Two Questions
1.Why did OBL deny involvement in the 9/11 attacks. I would think he would have been proud of his efforts.
It isn't clear that he did. The denial so frequently referenced was second-hand, from the Taliban, and very soon after the event. I suspect that that Taliban was doing their best attempt at damage control, and trying to stave off their impending removal from power. There are plenty of reasons that explain this behavior, yet are consistent with him actually planning the operation.
However, we need not speculate, because bin Laden did admit involvement and has expressed pride therein, in numerous communications since then. We cannot accept only this first outlier while dismissing the rest. Either all of his messages are suspect (in which case we turn to the forensic evidence, which pins it on him securely), or we accept that he did eventually admit it completely. Either way there's no compelling case to be made that he wasn't involved.
2. Why did the terrorists (in particular at the Pentagon) go out of they're way to cause the least amount of damage and loss of life.
They did not. If you're referring to the aircraft hitting the recently reinforced wedge of the Pentagon, there's a reason why that wedge was rebuilt first -- it's the side facing Reagan National Airport, and thus the side most likely to be struck by an aircraft. It's also the side that Hani would have been in the best position to hit, given his trajectory and location when he apparently first achieved a visual fix on his target.
One could also make the case that, had an unreinforced section been struck, less of the burning fuel would have been captured inside the structure, instead punching right through. It's not clear the loss of life would have been higher. This is debatable.
It makes perfectly good senee to me to have attacked a reactor or something that would have brought the country to a complete standstill, and affected perhaps millions of lives, and actually have accomplished that with less chance of mission failure. ie...tough spiral was made at Pentagon to hit a sparsley populated area, roof would have been easier and more damaging.
Towers could well have been missed by untested pilots, a nuclear facility would have been an easier target, and the "scare factor"100 times more.
I've seen this referred to as the
"If I Ran the Zoo" fallacy. We can only speculate about the inner feelings of the terrorists. I've seen it reported in many places that the attack was symbolic, attempting to hit symbols of the American economy, military, and government in that order, and this is entirely plausible.
I disagree that the roof of the Pentagon would be an easier target. Aircraft are easier to control near a level attitude than in a sharp dive. The Pentagon is high enough that it's pretty straightforward to hit it from the side, as experiments with untrained subjects in simulators have demonstrated. Aiming for the roof doesn't leave as much room for error. You only get one shot at it.
I also dispute the effectiveness of an attack on a nuclear power plant. That's one of the few buildings that might actually survive. Symbolically it would be significant, but I don't see it offers any significant advantage over what was actually done.
I can also think of several scenarios that would be much worse, in terms of casualties and lasting economic damage. No, I will not make these public. But just because one can imagine a potentially more effective plan in no way casts doubt upon the plan itself, nor does it negate the fact that the plan they executed was, sadly, undeniably effective.
