Comments on That Guy Who Climbed the New York Times Building Yesterday?

Actually, your characterization (and, it sounds like, the book's) is ridiculous. Of course the 9/11 attack weren't expected to bring down America, but rather to provoke it into lashing out in much the way it did. I doubt bin Laden had any control of the exact lashing out, but anyone who was paying attention in 2001 (before & after 9/11) knew that the climate was ripe for irrational, uncontrolled warmongering and retaliation in the Middle East, and that such behavior would end up damaging the U.S.' reputation (and bolstering the terrorists' cause).

How is any of that nonsensical?

I really don't understand the disdain that most people have for "truthers" (well, actually I do--the media campaign has been extremely effective). Considering all that this administration has done, is it really that crazy to question the "official" story? It's been mentioned here numerous times, but most people who question the offical story are not part of the "truth" movement.

If he'd fallen off, the book would really sell.

What @1 said, Paul...

How is that theory in the Truther domain? It's pretty widely believed that bin Laden hoped for military retaliation by the U.S. And that he hoped it would lead to more Muslims joining his cause and rising up in a holy war to defeat all of us infidels over here.

And anyone who bothered to check out publicly available websites and books from the crazy conservative think tanks knows that there were plans for invading Iraq which existed long before Bush ever took office. Bin Laden may be crazy, but I don't think al Qaeda's leadership is too stupid to put two and two together when several of those neo-cons were put into positions of power in the Bush Administration.

How is that a bit much?