I think conspiracies are a great way to radicalize certain types of people away from liberalism and electoralism, but at a certain point, it's just arguing over minutia by people who have no real means of ascertaining whether that minutia is true or not. "Was Malcolm X assassinated by the NOI or by the FBI?" is a simple question if we rephrase it as "Did the FBI engineer Malcolm X's assassination?" or "Was the FBI planning to remove Malcolm X from the picture" (the answer to both is yes), but it becomes a matter of minutia if we start asking whether the people who shot him were FBI agents distinguished as NOI members or FBI informants recruited from the FBI. Was Louis Farrakhan a federal asset or were members of his closest circle who persuaded him to order the hit federal assets? Did Farrakhan explicitly order the hit or was it more of a "will no one rid me of this troublesome priest" type of deal? All minutia, and outside of getting unredacted FBI records, there's no real way for an investigative journalist to conclusively figure out.

The glaring hole for 9/11 Truth is motive. The US doesn't need to establish casus belli, especially during the 90s-00s when the US was the sole hegemon. Where was the casus belli when the US invaded Grenada or Panama during the 90s? Maurice Bishop was authoritarian^TM^? Noriega was a drug lord? Just look at how the US shamelessly lie and cover for the Zionist entity right now. And this is with social media that the US doesn't completely control (Tiktok). Travel back to 2001 where social media didn't exist outside of rando forums and cable news was starting to become a thing. The US had complete control over media. They could easily just tap in to the average American's Islamophobia, and the closest thing they have to opposition would be Parenti writing articles in magazines and publishing books nobody reads.