Les Jones

>That analogy would hold, if there were multiple
>photographs and videotapes of Oswald shooting
>JFK.

There are.

There are photos and film of Kennedy being shot, but not of Oswald shooting him. Where did the shots come from, the buffs ask? As opposed to the WTC where there's plenty of footage of an airliner flying smack into the building. Yet they still have to theorize about explosives being planted in the building.

9/11 conspiracies do not claim bin Laden was not involved, nor that planes did not fly into the towers. Not all of them, anyway. Some people pull way to hard on the thread, but it's clear there are loose ends. There are suspicious financial transactions that were publicized in the first week or so after the attack, but never mentioned again and more weird coincidences than are needed to get replicating cells from seawater.

It is obvious to me that the towers buckled. That part of the tale is nonsense, but so is the official version of the story. There are many aspects to the attacks that have not been explained, coincidences, improbabilities and inconsistencies.

Conspiracies don't always hinge on the attacks being staged; many make just as much sense whether the attacks were actively aided or passively neglected. Whether the explanations used to connect dots and fill in gaps make sense to you, surely you see the gaps and oddities...