Amanda Angelika wrote:

In news:mpls92h8188a3s8h3l7b7o1kqb34etaofr@4ax.com,
Bookman <thebookman@kc.rr.comNULL> typed:

On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 07:06:56 +0000 (UTC), you@somehost.somedomain.aus
(Your Name Here=Harvey) wrote:

...the WTC were demolished with thousands of pounds of thermite, a
B-25 Mitchell is the equivalent of a Boeing 767, a building crumbling
from the top down looks just like a controlled demolition, steel
doesn't get weaker when heated, Mossad obviously demolished the WTC
at the direction of GWB, posting untrue things makes other things
untrue...

What were Al Queda's motives for the 9/11 attacks?

Since when do religious lunatics need any motive for their actions other 
than religious lunacy?  More wars have been fought, and lives lost in the 
name of one god or another, than for any other reason....EVER.

I don't think it takes a genius to realise what the consequences of
attacking a Superpower are going to be, the result has been very
predictable. So unless they wanted the US to invade Afghanistan and
Iraq and kill thousands of Arabs, and consolidate the position of
Israel, which is very unlikely since it would appear to be against
everything Al Queda actually stand for I can't honestly see a motive.

One can have all the circumstantial and hearsay evidence in the World.
However without a clear and plausible motive it is worth Jack Shit.

I don't know about where you live, but here in the U.S. you don't need to 
prove motive to get any kind of criminal conviction with the exception of a 
so-called "hate crime".  Sure it helps your case if you can, but it's not 
required by the law.