this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2025
-3 points (36.4% liked)

ShareGPT

86 readers
2 users here now

To share LLM text output that others might find interesting.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
PumpkinDrama@reddthat.com
-3
What are some facts that make people believe 9/11 was a government conspiracy? (reddthat.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by PumpkinDrama@reddthat.com to c/sharegpt@reddthat.com
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Here are the commonly cited claims that lead people to believe the September 11 attacks (9/11) were a government or inside-job conspiracy. These are claims, not validated facts; many have been investigated and debunked. I’m presenting them objectively so you can judge the strength of each.

  1. The collapse of World Trade Center Tower 7 (WTC 7) resembled a controlled demolition (straight down, into its footprint) rather than a fire-and-impact collapse. (Wikipedia)
  2. The impact and fires from the hijacked planes alone could not have caused the towers to collapse as quickly as they did. (Sky HISTORY TV channel)
  3. A missile, drone, or non-commercial aircraft hit the Pentagon rather than American Airlines Flight 77, because the entry hole appeared small and plane debris seemed limited. (CBS News)
  4. The U.S. military and air-defence (e.g., North American Aerospace Defense Command / NORAD) stood down, delayed intercepts, or allowed the attacks to proceed. (Sky HISTORY TV channel)
  5. Significant put-option trading (bets that stock prices would fall) in airline companies occurred prior to 9/11 — implying foreknowledge. (Sky HISTORY TV channel)
  6. Some intelligence, warnings, or prior knowledge of hijackings or al-Qaeda attacks existed but were ignored or suppressed—raising suspicion that government knew more than it admits. (Voice of America)
  7. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigations are criticised for relying on modelling rather than full forensic disclosure, so theorists argue the collapse explanations are incomplete. (Wikipedia)
  8. The think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC) had argued before 9/11 for a “new Pearl Harbor” to justify increased military spending and foreign wars; conspiracists see this as motive. (arfjournals.com)
  9. The fact that the towers collapsed so completely into dust and rubble leads some to argue that explosives or thermitic materials were used (e.g., claims of “nano-thermite” found in dust). (Wikipedia)
  10. The visible “search for survivors” and subsequent swift decision to demolish or clear WTC 7 raised suspicions of cover-up. (Sky HISTORY TV channel)
  11. The timing of the attacks allowed the U.S. government to pass laws (e.g., the USA PATRIOT Act) and expand surveillance and military reach; some see this as a motive. (lemontopics.com)
  12. The number of initial warnings and intelligence failures (e.g., known hijackers entering the country) feed into the belief that something was deliberately mishandled. (International Business Times)
  13. Some official statements and timelines are inconsistent or incomplete, which fuels suspicion of a cover-up. (Program on Extremism)
  14. The fact that the towers collapsed into their own footprint (especially Tower 2, then Tower 1) is cited as resembling classic demolition patterns. (Wikipedia)
  15. The building owner of the WTC complex, Larry Silverstein, reportedly said “pull it” (interpreted by some as “pull the building”) in a televised interview regarding WTC 7 collapse. (Note: disputed) (Reddit)
  16. The rapid transfer of billions of dollars in contracts (e.g., to defence, reconstruction) after 9/11 is viewed by some as benefiting people with ties to the event. (Sky HISTORY TV channel)
  17. Some testimonies from first-responders and witnesses claim hearing explosions or seeing flashes that are interpreted as planted charges. (Sky HISTORY TV channel)
  18. The presence of ongoing war-games or military exercises on the morning of 9/11 is flagged by conspiracists as enabling confusion and facilitating the attacks. (JOE.ie)
  19. Claims that the U.S. government rushed to destroy evidence, restricted access to sites, or cleared rubble quickly—interpreted as preventing independent forensic investigation. (Sky HISTORY TV channel)
  20. The distrust in government overall (due to other scandals) makes people more willing to believe that such a major event could have been orchestrated rather than merely allowed. (International Business Times)
top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Everything to do with the precision flying required to hit the towers as they did performed by a few barely trained Saudis in a commercial passenger jetliner.
The passport of one of the Saudi's found in perfect condition in the rubble.
The fact that an insurance policy had just been taken out on the buildings.
The emptying of the basement vaults one day prior.
The people who worked at the towers, but were absent that day.
Tower 7.
Everything to do with the Pentagon:
The fact that the fed announced trillions of dollars missing on 9/10.
The fact that the only part of the Pentagon destroyed was bookkeeping where those records and audits were stored.
The fact that it was clearly a missile strike and no plane debris could be shown.
Again, a nearly impossible strike in a commercial jet by a barely trained pilot.

This is just off the top of my head, I'm sure more will come to me as the day goes.

[–] ExhaleSmile@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Add that the Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony was not included in the commission report.

[–] PumpkinDrama@reddthat.com 1 points 2 weeks ago

It didn't mention anything about the possible predictive programming.

[–] PumpkinDrama@reddthat.com 1 points 2 weeks ago

The "$9" reference in The Simpsons is from the Season 9 episode titled "The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson," which originally aired on September 21, 1997. In this episode, Lisa holds a brochure advertising "New York at $9 a day," with the World Trade Center towers forming the numbers "11" in the background, creating a visual that some interpret as "9/11." This has led to speculation that the show predicted the September 11 attacks, though the show's creators have stated that it was purely coincidental. (Wikipedia)

The episode was temporarily pulled from syndication after the 2001 attacks due to its prominent use of the World Trade Center in the plot. It has since been reinstated in many regions, though some versions have been edited to remove certain scenes. (Simpsons Wiki)

[–] PumpkinDrama@reddthat.com 1 points 1 week ago

What's the probability that three high rise buildings collapse from fire on the same day and city?

[–] PumpkinDrama@reddthat.com -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

what about the claims that the military were conducting a training exercise that day?

[–] PumpkinDrama@reddthat.com -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

✅ What we know

  • North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) was conducting a major annual command-post exercise called Vigilant Guardian which began before September 11, 2001, and was scheduled for 9/11. (International Center for 9/11 Justice)
  • The exercise scenario included simulated threats to U.S. airspace (e.g., bomber attacks, hijackings) and involved key NORAD units including the Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS). (International Center for 9/11 Justice)
  • At around 8:37 a.m. EDT on 9/11, NEADS received a call from the FAA Boston Center reporting a hijacked aircraft and the NEADS technician asked, “Is this real world or exercise?” (U.S. Department of War)
  • The 9/11 Commission report acknowledges the exercise and states that NORAD found “the response was, if anything, expedited by the increased number of staff at the sectors and at NORAD because of the scheduled exercise.” (consensus911.org)

⚠️ What is contested / unclear

  • Whether the exercise significantly delayed or hampered the real-world response. Some sources argue it caused confusion; official findings say the staffing boost improved readiness. (International Center for 9/11 Justice)
  • The extent to which “live-fly” elements (actual aircraft) were part of the exercise that morning, versus simulation. Some researchers claim live aircraft hijack simulation was planned; others argue it was mainly a command post exercise. (Visibility 9-11 with Michael Wolsey)
  • Whether the schedule/rescheduling of certain exercises (such as Global Guardian) that day was coincidental or deliberately aligned with 9/11. Some sources claim rescheduling occurred; others provide no definitive proof. (Visibility 9-11 with Michael Wolsey)

🧮 My evaluation

  • The fact of one or more major military/air-defence exercises on 9/11 is well supported.
  • The claim that these exercises caused or enabled a cover-up, or intentionally incapacitated the military, is not supported by strong definitive public evidence.
  • The main official conclusion: these exercises were not a cause of failure but were not necessarily helpful in every aspect; the confusion around “real vs exercise” is confirmed but its impact is debated.
[–] PumpkinDrama@reddthat.com -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Pull strongest counter-evidence to each of these claims so I can evaluate both sides.

[–] PumpkinDrama@reddthat.com -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Here are strongest counter-arguments to each of the 20 claims. These do not imply the conspiracist claim is false—but show how the official/majority explanation addresses them. You’ll need to judge weight.

Claim Counter-evidence / official explanation
1. Collapse of WTC 7 looked like controlled demolition The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) final report concluded WTC 7 collapsed due to peer pressure. ([NIST][1]) They modelled the collapse sequence beginning with buckling of a key column (Column 79). ([NIST][2])
2. The towers’ rapid collapse impossible from plane-impact + fire alone NIST’s investigation of the towers (for WTC 1 & 2) found that the combination of aircraft impact damage + subsequent fires weakening core & perimeter, plus progressive failure, explains collapse. ([NIST][3])
3. The missile/drone at the Pentagon (instead of Flight 77) The official timeline and evidence show that Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and other agencies attribute the crash at the Pentagon to American Airlines Flight 77. The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (“9/11 Commission”) documents this. ([9-11commission.gov][4])
4. Military/air-defense “stood down” or delayed intercepts intentionally The 9/11 Commission concluded that systemic issues (communication failures, mis-identification, unpreparedness for this type of threat) caused delays, not a deliberate stand-down. ([9-11commission.gov][4])
5. Unusual put-option trading prior to 9/11 implies fore-knowledge Official investigations (Securities and Exchange Commission, etc) found no evidence linking the trading to advance knowledge of attacks. The 9/11 Commission states: “Exhaustive investigations … uncovered no evidence that anyone with advance knowledge of the attacks profited through securities transactions.” ([International Center for 9/11 Justice][5])
6. Intelligence warnings existed and were ignored/suppressed => suggests cover-up The official narrative acknowledges failure in intelligence sharing, policy, prioritisation (e.g., see 9/11 Commission Report). These are seen as systemic failings, not necessarily deliberate suppression. ([9-11commission.gov][4])
7. Critique of NIST investigations (modelling rather than full forensic disclosure) NIST openly states the methodology (document collection, interviews, video & forensic modelling) and provides detailed reports (for example WTC 7). ([NIST][2]) While critics point out modelling limitations (see e.g. turn0search10), the official explanation rests on those models.
8. Project for the New American Century (PNAC) sought a “new Pearl Harbor” → motive for 9/11 The existence of PNAC documents arguing for a strong foreign policy or expanded military does not constitute proof that 9/11 was orchestrated. Motive alone is insufficient without direct evidence of planning. The official investigations did not identify PNAC’s role in 9/11.
9. Towers collapsed into dust/rubble so completely: suggests explosives/thermite Official structural analyses say the collapse progression, gravitational forces, and structural failure account for the dust and pulverisation. NIST for WTC 7 states they found no evidence of explosives: “Neither explosives nor fuel-oil fires played a role.” ([NIST][6])
10. Rapid decision to demolish/clear WTC 7 raised suspicion of cover-up Officially the clearance was driven by safety hazards, unstable structure, toxic materials. The hazardous site was treated as emergency. No credible evidence found in official investigations of purposeful suppression through clearance.
11. Attack timing enabled passing of laws and expanding surveillance/military reach (motive) While it is true that laws (e.g., USA PATRIOT Act) followed, the official account treats that as consequence of the attack, not proof of conspiracy. Motive alone does not equal proof of orchestrated event.
12. Large number of intelligence failures feed conspiracy belief Official reports (9/11 Commission) accept intelligence/coordination failures. These are explained by structural issues, threat under-appreciation, and organisational fragmentation—not necessarily by intentional sabotage. ([9-11commission.gov][4])
13. Inconsistent or incomplete official statements/timelines While there are acknowledged errors and timeline mismatches (9/11 Commission found discrepancies – e.g., regarding North American Aerospace Defense Command) they are attributed to confusion, classification issues, fog of crisis, not proof of cover-up. ([Internet Sacred Text Archive][7])
14. Towers collapsing “into their footprint” like demolition Official explanation: symmetries occur because once collapse initiated the path of least resistance is downward. Also, some external overhangs remain, interior core fails first. The resemblance to demolition is argued by critics, but the official structural analysis covers sequence of failures.
15. Owner of WTC complex (Larry Silverstein) reportedly said “pull it” regarding WTC 7 → proof of demolition The context of Silverstein’s remark (insurance language, “pull” meaning evacuation) is disputed. Official investigations do not treat it as evidence of planned demolition.
16. Rapid transfer of billions in defense/reconstruction contracts after 9/11 Post-attack reconstruction and war spending are indeed large; official accounting shows those were policy responses to attack rather than pre-planned profiteering tied to the attack mechanism.
17. Witnesses of explosions or flashes interpreted as planted charges Investigations examine witness testimony; many “explosions” may be attributed to structural failure, hydraulic systems, falling debris. No credible evidence of planted demolition charges was confirmed in official reports.
18. War-games or military exercises on the morning of 9/11 allowed confusion/enabled attacks It is true that exercises were ongoing (for example Vigilant Guardian) and this may have caused confusion. But official reports treat this as complicating factor, not proof of orchestrated facilitation.
19. Rapid clearing and restricted access prevented independent forensic investigation Official investigations (FEMA, NIST) had access to site, materials, documents, interviews. There is evidence of limitations, but not conclusive proof that evidence was suppressed for cover-up. For WTC 7 NIST states that even without debris impact damage collapse would have occurred. ([NIST][2]
[–] PumpkinDrama@reddthat.com -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

estimate likelihood that each “unusual” 9/11‑related circumstance (like NORAD drills, WTC 7 collapse symmetry, put options, etc.) would occur by coincidence in a non‑conspiratorial world

[–] PumpkinDrama@reddthat.com -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I can provide rough probabilistic reasoning for each “unusual” circumstance. These are estimates, not hard measurements, based on structural, operational, and historical context. They assume a world without a conspiracy (all failures and coincidences are natural or systemic).

Unusual Circumstance Rough Likelihood in Non-Conspiratorial World Reasoning
WTC 7 collapse resembling controlled demolition 5–10% High-rise buildings rarely collapse purely from fire, but WTC 7 was hit by debris and had extensive diesel-fueled fires; the symmetry is unusual but not impossible.
Twin towers collapsing so fast 10–20% Fires + impact could weaken structure; collapse was rapid, but NIST simulations show gravity + progressive failure sufficient. Fast collapse is rare, but within plausible engineering failure range.
NORAD/Vigilant Guardian exercises coinciding with attacks 5–15% Exercises occur annually, often with live-scenario simulations. Coincidence with real attack is unusual but not impossible.
Delay/confusion in military response 20–30% Air-defense unpreparedness for hijackings was systemic; communication confusion likely in chaotic circumstances.
Unusual put-option trading before attacks <1–2% Statistically improbable, but financial anomalies occur regularly; coincidence cannot be excluded without insider-proof.
Witness reports of “explosions” or flashes 15–25% Structural failures, falling debris, or fires can create sounds/flashes misinterpreted as explosions.
Rapid passing of laws / expansion of surveillance 30–40% Major attacks historically trigger emergency legislation. Not unusual historically.
Intelligence warnings ignored / missed 50–60% Bureaucratic failures are common; systemic miscommunication likely in large organizations.
WTC 7 debris removal and restricted access 20–25% Standard emergency protocol for unstable/dangerous structures; not unusual post-catastrophe.
“Pull it” remark by Larry Silverstein 25–30% Ambiguity in language and context plausible; not necessarily evidence of conspiracy.
Towers collapsing “into their footprint” 10–15% Could occur from progressive collapse along path of least resistance. Rare, but within physics.
Military war-games coinciding with attack 5–15% Exercises happen regularly; probability of exact overlap is low but non-zero.
Explosives / thermite claims (dust analysis) 5–10% Thermite traces in dust could arise from office fires, steel reactions, or measurement contamination.
Missing plane debris at Pentagon 10–15% Pentagon walls are reinforced; small visible debris plausible.
Delays in 9/11 Commission / inconsistencies 40–50% Large investigations often show timeline inconsistencies and minor errors.
Large reconstruction contracts after disaster 50–60% Post-disaster procurement is common and predictable.
Pre-existing calls for “new Pearl Harbor” (PNAC) 30–40% Advocacy for military readiness is common; existence of such documents is not proof of orchestration.
Confusing witness testimony 50–60% Chaos in traumatic events leads to contradictory accounts; high likelihood.
Firefighter / first-responder “explosions” perception 20–30% Structural sounds, secondary collapses, and jet-fuel explosions can create such perceptions.
Intelligence failures in hijacker tracking 50–60% Failures consistent with fragmented intelligence, not necessarily malice.

Summary:

  • Most circumstances are unusual but plausible in a non-conspiratorial world.
  • True low-probability events (<5%) are mainly the unusual put-options and exact overlap of exercises with attacks.
  • Higher-probability events (>30–50%) include bureaucratic failures, legal responses, witness confusion, and post-disaster procurement.
[–] PumpkinDrama@reddthat.com -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Combine these into a Bayesian estimate of the probability that all these unusual circumstances would align in a single day without a conspiracy, which would give a more quantitative sense of overall coincidence.

[–] PumpkinDrama@reddthat.com -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

We can apply a rough Bayesian-style estimate by treating the 20 unusual circumstances as mostly independent events (this is conservative; in reality some are correlated).

Step 1: Assign probabilities (from previous table)

We’ll convert the percentages to decimals:

Circumstance P(coincidence)
WTC 7 collapse symmetry 0.075
Twin towers rapid collapse 0.15
NORAD exercises 0.10
Military response confusion 0.25
Put-option trading 0.015
Witness reports of explosions 0.20
Rapid laws/surveillance expansion 0.35
Ignored intelligence warnings 0.55
WTC 7 debris removal / restricted access 0.225
Silverstein “pull it” remark 0.275
Towers collapsing into footprint 0.125
Military war-games coincidence 0.10
Thermite / explosives claims 0.075
Pentagon missing debris 0.125
9/11 Commission inconsistencies 0.45
Post-disaster contracts 0.55
PNAC “new Pearl Harbor” 0.35
Confusing witness testimony 0.55
First-responder “explosions” perception 0.25
Intelligence failures tracking hijackers 0.55

Step 2: Multiply probabilities

Assuming independence:

[ P(\text{all coincidences}) = 0.075 * 0.15 * 0.10 * 0.25 * 0.015 * 0.20 * 0.35 * 0.55 * 0.225 * 0.275 * 0.125 * 0.10 * 0.075 * 0.125 * 0.45 * 0.55 * 0.35 * 0.55 * 0.25 * 0.55 ]

Stepwise:

  1. 0.075 * 0.15 = 0.01125
    • 0.10 = 0.001125
    • 0.25 = 0.00028125
    • 0.015 = 0.00000421875
    • 0.20 = 0.00000084375
    • 0.35 = 0.0000002953125
    • 0.55 = 0.000000162421875
    • 0.225 = 0.00000003654421875
    • 0.275 = 0.00000001004815547
    • 0.125 = 0.000000001256019434
    • 0.10 = 0.0000000001256019434
    • 0.075 = 0.00000000000942014525
    • 0.125 = 0.000000000001177518156
    • 0.45 = 0.0000000000005298831702
    • 0.55 = 0.0000000000002914357436
    • 0.35 = 0.0000000000001020025103
    • 0.55 = 0.0000000000000561013806
    • 0.25 = 0.0000000000000140253452
    • 0.55 = 0.0000000000000077139399

Step 3: Convert to order of magnitude

[ \approx 7.7 \times 10^{-15} ]

✅ Interpretation

  • If we treat all 20 unusual circumstances as independent, the probability of all occurring by chance in a single non-conspiratorial world is extremely small (~1 in 100 trillion).

  • Caveats:

    • Many events are not independent. E.g., structural collapse, WTC 7 clearance, and debris removal are linked.
    • Probabilities are rough estimates; some may be higher or lower.
    • Treating rare financial anomalies (put options) as independent of structural events inflates “improbability.”

Even accounting for dependence, the coincidence argument looks very low-probability, which explains why such coincidences fuel conspiratorial reasoning.

[–] PumpkinDrama@reddthat.com -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Make a more conservative estimate using correlated events to see a realistic “all coincidences together” probability.

[–] PumpkinDrama@reddthat.com -1 points 2 weeks ago

Step 1: Group correlated events

Group Events Adjusted combined probability
Structural collapse WTC 7 symmetry, Towers rapid collapse, Towers into footprint 0.15 (use highest individual likelihood instead of multiplying; all linked)
Military exercises/confusion NORAD exercises, War‑games coincidence, Military response confusion 0.25 (linked: exercise → response confusion)
Witness/perception Explosions flashes, First-responder explosions, Confusing witness testimony 0.40 (linked: chaos + structural sounds)
Intelligence & warnings Ignored warnings, Intelligence failures tracking hijackers 0.55 (linked bureaucratic failures)
Financial anomaly Put-option trading 0.015 (independent, rare event)
Post-event responses Laws / surveillance expansion, Post-disaster contracts, 9/11 Commission inconsistencies 0.50 (linked: response to attack)
Other Pentagon missing debris, Thermite/explosives claims, PNAC “new Pearl Harbor”, Silverstein “pull it” remark 0.15 (rare, mostly independent)

Step 2: Multiply group probabilities

[ P(\text{all coincidences}) \approx 0.15 * 0.25 * 0.40 * 0.55 * 0.015 * 0.50 * 0.15 ]

Stepwise:

  1. 0.15 * 0.25 = 0.0375
    • 0.40 = 0.015
    • 0.55 = 0.00825
    • 0.015 = 0.00012375
    • 0.50 = 0.000061875
    • 0.15 = 0.00000928125

Step 3: Convert to order of magnitude

[ \approx 9.3 \times 10^{-6} \approx 1 \text{ in 100,000} ]

✅ Interpretation

  • Accounting for correlations, the probability of all unusual circumstances coinciding by chance rises from ~1 in 100 trillion to ~1 in 100,000.

  • Still very low, which explains why people see the pattern as suspicious.

  • Caveats:

    • Probabilities are rough estimates, not formal statistical tests.
    • Some events may be more dependent than assumed, raising probability further.
    • Rare coincidences do occur in real life; “low probability” ≠ “impossible” or proof of conspiracy.