General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: How the Bush Administration Covered Up the Saudi Connection to 9/11 [View all]jollyreaper2112
(1,941 posts)There's a big difference between making an allegation that's plausible but not verified and something that's implausible or outright impossible.
The truther bits about the towers really being blown up with bombs or the planes not being involved in the attack or whatever is just nonsense and fails on a basic analysis.
The thought of a president or his top aides actively involved in the instigation and engagement of an act of mass terrorism on our own soil is more implausible, simply because the risk seems unaccountably high. This is the sort of thing that has consequence.
Covering up the involvement of others and yourself when people you had dirty ties with do something awful, THAT to me is plausible as all hell. They're all chummy with the Saudis and making bank in the kind of way that's winked at for as far as official corruption goes, no problem. Suddenly the black sheep does a terror attack on America and it turns out he's not as ostracized from the family as you've been told, now that seems very plausible.
From the outside looking in, a coverup looks like a coverup, whether it was "Muhahaha, we were in on it and are covering or tracks" or "Oh, shit, we were caught with our pants down and will be in big trouble so let's make sure any evidence we were derelict in our duty goes bye-bye."