Reply #10: The whole thing is confusing

[noise]

I find all these 9/11 authors' layers of accounts (patsies, terrorists (secular motive), martyrs (religious motive), state supported, Bin Laden supported, CIA assets, drug runners, etc.) extremely confusing. Why is there so much variance about who these alleged hijackers really were?

One example is someone like Tarpley who suggests the alleged hijackers were patsies, psychotics, dupes, etc. Maybe they were but one of the most popular theories to explain 9/11 is blowback...ie...US foreign policy (oil, destabilizing the Middle East, propping up corrupt regimes, etc.) led to the motive for retaliation. Another popular theory is the notion of radical Islamic beliefs. IMO, there is nothing extraordinary about either motive. Where I agree with Tarpley is in relation to capability. I think the record shows that the alleged hijackers were not skilled enough to evade detection by US (and other state intelligence agencies). Obviously someone like Tarpley takes it many steps further in terms of the attack being orchestrated by state intelligence agencies.