Ron Send Claims Thank U.S. Miltary Trained People who later Used Skills to Fly Into the Twin Towers Etc.
Selective History? How Activists Frame America’s Role Before 9/11
A person we’ll call Ron frequently sends us material criticizing the U.S. government, particularly when his preferred political party is out of power. Here’s one example of a point-counterpoint.
The creator (Russell Ellis) openly describes himself as an advocate and commentator, not a neutral journalist.
Much of the content is opinion-driven, emotional, and political. That doesn’t automatically make it propaganda, but it does mean the channel has a strong ideological perspective.
He appears on podcasts discussing racism, white privilege, and activism, and describes himself as a former racist who changed his views.
I couldn’t find evidence from credible fact-checking organizations showing the channel is systematically fabricating stories or knowingly spreading hoaxes.
I also couldn’t find evidence that the channel follows rigorous journalistic standards like source transparency, corrections, or independent verification.
So the fairest assessment is probably:
- It’s advocacy/commentary content, not straight news reporting.
- Some claims may be factual and well-supported.
- Some claims are likely framed selectively to persuade emotionally or politically.
- Whether it feels like “propaganda” depends heavily on your definition and political perspective.
A good way to evaluate channels like this is:
- Check whether specific claims are sourced.
- Compare coverage against outlets with different viewpoints.
- Watch for emotionally loaded language or one-sided framing.
- Separate firsthand footage from the creator’s interpretation of it.
More broadly, research on YouTube shows political content across the spectrum can become ideologically reinforcing, especially when recommendation systems repeatedly feed users similar viewpoints.
He claims that the U.S. Miltary was faorced to train people who later flew plans into teh towers
That claim has a kernel of truth, but it’s often presented in a misleading or conspiratorial way online.
What is true:
- Several 9/11 hijackers received flight training in the United States, including at civilian flight schools in places like Arizona and Florida.
- Some of the hijackers also had backgrounds connected to the Afghan jihad networks that the U.S. indirectly supported during the Soviet–Afghan war in the 1980s through funding and arming anti-Soviet mujahideen groups.
What is not supported by evidence:
- There is no credible evidence that the U.S. military knowingly trained the specific 9/11 hijackers for terrorism or intentionally created the 9/11 plot.
- The mainstream historical record and the 9/11 Commission conclude the attacks were planned by Al-Qaeda under Osama bin Laden, mainly using al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan.
- Claims that the hijackers were secretly trained by the U.S. military are generally tied to conspiracy theories or disputed reports. Some Iraq/al-Qaeda training stories circulated before the Iraq War were later heavily challenged or debunked.
A more accurate way to phrase it would be:
“Some future extremists benefited indirectly from U.S. foreign policy decisions during the Cold War, and some hijackers later trained at civilian flight schools in America.”
That’s very different from:
“The U.S. military trained the 9/11 hijackers to attack America.”
Those are not equivalent claims. The second framing leaves out crucial context and can drift into propaganda or conspiracy territory.
Here are primary and reputable references supporting the main points I laid out:
1. The 9/11 attacks were carried out by al-Qaeda
The FBI and the bipartisan 9/11 Commission both state that al-Qaeda organized and executed the attacks.
2. Some hijackers trained at civilian flight schools in the U.S.
The 9/11 Commission documents the “planes operation,” including hijackers entering the United States and preparing for the attacks.
The hijackers attended civilian aviation schools in states including:
- Arizona
- Florida
- Oklahoma
Examples include Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi training in Florida.
3. The U.S. supported Afghan anti-Soviet fighters during the Cold War
This is historically established. During the 1980s Soviet-Afghan War, the CIA supported Afghan mujahideen factions through Pakistan as part of Cold War strategy against the Soviet Union.
While the U.S. did not knowingly train the 9/11 hijackers, critics and historians often discuss “blowback” — unintended future consequences from those policies.
Background references:
- Council on Foreign Relations – The Soviet-Afghan War and U.S. policy
- Britannica – Afghan War overview
4. There is no credible evidence the U.S. military knowingly trained the 9/11 hijackers for terrorism
The official investigations attribute the attacks to al-Qaeda planning and training infrastructure in Afghanistan.
No major investigation concluded:
- the U.S. government orchestrated 9/11,
- knowingly trained the hijackers for the attacks,
- or intentionally helped carry out the plot.
5. Why people sometimes confuse these ideas
There have been later cases where foreign military trainees in the U.S. committed extremist violence, such as the 2019 Pensacola Naval Air Station shooting involving a Saudi trainee linked to al-Qaeda.
That incident is real, but it is separate from the 9/11 hijackers and does not prove a conspiracy about 9/11 itself.
A concise summary supported by the evidence is:
The U.S. indirectly supported some Islamist fighters during the Cold War anti-Soviet conflict, and some future extremists later emerged from those broader networks. Separately, several 9/11 hijackers attended civilian flight schools in the United States. However, there is no credible evidence the U.S. military knowingly trained the hijackers to carry out the 9/11 attacks.
