9/11 conspiracy theory reddit

I don't believe we were told the truth about 9/11 and it has nothing to do with the plethora of bullcrap theories about melting towers or whatever.
The one thing that sticks out to me more than anything off the top of my head - General Mahmoud Ahmed of the Pakistani ISI.
The ISI are the Pakistani equivalent of our CIA. About a year or so before the attacks on 9/11 I believe General Mahmoud had arranged that 100,000 dollars be transferred into the hands of the lead hijacker, Mohamed Atta. On the morning of 9/11, Mahmoud was having breakfast with Porter Goss, then one of the higher members of the House Intelligence Committee. Now in terms of intelligence, the House Intelligence Committee will know everything - even more than the President. If aliens landed, they know about it. At this time, despite the common argument that we receive a lot of signal noise that could have had this information buried, we were receiving a mountain of indications that an attack against the United States by Al-Qaeda was coming, from a multitude of sources. But, benefit of the doubt... maybe they missed it. In either case, Porter Goss was sitting next to and having a conversation with one of the architects for 9/11 on the morning of the attacks. The commission knew about this transaction and when it was brought up during their hearings they basically said it didn't matter, it wasn't important. Someone within the US government and or intelligence apparatus thought it was important enough to pressure the Pakistani's to push Mahmoud out of his position as head of the ISI as punishment though and he vanished into obscurity becoming an Islamic cleric.
Then there is PNAC (The Project for a New American Century). PNAC was a think tank chaired by prominent Neo-Conservatives like Bill Kristol, with endorsements from members of the Bush administration. PNAC published a paper one year before 9/11 on September 2000 called "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century" (You can find a PDF if you google it). In short - this report was a warning that unless the United States could increase funding for the military, it would find itself falling behind global competitors like Russia, and that unless there were some "catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbour" (their exact wording, Pg.51 I believe, been a while since I looked at it), US citizens would be unwilling to support such increases to the defense budget.
George F Kennan - prominent US diplomat and father of containment theory said in the 1980's:
“Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military-industrial establishment would have to go on, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy.”
Noam Chomsky (opinions aside) said that our military is misunderstood. That there is the surface level perception of how military industry operates, but that it is far more danging and far more impressive in it's scope regarding how our economy relies on the military industry. In essence, procurement establishes a roadmap for our high tech economy 10, 20, 30 years in advance. We "find ourselves" in a conflict and our government puts out a request for a new laser guided bomb. several companies compete to design this new bomb with a set number requirements. In order to achieve this goal these companies must develop and produce new technologies that didn't exist before. A winning company is selected, the bomb is procured and the surface level of this transaction is apparent. We buy the bombs, they are manufactured and these companies make huge profits and states maintain jobs manufacturing these weapons... but the underlying, larger picture goes unnoticed. These technologies that were developed are adopted by corporations like Microsoft, Apple, GE etc. They are used to produce a new generation of consumer products with thousands of new jobs being produced in the commercial sector*. For every procurement order, there is an iceberg of macroeconomics taking place below the surface.
Here is what I believe. The Soviet Union collapsed just 10 years before this report was written. America needed an enemy to justify an increase in military spending not just for the relatively low contribution to the GDP that direct arms sales and weapons manufacture provides, but for the underlying spine of economic development that procurement provides and without a large threat like the Soviet Union, like the report said - we would never accept an increase in military spending. Not without something to truly terrify us into complying. Not without our own Pearl Harbor event. And we got one. A big, dramatic, spectacular event that the entire world was watching in gross detail. And that administration absolutely launched at that crises with gusto. They say never let a good crises go to waste, but this was different - I believe this was a manufactured crises. They established a new, amorphous enemy that could provide everything they needed for over 20 years. Young people born and raised inside the war on terror won't have a basis with which to judge the before and after... but the world just after 9/11 was freaking bonkers. It wasn't just that the public was spontaneously engaging in unfounded, irrational paranoia and fear... it was that that administration and the main stream news media (almost unanimously) were in lockstep, stoking this fear and paranoia. Not an ounce of reason or self reflection or consideration was encouraged, explored or event entertained. The very worst timeline. Everything we could do wrong, we did. Everything thought, every policy, every action was as bad as it possibly could be. Then you wrap your tin foil hat on extra tight and you read things like "Operation Copper Green" where Rumsfeld himself endorsed and encouraged what happened in places like Abu Ghraib - and on the surface you might think this was a terrible mistake (funny how many mistakes we made and nobody got fired or rebuked) but I consider it an attempt to kick the hornets nest. To stoke fear and hatred among the populations in this occupied territories. Everything we did seemed designed to make things worse. De-Baathification, policies which encouraged sectarianism, torture, assassination, surveillance. All of it was a complete and total nightmare. Robin Cook of the British Labour party at the time said that Al-Qaeda didn't exist before Iraq - at least no where near the scale we were lead to believe at the time, a multi-national, secretive network of elite SPECTRE like agents that had infiltrated across the western world... but after our occupation, after all of our "mistakes" suddenly Al-Qaeda and organizations like it found themselves with a ground swell of recruits all hoping to fight against the great satan.
After the Soviet Union fell, Al-Qaeda erupts onto the scene. 5 or so years later Bush brazenly tells the world Al-Qaeda doesn't matter anymore. Then ISIS emerges from a situation we created (and knew would happen when we left Iraq in the manner we did). Now that ISIS has been defeated and now that we have left Afghanistan and as the war on terror slowly broils across many different nations in that part of the world - we find ourselves readjusting yet again. Gearing ourselves up for an opponent that can truly replace the Soviet Union, and not just act as a mere stand in.
It goes without saying that there is already a track record clearly indicated with things like 'Operation Northwoods'. This was a plan signed off on by the joint chiefs, only getting the kibosh at the presidential level.

84


Reply
Share