The 9/11 plot originally included ramming jetliners into the tallest buildings in Washington state (the Bank of America Tower in Seattle) and California (the U.S. Bank Tower in Los Angeles). Attacks on unnamed nuclear power plants also were contemplated.
So says the bipartisan commission investigating the 9/11 disaster. The information comes from Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, the high-level al-Qaida planner and paymaster who was arrested in Pakistan 15 months ago and has been interrogated extensively by the U.S. The new 9/11 commission staff report, released today, provides a detailed rundown on the genesis of 9/11 and a previous failed plan to blow up several American jetliners over the Pacific.
Fortunately, organizing an attack large enough to encompass the West Coast as well as New York and Washington, D.C., ultimately proved beyond al-Qaida's ability.
This Washington Post story has the basics (free site registration may be required).
Here's the section of the 9/11 commission staff report dealing with Seattle and L.A.:
"As originally envisioned, the 9/11 plot involved even more extensive attacks than those carried out on September 11. KSM [Khalid Sheikh Mohammad] maintains that his initial proposal involved hijacking ten planes to attack targets on both the East and West coasts of the United States. He claims that, in addition to the targets actually hit on 9/11, these hijacked planes were to be crashed into CIA and FBI headquarters, unidentified nuclear power plants, and the tallest buildings in California and Washington State. The centerpiece of his original proposal was the tenth plane, which he would have piloted himself. Rather than crashing the plane into a target, he would have killed every adult male passenger, contacted the media from the air, and landed the aircraft at a U.S. airport. He says he then would have made a speech denouncing U.S. policies in the Middle East before releasing all of the women and children passengers."
The text of the 9/11 staff report is here.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was subjected to some of the harsher U.S.-approved interrogation techniques that are now much at issue in the Abu Ghraib scandal and prisoner-abuse allegations in Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay.
"Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, thought to have helped plan 9/11 terror attacks, was strapped down, forcibly pushed under water and made to believe he might drown," according to a story abstract on The New York Times Web site (I read the full story when it came out, but no longer have a link).
It seems to have worked on him, judging by the scope of the information in the 9/11 commission report. But does that make it right? There's a clear distinction between this guy -- a planner of the worst foreign attack ever on U.S. soil -- and some no-name jihadi in Baghdad. And it's possible to conceive of circumstances under which the use of torture on someone like Mohammad could be justified. I'll be returning to this moral swamp later. Keep your hip-waders handy.
Back to top