An “anachronism” is a chronological inconsistency, something that does not fit in a sequence of events or is out-of-place in a timeline. For instance, if we are watching a movie about the old west and see a man on horseback who also happens to be wearing a wristwatch, an astute observer might wonder if he is really just watching fiction.
Thus do we read the following in Le Figaro, 11 October 2001:
Dubai, one of the seven emirates of the Federation of the United Arab Emirates, North-East of Abi-Dhabi. This city, population 350,000, was the backdrop of a secret meeting between Osama bin Laden and the local CIA agent in July . A partner of the administration of the American Hospital in Dubai claims that public enemy number one stayed at this hospital between the 4th and 14th of July.
Having taken off from the Quetta airport in Pakistan, bin Laden was transferred to the hospital upon his arrival at Dubai airport. He was accompanied by his personal physician and faithful lieutenant, who could be Ayman al-Zawahari–but on this sources are not entirely certain–, four bodyguards, as well as a male Algerian nurse, and admitted to the American Hospital, a glass and marble building situated between the Al-Garhoud and Al-Maktoum bridges.
To the casual observer, this makes no sense, and so is shelved. But some of us know not to disregard anachronisms when events of a suspicious nature like 9/11 (or Boston, Charlie Hebdo, or the public execution of a president) occur. Seen in the proper framework, the CIA agent meeting with Osama bin Laden as he receives care for his very serious kidney condition makes perfect sense if …
… Osama bin Laden was a patsy. We know he had been in the service of CIA for many decades going back to the covert war in Afghanistan in the 1980’s. In July of 2001, a big event was on the horizon, scheduled for September, and the patsy had to be available to take the fall. So in the intervening months he had to be babysat. That’s part of a routine service provided by CIA, a full-service spook agency. They were tending to his health. He could not die before the event. (Evidence suggests he did die shortly after.)
How do I know this? I have spent countless hours trying to understand the events of that day, hundreds of hours listening to talks, watching videos, and even reading books. But we all know the truth is hard to come by. Those lectures, videos and books could be full of lies. So I deal in volume, and wait, patiently, for some order to emerge from chaos. And the babysitting of Osama bin Laden is part of that order that emerged over time.
The use of patsies is commonplace throughout recorded history. Famous patsies include Guy Fawkes, Gavrilo Princip, Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan and James Earl Ray. Also common is the construction of a false narratives designed to obfuscate, obscure, confuse and distract curious people from real events. Often the videos, lectures and books on the subject are part of the obfuscation effort. One has to be wary at all times.
Given all of the false leads and deliberate obfuscation that goes on, how do I know that the CIA meeting with Osama at a hospital in Dubai really happened? It could be that the Le Figaro article of October, 2011, is also a planted story, a “golden apple,” or false evidence meant to be found.
Nothing is 100% reliable. If we learn that CIA is just messing with us by planting the Le Figaro article, then it is back to the drawing board. The search for truth has no end and many detours.
I guess it would be easier just to turn off my brain and buy into the official story with all its inconsistencies, impossibilities, and anachronisms. That would sure make this vigilant citizenry business more manageable. However, for any who do not swallow whole on the official story, I can help by eliminating some unnecessary distractions. Those people who are telling us that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, nano-thermites, or by use of “mini-nukes” are part of the obfuscation crew, put out there to mislead. Part of the task in understanding events is to decide who is telling lies, who is not. There are a few rules, but no guarantees. One rule is that when a plane is close to its target, it tends to draw more flak.
With that in mind, I urge anyone ready for some unsettling, disturbing and mind-altering drugs to read Where Did the Towers Go?, a 500 page exposition of evidence without firm conclusion, written by a professor of mechanical engineering who specialized in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, deformation analysis, materials characterization and materials engineering science. She does not claim to know who, or even how, and instead focuses on what happened that day. It is startling.
It appears to me that for all my hundreds of hours trying to understand 9/11, Dr. Judy Wood draws the most flak. She might be a golden apple, but might also be the real deal. My guess at this point in time is that she is closer to truth than any others.
But then of course, that could be wrong too. CIA and other spook agencies around the world, who know no national loyalty, are masters at the construction of riddles.