Theories of the conspiratorial kind

[Bigmac]

Yeah it's quite the web.

I'd lean towards the passport that was found being planted, considering it's condition, it just seems mental that they found one completely undamaged coming out of those fireballs.

What manipulation took place with regards to passports? I'm not exactly well read up on the whole thing, just dipped in an out a bit over the years.

Saudi's, if they are in fact crypto-Jews, would allow Israel, if they are the perpetrators, to control the narrative would be a guess. If you accuse an innocent party, perhaps the multitude of things that could go wrong is too great a risk to take, instead accuse a country within your control to mitigate these. Who knows though.

And yeah you could be right, I'd say the average Americans knowledge of the Middle East is quite minimal, so as long as the perpetrators fitted a certain image, it probably didn't matter.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

"Saudis, if they are in fact crypto-Jews"
That is a colossal "if". Saudi Arabia, home of both Mecca and possibly the world's most repressive Muslim legal and penal systems; all just over-compensating to better hide the charade? Surely, if "Saudis" are crypto-Jews, then in effect the entire Muslim religion are crypto-Jews, which sounds awfully like something someone who just wanted to embrace ALL semites in one handy envelope to be burnt might come up with. Anyway, I'm not getting into that; just pointing out that all the possible conspiracies conflict with each other just as much as they do with the official narrative, whether that be in its wholly naïve or harshly skeptical variants.

[Bigmac]

Yeah for sure, though colossal "Ifs" should find themselves a home in, of all places, a conspiracy theory thread.

It's been ages since I looked into it, but this might have been one of the articles I read before, pinch of salt and all that:

https://www.timesheadline.com/middle-east/the-house-of-saud-its-jewish-origin-and-installation-by-the-british-crown-42667.html

And also Sabbati Zevi converting to Islam, and the idea of Donmeh, crypto-Jews, is well known:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%B6nmeh#:~:text=The%20D%C3%B6nmeh%20(Turkish%3A%20D%C3%B6nme%2C,movement%20was%20centered%20in%20Thessaloniki.

So there's an avenue where it could make sense, but certainly, a big "If" nonetheless.

[Pedrito]

Humans seem to find a need to elaborate things to almost mystical levels constantly. Be it the traditional martial arts, religion, certain styles of metal etc etc. Deep, impenetrable ideas and concepts that only the few with the knowledge can truly understand. I went down that Donmeh rabbit hole about 6 months ago. The depths and intricacies of the conspiracy are so neatly and beautifully mapped out. But humans are not neat and they also don't know when to shut their mouths. It's nonsense pure and simple.

[Bigmac]

I'll keep mine open, regardless.

[astfgyl]

Nuke the middle east sounds about right. There is another option as well, that maybe the U.S. hadn't a clue who did it or why and simply invented evidence to appease the crowd. Unlikely sounding, but then every aspect of the whole thing is unlikely sounding.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

There is another option as well, that maybe the U.S. hadn't a clue who did it or why and simply invented evidence to appease the crowd. Unlikely sounding

Unlikely sounding? It's remarkably close to what most non-conspiracy theory yet US-skeptic people would believe: that they did know who did it and why, but they still simply invented evidence and argumentation in order to sell the people a war in Afghanistan, an then a later one in Iraq, with a few invented WMD sprinkled into the mix for good measure, the real motivations for which were something else entirely.

[astfgyl]

There is another option as well, that maybe the U.S. hadn't a clue who did it or why and simply invented evidence to appease the crowd. Unlikely sounding

Unlikely sounding? It's remarkably close to what most non-conspiracy theory yet US-skeptic people would believe: that they did know who did it and why, but they still simply invented evidence and argumentation in order to sell the people a war in Afghanistan, an then a later one in Iraq, with a few invented WMD sprinkled into the mix for good measure, the real motivations for which were something else entirely.

That seems like a pretty reasonable explanation for a lot of it, sort of like they let it happen for strategic reasons but without the part of them knowing in advance. I think no idea is fully off the table with the whole thing anyway because there are so many contestable points.

[Pedrito]

You drive planes into the heart of America there has to be a response and it doesn't matter who suffers as long as there is a response. We would think the exact same. Definitely not saying it's right, but reason goes out the window when people feel under attack.

[Juggz]

And the US exists, actually thrives, on a perpetual feeling of being under attack.

[astfgyl]

Well out of it all, some things we can be almost sure of are that it wasn't the Afghans or the Iraqis that did it, and yet the U.S. ended up invading both, with the public support they needed beautifully drummed up by the 9/11 attacks. Everything else is up in the air as to what exactly went down. There was some sort of inquiry into Saudi involvement back a few years but that seems to have come to nothing.

[Pedrito]

Re: Juggz. Really? It certainly didn't pre 9/11 anyway. Not in the way an Austrian or Ukranian might feel about Russia for example. I think the response was so extreme because they felt the opposite way, that they would never be attacked, or that it was so unlikely. There was massive incredulity at the time and it pushed the need to respond with an iron fist. They dropped the bomb on the Japanese who had attacked them on their own soil, the response had to be similar.

[Bigmac]

Some info on the aforementioned dancing Israeli's thing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sev1CHZgz1g&ab_channel=CaesarCicerosErbe

[Juggz]

Re: Juggz. Really? It certainly didn't pre 9/11 anyway. Not in the way an Austrian or Ukranian might feel about Russia for example. I think the response was so extreme because they felt the opposite way, that they would never be attacked, or that it was so unlikely. There was massive incredulity at the time and it pushed the need to respond with an iron fist. They dropped the bomb on the Japanese who had attacked them on their own soil, the response had to be similar.

Nobody remembers when communists (real ones, not the plastic ones ye shriek about now 😉)  were the problem?

The US didn't drop the atomic bomb on Japan as revenge for Pearl Harbour. The weapon was intended for use in Germany, to end the war in Europe, but wasn't ready in time. After the losses in the Pacific theatre, both military and civilian, and particularly after the invasion of Okinawa where civilian mortality rates were almost one in three, the invasion of mainland Japan, where one might rightly have expected increased defensive fanaticism, was expected to be an unmerciful bloodbath. Despite defeat being inevitable, the Japanese refused to surrender and tried to leverage the Soviet Union to sue for peace. The US dropped the bombs to prevent prolonging the war and as a means to avoid additional deaths, ironically enough, (mainly US military ones of course but civilian ones were also a factor) shocking Japan into surrender. They had already firebombed many Japanese cities into ashes, it wasn't as if they needed to draw blood to get revenge, they had being doing that for quite a while already. The firebombing of Tokyo in May killed more people than the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki in August and almost as many as the Hiroshima bomb. They had their revenge, multiple times over, before the atomic bomb was ever a viable weapon.

[Juggz]

But I do agree that, overall, if the US decides it wants to draw blood somewhere, it usually finds a justification one way or the other. I am genuinely surprised they didn't go into Iran when Bolton was making overtures last year.