Awake, now, and the world is still the same.

My mind keeps circling around two questions: drifted off to sleep obsessed with them. They are inextricably linked and right now, for me, they are the only things that matter.

Who, and why?

Please excuse me while I think out loud for a moment, but I'd like to order some of these thoughts.

There must be a purpose for the attack, and that purpose is directly linked to who committed the act. Those capable of committing limits the potential window. The stupidity of it limits it even further. A state is out of the question, for that very reason. The United States is going to go beyond medieval - will go biblical - upon those it finds responsible. No state would survive, and they would have known that.

So any terrorist organisation with the organisation to pull this off would also have to know that America would not quiver in abject terror as a result of this action, but would come out with all guns blazing. Any group would be suicidal to claim responsibility with any sort of validity. Then again, the attacks themselves were suicide attacks...

If this is not a suicide bombing on a grand scale, then no one will claim responsibility for the action. However, a terrorist act is not just an act of terror. It always has a purpose. To further a cause, to protest something, to achieve an element of leverage. Because this act is unclaimable due to its size, it serves no purpose. People mention the anniversary of the Camp David Accords, talk about Osana bin Laden's quest of terrorism... but when the attack cannot be claimed, it serves no purpose in a campaign of terrorism.

The next thought: it had no purpose beyond striking hard at America. The only purpose was to inspire fear in American and Americans. To show them what it's like living with terror. To prove their vulnerability. Or just as a vicious attack of America itself. In which case, why was it not much, much worse than it was?

"Stop it!" Net-acquaintances shouted at me. "It was bad, can't you just accept that? Do you have to dwell on how it could have been worse?"

Yes. Because if the purpose of this attack was to cause death and destruction, why pull the punch? This attack, killing as many as it does, and causing the destruction it does, escalates itself from a minor (or even major) act of terrorism. And yet it stops short on a completely devastating offensive. How could it have been worse? The mere mention of biological weapons introduces a whole other range of possibilities. Not Saddam-Hussein-missile-weapons, but just the inclusion of, on those kamikaze airliners, an aerosal can full of something nasty.

I'm lost. I'm wandering through this maze of motives and culprits, and what's driving me, tormenting me, is the fact that it makes no sense. I can't see the point, and hence I can't understand.

All of this is not helped by questions such as 'What happened in National Mall, and why won't they tell us about it?' And 'How many planes were hi-jacked, really?'

I doubt we will ever, ever find out what really happened.

Today, J^e and I will scour the papers, cross-reference the 'facts', look at responses, and try to reconcile in our own minds the why, and the how.

(Note: To all those directly effected, I extend my deepest sympathy. All of us are indirectly effected.)