Why were so many people believers in the conspiracy that 9/11 was an inside job

https://lemmy.world/post/11913342

Why were so many people believers in the conspiracy that 9/11 was an inside job - Lemmy.World

When Al-Qaeda themselves claimed responsibility, even with overwhelming evidence aside? Why were so many people still reluctant, I was researching about this stuff and was shocked to see people who I respect a lot believe in this

I didn’t actually believe this, but it was fun to entertain the idea.

Here’s why. At the time, there were a bunch of very odd coincidences. I’ll do my best to remember the best of them.

  • The CIA/NSA (one of the “secret” agencies) put out a budget report showing a large amount of money that was not trackable, in the billions.
  • Coincidentally, the section of the pentagon hit by the “plane” was reportedly where financial records were stored.
  • By “plane”, I mean object. If you watch the 1 video that got out (all other videos were confiscated) from the nearby gas station, the thing that hits the pentagon does not look like a plane but instead a missile.

Next!

  • reportedly, the owner of the twin towers took out a massive insurance policy against the buildings the day or week before 9/11 (I forget exact timing)
  • also, the building was covered in asbestos, the cost to remove was in the billions, and the cost to keep the building occupied always also increasing

Next!

  • building 7 (I think that’s the right one) collapsed under what appeared to be demolishing conditions
  • building 7 was never hit by a plane or anything else, it just dropped like it was purposefully demolished

Edit: forgot one!

  • the towers were obviously hit by planes, we have plenty of video evidence of this. The controversy is around how the towers actually fell. This is where the “jet fuel can’t melt steal beams” meme comes from.

There are more, but it’s been 20 years and my memory is hazy.

Overall, there were some oddities around the whole event that, when allowing yourself to think completely outside of reality, make sense as to why it was an inside job.

Finally, personally I believe the Saudis did it in cooperation with Bin Laden and their goal was to bankrupt America. They did a pretty good job, from their perspective.

A building fire started by jet fuel absolutely can melt steel beams, and the collapse of building 7 occurred exactly as you would expect from a building fire, which happened because the fire in the other buildings was blown across by the wind and explosions. None of the building collapse videos look like a demolition.

If the government wanted to execute an attack on Americans, why not just fund the terrorists and ignore warnings? Let the jihadists crash planes into buuldings. Setting hidden, controlled demolition charges and trying to make it look like a collapse is harder than finding some terrorists willing to die for their cause and teaching them to fly.

It is conceivable to me that members of the intelligence community, the military-industrial complex, and/or the government ignored warnings and allowed the attacks to happen for their own benefit. I would prefer to think it wasn’t true, but I must concede that it would explain many inconsistencies.

It is theoretically possible, but implausible to me, that those same people would coordinate the attacks and support the terrorists to ensure that the attacks would happen as a false flag operation. This is an extraordinary claim with almost no evidence.

It is not in any way possible that the government demolished any of the buildings attacked on purpose and then covered up all evidence of the demolition. There would need to be too many people involved, too many videos altered or destroyed, and too much evidence planted after the fact. It is demonstrably false.

As I said with the very first statement, I don’t believe any of this.

why not just fund the terrorists and ignore warnings?

This is exactly what many tinfoil hatters thought and probably still think.

I mean… In a way they were financed and armed by the US, just not recently…

and the collapse of building 7 occurred exactly as you would expect from a building fire

It wasnt the first skyscraper fire, but it was the first and still only skyscraper to collapse from a fire. So no i wouldnt say its expected at all.

FAQs - NIST WTC 7 Investigation

September 19, 2011 (updated 11/20/19) | Updated: September 10, 2021*

NIST

Even if you ask them

"The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present."

There’s a first for everything. And after reading the report, it’s easy to come to the conclusion that a building under those conditions would be expected to fail.
like a first for govenment coverup of a building demolition disguised as a terror attack?
Could have been, but it wasn’t. It’s utterly absurd to think it was logistically possible to do so without anyone seeing or leaking anything. That plot wouldn’t make it out of 9th grade creative writing class.