Wyz_sub10

Good question. I know there is plenty out there related to the Cubans, or the CIA, or someone else in the government.

But considering the fact that Oswald was a poor choice for an "expert" gunman and that the Zapruder films support a lone gunman, I see no reason to believe there was a consiracy afoot.

That isn't to say these things don't happen (state-sponsored assasinations), just that I don't see the evidence to conclude that is what happened here.

I mean, John Hinckley Jr. said he shot Reagan to impress Jodie Foster. As ridiculous as it may sound, people actually *do* such things.

But I don't think the Kennedy assasination and the WTC incident (or Moon Hoax) are on the same footing. Covering up a faked moon landing would require a fantastic amount of clue-burying and secrecy. In the Kennedy case, much of the evidence could be "he said, she said." So even if secrets leaked, they could stil be dismissed.

In the case of the Moon landing, none of the "hoax evidence" stands up to the smallest amount of scrutiny.

As for the WTC, the objective of any government is to get re-elected. No democratic government, in a media-intense environment, is going to sacrifice 4,000 people in it's most populous city in order to build a pipeline or remove a dictator. That goes beyond the boundaries of ludicrous.

The US government could have "discovered" a nuclear arsenal in Yemen, if they wanted an excuse, or could have doctored photos, or whatever.

A simple rule of thumb for conspiracies - look at what the enemies or victims say.

- the Soviets did not challenge or dispute the moon landings
- the Kennedys did not question the findings of the Warren Commission
- Bin Laden and his followers did not accuse the US government (although many Arabs did...or accuse the Jews)

Most of the people who make accusations are not people with any direct stake or involvement in the matter. And most, consequently, do not have the knowledge to support their accusations.

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: Wyz_sub10 ]</p>

ajm51987

Frivolous

Also, how could a 3000 man army of Al-Qaeda escape american dragnets in the war? With all their technology and spy equipment, surely they would have caught them by now. An army of terrorists need supplies of food, water and ammunition to survive too. I think that maybe america doesnt want to find Bin Laden... because if they do, it will seem like justice has been achieved and that the war on terror seemingly comes to an end. Because bin laden is still free, the public feels more inclined to take action against unconventional countries that may have terrorist links...


Well i dont have anything more to add, im just pointing out new areas of interest. Personally im not too sure if my theories are entirely good, but i just state that its a 'possibility that we should ponder'. No harm in pondering. I continue lunchtime debates to test my theories on a regular basis though.. its good brain food

And its fun to let the imagination run rampant every once in a while