Here's a study from University of Alaska-Fairbanks on the collapse of WTC building 7. Quote:

"The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse."

WTC 7 is bizarre enough--all that's necessary for me to question the official narrative is the footage of the collapse--but what rarely gets talked about is the attack on the Pentagon, which is much stranger. The Pentagon takes up several acres and is only five stories tall, any terrorist trying to do max damage would crash directly downwards into the building. That's not what happened. The hijacker--who had no experience flying a 757--flew so low to the ground he was clipping streetlights and crashed into the side of the building, directly into the offices where investigations were taking place into the trillions of dollars announced "missing" from the pentagon's budget the day before. Shortly after the accident g-men went to all the gas stations/convenience stores that had cameras pointing toward the crash sight and confiscated the footage. After multiple FOIA requests this is the only footage that's been released. It's hard to say, as the plane is only in view for one frame, but more damning imo is the governments obviously bullshit excuse for not releasing more: it would be too painful for the families of the survivors (??).

This insane aerial maneuver spawned the group Pilots for 9/11 Truth, just as the improbably collapse of WTC 7 spawned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, who sponsored the UAF study linked above. These are people who know a hell of a lot more about these subjects than I do and their expertise has lead them to believe against the ENORMOUS backlash--present also on this site--that comes with questioning the official 9/11 narrative. Check their respective websites for more info on the technical aspects of 9/11 truth. There is much, much more about the official narrative that doesn't make sense, it's a serious rabbit hole.

However, what we as materialists should examine is the historical context: just how outrageous is the claim that 9/11 was a false flag? Nazi Germany staged a false flag to justify their invasion of Poland, just as Imperial Japan did to justify their invasion of Nanjing, just as the United States itself did to justify the invasions of Cuba, Vietnam, and Syria. Given this context, we should take nothing for granted about the most impactful justification for war in US history.

We probably won't know the truth about the attacks for decades, and it's possible we never will. But just like with the JFK assassination, there's too many holes in the official narrative for it to be anything but a coverup. The motivation for this coverup has been discussed at length by other posters in this thread: war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Brace Belden has entered the chat.

Personally I think...

• It's most likely that it was a mixture of incompetence and complacency on the Bush admin's part. It was absolutely done with more Saudi involvement that just 'black sheep' Osama Bin Laden though.

• It's definitely plausible that a small number of people associated with the US (intelligence personnel with ties to the oil & war economy or vice versa) had a hand in it or created the conditions for a possible such attack. This become less likely the more people you assume we're involved though.

• It's not out of the realm of possibility that people within the military industrial complex and Bush admin allowed something to happen and possibly got more than they bargained for.

• It seems extremely likely Flight 93 was shot down in the confusion or deliberately to prevent another strike and they covered it up to avoid the fallout and preserve the strength of the victim narrative going forward.

• I'm absolutely positive that the Anthrax attacks there after were a US intelligence operation (or executed on their behalf) to pass the Patriot Act and set the current sinister security agenda.