For non-skeptics of 9/11--- should the burden of proof be on the US gov't

[spooked911]

or on individual American citizens to prove or disprove their complicity in 9/11?

Why shouldn't the US gov't should go out of its way to prove the official story?

For instance, what matter of national security keeps them from:
1) releasing other videos of the Pentagon hit or the undoctored Pentagon version?
2) showing the complete official passenger manifests for the 9/11 planes?
3) saying what's on the black boxes found at the WTC and the Pentagon?
4) telling us how they identified who the hijackers were?
5) allowing airline pilots and FAA controllers to discuss 9/11?
6) allowing firemen to discuss the idea that there were bombs in the WTC?

etc etc.

[JackRiddler]

1. very good question, also...

7) releasing all of the available CVR and FDR recordings from 93, 77, 175 and 11 - also the FAA radar tracks?
8) releasing the transcripts of FAA/NORAD/NMCC phone bridges
9) releasing the complete Aug 6 PDB (all 11 pages)
10) releasing the flight school files Jeb Bush confiscated
11) saying why the records of flight controller testimonies taken on 9/11/01 were destroyed
12) telling us who the fax newsletter with the put option tip was
13) releasing the CONVAR data on transactions during the attacks
14) telling us who didn't collect the $2.5 million put option on the Chicago exchange, who the "institutional investor" who bought put options was, who the "small airline" in London was
15) releasing reports on foreign-based suspicious trades in Germany, Japan, London, Hong Kong, Singapore
16) acknowledging the foreign warnings (Jordan, Russia, Germany and Israel especially)
17) acknowledging that the Pentagon did imagine and rehearsed a plane-into-building scenario in Oct. 2000
18) acknowledging that the CIA did imagine and rehearsed a plane-into-building scenario at the NRO on 9/11/01
19) acknowledge the Genoa Warning
20) acknowledge the various 9/11/01 wargames
21) stop claiming "no one could have imagined"
22) hold people accountable for the supposed FAA/NORAD and FBI failures rather than PROMOTING them
23) let Sibel Edmonds talk
24) let Robert Wright talk
25) produce and indict KSM and Binalshibh
26) let Steve Butler talk
27) allow an investigation by people without evident and outrageous conflicts of interest (Zelikow) and who aren't long-term government insiders
28) demand clarification from Silverstein on "pull it."
29) perform explosive-residue testing on dust and fragments left over from Ground Zero
30) acknowledge the family questions
31) tell us who made the decisions to keep Bush and Secret Service at the school
32) acknowledge surveillance of Hamburg Cell by German authorities and CIA dating back at least to 1998

ETC. ETC.

What's the national security excuse for secrecy about something that already happened? If you cover up and promote the "failures," you can't improve.

Why are Rowley and Edmonds each limited to citations without content in single footnotes in the 9/11 report?

Why isn't Wright mentioned at all?

[spooked911]

2. Thanks-- those are all excellent points. I knew there were many more.

Oh LARED, Boloboffin, Make7??????

Any comments?