65
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2024
65 points (76.9% liked)
Ask Lemmy
27036 readers
767 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
No, this was just your social circle. I know literally zero people who ever bought into any of that crap
Seriously, it was pretty fringe to be openly truther back then.
It wasn't till Obama that we started getting all these batshit insane morons on parade.
Birtherism really pushed it, but basically losing 2008 made the right desperate, they were willing to recruit from anybody, anywhere, right when social media started its upswing.
I think we can say most of our modern conspiracitardacy was fairly quiet till the social media wave.
That is not what I recall. What I do recall was both republicans and democrats having serious concerns that the government knew something we didn't and that we were attacking a country for the president's personal vendetta. This is based on my personal interactions with friends, family, and coworkers, as well as national and local news and newspapers. Granted, I'm from central NJ so perhaps we on higher alert and more "purple" than the rest of the country.
Was it birtherism or just Sarah Palin?
I fully agree that social media has made things worse in this, and almost every, regard. Though, I'm trying to understand the mindset of Americans in 2001, not today, not post 2008.
The conspiracy around 9/11 was that the government knew more than they were telling us. That perhaps they were well aware of the event, possibly took part in it, and/or used it to manipulate public sentiment for invading Iraq for no other good reason or perhaps (ok, this I admit is crazy) setting up a new world order where we give up our rights for the sake of "national defense". There would be no Wikileaks if there was no 9/11.
I admit this are a bit fringe-sounding but we were all aware of this back then. Didn't most people believe there was some plausibility in these theories?
Don't most people today believe the government knows more about 9/11 than they've told us?
This had nothing to do with 9/11. Invading Iraq was much later. You're conflating the two.
"Bush did 9/11" is crazy talk. "Bush invaded Iraq because he wanted to get back at Saddam Hussein and make money for Halliburton" is not.
If it's your understanding that Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2002 "had nothing to do with 9/11", you are grossly mistaken.
https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ243/PLAW-107publ243.pdf
My brother in christ, I'm not talking about the pretext the government used to attack Iraq. I'm talking about the fact that the two things had nothing to do with each other.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The fact that the government used that as a pretext doesn't magically link the two things.
I see.
Iraq - the country, had nothing to do with 9/11 - the attack.
Not, Iraq - the invasion of, was disassociated with 9/11 - the attack or national moment.
I mean, 9/11 and Iraq are indeed magically linked, thanks to Bush. "Magically" is actually a great word to define the link between the two. Look - Cheney just pulled a Saddam out of a Bush!
Yeah it had something to do with it in that it was used as an excuse to invade iraq - not in that iraq had any legitimate ties to 9/11.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/9-11-and-iraq-the-making-of-a-tragedy/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/19/george-bush-iraq-ukraine-speech
Well, this one is real
Well, yeah. That's not really in the same category or ever really disputed
Im so glad archive.org exists. People keep trying to change history when you can just go to archive.org and see all the real actions people took those days.
I knew a dude who swore up and down the jets had missile launchers on the front they fired just before impact.
https://theonion.com/9-11-truther-questions-why-there-were-2-huge-bull-s-eye-1850775644/
I remember seeing that gif pretty much right after the attacks. I don't know of it was fake or not but it did show the plane launch something into the building about a second before it hit.
I even remember the site I saw it on.
So your evidence that it was only spoken about in my social circle is that your social circle didn't talk about it?
No, that's my evidence that it wasn't ubiquitous and typical.
Maybe not just your social circle, but social-circle-specific.