ON 9/11, the world truly changed. It became divided: good guys on one side, bad guys on the other; everything became black and white.

Here in Britain, the perception of the Muslim community changed overnight, from being known as peaceful, hard working and law abiding to one viewed with suspicion, fear and hate, to the point where there is now an online game called Muslim Massacre, about wiping out Muslims. It's disgusting, but sadly a sign of the post-9/11 world.

Yet, back in 2001, there were many unanswered questions about what happened on 9/11. Despite all the enquiries, analysis and counter analysis, seven years later, those specific questions remain unanswered. The time is now right to be able to raise those questions, without being accused of being an apologist, conspiracy theorist or terrorist sympathiser – to look at the evidence rationally.

The 9/11 hijackers were portrayed as devout, "very religious" Muslims. Yet, they were seen visiting strip clubs, gambling and drinking alcohol – hardly the acts of devout Muslims.

What about the "clear evidence" that Colin Powell was going to present to the world linking Osama Bin Laden to 9/11? It never came. Tony Blair did present some evidence, but he began his report by saying, in his own words: "This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama Bin Laden in a court of law."

To this day, the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorist webpage about Osama, while listing him as wanted for bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, makes no mention of 9/11. The FBI's chief of investigative publicity said: "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."

Remember the video of Bin Laden apparently admitting to 9/11? The FBI obviously does not consider that video hard evidence of Bin Laden's responsibility for 9/11.

According to the 9/11 Commission, the main evidence for Osama's responsibility comes from the interrogation of star witness Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, whom the 9/11 Commission was not allowed to see or speak to at all. Yet, his statement was based on "enhanced interrogation techniques", like torture.

After the destruction of the World Trade Centre, the FBI found the passport of one of the Flight 11 hijackers on the street. Another passport and "a red headband" were also discovered at the crash site of United 93. Nothing else survived. Both these were crucial pieces of evidence showing that the hijackers were Muslim. Both are patently absurd.

What about the luggage that was found at the airport which was supposed to be transferred to Flight 11, but didn't make it? What good would flying aids be inside a suitcase in the plane's hold? Why would he have wanted his last will and testament on a plane he planned to crash? Also, why were there no DNA tests carried out to prove the identity of the hijackers? And remember the security video of the hijackers boarding the flights? Not true. That video was from a different airport, boarding a different flight.

If Muslims are to be blamed for carrying out 9/11, surely there has to be more convincing evidence, and less conjecture.