The problem is that the Shrub Administration has too much to gain. In order to believe they had nothing to do with it, you have to ignore a lot of evidence.

You have to ignore the report by Le Figaro that the CIA met with Bin Laden in the hospital in ... what was it, June? A few months before 911, anyway.

Then you have to ignore the way standard protocols for dealing with hijackings weren't followed. The normal procedure would've been to scramble jets in case the planes had to be shot out of the sky. For that to not happen, somebody had to give an order to keep it from happening.

You also have to ignore the reports by CNN and other "established" news sources that these very criminals were under surveillance right up until 911 -- this is further demonstrated by the fact that they seemed to know who had done what on the very day that it happened.

And yeah, they're saying that somebody in the FBI or the CIA or both prohibited investigation that would've halted 911 ... all they're leaving out is why. You have to ignore that, too.

The puzzle pieces are all quite thoroughly in place, even on just the mainstream news. They aren't going to put it together for you, though ... think about it. You're the guy in charge of CNN (I forget who actually is these days). It becomes patently obvious that something screwy is going on. How do you report that?

There's never going to be any big newsflash: "BUSH DID IT!!!" It'll never happen. You're going to have to figure it out on your own.