If they are ordered to keep a secret, most of them will obey.
Serious question, about which you would know more than me, what is normally done to someone who tries to expose military secrets? Any sort of trial in public would expose the very same information, so what do they do?
Poor logic there.
How do you know its a piss-poor record? By definition we only know of the lies that they failed to keep secret. We don’t know about the lies they told successfully. Maybe they have a 99.9% success rate at telling lies, and how would we ever know?
Yet again, it makes no sense that the government could keep a secret that would involve that many freakin’ people, many of them civilians, if they have trouble keeping secrets that are smaller involving smaller groups of people!
Maybe, but all it takes is one! And if one talked, the dam would break open. What’s not reasonable is to think that lots of people could keep a secret that’s not beneficial to their country.
Bull.
Effin’.
Shit.
A plan that would involve the government killing that many innocent American civilians would cause a revolt in the military the likes of which you have never seen. Even if every damn person in on the conspiracy were active members of the NSA there would be so many leaks it would revive the entire newspaper industry.
As others mentioned, why keep it a secret if we shot down the plane? Most of us would hate that our military was put in that position, but we’d also understand that they really had no choice but to do it. It makes no sense to keep a secret which will cause a significant scandal when it breaks, versus just admitting to something which the public at large will accept given the circumstances of that day.
Besides, the Bush presidency wasn’t the most popular in the history of the US. If anybody with knowledge of the situation wanted to embarrass him (and I can guarantee you that there would be somebody who would) - then all it would take is just one anonymous call to a reporter. It’s impossible to hide the fact that a plane was shot down by a missile, and if there was any evidence whatsoever then respectable journalists would have reported it. This is the whole reason we have “Freedom of the Press”. If there was even a shred of evidence that could be used against Bush, it would have been used by his political opponents - the fact it wasn’t is enough to put the final nail in this conspiracy.
A bigger one is the notion that they planted evidence that implicated 12 radical Islamists–and made most of them Saudis! Guys, it’s Iraq you want to invade and Saudis are your allies, remember?
You joke but there are those who believe that the “planes” were, in fact, holograms. One of those posted here as “CB_Brooklyn”.
I’m sick of hearing this bollocks stated so blithely. If you are going to ask the OT doubters how it is possible, and expect them to give you a detailed response, how is it you Derbunkers don’t have to state exactly how many you think should be involved?
And suggesting there is a high level conspiracy going on doesn’t necessarily involve accusing the entire government.
OMG! Why wasn’t this point brought up in previous discussions on this board?
Oh-it was. You are just ignoring any answers given and repeating the same questions over and over and over and over ad infinitum ad nauseum. Are any of you Truthers ever interesting in listening to the answers?
You are ex-military, I seem to recall. That gives you an opportunity to prove your point.
You think that the military people WON’T keep secrets? You think that they WONT obey orders to stay silent? Go on and prove it. Right here and right now, give us some secret information that you know about.
What plan? Remember, the point under discussion is the hypothetical shooting down of one plane. Nobody is claiming that this was planned in advance, just a decision that had to be taken at the time.
As for “killing that many innocent American civilians” a far larger number would have died if it had hit another tower block. And those civilians would be dead either way. I think that the military would accept it as a necessary action, and not revolt.
How many people would have to be silent about it? The airbase CO, the pilot, and maybe half a dozen ground crew who would notice the missing missile.
And what if one of them came forward and announced that he had noticed a missile missing? I’m sure you would dismiss him as a nut case.
One final point, just to make it clear, I’m not claiming that it actually happened. What I am doing is commenting on the weakness of your logic.
Nobody has ever suggested this conspiracy you’ve turned into a religion involves the entire government.
:dubious:
Most of the really juicy stuff does not come from the press directly IMO. I would say they do their best to protect the government from prying eyes for as long as possible while redirecting the focus to fluff issues. Most of the best dirt is either from the foreign press, declassified documents 50-75 years after the fact, or someone out and out stealing documents from the government (e.g. The Pentagon Papers, COINTELPRO). Heck, the government itself spills more beans it doesn’t have to through leashless commissions than the American press does.
IOW, if the towers were really brought down by Jew rays, or whatever the latest truther fad is, we’re gonna find out about it because the government will accidentally leak it in an unrelated redacted document because they are silly like that, or some disgruntled CIA guy will steal internal documents and put them on the internet somewhere (I’m surprised the truthers haven’t tried faking that yet – a conspiracy to make a conspiracy would be a lot of fun).
I didn’t say the U.S. military can’t keep secrets. I said the U.S. military wouldn’t keep a secret involving the mass murder of innocent U.S. civilians, and no one of authority in the military would dare court marshal someone who exposed such a evil and obviously illegal deed. When I was in the military I knew what I could and could not do, and I also knew what would happen to me if I knew of such a conspiracy and didn’t report it. This contempt you have of the military seems to rival your contempt of logic itself, which is shown by your asking me to reveal legal secret information to prove that someone in the military would be willing to reveal illegal secret information.
Would anyone else like to suggest that:
IMHO, going down this path of inquiry is disgusting.
Well, I certainly believe 2 is possible, though I might use a more charitable word than “murder” in describing it. There is no doubt that the President gave the order authorizing military interception and take-down of errant flights on that day; it just happened to be too late for it to matter. Here’s a cite from the mouths of the President and the Vice President themselves, as reported by the Washington Post, dated Sept. 16, 2001.
Quoted for truth and to refocus the discussion - what’s the point of debating whether or not our stalwart military men would have casually mentioned the missing missile while in their cups when there’s clear and unambiguous physical evidence that the plane was in one peice when it ‘touched down’? We might as well debate whether or not the secret service would have admitted that it was an inside job when President Bush was assassinated on 9/12. (You remember that, right? It totally would have made all the papers if it hadn’t been covered up by those men in black suits and sunglasses.)
And in the case of 93 it’s doubly odd, because there would be no reason for them to cover it up! If it had been shot down by the military, I would have sadly praised the military for doing so. I can think of a few other passenger planes that I wouldn’t have minded the military shooting down too for that matter.
You have no idea what you’re talking about here. Do you realize how big a scoop it would be if any reporter had solid, documented evidence that the U.S. shot down its own civilian plane? Do you have any idea how big a deal that would be for the reporter, editors and news organization in question? No reputable newspaper in the country would kill a story like that if it was documented solidly. Not a single one.
There is no “the press”. There is no declaration from on high to the thousands of newsrooms across the land dictating what to cover and what to stay away from. There is no cabal of people who review each week’s story budget and kill the ones that scare the government.
Talking about “the press” is sometimes useful shorthand. When you begin to think “the press” is some monolithic entity that thinks and acts with one voice, in one manner, for one purpose – you’re just plain wrong.
Hey, I’m a “truther”. Don’t believe a word I type.