When the Norwegian surveillance police POT received the message from me in 2001 before the attack on America on 9.11 concerning risk associated with use of passenger airplanes as weapons they had a chance to assess risks in a right way and to handle it in a right way. They could have sent an email to for example an American authority in which they had shared thoughts about assessing such risk.  If someone in America had received such an email also they would have had a chance to assess risks in a right way and to handle it in a right way. Why didn't they?

9.11 was undoubtably a revenge triggered by the February strikes in 2001 but also by emotions from earlier war. The words “terrorist attack” is a simplification of a more complicated story linked to war that can be understood if there had been honesty. 
The reason for why the words “terrorist attack” is used may be that it is too difficult for Americans to admit that it was triggered by American acts. 

Is it right to say that an individual had guilt because an individual working for POT didn’t “handle” the email they received in a right way?

9.11  was triggered by the February strikes and by emotions linked to earlier war between nations. It was an American act that triggered  the attack. This was only a matter of words about a theoretic attack method that the police surveillance authority  could have handled more correctly. Preventive measures could have been taken but weren’t. Probably because people working for POT or for American authorities, if an American authority received an email from POT, were not faultless. No one are.  

It is not right to say that someone has guilt for this but it is right to say that a leader on behalf of Norwegian police authorities should have taken on responsibility on behalf of the authority for not having handled to email in a right way. Handling such information in a right way is the job of such authorities. 

It is strange and weak that a Norwegian authority has not admitted failure linked to the handling of this email, and by that neither admitted that words about such risk may have moved as a consequence of a Norwegian police and/or defence scandal. That should have been done for two reasons. That was how it was and to protect individuals who have no guilt when it comes to this.