redsock wrote:
In fact, they go out of their way to even acknowledge this material exists.
I get, you mean they go out of their way NOT to even acknowledge the material that contradicts & confounds the official explanation; As you point out and Peter Dale Scott elaborates in his excellant video, yet another way that 911 is similiar to the JFK coup.
It may be self-evident but is important enough to reflect on, that in these in most cover-stories crudely obscuring the truth of elaborate conspiracies by agents of the PTB -- cover stories aren't intended to be perfect, they don't need to be; They take advantage of the mass-media tendency for most of the public to accept the official story no matter how implausable or problematic, because of a deep-seated and culturally-conditioned need to avoid acknowledging evidence of widespread, enedemic fraud, corruption and criminality of the state's most powerful officials and agencies, since the whole ediface of state's legitimacy, authority and legal responsibility extends as a top-down heirarchal system. Society is conditioned to refuse accepting such a monumental failure and perversion of the social order as necessitated by the JFK coup & 911 inside-job conspiracies.
I guess there are established psychological and propaganda-science terms and theories to account for this, such as bias-reinforcement, cognitive-dissonance avoidance, ideological maintenance, world-view stability, cognitive self-validation -- mostly referring to the same thing.
Many of the same kinds of supposed intelligence and security 'failures' cited that didn't prevent the JFK assassination also resulted in the 'non-prevention' of 911, directly blamed on governmental-bureaucratic inefficiency, lack of cross-and-inter-departmental communication, lapses in official judgement, ineffective policy and gaps, inadvertant and guileless misconduct, carelessness or negligence, etc. And then, after the fact, there appeared what seemed to be, at the very least, an extensive if unofficial policy of cover-up and censorship, to hide crucial facts, or manufacture false 'evidence', in order to disguise or obscure the contributing factors of personal fault and bureaucratic bungling that allowed the JFK killing and 911 attacks to occur. With secondary implications and potential consequences we'll never know, ie. the extent that Oswald HAD to be a lone-nut in order to prevent Johnson and the Joint Chiefs from waging war on Cuba or USSR as if THEY were responsible, or in the case of 911, OTHER nations like Saudi Arabia or Israel or other terrorist parties who may have been perceived to be responsible, and against which conflict was untenable. Which then became the cause to marshall the finding of blame on the 19 Al Qaeda terrorists.
Wheels within wheels.
It's inconceiveable that unless Oswald was quite willing to accept responsibility for killing JFK, that he wouldn't have made careful plans to evade suspicion and capture -- including either a false evidence trail leading away from him and carefully hiding his true involvement, or allowing his escape and disappearance with false-identity and hideout, etc.
Likewise in the case of 911. Since 'Al Qaeda' wasn't going to accept responsibility for it, why wouldn't its leaders have tried to hide their involvement, since they could reasonably expect a reprisal that would be out all proportion to whatever limited political & moral 'value' the 911 attacks would have for their 'cause'?