Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has ignited controversy with recent social media posts that challenge established narratives surrounding the September 11 terrorist attacks, triggering diverse reactions across political and media landscapes.

Kennedy's statements, shared on Friday, express skepticism towards conventional explanations of 9/11 while advocating for enhanced transparency in government operations. On X, a platform known for robust discussions, Kennedy asserted, "As President I won’t take sides on 9/11 or any of the other debates. But I can promise is that I will open the files and usher in a new era of transparency."

His remarks coincided with a segment on CBS's "60 Minutes" exploring possible Saudi involvement in the 2001 attacks, a topic Kennedy highlighted as fueling widespread public interest and speculation.

Subsequent posts by Kennedy underscored his belief in prevalent doubts and theories surrounding governmental transparency, positioning honesty and openness as critical components in rebuilding public trust. He clarified his stance by stating, "I am personally agnostic on those issues," distancing himself from endorsing specific theories.

Kennedy's campaign declined to elaborate on the "debates" referenced beyond the initial discussion of the "60 Minutes" report's findings on Saudi Arabia and 9/11.

The official U.S. government stance attributes responsibility for the September 11 attacks to Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The 9/11 Commission, in its exhaustive report, did not uncover evidence of direct complicity by the Saudi government but acknowledged the involvement of Saudi nationals in funding Al Qaeda activities.

The contentious debate over Saudi involvement persists, exacerbated by lawsuits from families of 9/11 victims against the Saudi government. Of the 19 hijackers involved in the attacks, 15 were Saudi citizens, including bin Laden, who was born in Saudi Arabia. Saudi authorities have consistently denied any state involvement in the attacks.

Kennedy's commentary on 9/11 marks his latest venture into controversial topics. Known for promoting anti-vaccine theories and appearing on platforms such as conspiracy theorist Alex Jones' 'Infowars' show, Kennedy has a history of challenging official narratives on various issues.

During a podcast interview with author Peter Bergen, Kennedy acknowledged the existence of dissenting perspectives on 9/11 but admitted to not extensively investigating the matter himself. He referenced the collapse of a building damaged during the attacks, a topic often cited by conspiracy theorists alleging controlled demolition or insider complicity.

Despite speculating on certain aspects of the tragedy, Kennedy consistently maintained that he lacks detailed knowledge or a definitive stance on the events of 9/11. He emphasized lingering unanswered questions but refrained from endorsing specific conspiracy theories.

Nicole Shanahan, Kennedy's running mate, shares his skepticism towards vaccines, as noted in a Newsweek interview where she applauded Kennedy's approach to addressing vaccine-related concerns.

Kennedy's recent statements align him with a broader trend among political figures who question established historical narratives. Former President Donald Trump, for instance, previously questioned Saudi Arabia's role in 9/11, complicating discussions on U.S.-Saudi relations.

Former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy has also called for greater transparency regarding 9/11, advocating for public access to comprehensive details surrounding the events.

The intersection of politics, conspiracy theories, and public trust remains contentious terrain, with Kennedy's statements amplifying ongoing debates on governmental transparency and the boundaries of acceptable political discourse.

As Kennedy's remarks continue to reverberate across media platforms, they underscore broader concerns about the impact of conspiracy theories on shaping public opinion and influencing political narratives. The controversy surrounding his statements reflects deeper divisions within American society over interpreting historical events and the government's role in addressing public skepticism.