Can we dial this back a little, because I respect the posting I’ve seen from you over the years and internet debating stresses me out. I think I may have used a couple loaded phrases to poke a little, and I would like to clarify where I have contributed to a misunderstanding.

I appreciated the first part of your response where you linked to information about the things that were found at crash sites. I found this as cogent reasoning and respectful practice, as I am not swayed by the passports, not to mention jet fuel etc.

I shouldn’t have said “dismiss everything” and I should have made clear that I took umbrage with what I interpreted as equivocation between legitimate paths of inquiry and irresponsible and wild conspiratorial speculation (UFO shit, as I put it). To me, you were saying all 9/11 questioning contra the official narrative is conspiracy theory. This irked me ngl.

When I said dismiss everythin in the fillowing response, I was alluding to you presenting a cohesive narrative with facts which didn’t really address some if the points my first response, in particular the point about insider trading. None of the facts I pointed out and none of the facts you pointed out are immiscible, and could be explained away under the paradigm of “the official narrative”. Like who knows what networks could’ve tipped off investors. I can accept that.

But I thank you for pointing out long standing relationships between Saudi’s and the Bush family, both in official state operations and myriad business ventures. Poppy and a select group of his closest pals in US intelligence and otherwise were absolutely instrumental and intimately involved in modernizing Saudi intelligence, and he was personally involved in seeing Saudi funds reintegrated into US investments. All of the networks that surround these people and their activities are characterized by subterfuge, lies, in dealing, fucking holes in the ground for energy, fraudulent investment schemes, and pursuing war for profit. Even if all evidence pointed to the straight forward narrative, one should be chilled with how much these folks directly benefitted from the expansion of the military budget and intensification of secrecy and surveillance at scale in the aftermath. We saw a 2 trillion dollar transfer of public wealth to the defense industry in as many decades, to give a sense of the incentive structure their cohort had to pursue such an open ended war in such a geopolitically important region. This does not include the private wealth pursued by like, every single general and JCoS asshole after their “service” to use soviet maps to strip mine the regions that had decimated and conquered for empire.

We could go on trading details toward this or that end, but to me the previous paragraph is sorta my reasoning as to why the official narrative should be critically evaluated, and where it is weak or points to troubling and unanswered lines of inquiry, well all the more reason to press. It is strange that these calculating and conspiring fucks were able to use their networks and conspiring to personally enrich themselves and pals over decades in adjacent and directly related industries, but this 2 trillion dollar gift from god required none of that. Maybe I am naive or somehow uncritical for this still being unsettling to me, and enough for me to keep an open mind to counter narratives.

It is pretty uncontroversial to say that people in a position to take advantage of this event for personal, political, and imperial aims did so the umpth degree. I think where we might disagree is whether it is necessary to pursue the question of “were these actors, who may have been in a position to tip the scales in favor of this event, act to or fail to act so as to contribute to this eventuality” as a legitimate line of inquiry, or if the facts as presented obviate the need to do so.

You’re cool and funny and I respect your posting. I don’t post much, and I lack the wherewithal to engage most the time. I hope this made any sense and that my good faith and lack of malice come through in the tone of this message.

*edited for clarity (i hope)

Word. That’s fair. I was just put off by what I interpreted as an unfair equivocation between attempting to apply material analysis to major historical events and undisciplined conspiratorial waxing. Having spent ungodly hours attempting to form a cohesive thought on the matter, even the most conservative interpretation of evidence leaves me with nothing like the confidence on display in advocating on behalf of “the official narrative”. “I think it’s bullshit but there is merit in pursuing questions with a critical disposition” seems way more honest and comradely a response than “even if there is a ton of contravening evidence problemetizing the official narrative, it is all bullshit and I am correct”. So thank you for your generosity.