But I'd be interested in talking about September 11 and other historical episodes like the JFK assassination in the context that I discussed them early on in the thread (as well as in a thread specifically about JFK that was spun off from the WTC 7 thread).

My thoughts were inspired by a question from SavageInTheCity about the official lone-gunman, "magic-bullet" theory. He prefaced his question by saying it was off-topic, but I saw it as relating back to the topic at hand, as it pointed to another possibility in between a giant evil MIC 9-11 conspiracy and the simple fog of muddled and contradictory information: namely, that governments sometimes cover up things that have the potential to embarrass them.

I don't know precisely what elements in the U.S. government might want to hide about 9-11 if it isn't their own involvement in it, but it could be their own incompetence in failing to put together the pieces and figure out about the plot in advance. It could be that there was something in particular about WTC 7, unrelated to the 9-11 plot, that people wanted to hide -- after all, it was an office / storage area for government departments who dealt with highly restricted information.

In the case of the JFK assassination, it's perhaps easier to divine motives for a cover-up. Oswald had connections to anti-Castro Cubans who in turn had connections to the Mob. Both of these groups had their reasons for hating JFK. And both were involved in US government efforts to kill Castro. Perhaps the Mob and / or the anti-Castro Cubans killed Kennedy, maybe using two or more shooters. People in the US government then covered this up out of fear that a full investigation would lead to their anti-Castro plots being exposed, which could've had consequences for them personally, for internal US public opinion of the government in general, and for US-Soviet relations.

The most interesting theory I've heard of JFK's death is that he was killed by the accidental discharge of a Secret Service agent's rifle. You can imagine that some people might want to cover something like THAT up. Although I don't think the theory is supported by the facts.

As I said in SITC's JFK thread, I think the official version of the JFK assassination doesn't hold up, certainly not from the perspective of basic physics or ballistics, and probably not from the perspective of Oswald as the killer, based on both his unclear motives and his apparent lack of marksmanship skills.

I think there's more to the story than that, and I think that various people in positions of power in the States have either known or speculated as much, and have tried to obscure some of the factual record for fear of where a full inquiry might lead. What I'm less decided about is what the real story is, and whether elements of the U.S. government were involved in the assassination itself, or simply in an after-the-fact damage-control effort.

The JFK issue could very well have been a coverup for their anti-castro actions, or covering up thier oil man ties, or covering up the fact that LBJ had him killed (my favorite though not exactly credible theory) for the sake of defending the country. It could have been a coverup because the secret service F'ed up massively by allowing not one, not two but likely three different riflemen to kill a president AND manage to slip away. All possible theories.

With 9/11 though, Bush was handed more political capital than any previous president. Because this was an attack on a major US city, a major icon, and a civilian assault the American people bound together in a way that was so fierce he could have said just about anything and gotten away with it. The problem I, and most other 9/11 truthers have is the fact that the story has changed multiple times (definitive facts on that day changed to theories a week later, then dropped from any official statements), major inconsistancies in the official story that are still to be patched up, the government itself stonewalling, blacking out, and refusing to testify on record with the investigation, and incredible acts of stupidity, uncommon sense, and gross misconduct all required to make the story happen. Very much like the JFK issue, there are holes to the story, but this is a MUCH bigger story, and has a lot more places to put holes.

If they want us to believe, tell us what they really know. Come clean. The american people will be cool with it (of course, unless it actually implicates the government, which by their refusal makes them seem far more guilty).

For example, I could hypothesize that Jacquie Kennedy actually shot her husband in revenge for his philandering ways, and hired others to cover it up by firing harmless shots from the grassy knoll, the book depository, etc. That's certainly something that some people might want to cover up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by quelar:
... someway allowed one of the hijackers passports to be found in the debris after the collapse of the tower?

---

Just because some anonymous person found a passport it doesn't mean it belonged to a hijacker. It could, for example have belonged to someone who jumped to their death from the burning towers. Maybe the name or the picture on the passport looked kinda middle eastern, like one 'o them Ay-rabs.