I'm interested in how you conclude that the leaders (power elite) woiuld not arrange an attack on the US themselves. Is this a hunch, or do you have evidence to back it up?

Have you read Day of Deceit by Robert Stinnett? Prominent historians have suggested that this book about the attack on Pearl Harbor has effectively rewritten the history of this period. It is clear from the documantation that FDR endorsed a well thought out plan to push the Japanese towards making the first strike, so that US public opinion would change, and allow the US to enter WW II.

A very similar thing happened after 9/11. In A Tragic Legacy, GG points this out in his preface, suggesting that Bush reaped the harvest of unity from all people in America, and virtually around the world. Are we to believe that this was just a coincidence? Was Bush just extremely lucky?

When you look at the scientific evidence, it does not follow that 9/11 was the product of 19 Arab's good fortune, as directed from Osama in a cave.

I find it no coincidence that the fear level is being ratcheted up, and that Chertoff, amongst others, is making dire predictions. Maybe they know something we don't.

The point I was trying to get across is that the power elite in the US has done many nefarious things in the past, that would qualify as self-inflicted psychological operations. The reasons for doing so have uniformly been kept from the public, and in general have been used to manipulate public opinion in favor of some goal to advance the interests of the elite. There are numerous documented episodes of attempts to entice opponents into attacking first, so that a response would be justified.

Although the planning did not result in an attack, the Operation Northwoods Document outlines the plan to be able to 'retaliate' against Cuba. Stinnett shows conclusively that FDR pushed Japan to attack first, with a 10-point plan. The Downing Street memos show that Bush was considering painting a plane with UN colours to hopefully be shot down by Saddam, so that there would be an excuse to 'retaliate' against Iraq.

Why do people find it such a stretch to consider 9/11 to be yet another in a string of inside jobs?

As for parsimony, the simplest explanation is not always the correct one. Occam suggested that the simplest explanation, which accounted for all the facts, was the one which was most likely. Nineteen Arabs directed from a cave can not explain the collapse of WTC 7 (not hit by a plane, fell at free fall speed), nor the lack of enough damage at the Pentagon that would have been associated with the crash of a jet-liner.

The evidence is compelling that there was a 'state' behind the 9/11 atrocity. The facts point towards a large 'state', just south of Canada.

As always, a well written piece that examines another interesting facet of the continuing saga of why democracy is disappearing in America.

What Bush really believes, and what his reasons are for his decisions, appear, again to not be particularly relevant to his actions. He "creates" his own reality as it were, and to sensible people his rationale is not evident.

If he is acting out his theocratic beliefs, or is simply acting out of pragmatic greed, the end result is the same. If his beliefs stem from faith in his rightness, then they are not subject to logic, in the same sense that belief in God is not arguable by the dictates of logic.

Actions speak louder than words. Bush is convincing the people to fight on his behalf, to give up their lives, and to die either for his religious dualistic beliefs, for egotistical reasons and power, or a combination of all three.

The solution is to make the people widely aware through massive education, and encourage and empower individuals to stand up and say "NO". Bush will attain his goals (whatever they are) as long as he can fool enough of the people. If he can't continue to fool the people, his next step will be to institute martial law, likely after another false flag event (like 9/11) in the near future.

Keep up the good work by raising the awareness of your readers. Again, I encourage you to comment on the false flag operation of 9/11. I see that you are still avoiding this topic, and I ask myself why. Magna est veritas...

The machinations of the elite never cease to amaze. How and why Giuliani's candidacy is being undermined by previous supporters is anyone's guess.

In your capacity as a lawyer it would be interesting to hear your opinion with regard to Giuliani's handling of the 9/11 and post 9/11 situation. I refer specifically to the alleged exportation of steel from the WTC sites without adequate forensic investigation, as well as the ongoing problems of the ground zero workers who were exposed to noxious and toxic fumes. There is an appearance that Giuliani presided over a large cover-up which has resulted in the death and illness of many New Yorkers.

There is also the issue of Giuliani having been warned about the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 before they occurred.

Were there no laws broken? When the EPA spokesperson said that the air was safe to breathe, was she telling the truth? Why is it that there is no active investigation of what appear to be criminal acts of negligence by those in power? Who notifed Giuliani about the collapse of 1 and 2, and how did they have this foreknowledge?

Since you are from New York, this appears to be in your back yard, so to speak.

I think your readers would love to hear your opinion on such important matters. Looking forward to your future response.