Early Reflections on 9/11

6
1137

Originally Written SEPTEMBER – NOVEMBER 2001


By Dr. Alan Ned Sabrosky

Something Susan Sontag wrote in the New Yorker recently (November 2001) about the media and President George Bush clicked into place, as I was reading an editorial from a British wire service (well, ITN, as I recall) on the “evidence” the US provided the British government, regarding the culpability of Bin Laden and company for the September 11th attacks. Their bottom line was that there was no hard evidence, simply an amalgam of supposition, allegation, innuendo, and guesswork. It bothered them, and it nurtured a nagging suspicion I have had for some weeks.

The latter is that Bin Laden and his outfit certainly merit eradication, both for their general hostility to us because of our Middle East policy (I personally disagree with that policy, but that is beside the point, given their hostility), and because they did orchestrate the attacks against our embassies in Africa and our warship in the Persian Gulf. But they may well not have carried out the September 11th attacks.



Who was THE FALLING MAN?   Find out at Esquire.com

Yes, I know that lists of names and associations showing they did so are gradually surfacing, and they may be accurate — I certainly have no inside information to the contrary. I do know, however, that the fabrication of false identities is child’s play in the intelligence community, and that given enough time, any decent intelligence setup in the world can manufacture evidence “proving” conclusively that (e.g.) Mother Teresa orchestrated the September 11th attacks from beyond the grave.

That evidence wouldn’t stand close scrutiny, of course, but if no one cares or dares to scrutinize it (Sontag’s point), so what? Besides, we began deploying forces to strike Afghanistan before any of those names and associations could possibly have surfaced, which instinctively makes me see it in a rather jaundiced light.

Moreover, there have been some odd discontinuities in the way the September 11th operation apparently unfolded, as it has been reported. One was White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer’s remark the afternoon of the attack that they had clear and compelling information that both the White House and Air Force One had been targeted. Now, as a good press secretary, Fleischer might just have been providing a cover for Bush’s absence from Washington.

But if he was serious, then we need to understand that the information could only have come from a source that had prior knowledge of the attacks, and for some reason, chose not to warn us that they were coming. This is because, in the hours immediately after the attacks, there was simply no time to review existing information in our possession, much less put out directives requesting new intelligence.

Thus, my question(s) is/are who provided that information, and why didn’t they warn us ahead of time?

Two, the operation itself required an exceptional degree of discipline, close timing, and coordination. Pulling off something like that would put a strain on any special operations force in the world, especially when the people executing it trained for a year knowing that success meant 100% fatalities for them.

I simply can’t believe that Bin Laden’s people have the command & control skills and the discipline to pull off something like that, although I may be mistaken — anomalies do occur. Even reports of some of them running around flight schools and such, almost like loose cannons, run up red flags — why do such semi-bizarre things here, when the same thing could be done less visibly in dozens of other countries, with much less risk of discovery? Again, it could be true — people can do the dumbest things, even when preparing for complicated operations — but such behavior clashes with the qualities needed to carry out that operation in the first place.

Three, September 11th was a smashing success (no pun intended) for whichever organization pulled it off. In the past, while aborted attacks tended to be ignored (who claims responsibility for failure, after all?), successes have been widely and publicly acknowledged. Yet as far as I can tell, no one to date has taken credit (or responsibility, if you wish) for the attacks (or did I miss something?).

Bin Laden sidestepped it openly, and while he or others may have done so in the vain hope that we wouldn’t attack their bases, that evasiveness is certainly pointless now that our attacks are a fact. This, of course, leads to the conclusion that the people who did plan the operation may not be the ones we are attacking and that they are keeping silent so that we do not shift our delicate attention to them. Raises some intriguing possibilities, doesn’t it?

Four, there were reports that several of those “identified” as the hijackers were seen drinking in a bar in Boston the night before the attacks. Yet these people were also supposedly devout Moslems, pursuing holy war as a guarantee of entry into their Paradise. Now, a Moslem can either be drunk or he can be devout, but he cannot be both, and it is hard to see how a Muslim devout enough to die for his faith (as he interpreted it, that is) would also violate the Koran by drinking alcohol before his death. Why the contradiction?

Finally (and a corollary to the above), martyrs (as those who conduct suicide missions invariably see themselves) are in short supply. For that reason, if pre-attack ceremonies honoring them are not possible, then post-attack recognition follows invariably in short order.

Displayed photographs of the dead, bedecked in wreaths of flowers, and funeral celebrations honoring their names, all of these occur, both to recognize what was done and to induce others to follow in their footsteps.

Yet after September 11th, there hasn’t been even a hint of that blend of memorial service and recruiting exercise, from anywhere or by anyone. The people who carried out the hijackings essentially died nameless and unrecognized, except in the emerging lists of their targets (us). Frankly, that defies both precedent and reason and reinforces my suspicion that something in this entire exercise is rotten to the core.

©2023 Alan Sabrosky 


9/11 Truth Rock Video Source: JohnnyPunish.com


ATTENTION READERS

We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully Informed
In fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion.

About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy
Due to the nature of uncensored content posted by VT's fully independent international writers, VT cannot guarantee absolute validity. All content is owned by the author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images are the full responsibility of the article author and NOT VT.

6 COMMENTS

  1. I had a friend who was retired from the Air Force as a Senior Master Sergeant, and whose MOS was crash investigation. As we watched the reports coming in on TV, there was an overhead view of the “crash” in Pennsylvania. Henry immediately said, “That’s bullshit. That is not a plane crash.” He went on to describe debris fields in the many crashes he had investigated. He also noted the absence of “hard to destroy” parts, like landing gear and engines, and also the absence of luggage, clothing, and personal effects, as well as bodies. He said it was like no plane crash he had ever seen. Because it was NOT a plane crash.

    • No planes hit the Pentagon or WTC 1&2, the former was just explosives, the latter, holograms, explosives, crisis actors on the ground, and the media with a script. Thin aluminum planes don’t go thru thick steel and concrete like a hot knife thru butter. Go anywhere but YouTube and look up “911 no planes.”