Roll Call: What do you think happened on 9/11, and why?

[Oystein]

I asked Myriad (moderator) to split this thread, beginning with paloalto's post yesterday, so that finally paloalto gets his own thread for his theory. I had asked paloalto a couple of times already to please start a separate thread. He didn't. So lets hope the mods don't throw this into AAH.

 

[T.A.M.]

I guess that is fine, but the title of the thread is exactly what he posted to. I would think perhaps a RE-POST of his theory, given its own thread, but I think his posting is appropriate to the thread title.

TAM

 

[Oystein]

Hmm no. Somehow he doesn't address the topic of planes, buildings and deaths. Which somehow seems to me is what this thread is about.
He elaborates on a part of the story before 9/11, which is an interesting topic worthy of its own thread. Which paloalto hasn't opened yet. So this may be the chance to do so, as I think it warrants discussion.

 

[T.A.M.]

Your thread title is the vague "what do you thnk happened on 9/11 and why". Come on man, be a little leanient. Still...your thread...your call.

TAM

 

[Bell]

I asked Myriad (moderator) to split this thread, beginning with paloalto's post yesterday, so that finally paloalto gets his own thread for his theory. I had asked paloalto a couple of times already to please start a separate thread. He didn't. So lets hope the mods don't throw this into AAH.

The entire 9/11 Conspiracy Forum belongs in AAH

 

[Oystein]

I'd like to resurrect this thread on the occasion of Bill Smith's latest and failed attempt at telling "A full theory of 9/11" which boiled down to hinm admitting that he is only here "to elucidate the destruction of the buildings" and consequently is not interested in, and won't tell, a true full theory of what happened on 9/11, and why, and by whom.

Maybe some of the current flock of truthers and doubters of the common narrative, such as Marokaan, tmd2_1, Clayton_Moore or Major_Tom would like to give it a try? Please be still mindful of the OP here, which sets the rules "No discussion, please!", and "I would like everybody, debunkers and truthers alike, to state as consisely as possible your working hypothesis of what happened on 9/11, who did it, how they did it, and why they did it."

Thank you.

 

[NoahFence]

Pre-9/11:
OBL and his crew attempt to cause as many casualties as possible by using a truck bomb on the World Trade Center. Truck bombs are nothing new to Al Qaeda, yet this was too big a task for their best efforts. Due to the bombing, security is beefed up to the point where another similar attack on the WTC would be close to impossible. This causes Al Qaeda to rethink their next attack. Upon studying our strengths and weaknesses, they exploit a hole that allows them to, relatively safely, hijack aircraft.

9/11 - They Al Qaeda sends 19 terrorists to hijack 4 different aircraft. All four will be targeting the most high value targets we have in the Financial, Military, and Governmental arenas. Swift action makes this a hugely sucessful venture. Three of the four targets were hit, with the 4th target missed due to the actions of the passengers, who phoned loved ones in fight, who then relayed the day's events to the passengers.

In NYC, the massive damage to the twin towers, coupled with a massive fire doomed both buildings. Ancillary damage is massive.

In DC, portions of the Pentagon were equally damaged, and collapsed.

In Pennsylvania, Flight 93 crashes into a field when the passengers stage a revolt. It is assumed that the hijackers, after coming to grips that they will not reach their target, simply plow the aircraft into the ground. Targets are safely assumed to be either the Capitol Building, or the White House. I personally base this on the other targets, our #1 landmark of financial strenghth is the World Trade Centers. Our #1 landmark of our military strength is the Pentagon. For government, it is the Capitol Building.

Post-9/11
Bush fights back against terrorism across the board, naturally keying in on the middle east. Fighting the Al-Qaeda allies the Talliban in Afganhistan. The unpopular war in Iraq to me remains a mystery, as Saddam Hussein wasn't even a threat to the southern portion of his own country, much less the US. We can debate the pros and cons of our response on a different thread, but all evidence points to the 'official story' being correct. No other reasonable theory has ever been put forth.




Oops...forgot the "why"
Because they hate our freedom.
j/k

I think we have a tendancy to stick our nose in other people's business a bit too much. For us, for our society, we think we're doing the right thing. Groups like Al Qaeda don't think so.

 

[soliboy]

I would like everybody, debunkers and truthers alike, to state as consisely as possible your working hypothesis of what happened on 9/11, who did it, how they did it, and why they did it."

Thank you.

Background:

Emboldened by the USSR's humiliating exit from Afghanistan and crediting themselves with a military victory and (less credibly) with toppling the Soviet regime, OBL and associates formed a loose organization dedicated to violent jihad to overthrow "oppressors" of Muslims, including secular Arab regimes and other enemies around the world.

Gulf War I and its aftermath was perceived by OBL and associates as US occupation of the "land of the two holy cites" with the consent of a corrupt Saudi monarchy. The USA assumed the position of enemy #1 for Bin Laden and associates, leading to repeated attacks on American interests (most notably the embassies and USS Cole).

Attacks:

By 1999 - 2000, AQ decided to launch a major attack inside the US.

KSM, who initially brought the idea to Bin Laden was given the Sheik's approval to proceed with his plan.

The 19 eventual hijackers, selected in Afghanistan to become "martyrs", were sent over the ensuing months to the US to prepare, train for and carry out the attacks. Unclear is whether there was intended at the beginning to be a 20th hijacker. Possibly Ramsi Binalshib. Logistical and financial assistance was provided to the 19 through KSM, Binalshib and others affiliated with AQ.

The 19 AQ-assigned operatives, on the morning of September 11, hijacked the four flights, UA93 and 175, AA11 and AA77, the hijack teams assigned in an order that is clear from the flight manifests.

AA11 was crashed into WTC1 by Mohammed Atta and UA175 by Marwan Al-Shehi crashed into WTC2 igniting massive fires across multiple floors and killing hundreds of innocents inside the airplanes and towers within an instant and scores of injuries outside from falling debris. Hundreds more innocents were trapped above the impact floors being increasingly overcome by the massive heat and thick smoke, leading many to jump or fall from the upper floors to the ground.

AA77 was crashed by Hani Hanjour into the Pentagon killing scores of innocent victims on the ground and airplane passengers, and igniting a massive fire inside the Pentagon, causing the section of building above the impact to collapse some minutes later.

In New York, the WTC towers, both heavily engulfed in flames, showed increasing signs that they were in danger of collapse.

The perimeter columns bowing inwards were clearly visible on the east side of WTC2, WTC1 was visibly leaning to the south with massive fire across the south face at the impact floors.

Finally the floors of WTC2 gave way at the impact area, pulling in the east wall and causing the upper section to tilt and smash through the building below. WTC1 followed in a similar manner shortly afterwards. Damage to the surrounding area was extensive.

On UA93, intended to be crashed into the US Capitol, the passengers became aware of what was happening through phone calls made to loved ones. They fought to try to take back control of the airplane and the hijackers inside the cockpit decided to crash it into the ground in Shanksville to prevent that. Ziad Jarrah pointed the airplane down and crashed it into the ground. All aboard were killed.

Oh and WTC7 collapsed some hours later as a result of the large fires inside it which could not be fought.

The why:

To cause maximum damage possible (including in a political sense) inside the USA. To terrorize the US public. And to provoke the USA into a war in Afghanistan.

I believe in the mind of Osama Bin Laden was the idea that the USA as a world power could be broken by military defeat in Afghanistan in the same way he believed his mujahideen broke the Soviet Union.

And by breaking the USA and its influence around the world, then everything else would follow. Israel could be routed, the secular Arab regimes toppled and the corrupt Saudi monarchy replaced.

And now he's dead.

I don't understand how some folks have so much difficulty figuring out the above.

 

[BStrong]

I go first:

I am convinced, and have no doubt, that 4 civilian airplanes were hijacked and intentionally flown into 3 buildings. One crashed near Shanksville.

I am convinced, and have no doubt, that all the physical damage and loss of life on that day were a result of the plane crashes and the fires they started. No bombs, no additional incendiaries, no controlled demolition

I am convinced, and have no doubt, that the hijackers commaded the cockpits and flew the planes. No remote control.

About flights 11, 175 and 77, I have nothing additional to say.
I am certain, but allow residual doubt, that flight 93 crashed because its passengers resisted and violently iterferred, thus making the hijacker-pilot lose control and crash. No shoot-down to be sure.

I am convinced, and have no doubt, that the hijackings caught FAA and the military units that were on alert to defend the airspace by surprise, that they did everything they could to handle the situation, but were unable to do anything about the 4 planes. The main reasons for this inability were: Too little time; no contingency plans for such situations, resources too thinly spread; inadequate sharing of information between civilian and military agencies due to inadequate or incompatible technology.

I am fairly certain that some agencies of the US goverment had in their possession information that, if assembled and interpreted lucidly ahead of time, might have enabled them to intervene and bust the terrorists before 9/11. I can't judge fairly if the failure to do so is due to avoidable incompetence, or if the odds of finding such information in a sea of data are just prohibitively slim. I do not believe that anyone in these agencies knew of the plan and consciously decided not to interfere. I allow for the remote possibility that there are nefarious elements in the agencies who might be so inclined.

I am certain that the hijackers were a group of 19 or 20 Arabs, mostly from Saudi-Arabia, who were recruited by Al Quaeda, had the blessing of OBL. Among their leaders were KSM and Mohammed Atta. I admit that there is a little wiggle room for doubt, as KSM was abducted in secrecy and tortured. I want to take information presented by secret services with a good grain of salt.

I believe the suicide terrorists were personally motivated mainly by a general feeling of hatred and powerlessness towards the USA and the secualar west. Grievances in connection with the situation in Palestine, and other middle-eastern issues may also individually have placed a role. They were mostly devout muslims of a radical provenance who believed the preaching that they will go to paradise if killed in action against non-believers.

I believe OBL and Al Quaeda hoped to lure the USA into a violent and costly reaction. Secondary goals may have been to gain prestige and attract recruits and other support from muslims around the world, position Al Quaeda as the leading islamist resistance group, or stir up popular uprisings in Arab lands against regimes that Al Quaeda opposes (the monarchies of Saudi-Arabia and Jordan for example, or the Israeli occupations).

I am satisfied with the forensic investigations. They were humongous tasks, had do dive deep into unknown territories, and by and large the efforts were carried out honestly, competently and with sufficient thoroughness. With hindsight, some minor weaknesses may be lamented, such as the failure to investigate WTC7 with the same diligence as WTC1 and 2 were. It is my understanding that the debris of the twin towers was investigated more thoroughly, which undoubtfully is due to its containing so many human remains. There is no foul play.

I think the 9/11 Commission did a great job.

I believe the government, and some agencies thereof, have been too hesitant to allow reviews of their roles in desaster management and preparedness.

I lament that no co-ordinated debate has taken place about the political implications and the fall-out of the attacks. 9/11 has been abused by the Bush administration to further unrelated and sweeping agendas to the detriment of the American people.

Case closed and well stated.

 

[Zeuzzz]

I go first:

I am convinced, and have no doubt, that 4 civilian airplanes were hijacked and intentionally flown into 3 buildings. One crashed near Shanksville.

I am convinced, and have no doubt, that all the physical damage and loss of life on that day were a result of the plane crashes and the fires they started. No bombs, no additional incendiaries, no controlled demolition
I am convinced, and have no doubt, that the hijackers commaded the cockpits and flew the planes. No remote control.

About flights 11, 175 and 77, I have nothing additional to say.
I am certain, but allow residual doubt, that flight 93 crashed because its passengers resisted and violently iterferred, thus making the hijacker-pilot lose control and crash. No shoot-down to be sure.

I am convinced, and have no doubt, that the hijackings caught FAA and the military units that were on alert to defend the airspace by surprise, that they did everything they could to handle the situation, but were unable to do anything about the 4 planes. The main reasons for this inability were: Too little time; no contingency plans for such situations, resources too thinly spread; inadequate sharing of information between civilian and military agencies due to inadequate or incompatible technology.

I am fairly certain that some agencies of the US goverment had in their possession information that, if assembled and interpreted lucidly ahead of time, might have enabled them to intervene and bust the terrorists before 9/11. I can't judge fairly if the failure to do so is due to avoidable incompetence, or if the odds of finding such information in a sea of data are just prohibitively slim. I do not believe that anyone in these agencies knew of the plan and consciously decided not to interfere. I allow for the remote possibility that there are nefarious elements in the agencies who might be so inclined.

I am certain that the hijackers were a group of 19 or 20 Arabs, mostly from Saudi-Arabia, who were recruited by Al Quaeda, had the blessing of OBL. Among their leaders were KSM and Mohammed Atta. I admit that there is a little wiggle room for doubt, as KSM was abducted in secrecy and tortured. I want to take information presented by secret services with a good grain of salt.

I believe the suicide terrorists were personally motivated mainly by a general feeling of hatred and powerlessness towards the USA and the secualar west. Grievances in connection with the situation in Palestine, and other middle-eastern issues may also individually have placed a role. They were mostly devout muslims of a radical provenance who believed the preaching that they will go to paradise if killed in action against non-believers.

I believe OBL and Al Quaeda hoped to lure the USA into a violent and costly reaction. Secondary goals may have been to gain prestige and attract recruits and other support from muslims around the world, position Al Quaeda as the leading islamist resistance group, or stir up popular uprisings in Arab lands against regimes that Al Quaeda opposes (the monarchies of Saudi-Arabia and Jordan for example, or the Israeli occupations). I am satisfied with the forensic investigations. They were humongous tasks, had do dive deep into unknown territories, and by and large the efforts were carried out honestly, competently and with sufficient thoroughness. With hindsight, some minor weaknesses may be lamented, such as the failure to investigate WTC7 with the same diligence as WTC1 and 2 were. It is my understanding that the debris of the twin towers was investigated more thoroughly, which undoubtfully is due to its containing so many human remains. There is no foul play. I think the 9/11 Commission did a great job.
I believe the government, and some agencies thereof, have been too hesitant to allow reviews of their roles in disaster management and preparedness.

I lament that no co-ordinated debate has taken place about the political implications and the fall-out of the attacks. 9/11 has been abused by the Bush administration to further unrelated and sweeping agendas to the detriment of the American people.

All bolded I agree with. All highlighted I disagree with. All normal text i'm undecided.

 

[NoahFence]

What would you gain and how would you react if "one of us" would present you a detailed theory of what happened?

We're as excited about "first time in history" things as truthers are.

 

[Oystein]

All bolded I agree with. All highlighted I disagree with. All normal text i'm undecided.

What's your working theory instead in those areas that you disagree with?

Are you an agnostic towards bombs, additional incendiaries, controlled demolition, or do you believe there were bombs or additional incendiaries or controlled demolitions?

Who do you think the perpetrators were?
What do you think was their motivation and their prosimate and strategic goals?

What are your main criticisms of the major investigations?

 

[ozeco41]

I go first:
I am convinced, and have no doubt, that 4 civilian airplanes were hijacked and intentionally flown into 3 buildings. One crashed near Shanksville. I am convinced, and have no doubt, that all the physical damage and loss of life on that day were a result of the plane crashes and the fires they started. No bombs, no additional incendiaries, no controlled demolition I am convinced, and have no doubt, that the hijackers commaded the cockpits and flew the planes. No remote control. About flights 11, 175 and 77, I have nothing additional to say. I am certain, but allow residual doubt, that flight 93 crashed because its passengers resisted and violently iterferred, thus making the hijacker-pilot lose control and crash. No shoot-down to be sure. I am convinced, and have no doubt, that the hijackings caught FAA and the military units that were on alert to defend the airspace by surprise, that they did everything they could to handle the situation, but were unable to do anything about the 4 planes. The main reasons for this inability were: Too little time; no contingency plans for such situations, resources too thinly spread; inadequate sharing of information between civilian and military agencies due to inadequate or incompatible technology. I am fairly certain that some agencies of the US goverment had in their possession information that, if assembled and interpreted lucidly ahead of time, might have enabled them to intervene and bust the terrorists before 9/11. I can't judge fairly if the failure to do so is due to avoidable incompetence, or if the odds of finding such information in a sea of data are just prohibitively slim. I do not believe that anyone in these agencies knew of the plan and consciously decided not to interfere. I allow for the remote possibility that there are nefarious elements in the agencies who might be so inclined. I am certain that the hijackers were a group of 19 or 20 Arabs, mostly from Saudi-Arabia, who were recruited by Al Quaeda, had the blessing of OBL. Among their leaders were KSM and Mohammed Atta. I admit that there is a little wiggle room for doubt, as KSM was abducted in secrecy and tortured. I want to take information presented by secret services with a good grain of salt.
I believe the suicide terrorists were personally motivated mainly by a general feeling of hatred and powerlessness towards the USA and the secualar west. Grievances in connection with the situation in Palestine, and other middle-eastern issues may also individually have placed a role. They were mostly devout muslims of a radical provenance who believed the preaching that they will go to paradise if killed in action against non-believers.

I believe OBL and Al Quaeda hoped to lure the USA into a violent and costly reaction. Secondary goals may have been to gain prestige and attract recruits and other support from muslims around the world, position Al Quaeda as the leading islamist resistance group, or stir up popular uprisings in Arab lands against regimes that Al Quaeda opposes (the monarchies of Saudi-Arabia and Jordan for example, or the Israeli occupations).

I am satisfied with the forensic investigations. They were humongous tasks, had do dive deep into unknown territories, and by and large the efforts were carried out honestly, competently and with sufficient thoroughness. With hindsight, some minor weaknesses may be lamented, such as the failure to investigate WTC7 with the same diligence as WTC1 and 2 were. It is my understanding that the debris of the twin towers was investigated more thoroughly, which undoubtfully is due to its containing so many human remains. There is no foul play.
I think the 9/11 Commission did a great job.

I believe the government, and some agencies thereof, have been too hesitant to allow reviews of their roles in desaster management and preparedness.

I lament that no co-ordinated debate has taken place about the political implications and the fall-out of the attacks. 9/11 has been abused by the Bush administration to further unrelated and sweeping agendas to the detriment of the American people.

My turn.
The highlighted stuff I am near enough to full agreement with Oystein.

The underscored material about terrorist motivations I am not interested in and my position is agnostic.

The italic material goes to political processes where standards such as "realistic" could be better than "did a great job".


I doubt that the political and terrorist motivational aspects are capable of any resolution in Internet discussions. Contrast with issues such as "Was it CD?" (WTC) "Was it the plane?" (Pentagon) and "Was it shot down?" (Shanksville) which are all technical questions and readily answered for reasonable honest people.

I see that Zeuzzz disagrees with "No bombs, no additional incendiaries, no controlled demolition". Removing the double negative it means he thinks there was CD. That is a technical question and readily lends to "proof" one way or another. (allowing for all the concerns about "proof' being used in a para-scientific context. My own view also that it is a case of engineering forensic analysis where the so called scientific method is not fully valid. But that is a separate topic ) Given the use of "proof" there can be no doubt on two aspects:
1) the weight of evidence is overwhelmingly "No CD"! AND
2) Nobody claiming CD has ever put forward a supportable reasoned hypothesis as to how CD could be achieved.

 

[DGM]

All bolded I agree with. All highlighted I disagree with. All normal text i'm undecided.

Just out of curiosity. Why do you think the world should care what you think? Do you think there is a large group of people that share this view? (if yes) Why do you think most everyone is blissfully unaware of these issues? What are you doing to resolve these problems you have in understanding?

 

[BCR]

I would like everybody, debunkers and truthers alike, to state as consisely as possible your working hypothesis of what happened on 9/11, who did it, how they did it, and why they did it.

I'm really quite sick of the whole 9/11 "debate", but I thought I would take time to answer this one and I'll be short-and-sweet about it.

19 foreign nationals affiliated with Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda network hijacked 4 commercial aircraft. They prepared months, and in some cases years to carry out an attack conceptualized by three Baluchi, Abdul Hakim Murad (a pilot who trained in four American flight schools in the early 90's and did some of the initial planning for the 1993 WTC bombing), Ramzi Yousef (bomb-maker for the 1993 WTC bombing and other large scale terrorist plots) and Yousef's uncle, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM). After the initial plot was foiled (Bojinka) in early 1995 and subsequent arrests of Murad and Yousef, KSM continued to develop the plot. At some point, in 1997 or 1998 he brought his idea to Osama Bin Laden and joined his network. After initially turning down the plan, by 1998 or 1999, OBL agreed to fund and supply manpower for the plot.

Beyond the execution and planning of the plot, there is significant evidence to indicate that the CIA and NSA had substantial clues and information related to the plot. There is also evidence that the CIA may have actively followed at least two of the hijackers into the US and actively withheld that information from the FBI. My personal belief is that these unorthodox actions by the CIA were known to upper levels of management, to include Tenet and Richard Clarke.

As to the actual details of what happened on 9/11, I think the 911 Commission pretty much got the specific chronology of events right. I have lingering questions as to whether or not secondary explosive devices were used (I never did buy the jet fuel cause for well established lobby and basement level explosions at the time of the event). I also do not subscribe to the NIST account for the collapse of WTC7, although I do not rule it out either. That does not mean much though because I am not a structural engineer and really not prepared (or qualified) to endorse any explanation for the collapse of WTC7. None-the-less, the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 in mind are best explained by the NIST hypothesis.

Most likely we will never know (at least not in my lifetime) exactly what the US intelligence community knew, and if LIHOP, exactly why they did. It could have been just sheer incompetence, or some other innocuous circumstance. It may have been something more sinister, such as anger at the Clinton Administration for undermining them in regards to OBL, or the Bush Administration's evident lack of interest (or both). However, at this point it is harder for me to believe that they did not know of the upcoming attack along with some of the participants involved, than it is for me to believe that they did not.

After the attack, I believe that there is evidence that some records related to the day's events were altered and/or destroyed. Well, I have their admission in writing that some key evidence was destroyed and from the FBI that some is "missing". So really that is not in dispute. The reasons for it could certainly be anything from just sheer stupidity, incompetence or something more sinister. However, at this point I can only speculate and quite frankly I don't have enough information to make a valid judgment one way or the other on the issue.

I still keep alert to new information as it becomes available out of historical curiosity. But as far as the "conspiracy" stuff goes, I really don't give a crap any more.

 

[MaGZ]

Shouldn’t I win an award for Best Original Screenplay?

See post 86.

 

[sts60]

Planes hijacked by terrorists, one each hitting WTC 1 and WTC 2, which collapsed from fires and structural damage, and, well, Oystein and the other rational posters have already covered it.

I would theoretically allow for two variations on this:

1. Flight 93 being struck by a missile fired from the Camp David area, during the passengers' attack on the hijackers. I haven't tried to figure out if this was even within range - I doubt it - and I have no idea if any such weapon was in place there.

2. Secondary devices set off at WTC 1 or WTC 2 - bombs designed to harm first responders and evacuating civilians. This scenario would include unidentified conspirators not among the hijackers.

Note that I don't actually believe either one happened, nor that there is any credible evidence for either. I'm just stretching the scenario a bit.

Also note that both are compatible with the "standard" narrative and require no complicity on the part of anybody but the terrorists. Not revealing a hypothetical SAM from Camp David could simply be a matter of operational security; it would take nothing away from the heroism of the passengers who doped out what was going on and decided to fight back against the bad guys.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Shouldn’t I win an award for Best Original Screenplay?

See post 86.

Well, unlike other TM adherents, at least you put something forth.

 

[carlitos]

Don't forget 9/11Investigator. He has a whole webpage with his fictional story. how911wasdone.blogspot.com, IIRC. He posted the link when I posted this topic a few years back. I guess you could conclude that neonazi holocaust deniers have less to risk, so why not write a fictional story about 9/11. It's what they do as a hobby - write fictional versions of horrific tragedy.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I go first:

I am convinced, and have no doubt, that 4 civilian airplanes were hijacked and intentionally flown into 3 buildings. One crashed near Shanksville.

I am convinced, and have no doubt, that all the physical damage and loss of life on that day were a result of the plane crashes and the fires they started. No bombs, no additional incendiaries, no controlled demolition

I am convinced, and have no doubt, that the hijackers commaded the cockpits and flew the planes. No remote control.

About flights 11, 175 and 77, I have nothing additional to say.
I am certain, but allow residual doubt, that flight 93 crashed because its passengers resisted and violently iterferred, thus making the hijacker-pilot lose control and crash. No shoot-down to be sure.

I am convinced, and have no doubt, that the hijackings caught FAA and the military units that were on alert to defend the airspace by surprise, that they did everything they could to handle the situation, but were unable to do anything about the 4 planes. The main reasons for this inability were: Too little time; no contingency plans for such situations, resources too thinly spread; inadequate sharing of information between civilian and military agencies due to inadequate or incompatible technology.

I am fairly certain that some agencies of the US goverment had in their possession information that, if assembled and interpreted lucidly ahead of time, might have enabled them to intervene and bust the terrorists before 9/11. I can't judge fairly if the failure to do so is due to avoidable incompetence, or if the odds of finding such information in a sea of data are just prohibitively slim. I do not believe that anyone in these agencies knew of the plan and consciously decided not to interfere. I allow for the remote possibility that there are nefarious elements in the agencies who might be so inclined.

I am certain that the hijackers were a group of 19 or 20 Arabs, mostly from Saudi-Arabia, who were recruited by Al Quaeda, had the blessing of OBL. Among their leaders were KSM and Mohammed Atta. I admit that there is a little wiggle room for doubt, as KSM was abducted in secrecy and tortured. I want to take information presented by secret services with a good grain of salt.

I believe the suicide terrorists were personally motivated mainly by a general feeling of hatred and powerlessness towards the USA and the secualar west. Grievances in connection with the situation in Palestine, and other middle-eastern issues may also individually have placed a role. They were mostly devout muslims of a radical provenance who believed the preaching that they will go to paradise if killed in action against non-believers.

I believe OBL and Al Quaeda hoped to lure the USA into a violent and costly reaction. Secondary goals may have been to gain prestige and attract recruits and other support from muslims around the world, position Al Quaeda as the leading islamist resistance group, or stir up popular uprisings in Arab lands against regimes that Al Quaeda opposes (the monarchies of Saudi-Arabia and Jordan for example, or the Israeli occupations).

I am satisfied with the forensic investigations. They were humongous tasks, had do dive deep into unknown territories, and by and large the efforts were carried out honestly, competently and with sufficient thoroughness. With hindsight, some minor weaknesses may be lamented, such as the failure to investigate WTC7 with the same diligence as WTC1 and 2 were. It is my understanding that the debris of the twin towers was investigated more thoroughly, which undoubtfully is due to its containing so many human remains. There is no foul play.

I think the 9/11 Commission did a great job.

I believe the government, and some agencies thereof, have been too hesitant to allow reviews of their roles in desaster management and preparedness.

I lament that no co-ordinated debate has taken place about the political implications and the fall-out of the attacks. 9/11 has been abused by the Bush administration to further unrelated and sweeping agendas to the detriment of the American people.

That covers it for me.