6 ms·

It's weird, all my coming of age I believed that 9/11 had something fishy going for it. I fell for the popularized conspiracy theories. There were videos propag

It's weird, all my coming of age I believed that 9/11 had something fishy going for it. I fell for the popularized conspiracy theories. There were videos propagated through Google Videos. I don't hold them much anymore. Still to this day, I'm extremely skeptical of some of the official stories. I don't get the point of classified documents in this case. And there are still many open questions like e.g. why WTC 5 collapsed without an airplane impact. Dunno, I guess eventually with more years passing we'll start to learn more diverging stories and potentially the truth?

dilyevsky 5y ago
Wtc 5 didnt collapse it was demolished. Wtc 7 did. Which do you think is worse getting hit by an airplane or getting hit by another massive building as it collapses?
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Wtc 5 didnt collapse it was demolished. It experienced fire and partial collapse due to being hit with part of the fuselage of UA 175 and other debris from the North Tower. (“Without an airplane impact” is, of course, a false description.)
- mistermann 5y ago
  Was the collapse of WTC 7 due to getting hit by another building?
  - dilyevsky 5y ago
    It was hit by north tower collapse then fire raged on for many hours as sprinkler system had failed etc. I think structurally it still shouldn’t have collapsed but it doesn’t require a grand conspiracy to explain the failure here.
    - mistermann 5y ago
      It may if you want your explanation to be correct though. And technically, a grand conspiracy is subjective, and a bit of a false dichotomy. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence The complexity of the problem is such that it is extremely difficult to not make a cognitive error during contemplation, even leaving aside the famous unreliability of the multiple systems this cognition sits on top of. Think of how hard it can sometimes be to debug a system for which you have the literal source code for, which sits on a highly trustworthy base. Now consider reality, for which you have no source code, but you do know (at least during certain mental states, but not necessarily all) that it is chock full of bugs, indeterminate behaviors, etc.
      - dilyevsky 5y ago
        A lot of $10 words to say “I don’t know anything so i choose to believe lizard people did it”
        mistermann 5y ago
        Here you are not distinguishing between your perception of (or, rhetorical misinterpretation of) the ideas within my words, and the actual ideas themselves (as you also do with the events of that day). I wonder which one it is (maybe a little of both?).
    - danielschonfeld 5y ago
      Except that two people who were in that building, both claim a stairwell exploded under their feet before the towers came down. Not that the towers coming down should have anything to do with an explosion inside WTC7 but regardless, something exploded inside corroborated by the only two people who got out of that building. So something something grand conspiracy... Also symmetric free falling, from a fire? Has fire become opinionated and decided to consume a steel scraper equally at all floors on all sides of a building all at once?
      - 5y ago
  - Supermancho 5y ago
    Although the big media outlets of the time (CBS, NBC, etc) have "lost" their footage, I specifically remember a reporter asking a question of a NYC Fire Chief (some borough), after the second aircraft hit. Reporter: "what about the new that there will be a controlled demolition of WTC 7 because of fear of collapse?" Fire Chief: "What? What are you talking about?" Reporter: "There's a rumor that building 7 needs to be brought down due to damage..." Fire Chief: "Listen miss, I don't know what you've heard, but there is no damage to building 7 and there's no reason to bring it down. If you suggest such a thing to someone else, I'll have you arrested for inciting a panic. We have a high amount of coordination and there is limited information available to the public." There was more to it, but that was memorable because, as a kid, I realized something. In a real disaster situation, people would be getting conflicting information. During 9/11, it was a real disaster. Nobody seemed to know wtf was really going on or going to happen and the reporters were, notably, just in the way of the real work. Later, when building 7 fell, I thought...well...that's quite a coincidence. I don't feel it was a coincidence anymore.
    - jcranmer 5y ago
      One of my vivid memories of 9/11 is my sister's panic over the car bomb at the National Mall. We had some visitors staying with us that week, and 9/11 was the day they were going to go down to see the National Mall (needless to say, that was aborted). Yet, in trying to find more information about it, I have found absolutely no mention about such a car bomb. It's not on any "false rumors that got started during the day" lists; it's not picked up even by the most insane of conspiracy theorists as suppressed information. I'm actually kind of curious where the idea got into my sister's head--the closest I can figure is that the original attack on the Pentagon was reported as a blast in an unknown area to the southwest of the caller, and the National Mall was suggested as a possible site by the reporter. This goes to show two things. One, it's very easy to specifically remember facts (including reporting of facts) that never actually happened. Two, in a day of hectic reporting, it's very easy for wrong information to spread very quickly. FWIW, you can find archives of television news coverage of 9/11 here: https://archive.org/details/911/day/20010911 https://archive.org/details/911/day/20010911.
      - 5y ago
vlovich123 5y ago
Wikipedia says: > section of the fuselage from United Airlines Flight 175 landed on the roof The only fishiness radar I have is around the subsequent power grab and civil liberties rollback by the espionage organizations within the USA. Certainly I wouldn’t have given more power to the organizations that so clearly failed, let alone who have had a track record in directly creating enemies for the USA.
- azinman2 5y ago
  Taking advantage of a situation doesn’t mean you caused it. This is correlation != causation situation. Anti-vaxxers didn’t cause covid but the captured the moment to exploit it.
  - saiya-jin 5y ago
    Its worse than that - at very best they failed in their primary role of defending the nation, at worst knowingly let it fly and then got surprised how bad it ended up (or not, who actually knows keeps silent). No matter what is the reality, one thing is for sure - you should never, ever trust in any meaningful way a single word from anybody from those agencies. Whether they are incompetent beyond belief or just good liers is not so important.
  - vlovich123 5y ago
    I didn’t mean to imply that at all but I could see how what I wrote could be interpreted that way. Just that, as an non-American teenager, I was surprised how that happened and how the left capitulated to it. To me it seemed obvious that you shouldn’t grant even more authoritarian powers to agencies that have historically had poor oversight and results.
- fredophile 5y ago
  Read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. It basically lays out the idea that there are groups with legislation like this already prepared just waiting for an opportunity to get it pushed through. It's pretty shitty behaviour but doesn't require a conspiracy to explain it.
jopsen 5y ago
Most conspiracy theories become impossible when you consider the number of people that would have to be in on it. Sure, there are bugs in our history books (and lots of propaganda). But if you discard facts reported in the media, then how do you know water is wet? :) On topic: it's hard to know if classification makes sense. But I'll admit I don't really feel competent to have an opinion on the subject.
- slimsag 5y ago
  I wonder what the theoretical limit is for the number of people that can retain a secret actually is, with modern technology and all. e.g. governments definitely keep secrets, so how many people can be in on a given conspiracy-like government secret without major leaks that cannot be squashed through media, suppression, etc.? I feel like precursors to the Manhattan project (since the project itself was clearly widely known) would hold the answer, but wouldn't account for modern technology / communication methods. An interesting / fun thought :)
  - jopsen 5y ago
    > I wonder what the theoretical limit is for the number of people that can retain a secret actually is, with modern technology and all. Yeah, it's an interesting question. How would you model it? What is the probability that an arbitrary person leaks a secret? Also I would assume that the more devious the secret the harder it is to keep.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  I'm not particularly a conspiracy theorist on this topic, but I do feel the need to point out that hundreds of millions, possibly over a billion people engage in a conspiracy worldwide to hide the fact that Santa Claus doesn't exist from children.
betwixthewires 5y ago
WTC 7. I'm not on the conspiracy train either, but when I think about it now, the world was very naive before the modern era of ease of discussion and information sharing. The story "some guys stole some planes" sold fine in 2001, but in my mind something this big requires a lot more moving parts than that. I don't claim to know what those moving parts are, but there's definitely a lot more to the story than what we know. I doubt we will ever learn the full truth of what happened, or anything resembling it. If I were to throw out probable pieces I'd say there had to be some state involvement from at least one state intelligence apparatus and some financing through the traditional, "white market" finance sector, that's about all I'd be willing to bet on.

dilyevsky 5y ago

Wtc 5 didnt collapse it was demolished. Wtc 7 did. Which do you think is worse getting hit by an airplane or getting hit by another massive building as it collapses?

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Wtc 5 didnt collapse it was demolished. It experienced fire and partial collapse due to being hit with part of the fuselage of UA 175 and other debris from the North Tower. (“Without an airplane impact” is, of course, a false description.)
mistermann 5y ago
Was the collapse of WTC 7 due to getting hit by another building?
- dilyevsky 5y ago
  It was hit by north tower collapse then fire raged on for many hours as sprinkler system had failed etc. I think structurally it still shouldn’t have collapsed but it doesn’t require a grand conspiracy to explain the failure here.
  - mistermann 5y ago
    It may if you want your explanation to be correct though. And technically, a grand conspiracy is subjective, and a bit of a false dichotomy. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence The complexity of the problem is such that it is extremely difficult to not make a cognitive error during contemplation, even leaving aside the famous unreliability of the multiple systems this cognition sits on top of. Think of how hard it can sometimes be to debug a system for which you have the literal source code for, which sits on a highly trustworthy base. Now consider reality, for which you have no source code, but you do know (at least during certain mental states, but not necessarily all) that it is chock full of bugs, indeterminate behaviors, etc.
    - dilyevsky 5y ago
      A lot of $10 words to say “I don’t know anything so i choose to believe lizard people did it”
      - mistermann 5y ago
        Here you are not distinguishing between your perception of (or, rhetorical misinterpretation of) the ideas within my words, and the actual ideas themselves (as you also do with the events of that day). I wonder which one it is (maybe a little of both?).
  - danielschonfeld 5y ago
    Except that two people who were in that building, both claim a stairwell exploded under their feet before the towers came down. Not that the towers coming down should have anything to do with an explosion inside WTC7 but regardless, something exploded inside corroborated by the only two people who got out of that building. So something something grand conspiracy... Also symmetric free falling, from a fire? Has fire become opinionated and decided to consume a steel scraper equally at all floors on all sides of a building all at once?
    - 5y ago
- Supermancho 5y ago
  Although the big media outlets of the time (CBS, NBC, etc) have "lost" their footage, I specifically remember a reporter asking a question of a NYC Fire Chief (some borough), after the second aircraft hit. Reporter: "what about the new that there will be a controlled demolition of WTC 7 because of fear of collapse?" Fire Chief: "What? What are you talking about?" Reporter: "There's a rumor that building 7 needs to be brought down due to damage..." Fire Chief: "Listen miss, I don't know what you've heard, but there is no damage to building 7 and there's no reason to bring it down. If you suggest such a thing to someone else, I'll have you arrested for inciting a panic. We have a high amount of coordination and there is limited information available to the public." There was more to it, but that was memorable because, as a kid, I realized something. In a real disaster situation, people would be getting conflicting information. During 9/11, it was a real disaster. Nobody seemed to know wtf was really going on or going to happen and the reporters were, notably, just in the way of the real work. Later, when building 7 fell, I thought...well...that's quite a coincidence. I don't feel it was a coincidence anymore.
  - jcranmer 5y ago
    One of my vivid memories of 9/11 is my sister's panic over the car bomb at the National Mall. We had some visitors staying with us that week, and 9/11 was the day they were going to go down to see the National Mall (needless to say, that was aborted). Yet, in trying to find more information about it, I have found absolutely no mention about such a car bomb. It's not on any "false rumors that got started during the day" lists; it's not picked up even by the most insane of conspiracy theorists as suppressed information. I'm actually kind of curious where the idea got into my sister's head--the closest I can figure is that the original attack on the Pentagon was reported as a blast in an unknown area to the southwest of the caller, and the National Mall was suggested as a possible site by the reporter. This goes to show two things. One, it's very easy to specifically remember facts (including reporting of facts) that never actually happened. Two, in a day of hectic reporting, it's very easy for wrong information to spread very quickly. FWIW, you can find archives of television news coverage of 9/11 here: https://archive.org/details/911/day/20010911 https://archive.org/details/911/day/20010911.
    - 5y ago

vlovich123 5y ago

Wikipedia says: > section of the fuselage from United Airlines Flight 175 landed on the roof The only fishiness radar I have is around the subsequent power grab and civil liberties rollback by the espionage organizations within the USA. Certainly I wouldn’t have given more power to the organizations that so clearly failed, let alone who have had a track record in directly creating enemies for the USA.

azinman2 5y ago
Taking advantage of a situation doesn’t mean you caused it. This is correlation != causation situation. Anti-vaxxers didn’t cause covid but the captured the moment to exploit it.
- saiya-jin 5y ago
  Its worse than that - at very best they failed in their primary role of defending the nation, at worst knowingly let it fly and then got surprised how bad it ended up (or not, who actually knows keeps silent). No matter what is the reality, one thing is for sure - you should never, ever trust in any meaningful way a single word from anybody from those agencies. Whether they are incompetent beyond belief or just good liers is not so important.
- vlovich123 5y ago
  I didn’t mean to imply that at all but I could see how what I wrote could be interpreted that way. Just that, as an non-American teenager, I was surprised how that happened and how the left capitulated to it. To me it seemed obvious that you shouldn’t grant even more authoritarian powers to agencies that have historically had poor oversight and results.
fredophile 5y ago
Read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. It basically lays out the idea that there are groups with legislation like this already prepared just waiting for an opportunity to get it pushed through. It's pretty shitty behaviour but doesn't require a conspiracy to explain it.

jopsen 5y ago

Most conspiracy theories become impossible when you consider the number of people that would have to be in on it. Sure, there are bugs in our history books (and lots of propaganda). But if you discard facts reported in the media, then how do you know water is wet? :) On topic: it's hard to know if classification makes sense. But I'll admit I don't really feel competent to have an opinion on the subject.

slimsag 5y ago
I wonder what the theoretical limit is for the number of people that can retain a secret actually is, with modern technology and all. e.g. governments definitely keep secrets, so how many people can be in on a given conspiracy-like government secret without major leaks that cannot be squashed through media, suppression, etc.? I feel like precursors to the Manhattan project (since the project itself was clearly widely known) would hold the answer, but wouldn't account for modern technology / communication methods. An interesting / fun thought :)
- jopsen 5y ago
  > I wonder what the theoretical limit is for the number of people that can retain a secret actually is, with modern technology and all. Yeah, it's an interesting question. How would you model it? What is the probability that an arbitrary person leaks a secret? Also I would assume that the more devious the secret the harder it is to keep.
betwixthewires 5y ago
I'm not particularly a conspiracy theorist on this topic, but I do feel the need to point out that hundreds of millions, possibly over a billion people engage in a conspiracy worldwide to hide the fact that Santa Claus doesn't exist from children.

betwixthewires 5y ago

WTC 7. I'm not on the conspiracy train either, but when I think about it now, the world was very naive before the modern era of ease of discussion and information sharing. The story "some guys stole some planes" sold fine in 2001, but in my mind something this big requires a lot more moving parts than that. I don't claim to know what those moving parts are, but there's definitely a lot more to the story than what we know. I doubt we will ever learn the full truth of what happened, or anything resembling it. If I were to throw out probable pieces I'd say there had to be some state involvement from at least one state intelligence apparatus and some financing through the traditional, "white market" finance sector, that's about all I'd be willing to bet on.