Originally posted by hooper
why would you cover up something that you admit you would have done?
That's a creative writing exercise, not a logical path for argument. None of us can assume we know what anyone's motivation really is.
That said, I like creative writing. Here are a few I can imagine...
1. Those involved, responding appropriately to a terrorist attack, were initially hesitant to acknowledge having given the order, and someone
suggested a story of heroism and martyrdom which avoided an uncomfortable truth and served an agenda for going to war
2. Those involved, executing a carefully planned inside job, realized that the passengers had learned what was going on and were about to land the
plane, making it necessary to bring the plane down and create a cover story of heroism and martyrdom, which buried the truth and served the agenda for
going to war
3. Those involved, responding ineffectively to a terrorist attack, passed along the order outside of the proper chain of command and rather than
conducting an investigation, someone suggested a story of heroism and martyrdom, which avoided an uncomfortable truth and served an agenda for going
4. Those involved, taking advantage of an unexpected terrorist attack to further their own agenda, tried and failed to rescind the order, and rather
than conducting an investigation, created a story of heroism and martyrdom, which avoided the treasonous truth and served an agenda for going to
5. Those involved, controlling all the day's events via telepathy from Rigel IV, decided not to reveal their presence to humans at this time and
instead ordered their shape-shifting emissaries to issue a story which avoided an unbelievable truth and served an agenda for creating a stargate in
time for 2012
Of course, I can't prove any of those, and I could keep coming up with more, ranging from the mundane to the ridiculous, and you could too if you
wanted ... but there's never going to be a way to divine someone's motives unless they tell us, and even then we can't know for sure. And that's
why I argued for looking at evidence instead of assuming. If there's evidence that the plane was shot down (and I think there is; not conclusive, but
certainly enough to warrant further investigation), then the plane was shot down, regardless of whether you can imagine someone's motive or not.