Replies

Here are some questions meant to elicit thoughtful answers. Please don't construe them as a defense of governement coverups:

If it is agreed that we are at war, and Flight 587 was an act conducted under the auspices of that war (by our enemy), would our government be able to justify lying about it to prevent the propaganda victory for the enemy? Did Britain do anything similar during the blitz?

At this time, what would change if it was revealed that 587 was attacked rather than an accident? Would the public lose faith, or steel their resolve? If, at that time, 587 was revealed to be the victim of attack, would that have boosted our war efforts at a time when media support was waning? If so, why cover up?

The reason for the cover-up at any time would be to support the airlines industry and associated business sectors such as hotel, car rental, restaurant, travel agencies and even clothing retailers.

There have always been accidents in the air. Travellers have come to live with these odds, especially when they understand the overall safety record of air travel as opposed to just getting in your car and driving to the mall. Most of us find this risk acceptable.

If, however 587 and 800 were even randomly targeted by terrorists and the Feds admit so, then they must also admit, at least tacitly, that they cannot make air travel safe. This would cripple multiple economic segments.

It is interesting to note that in the days leading up to the Flt 587 downing Ridge was all over the tube telling us to be extra vigilant, something is coming. Well, something did come and within hours they were assuring us that it was nothing more than a tragic accident.

Also interesing is the lack of an order from the feds grounding every one of the hundreds of other Airbus 300s in active service in the US. If, as they want us to believe, the crash was due to some structural problem then it would be reckless in the extreme not to keep the rest of them on the tarmac. Remember, after the Concorde crash it was a year before another one took off.

would that have boosted our war efforts at a time when media support was waning? If so, why cover up?

It's the economy.

Gotta keep that bubble going in order to keep the current crop of politicos in office.

If so, why cover up?

Because at that time the government's main concern seemed to be that people spend money travelling over the holidays, and decided that people were more likely to accept an accident than a terrorist attack as less personally threatening to their safety.

I'm not saying the government did cover up, just that it wouldn't be inconsistant with the spend and travel stance the government favored.

Re: your 17 - haven't read any replies to it. My take is, any admission that the flight was victim of sabotage would have driven the passenger airline industry one step closer to total collapse. More generally, the government would have had that much more trouble convincing people that they (USG) had things under control. Much confidence was at stake.

Specifically regarding the possibility of using the attack as material for pro-war rallying opportunities: this is an interesting point you bring up. I don't think the opportunity was available for pro-war rallying, but I'm having trouble coming up with the words. We the people don't really know who, beyond Muslim radicals from various nations, we're fighting in this war. Only the government has a clue what's going on behind the scenes, and it's probably debatable that even the USG understands all that they are facing. In order for war propaganda to work, it must define an enemy the targets can recognize and unite against. Beyond Osama, there hasn't been that common enemy available. To take it a step farther, propaganda requires the targets be of a united, homogenous mind. The targets must be prepared to unites against Jerry, the Hun, communists, Japs, whatever. In our culturally sensitive society, we can't even go a day without a pro-Muslim local news story. No way we'd all get behind an effort to smash the A-rabs, ragheads, or evildoers.

Don't know if I made my case; good food for thought.

At this time, what would change if it was revealed that 587 was attacked rather than an accident?

The airline industry might have collapsed if the public thought that yet another airliner had been successfully brought down by Al Qaida. No one would have gotten on another airliner except for absolutely necessary air travel.

IMHO, the AA587 crash is in coverup mode because the government didn't want the public to percieve that it was, and my still be, unable to protect airline travelers. The economy was already in the tank and the effect on the travel and tourist industry would have been devastating.