Our 20 Year Rule rollover happens at the start of the year, so we posted about it then, but due to the significance of the event -- as well as the accompanying bad history -- we have reposted our January 1st historical overview here. As we are expecting many questions on the topic today, this Megathread will serve as a one-stop repository.
On behalf of the mods and flaired community, /u/tlumacz and I have put together an overview of the events surrounding the attacks of 9/11, including the history of relevant people and organizations such as Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda. This isn't meant to be the exhaustive, final word or a complete history. Instead, we want to provide the AH community with insight into the history and address some common misconceptions and misunderstandings that surround September 11th, 2001.
This is a META thread, so we will be allowing some discussion beyond simple questions, but within limits. If you are interested primarily in sharing your own experiences from that day, or discussing it with others, /r/history is running a thread this week that is dedicated specifically for those types of comments.
In addition to the sources in this post we now have a large comprehensive booklist put together by the flairs and mods.
...
Osama bin Laden and the formation of al-Qaeda
To best contextualize the events of the day, we’re going to start with Osama bin Laden. His father, billionaire Mohammed bin Laden, was one of the richest men in Saudi Arabia. Mohammed made his wealth from a construction empire but died when Osama was only 10, leaving behind 56 children and a massive fortune. The prominence of the family name and wealth are two important factors for understanding Osama's rise to power.
The bin Ladens were generally Westernized and many members of the family frequently travelled or sought out education outside Saudi Arabia. Osama bin Laden, however, was upset at Saudi Arabia's close ties with the West and was more attracted to religious practices. The relationship between Saudi Arabia and the US was established in the 1940s when FDR signed a deal with King Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud, essentially giving the US primary access to oil in exchange for support and — essential to this history — defense from the US military.
Osama bin Laden went to college at King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia in the late 70s. After graduating, he traveled to Afghanistan to help the freedom fighters — known as the mujahedeen — in their battle against the Soviets, who had invaded in 1979. Unlike some young men who joined the battles in Afghanistan and took a "summer camp" approach, spending a few months in training before going back to their home countries, Osama was a true believer. He stayed and committed to the fight. He used his leverage as a son of Mohammad bin Laden and his large yearly financial allowance to smooth over initial troubles integrating into the group. (Note: The United States, though the CIA, also were funding the Afghan freedom fighters against the Soviets. The funding didn’t end until 1992, long after Osama bin Laden had left -- the two were not affiliated.)
The group al-Qaeda intended as a more global organization than the mujahideen, was founded in 1988 in order to further Islamic causes, Osama played a role in funding and leading from its inception. The Soviets withdrew the year after, and Osama bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia a hero, having helped bring down a superpower. Potentially rudderless, he was energized in the summer of 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. This event kicked off what is known as the Gulf War. Given Kuwait was adjacent to Saudi Arabia, and the enduring close relationship between the kingdom and the US — hundreds of thousands of US troops were mobilized and housed in Saudi Arabia, with Saudi Arabia footing most of the bill.
Osama bin Laden tried to pitch the fighters trained up from their years in Afghanistan as being up to the task of defending Kuwait as opposed to calling in the Americans, but his plea was rejected by the Saudi government (Note: to be fair, it is unlikely his force was large enough to handle the Iraqi military, the fourth largest military in the world at the time). This rejection, combined with the fact the US lingered for several years after the Gulf War ended, diverting resources from the Saudi Arabian people directly to the Americans, made an impression on Osama.
He vocally expressed disgust, and given that the Saudi Royal Family did not tolerate dissent, soon left the country for Sudan (which had just had an Islamist coup) in 1991. Even from another country, Osama kept up his public disdain for Saudi Arabia; family members pleaded with him to stop, but he didn’t and eventually, he was kicked out for good: his citizenship was revoked.
Meanwhile, he kept close contact with various terrorist groups — Sudan was a hub — and used the wealth he still possessed to build farming and construction businesses.
His public resentment for the United States continued, and as he was clearly a power player, the CIA successfully pressured the leadership of Sudan into kicking Osama bin Laden out in 1997; his assets were confiscated and he started anew in Afghanistan, finding safe shelter with the ruling Taliban, a political movement and military force. The Taliban had essentially taken control of the country by 1996, although the civil war was still ongoing. Almost immediately after he arrived, bin Laden made a "declaration of war" against the US. He later explained:
We declare jihad against the United States because the US Government is an unjust, criminal, and abusive government.
He objected to the US occupying Islam’s holy places (which included the Gulf War occupation), and had specific grievance with the US's continued support of Israel and the Saudi royals. For him, it was clearly not just a religious matter, but also personal and political.
Earlier that same year, the CIA established a special unit, based in Tysons Corner, Virginia, specifically for tracking Osama bin Laden They searched for a reason to bring charges, and finally had a break when Jamal Ahmed al-Fadl (code named "Junior"), one of the first to give allegiance to Osama, approached the Americans. He had stolen $100,000 from Osama and needed protection. In return, he offered details about organizational charts and most importantly, a way to connect Osama to the Black Hawk Down incident in Mogadishu in 1993. The CIA was working to gather enough evidence such that if the opportunity presented itself, he could be taken into custody for conspiring to attack the United States.
Meanwhile, the CIA worked to raise alarms among the military and intelligence communities. When George W. Bush won the presidency in 2000 and first met Clinton at the White House, Clinton said
I think you will find that by far your biggest threat is bin Laden and the al-Qaeda.
Some of the events that led to that assessment included the 1996 al-Qaeda-led attempted assassination plot on US President Bill Clinton while he was in Manila. (The Secret Service were alerted and agents found a bomb under a bridge). In 1998, al-Qaeda orchestrated attacks on US embassies in Africa that led to the deaths of hundreds. Then in 2000, they were responsible for the bombing of the USS Cole (suicide bombers in a small boat went alongside the destroyer, killing 17 crew members).
By the time the warning about Al-Qaeda was shared with Bush, plans for what would later become known as 9/11 were well underway. The plan was put into motion when, in the summer of 2000, a number of Al-Qaeda members took up flight training in the United States. Final decisions, including target selection, were probably made in July 2001, when the terrorists’ field commander, Mohamed Atta, traveled to Spain for a meeting with his friend and now coordinator: Ramzi bin al-Shibh. The nineteen hijackers were divided into four groups, each with a certified pilot who would be able to guide the airliners into their targets plus three or four enforcers whose job it was to ensure that the terrorist pilot was able to successfully carry out his task. The hijacking itself was easy enough. The terrorists used utility knives and pepper spray to subdue the flight attendants and passengers.
Before we go into the specifics of what happened on September 11, 2001, we want to address the idea of a “20th hijacker.” Tactically, it makes sense to have equal teams of 5 men. While the identity of the would-be 20th hijacker has never been confirmed (nor has the reason for his dropping out of the operation been established), circumstances indicate he did exist and numerous hypotheses as to who the man was have been proposed. (The most prominent — Zacarias Moussaoui, who was convicted in federal court of conspiracy to commit terrorism — later said he was supposed to be involved in a different terrorist attack, after September 11th.)
September 11, 2001
Early in the morning of 9/11 four airliners took off from airports in the US East Coast: two Boeing 757s and two Boeing 767s, two of American Airlines and two of United Airlines. All four planes were scheduled to fly to California, on the US West Coast, which meant they carried a large fuel load. The hijackers knew that once they redirected to their targets, they would still have most of that fuel. The two planes that struck the WTC towers had been in the air for less than an hour.
American Airlines Flight 11 hit the North Tower and United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center, in New York City. Both impacts damaged the utility shaft systems and jet fuel spilled down elevator shafts and ignited, crashing elevators and causing large fires in the lobbies of the buildings. Both buildings collapsed less than two hours later. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), tasked by the US Congress with investigating the cause of the buildings’ collapse, reported portions of the buildings reached 1000 degrees centigrade. (Note: Not only was jet fuel burning, so were desks, curtains, furniture, and other items within the WTC While some like to point out this is under the "melting point" of steel [1510 centigrade], this detail is absolutely irrelevant: the steel did not liquify. Consider the work of a blacksmith; they do not need to melt steel in order to bend it into shape. Steel starts to weaken at around 600 centigrade, and 1000 centigrade is sufficient to cause steel to lose 90% strength, so there was enough warping for both buildings to entirely lose their integrity.)
A third, nearby tower was damaged by debris from the collapse of the other towers, causing large fires that compromised the building’s structural integrity. Internally, "Column 79" buckled, followed by Columns 80 and 81, leading to a progressive structural collapse where, as the NIST report puts it, "The exterior façade on the east quarter of the building was just a hollow shell." This led to the core collapsing, followed by the exterior. (Note: There is a conspiracy theory related to a conversation the real estate developer Larry Silverstein, and owner of the building, had with the fire department commander. He was heard saying, "We've had such a terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." However, this is common firefighter terminology and simply refers to pulling out firefighters from a dangerous environment.)
At 9:37 AM, the terrorist piloting American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon. The plane first hit the ground, causing one wing to disintegrate and the other to shear off. The body of the plane then hit the first floor, leaving a hole 75 feet wide. Things could have been much worse: the portion of the Pentagon hit was undergoing renovation so had a quarter of the normal number of employees; additionally, while 26 of the columns holding up the second floor were destroyed, it took half an hour before the floor above collapsed. This meant all of the people on the 2nd through 5th floors were able to safely escape. Meanwhile, the Pentagon itself is mostly concrete as it was built during WWII, while steel was being rationed. The steel that was used turned out to be placed in fortuitously beneficial ways. The pillars had been reinforced with steel in a spiral design (as opposed to hoops) and the concrete pillars were reinforced with overlapping steel beams.
Note: There is a conspiracy theory that the Pentagon was struck by a missile rather than a plane. This is absurd for numerous reasons, one being the hundreds who saw the plane as it approached the Pentagon (some observers even recognized the plane’s livery as belonging to American Airlines.) Second, nearly all the passengers from the flight were later identified by DNA testing. Third, one of the first responders, a structural engineer, said
I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the stone on one side of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I stood on a pile of debris that we later discovered contained the black box.… I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?
The fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, crashed into a field in rural Pennsylvania. The passengers on the plane were able to overwhelm the enforcers and break into the cockpit. The crash caused no structural damage, and took no lives, on the ground.
We now need to rewind to what was happening immediately following the hijacking of the four planes. Controversy surrounds the immediate response of the US military to the attacks, with questions about why the airliners were not shot down (or, conversely, could they have legally been shot down.) In the end, the military response was stifled by communications chaos and the fact that by and large the terrorists did not leave enough time for a comprehensive reaction. The first fighters, F-15C Eagles from Otis Air National Guard Base in Massachusetts, were scrambled after the first tower had already been hit. By the time Lieutenant Colonel Timothy Duffy and Major Daniel Nash reached New York, the other WTC tower had been struck. Nash would later recall:
I remember shortly after takeoff you could see the smoke because it was so clear: the smoke from the towers burning. . . . And then we were about 70 miles out when they said, ‘a second aircraft has hit the World Trade Center.’
An additional three fighters took to the air from Langley AFB in Virginia, at 0930. With just seven minutes left before American 77 would hit the Pentagon, the Langley jets would have been hard pressed to make it in time to see the impact, let alone to prevent it. In the end, it made no difference that in the initial confusion, they first flew away from DC. Finally, two F-16s, those of Lieutenant Colonel Marc H. Sasseville and Lieutenant Heather Penney, took off from Andrews Air Force Base at 1042. Their task was to intercept and destroy any hijacked airliner that might attempt to enter DC airspace. The rapidity of the order, however, meant that the F-16s were sent out unarmed. As a result, both pilots were acutely aware that their orders were, essentially, to commit suicide. They would have had to ram the incoming B757, with Sasseville ordering Penney to strike the tail while he would strike the nose. The chances of a successful ejection would have been minuscule.
Note: modern airliners are very good at staying in the air even when not fully functional and are designed with a potential engine failure in mind. As a result, any plan hinging on “just damage and disable one of the engines” (for example, by striking it with the vertical stabilizer) carried unacceptable risk of failure: the fighter jet would have been destroyed either way, but while the pilot would have a better chance of surviving, Flight 93 could have continued on its way. Therefore, ramming the fuselage was the only method of attack which would have given a near-certainty of the B757 being stopped there and then.
Further reports and inquiries, including the 9/11 Commission, revealed a stupefying degree of chaos and cover-ups at the higher levels of command on the day of the attacks. While “fog of war” was certainly a factor, and the FAA’s failure to communicate with NORAD exacerbated the chaos, the timeline of events later published by NORAD contradicted established facts and existing records and became a paramount example of a government agency trying to avoid blame for their errors throughout the sequence of events described here. Members of the 9/11 Commission identified these contradictions and falsehoods as a leading cause of conspiracy theories regarding the attacks.
What happened after
The aftermath, which is beyond the scope of this post, was global. Sympathy and unity came from nearly all corners of the world; a response of force was authorized by the US on September 18, 2001:
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
The joint US-British effort to eliminate the Taliban began on October 7, with France, Germany, Australia, and Canada also pledging support. Ground forces arrived in Afghanistan 12 days later, but most of the fighting happened between the Taliban and the Afghan rebels, who had been fighting against the Taliban all this time. The international support led to a quick sweep over Taliban strongholds in November: Taloqan, Bamiyan, Herat, Kabul, Jalalabad. The Taliban collapsed entirely and surrendered Kandahar on December 9th.
In December 2001, Osama bin Laden was tracked to caves southeast of Kabul, followed by an extensive firefight against the al-Qaeda led by Afghan forces. He escaped on December 16, effectively ending the events of 2001.
We have entered the third millennium through a gate of fire. If today, after the horror of 11 September, we see better, and we see further — we will realize that humanity is indivisible. New threats make no distinction between races, nations or regions. A new insecurity has entered every mind, regardless of wealth or status. A deeper awareness of the bonds that bind us all — in pain as in prosperity — has gripped young and old.
-- Kofi Annan, seventh Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his December 2001 Nobel Lecture
....
Below are some selected references; a much larger booklist can be found here.
Coll, S. (2005). Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan and Bin Laden. United Kingdom: Penguin Books Limited.
Kean, T., & Hamilton, L. (2004). The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. Government Printing Office.
McDermott, T. (2005). Perfect Soldiers: The Hijackers: Who They Were. Why They Did It. HarperCollins.
Mlakar, P. E., Dusenberry, D. O., Harris, J. R., Haynes, G., Phan, L. T., & Sozen, M. A. (2003). The Pentagon Building Performance Report. American Society of Civil Engineers.
Tawil, C., Bray, R. (2011). Brothers In Arms: The Story of Al-Qa'ida and the Arab Jihadists. Saqi.
Thompson, K. D. (2011). Final Reports from the NIST World Trade Center Disaster Investigation.
Wright, L. (2006). The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11. Knopf.
NOTE: We've had a few people bring up building 7, that is, WTC 7, which is mentioned in the post (see the paragraph about "column 79"). Anyone peddling conspiracy theories will be banned.
Best of luck to the mod team! I know from experience events/changes this major make things really hectic for a while.
One question has been bothering me for a while: To what extent was the exact timing of the 9/11 attacks planned? At the time of the WTC impacts 8:46 and 9:03 AM, the workday was still young. The WTC was nowhere near as full as it would have been around the average peak of activity ~12:00-1:00PM, and these slightly later impacts might be expected to have resulted in substantially higher death toll.
Was there a strategic reasoning behind attacking the towers during mid-morning, rather than early afternoon?
As long as we're on the subject of the timing of the attacks, I have a second question--why September 11th and not, say, July 4th (American Independence Day)? Do we know how long in advance the date for the attacks were chosen?
the CIA successfully pressured the leadership of Sudan into kicking Osama bin Laden out in 1997; his assets were confiscated and he started anew in Afghanistan
I can't remember if it was the Netflix doc, or the PBS Frontline piece, but one of them mentioned that the U.S. was presented with an opportunity by Sudanese authorities to go apprehend Bin Laden, but someone made the decision that they didn't have enough information to press charges, so they declined the offer for capture.
Did I hear this correctly, or am I combining multiple things from different parts of the documentaries?
In December 2001, Osama bin Laden was tracked to caves southeast of Kabul, followed by an extensive firefight against the al-Qaeda led by Afghan forces.
Is this referring to Tora Bora? If so, my question again relates to something said in the aforementioned documentaries that have come out over the past few weeks. There was apparently discussion where military advisors felt that Bin Laden could have been captured if a large contingent of U.S. SOF troops had been deployed, but the decision was to hold off, and he slipped across the border.
My question is, how far up the chain of command did this discussion go about deploying an enormous force of Special Operations troops, and do we know the reasoning on why that suggestion didnt go through?
Do we know what the intended target of the 4th plane was?
Thank you for this detailed write up, and I have two questions about the immediate aftermath and how it led into the Afghan War.
How was Al Qaeda's responsibility established? If I recall correctly, it was not until after Osama fled Afghanistan that he publicly took credit.
As I understand, the Taliban essentially said that they would not hand over Osama bin Laden without proof, was any attempt made to give it to them and find a diplomatic resolution?
(Incidentally, I believe you have actually answered these questions for me before, but I lost the link)
Thank you for doing this.
Many people who were young adults or older at the time of the attacks (myself included) mourn the loss of what the world was - or at least, how it felt - before 9/11 happened.
My question is: from a historical perspective, can we quantify or at least identify what about society/modern life/culture was "lost" (edit: or what changed notably) because of 9/11? We talk about things like losing "innocence" and losing a default feeling of safety in public space, but what else?
As an anecdote, I miss the way TV news was presented before 9/11. Maybe I'm misremembering, but it sure seems like the 24/7 headline ticker wasn't a thing before this event.
I've read that shortly after the attacks, Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defence at the time, specifically asked whether the attacks could be linked to Saddam Hussein. Why did he ask this? What was the context?
Why most media around the world rarely mention Saudi Arabia involvement but focus on the Taliban and Afghanistan?
Thank you for the comprehensive write-up and references. What surprises me, however, is how peppered it is with references to popular conspiracy theories. I'm not surprised by the conspiracies, but that even now, we need to acknowledge them and discredit them, 20 years on.
Some of these rumours are simple lack of knowledge ("jet fuel can't melt steel beams") through to crazy conspiracies (distortion of the fire chief's comments as above) to the downright racist (e.g. the claim jews were forewarned of the attack and didn't show up for work - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/sep/08/terrorism.september11)
My question is, is this a more recent phenomenon, having to directly address so many conspiracy theories in a historical write-up? It is not something I see in write-ups about earlier significant events, though common sense would tell us that people are better informed and educated now, en masse, than people were 50, 100, 500 years ago.
Is there something about the medium, the internet, giving more life and persistence to these rumours? Is it a lack of trust in centralised, fact-driven publications? Is it a product of a climate of fear and lack of trust in the concept of truth?
I have read much and more about the history of the event. What I'm interested in is its historiography. Now that we are two decades removed from the horrible emotional impact of the attacks, and we have witnessed many of its consequences, how big the significance of the event really is, especially considering world history outside of the US and North America? I know that "historical significance" is a very subjective term, but could you give some examples of other events, in the 20th century or even earlier, to which you would assign a similar measure of significance as to 9/11?
My question is: What happened to people who had other emergencies like a heart attack or a car accident in Manhattan on 9/11? Were they ignored or less prioritised? Did they receive delayed care? How did NY emergency services deal with other smaller emergencies?
General Wesley Clark claimed in his Democracy Now interview (relevant part here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNt7s_Wed_4, full version https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeQ9jAqdN1I) that around 10 days after the attack, the decision to go to war against Iraq has been already made, and was subsequently expanded to 7 countries.
I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11.
About 10 days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon, and I saw
Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs
just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to
work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve
got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too
busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going
to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said,
“We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said,
“I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they
find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.”
He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to
go to war with Iraq.”<...>
So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were
bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?”
And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He
picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from
upstairs” — meaning the secretary of defense’s office — “today.” And he
said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven
countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon,
Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”
How credible is gen. Clark's account?
What was public awareness of Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and Islamic extremism like in the runup to 9/11?
Edit: I've read that there were numerous reports of 'false attacks,' such as a reported bombings at the state department or rumors of other hijacked planes. Some of these fake incidents were reported by national news sources. What caused these rumors to spread? And was there ever any basis in truth to any of them?
At what point did people start to realize this was an attack? And at what point did Al Qaeda take credit, and then when was that able to be verified? I remember very early in all of this, my mother saying “some idiot tried to buzz a big building in New York and ended up hitting it”, I think initially this was reported as an accident.
Why did building 7 collapse ?
What was the actual relationship between Bin Laden and the atack.
Was he simply the founder of the organisation, and knew nothing else?
Was he the direct backer of the group but wasn't involved with the planing?
Was he informed and gave the go to the mission?
Was he simply the easy leader to pin this one and he gladly took credit?
Another completely different option?
I never got a clear answer on this (not that I searched hard besides news at the time) and now 20 years later I hope the history is settle.
Thank you for the details, and I have 2 questions about the event.
P.S: I've also seen drastic, unprecedented change in security standards of airlines around the world. My father, who worked as an airport ground staff, used to bring me into the airfield during his work before the event, but after that, the security checkpoint at the airport would not let a non-operational staff in any more.
What’s the deal with the insider trading/weird market activity pre-9/11? Some of the self-described truthers (who believe in advanced-knowledge conspiracies) seem to put a lot of stock into this. Was it normal, indicative of something else, or otherwise relevant?
Was there any connection between the 1993 WTC bombing and the decision to hit the World Trade Center in 2001? Or just coincidental to hit a target with the same meaning?
Thank you for the write up.
Do we know what level of US response Al Qaeda was expecting to the attacks? Did they do any preparation for the expected aftermath?
Thank you for the write-up.
There's a very interesting interview with Lt. H. Penney, where she explains what was happening at the time and how she felt. I'm on mobile atm, so perhaps someone can look that up for us?
Anyway, I do have another question, though I assume this is more architetural: Why did the towers collapse on themselves and not lean over and start taking down nearby skyscrapers? They would have been high enough, or?
Thank you. Enjoy your weekend, everyone.
Great post!
A follow up question:
Osama bin Laden tried to pitch the fighters trained up from their years in Afghanistan as being up to the task of defending Kuwait as opposed to calling in the Americans, but his plea was rejected by the Saudi government
...
This rejection, combined with the fact the US lingered for several years after the Gulf War ended, diverting resources from the Saudi Arabian people directly to the Americans, made an impression on Osama.
How did these diverted resources from the Saudi Arabian people directly to the Americans?
Thank you for this great write-up.
I have another question concerning a claim I've heard repeatedly in Europe and wondered as to its content: this claim goes that the name "Al Qa'ida" was brought up during the trial on the first world trade center bombing (1992) the first time, and that the FBI -- not the network itself -- essentially came up with the name to give it a label for public discussion; in other words, the story is that al Qaeda didn't even really name itself until after it was called that way publicly by the FBI. This always sounded a bit odd to me.
So the source-relevant question here is: what is our primary source for the first mentioning of the name "Al-Qa'ida"?
I have had so many people today tell me they knew it was a plane that hit when the first plane hit the towers. The way I remember it was no one knew and there was some assumption it might have been a two-seater plane. No one went to jet until they saw the second one hit. I've been googling for about 10 hours and can't find a definitive answer either way. Can anyone point me toward the truth?
Why was 9/11 declared an act of war, and not a crime? I don't think there was any legal basis for "act of war", and as the victims were non-combatants and there was no "war" as such, it was a crime; massive and unprecedented it's true, but a crime nonetheless.
Note: The United States, though the CIA, also were funding the Afghan freedom fighters against the Soviets. The funding didn’t end until 1992,long after Osama bin Laden had left -- the two were not affiliated.
Is there a typo here? As written it implies that the US was funding the mujahideen while Bin Laden was there.
How does the public reaction to 9/11 compare to that of Pearl Harbor?
I remember news reports from that day that they found explosives on the George Washington bridge and vividly remember the report of ‘four non-arabs arrested’ for it.
What’s the deal with this? What happened here? I know it wasn’t a hallucination but never heard anything about it since.
I distinctly remember news reports of a fifth plane flying "up the Potomac at a high rate of speed." Everything was so crazy, I assume it was some kind of military response, but have never been able to actually track down what that was. Anybody have insight?
Forgive me if this isn't the right place to post this 9/11 question.
Are there similar instances in history where a tiny group of people have caused such massive long lasting reorganization and expense to a great power?
What about the families of the terrorists ? Their mother and fathers ? Did someone take interviews with them ? What do they think about their child did?
The funding didn’t end until 1992, long after Osama bin Laden had left -- the two were not affiliated.
I'm very curious about this statement that seemingly states there was no connection between CIA funding Mujahedin in Afghanistan and Bin Laden.
Please correct me if i'm wrong, but my understanding is that Jalaluddin Haqqani's terrorist network was one of the largest terrorist groups funded and trained by Regans CIA.
Haqqani was Bin laden's mentor and was fundamental in the founding of Al Qaeda. Given that the CIA directly funded and trained Bin Laden's mentor, Haqqani, who in turn trained and helped build Al Qaeda, how is it accurate to say there is no connection?
Why did the terrorist choose that date? Was there something significant about Sep 11 PRIOR to 2001?
Why was the WTC chosen? Weren’t there more iconic or significant places in NYC to attack like the Empire State or the Statue of Liberty?
Were there other planes that planned to be hijacked that day but never took off due to all planes being grounded? Or was it only the 4?
In the 70s and 80s, US had warm relations with the mujihadeen since they gave them support against the Soviets. Later on the mujihadeen developed into the Taliban and gained control over Afghanistan. Is this accurate?
What were US-Taliban diplomatic relations like between the Soviet period and 9/11? How did the relations transform from a positive one to a negative one?
I can see how relations with Al-Qaeda soured, as they over the years executed several anti-US plots. But I would like to know about the change in US-Taliban relations, to the extent that the US felt like it had to undermine their sovereignty of Afghanistan in order to search for UBL. If US-Taliban relations were stable, then there would have been mutual cooperation in searching for him.
EDIT: The US were able to diplomatically pressure the government of Sudan to kick him out, right? Why wasn't that approach used with regards to Afghanistan?
What was Afghanistan society like before and during the Soviet invasion?
Why did World Trade Center building 7 collapse?
Was there any serious consideration to not going to war in Afghanistan after September 11? If so, what alternatives were considered?
Another post asked this a few months ago, but got no undeleted answers.
An additional three fighters took to the air from Langley AFB in Virginia, at 0930.
Finally, two F-16s, those of Lieutenant Colonel Marc H. Sasseville and Lieutenant Heather Penney, took off from Andrews Air Force Base at 1042.
Small correction, or addition rather. Another flight of Guard Vipers was scrambled out of Toledo, they were then vectored towards UA93. That "conspiracy" is the only one with regard to 9/11 that isn't insane.
If you listen to the tapes, you'll hear armaments being discussed. The statements you'll hear are phrased as "x by x by x by (gun)", in the case of the Langley (North Dakota Guard) guys, "two by zero by two by gun". Worth noting that at this time, most Vipers hadn't been upgraded to carry the AMRAAM and were still going out with AIM-7s, so think two Sparrows. It's my understanding that they launched with two Sparrows, two Sidewinders and guns. The MA Eagles are a different bag all together, even the pilots disagree about what they were carrying. I don't know any of their armament/ordinance guys, otherwise I'd talk to them.
Sources are personal experience and whichever iteration of the FAA/NEADS tapes you'd like to listen to. There are a great many different versions out there, some edited together to be wholly chronological, others that run chronologically through each individual entity.
I’ve read in Robert Young Pton’s “Workds Most Dangerous Places” that the Saudis were concerned about Osama Bin Laden overthrowing the Saudi family if he was allowed to build an army in Saudi Arabia during the gulf war. Is there any truth to this?
Thank you for the right-up. Could someone explain the importance of the World Trade Center as a target, other than the fact that it had a large number of people in it? I was born after the attack, so I only understood the World Trade Center’s significance to be “where 9/11 happened”.
Is there any evidence to show that the dramatic expansion of domestic surveillance in the US and other security measures taken post 9/11 actually prevented any terrorist attacks or made us safer?
I keep seeing the TSA mentioned in news reports yet tests show the TSA misses 96% of all dangerous weapons going through airports. Is their proof that any terrorist attacks were prevented by the patriot act?
Why was 911 used as a justification to invade Iraq?
Third, one of the first responders, a structural engineer, said
I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the stone on one side of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I stood on a pile of debris that we later discovered contained the black box.… I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?
Could you link a source or a name for who said this, It'd be useful for debunking purposes.
Are there any accounts of stranded unaccompanied minors on 9/11?
So I’m 20 years old (born August 2001), so my entire viewpoint of 9/11 is from someone who has no knowledge of a world pre-2008.
My biggest question is how much Saudi involvement was there in this entire plot? You always hear about how many of the attackers were Saudi, but it never made sense to me why we attacked Afghanistan and Iraq and never went after the real threat.
The Saudi Twitter account posting the photo that threatened Canada with a plane going into the CN Tower just further engrained to me that Saudi was the real terrorist threat that actually funded an attack on American soil. Why do we never really get in depth about this as a nation?
Maybe this isn't the right subreddit for it but do you think there would have been any key differences under the hypothetical Gore Administration? And if so what do you think would be the biggest difference
Was there ever any intelligence gathered as to the potential target of Flight 93? I was always curious, as the passengers managed to prevent the plane from reaching its target, and I've never heard any concrete information other than idle speculation that the Capitol Building or White House were likely targets.
But in our capture and interrogation of al-Qaeda membership and resources, was more firm information ever learned?
Thank you for this.
I remember Osama giving the specific inspiration fir 9/11 as when Israel dropped an apartment high rise in the siege of Beirut. So he was inspired by the idea of dropping a tall building. Can’t find confirmation of that anywhere but it’s something I have lodged in my brain. Can anyone confirm or refute ?
What do we know about further terrorist attacks that were thwarted?
Could someone explain the cultural shift after 9/11? There are so many articles about this that I don't know which ones are legit.
I've heard that on 9/11 the President got a report from a European intelligence agency that the attacks on that day were the first of two sets of attacks. Was this true? Were there more attacks planned that were thwarted?
What is the history of the Freedom Tower and why did it take so long to build?
How was the phrase "... the terrorists win" used in the media?
Apologies if I'm late to this thread, but many people love to claim that US intelligence had prior knowledge of these attacks. Is there any truth to this?
How was the Pentagon, the headquarters of the world’s strongest military, so poorly prepared to defend itself against a direct attack?
What stocks were shorted on 09/10/01?