King Rat

That is what I thought too, but I'm seeing a bunch of different interpretations. Which is the correct one? I obviously can't trust the official Bush version, same intelligence team right?

Craig

Don't forget he has taken credit for other attacks, namely the first WTC attacks and the Cole attack.

Now that I think about it, he did didn't he? Or am I mixing this up in my head?

King Rat

Jeez the net sucks sometimes! Just type "911 bin laden connection" into any search engine and you get a gajillion hits of pure garbage!

It's like trying to find a needle in a stack of wackos.

Farren

To be fair, the odds are in favour of this being orchestrated by Al Qaida even in the absence of evidence. It was widely known before the attacks that they represented the largest and most well funded global fundamentalist organisation of the time.

I remember my former bus. partner calling me up on my cell and saying "switch on the TV", then watching the second plane hit. While it was happening we were discussing how the most likely suspect was Bin Laden.

My partner even speculated that the US might use it as a pretext to attack Afghanistan. No bullshit.

I think a lot of Joe Public only heard of Al Qaida and Bin Laden after the attacks, but there were three page Time articles on him long before that. Most people with a keen interest in world affairs had heard of the organisation and heard it named as a serious threat before 9/11.

I say the balance of probabilities favours Al Qaida as the culprit because although the methods used were simple, the planning and preparation implied an organisation with a significant infrastructure and resources.

I do wonder sometimes, however, whether the Bush admin knew something was gonna happen and didn't act appropriately because they were hoping for a pretext for ongoing warfare.

Optional

That's actually the most troubling thing to me about this whole business. I don't have enough information to make ANY decision as to what actually happened on 911, but... When you have a successful terrorist attack, you then get a terrorist group claiming credit. Always. Without that, the act, as you say, is almost meaningless. But with this, one of the largest acts of terrorism in history... No claims. None.

The evidence we do have is stuff that was not originally meant for media eyes. And that evidence is extremely shaky on the face of it. I agree that IF this was a terrorist act, it is VERY likely that the al Qa'ueda done it, and it's VERY likely that OBL ordered it.

But... Why no claims???

-me

Loren Pechtel

I wouldn't blame Bush for this. Pre 9/11 there simply wasn't the popular support for going after him.

Defiant Heretic

I hope you're joking, but just in case you're not, see the debunking of that conspiracy here, here, and here.

Abacus

Nope. I was serious.

Grumpy

Yeah! Like when Clinton launched cruise missiles at the al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan in 1998, he was accused of "wagging the dog." Shame on him.

Monkeybot

Loren, the file was closed, period. That meant that not only were we not physically going after him, we weren't even investigating the guy properly behind closed doors. Call me persnickety but I'd call that negligence.