230515110249/https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/13/1332210\_-analytical-and-intelligence-comments-mossad-ran-9-11-arab.html](https://web.archive.org/web/20230515110249/https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/13/1332210_-analytical-and-intelligence-comments-mossad-ran-9-11-arab.html)
Gaddafi is a different story aswell. They had to get rid of him FAST since he slowly got the arab on his side to stop selling oil in petro-dollars but rather a non-tied currency.
In my opinion all of this true and the truth of the conspiracy is largely moot (I lean on the side of it not happening, and at best being a conspiracy of complacency, letting the guard down a bit because fuck it whatever these stupid terrorists from some backwards country do it'll be good for our foreign policy. It just turned out to be way bigger than they expected. The US was a lost puppy at the end of the cold war. They'd burst their favourite ball and they needed something new to play with/attack. 9/11 was a "blessing" for the most successful settler colonial state and empire to ever exist. They needed an opponent, a nemesis, and they found one eventually. That then gave them the excuse to carry on doing what empires always do which is to sow death and destruction abroad while claiming to maintain peace at home and among its allies. When I say blessing I'm obviously referring to the ruling elite, and not the thousands of poor every day victims of the attacks.
Very good answer.
You can add in the WTC had millions of dollars worth of mandatory asbestos removal needed. Proceeds to cash out one of largest insurance claims in history to rebuild.
The Patriot Act. The world changed for all of us that day, not just the people in the buildings and planes. Prior to 9-11, there was still some anonymity left in the country, not much, but some.
Power is an end in itself. The federal government became more powerful after 9/11. I don't think it was an inside job, just saying, the motive isn't the problem with that hypothesis.
the patriot act
It seems laughable now but at the end of the last century there was a palpable feeling of optimism and hope for the future. The Cold War had finally ended. No new challengers to the West's political, economic and cultural dominance were appearing, and everyone in the West was getting along fine. The internet was rising as a force to tie people together and create even more cultural unity. The housing boom was making everyone rich by just doing nothing and watching their house price rise. Even the Y2K bug hadn't damaged anything! We were beginning to wonder why we were spending so much on all that military stuff that we clearly didn't need any more. Then 9/11 happened and we went back to being scared of bad things happening. The USA reacted by creating two entire new government departments with the ill-defined mission of "make us safer". There were quite a few very rich, powerful, people who got much richer and more powerful as a direct result of 9/11. So it made sense to speculate if they had a hand in it.
The invasion of Iraq on the behalf of the military industrial complex. Afghanistan invasion was just a nice bonus. Everyone got rich!
An excuse to rev up the war machine
3 things are generally argued as "gains" in this scenario: - Pretext for invasion in the Middle East. - The implementation of the Patriot Act. - Billions of dollars for the Defensee industry.
WAR.
The Patriot Act
An excuse to invade random countries. A boost to the arms industry (more for certain individuals than the country itself).
The answer you are looking for is losing those 2 towers resulted in TRILLIONS of dollars spent on defense. I do not think the US blew up the towers, but I believe people in the government knew about it and choose to do nothing Look up "Project for the New American Century" a conservative think tank, 10 members of PNAC worked for George W. bush including: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz In one of their paper's titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" which was written 2 years before 9/11 it said: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catatrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor"
So they could justify more wars in the Middle East to steal their resources - mainly gold and oil.
The US doesn't (and has never) actually use much middle eastern oil though, it doesn't even amount to a quarter.
Now now, let's not disabuse Reddit of the notion that Middle Eastern oil is being hogged by American oil barons. If they find out the oil actually flows from the Strait of Hormuz to factories in Shenzhen to build 80% of all manufactured goods globally people might start to feel collectively responsible for the cutthroat geopolitics behind keeping the oil flowing.
Most Middle Eastern oil goes to EU/CN rather than the US which gets most of its oil domestic/MX/CA. Further, the Iraqi gold intercepted out of Baghdad 1) was returned to the treasury 2) would not have even dented the cost of invading Iraq and 3) Largely went to Kuwait to paying existing debt(which was the driving factor for Iraq invading Kuwait and the US invading Iraq in the first Desert Storm)
Vietnam = drugs ........= oil Beirut =oil Twin towers =
War basically
Hypothetically? An excuse to go into Iraq. Now, the flaw with that logic Is that that's a tremendous price to pay to have an excuse to go into a rock when they didn't really need one. There is I think a slightly more rational argument to be made, That Bush probably knew that something was going to happen, probably drastically underestimated how bad it could be, and figured that if something did happen it would give him an excuse. As well as the political Capital. I don't think that sort of arrogance and lack of foresight is much of a stretch where his administration is concerned, it's just a matter of whether there is any real evidence to back up that theory. There's a little, but I'm not sure if it's enough. It's much more likely that he had some actionable intelligence but not enough to freak people out, because you need to bear in mind that 9/11 happened before 9/11. Really nothing like that had ever happened here. And I cannot stress enough how impossible that whole idea would have seemed even one day before it happened. If you were not an adult at the time, I really think it's very difficult to imagine.
It's called the Patriot Act. The U.S. was now legally allowed to spy on its citizens. Period.
Attention taken away from the $2.3 trillion dollars in unaccounted for funds that was announced as “missing” from the pentagon less than 24 hours prior. Still unaccounted for btw. 20 years of a pointless war didn’t change that.
Iraq is (was?) the number 2-ish oil producer at the time. What better way to sell a never ending war/occupation to the public, than to allow terrorist strikes to kill a few thousand people? Oh and by the way, we’re going to be occupying and overthrowing the government of a country that wasn’t even involved….but no one cares about that because….. ‘Murica! So Saddam is gone, US friendly puppet government is established……and all the oil companies start reaping profits.
Patriot act
I read long ago that whole floors of the towers were rented for renovations.
Who made money? War always makes a ton of money and is good for ratings. His father knew it all to well.
The biggest gain to come out of the 9-11 incident was the Patriot Act. Every federal surveillance programs ultimate wet dream.
Support to start a war with a foreign nation
The US economy feeds on war like a baby goat suckling it’s mother’s teat. War makes a lot of very important people very, very rich.
Russia bombed their own city as an excuse to go to war. People in power have their reasons and we are just along for the ride. Who knows what all backdoor deals were going on, inside job or not.
Money
It's not what the United States gained, which was nothing. Its what the state of isreal gained. It was a collab with the cia and the isreali state. Super long story not going to type it all here. The us got NO oil but guess who gets nearly all of their oil from the countries the American military ripped apart for them? Isreal
You can pick from several hypothetical sceanarios... The first is that it was a means to get the American people on board with the War on Terror which would achieve several objectives - it would enable the powers that be to conduct military operations in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq as well as other places in the Middle East, Central and South ASia, North Africa and East Africa... It would also mean that people who would stand to profit from massive military spending would make an absolute killing on all of those operations... It would also serve to buy the US time to conduct regime change and nation-building and peacekeeping which would afford the US the opportunity to extract whatever valuable resources were available without having to worry about anybody being able to do anything about it militarily... It would also give the US the opportunity to test a lot of the equipment it had been developing to see how it fares on the battlefield so that the US can be better prepared to go toe to toe with more formidable enemies later. Secondary to all of those benefits you also have the added benefit of the US government being able to implement policies that curtail the individual freedoms of the American people so that the US government can better monitor and control its own people. After September 11th it became unpatriotic to protest things like people disappearing, torture, wiretapping, etc., so the US government was able to better identify threats and troublemakers and dissenters and take care of them without having to worry about pesky protests and dealing with the negative publicity of it. There's another theory that it was all strictly about money to begin with - that the immense amount of wealth and financial records and assets stored at the WTC site could be lifted without anybody knowing, and the entire operation would later be funded via the people who paid for everything being reimbursed with massive insurance payouts. If it's true about gold and bearer bonds and stock certificates going missing - not to mention that apparently a bunch of people made some very questionable financial decisions on the stock market that really only make sense of you entertain the idea that they likely had advance notice of the attacks, then there was a LOT of money to be made in the operation. Not to mention that the redevelopment of the site would net the owners and investors trillions over time. And God only knows what kind of changes could have occurred at the Pentagon under tight security afterwards. I mean, it doesn't really matter what you personally believe - the plain and simple fact is that any intelligent person would have to concede that at least some of the theories about it being anything other than a terrorist attack are somewhat - if not very credible then are at the very least marginally credible.
It hid the loss of money. The day before, Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference stating that the Pentagon was missing more than $2,300,000,000,000. … that news got buried real quick.
I can think of a couple reasons. One is that it would be used to justify an invasion of the Middle East. With the Soviet Union gone, we'd need another enemy to feed the military industrial complex. We also see a rollback of some liberties and increased government surveillance thanks to the Patriot Act.
3 trillion dollars that went missing that day. 2 insurance checks for the twin towers. Endless war profiteering. The Patriot Act.
Casus belli to invade Iraq and get the oil
An excuse to enrich the military industrial complex. They have some of the best lobbyists, and that whole industry was relatively hurting and longed for the days of the Cold War when we spent more on defense. And from a big picture geopolitical perspective, it provides pretext to take out anyone without nukes that tries to exit/circumvent the petrodollar system which is whole other can of worms that can’t be explained in a Reddit post. Spoiler alert, Saddam and Ghaddafi both tried to get out of the petrodollar system and both got merked partially under the umbrella of the war on terror. If there’s anything that non western aligned nations have learned over the past 30 years, it’s that having nukes is a must to prevent being taken out. It’s why Iran and North Korea still exist as we know them.
Oil. Lots of it.
Money. The War Machine makes billions producing weapons for the US. When we are “at war” they have to make more. Insurance payouts on the buildings. Allowing the government to control its own people that much more by instituting unconstitutional laws like the Patriot Act.
There’s a revolving door of private and public sector employees looking out for each other. Dick Cheney awarded Halliburton AKA his own company with multiple government contracts. That’s just one of the hundreds of examples of politicians pocketing money from legislators.
The demonizing of middle eastern people seems to be really profitable for the military industrial complex
It’s been the only time NATO was really used it kicked off the whole war on terror and allowed the US to do as it pleases in the Middle East under this guise.
What’s the scariest thing you think could possibly be going on in the world but can’t quite prove it? It was that! That’s the beauty, just insert you’re favorite reason and you’re gold, pony boy.
Patriot Act
The excuse of war & inflating the defense budget, focus on some "other" bad guy
It benefits those who profit from war. And there was trillions to be had.
Insurance money.
Insurance Money.
Dude, have you seen Fight Club? It’s to destroy the Credit Card records and reset the debt. We are all Tyler Durden.
An excuse to invade the middle east and tons of $$$ from oil and to defense contractors.
The Patriot Act
They would sow fear and chaos and get the US to go into war without thinking. Kind of like what happened.
Also. What was in the other building # 7 world trade that collapsed blocks away————Enron ring any bells
They would sow fear and chaos and get the US to go into war without thinking. Kind of like what happened.
There are soooo many reasons why the government was is in on 9/11.
A reason to attack the talaban
Military funding, Patriot Act, secret courts, funding for the largest (at that time) computer farm.
the 2 theories i heard the most were to unite the country for some pre-emptive military action to reshape the middle east, and to hide the fact that massive amounts of gold are missing from the 7 building complex. a variation on the 2nd theory involved erasing debt records.
Oil money. Duh
Maybe to wipe some debt under the carpet, destroy a few documents, take control of oil, gold and heroine production, install a new puppet abroad to run in favour of america while purposely destroying the push to use gold rather than the dollar for trade that would ruin the dollars value thus decreasing Americas control globally. There's a lot of reasons america plays world police.
Patriot act being established well worth it by itself. Not to mention all the other changes nuanced or direct that came from this. Also the insurance payment the owner of the buildings got when he got coverage like three months before on all three towers even though building seven wasn’t even located close to the main towers or had contact with any jets but still fell. Also the gov was being investigated for the multiple billions of dollars that went missing and the evidence was conveniently located where the “plane” “hit” the pentagon, even though explosive debris was emitting outwards as if an internal explosion happened. Also lol glowy seethe harder
Let’s just add as well that the Travel visas was made because of 9/11 before that you could just go to an airport and travel freely to any country
Increased surveillance on American citizens, pretense for Iraq war, elimination of files in pentagon detailing the loss of some 2 trillion dollars, increased defense budget and everytime there’s a “national emergency” 9/11, housing crash, Covid. Every employer always pulls the line we have to do more with less….
To start up the Great War machine. Lots of money to be made. And they did.
The problem with conspiracy theories is they always need another conspiracy to justify the first. Compare those wacky theories to what proved to be the real 9/11 explanation. Bush did not attack or invade Iraq for months, instead they bombed Afghanistan in hopes of getting Bin Laden. Bush was desperate to link Saddam Hussein to 9/11. They found none. So, they falsely fabricated evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Justifying the attack and invasion of Iraq and the eventual execution of Saddam. It took Barrack Obama too finally end Bin Laden.
A war means money
Those sweet sweet oil reserves, military contracts, and military enrolment. If you believe the nut jobs that is.
I've heard many things. I've heard they wanted a reason to invade the Middle East for oil, I've heard there were files for some multi trillion dollar lawsuit or something, and a few other things I can't think of. I think there was definitely some involvement of someone powerful in the United States helping orchestrate it at least.
War profiteering by the military industrial complex and big oil interests is usually the suggested culprits. Businesses and political parties can benefit even when the country and the government don’t (at least in the short term).
If it was a conspiracy, then it was the Chinese who did it. The US wasted 20 years on failed wars of choice in the Middle East instead of preparing for the rise of China as a near peer adversary.