It is this simple regarding 9/11...NO ONE has ever came forward and said 'I was part of it!"....

[eomer]

24. A couple of thoughts on "why there is yet no proof".

First, there are crimes every day for which there is never "proof". Because I take it you're looking for some single or compact finding that solves the case and eliminates all doubt - a Perry Mason moment as it were. That happens all the time in fiction but not so much in real life.

So there isn't proof of that type but what there is is evidence. Especially for LIHOP there is a lot of evidence that makes a pretty convincing case. It has been established that the Bush cabal had realized that a massive attack on the U.S. would enable them to do some things they really wanted to do. It has been established that they had ample warning. And it has been established that they were determined, stubbornly, to not respond to the warnings. And, finally, they clearly lied afterward about many of the facts including the warnings and their inaction. All these add up to a very strong case of at least LIHOP.

Regarding MIHOP, to some extent the reason there isn't more to go on is because they didn't like where the evidence was leading. When indications were found that funding came from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia they refused to follow those leads and gave us the explanation that it really wasn't necessary to follow the money. That, of course, is an obvious and outrageous lie. Following the money was an essential thread of the investigation, especially the investigation of who the high-level sponsors of the attack were. So if we don't have "proof" of who the sponsors were, it's at least partly because they didn't like who it was pointing to. We have no way of knowing, to date, whether that was just because it was pointing toward allies of the Bush cabal or, even more, was going to implicate the Bush cabal itself, directly, if followed.

I think it's almost certain that more people were involved than have been revealed so far and that therefore there definitely are parts of this story that are true even though "proof" for them hasn't yet been found. Those leads in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia simply have to have involved more than one person in each and those additional people have not yet been found. And there's no "proof" for anyone beyond the 19 perps, yet there obviously would have been more people than that involved in the instigation and planning of the attack.

Clearly there were more people involved than we have found out about. And the Bush cabal seem the most likely suspects to me based on motive, opportunity, circumstantial evidence, and lying about so many things afterward. If I were a juror I would find the sum of the evidence enough to convict G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney in a way similar to the guilty verdict of Scott Peterson, for which there was no "proof", but merely evidence.