Tactical Analysis of the 9/11 Attacks

It is beautifully appropriate that I choose March 20th, 2015, the date that you humans consider to be the first day of spring, and celebrate as a renewal of your fatally flawed illusion of life, to offer up this tactical analysis of one of the most successful days and actions of human initiated destruction in the history of this doomed species. I refer to September 11, 2001, when 19 tortured victim creations of human society and government, directly, intentionally, and proactively harvested a total of 2,977 other humans.
This brief essay will provide a tactical overview of the primary components that came into play to allow and cause the specific revenge attack of 9/11/2001 to achieve a most impressive victim count in terms of fatalities, in comparison to all previous and later date revenge attacks by human victims. But let us first acknowledge that these attacks did not come anywhere close to maximizing human potential for fatal carnage. The fact that this incident stands as the most successful revenge attack by a singular or group of human beings, in known human history, speaks to the failure of humans to maximize their homicidal potential.
That being said, the 9/11 attacks achieved an impressive fatality count, in comparison to other planned and executed mass casualty revenge attacks, and it is well worth exploring the tactical factors and elements that came into play to allow this fatality count to be achieved. So, here we go:

  • Element of suprise: The 9/11 attacks successfully utilized an element of surprise which is essential to maximizing carnage. The coordinated hijacking of four large aircraft and their use as weapons of mass destruction was not expected or anticipated by any of the law enforcement structures of the amerikkkan government. This element of surprise played an integral role in helping the attack to be successful, and this is evidenced by the fact that any similar attempt made today, utilizing the exact same operational tactics, would stand a far smaller chance of achieving similar success.
  • Undetected and coordinated conspiracy: The 9/11 revenge attacks are an example of what rarely occurs and is difficult to achieve: An undetected, coordinated conspiracy among a group of human beings which plays out to its operational conclusion absent all governmental and law enforcement detection and intervention. 19 active players, backed up by a command and control structure which involved at least 3 additional players, worked together to achieve the end result of the 9/11 attacks. Due to the inferior nature of humans, these types of organized conspiracies targeting government and society rarely achieve success, and are therefore overtly encouraged by government, over lone wolf attacks. What we witnessed on 9/11 was the rare example of a conspiracy properly designed and executed, and not undermined by the functional inferiority of the typical and general human populace.
  • Suicidal ideation of the attackers: Let there be no doubt, the absolute willingness and desire of the 19 9/11 attackers to personally die, played an integral role in allowing for the achievement of their high harvest count. The 9/11 attacks were a suicide mission, all 19 attackers knew that, operationally, the only way their attacks could prove successful, would be for them to personally perish. Without the overt intention to personally perish, it would have been impossible for these specific attacks to be carried out in the specific way that they were.
  •  Innovative tactics: Every successful attempt to harvest humans on a mass scale must involve a specific tactical plan. The tactical plan of 9/11 was innovative, in a way that goes beyond merely being different from previous tactical plans of other seekers of vengeance. Specifically, an object not normally thought of as a weapon of mass destruction, a large aircraft, was recognized as being potentially useful as a weapon of mass destruction, and was deployed as such, in a specific plan which maximized its potential lethality.
  • Margin of error accounted for: The revenge attack of 9/11 were specifically planned to allow for a margin of error to occur, without resulting in catastrophic failure of the planned mass casualty outcome. Specifically, there were four separate and distinct components to the attack, and even the absolute failure of one or more components, would not have necessarily derailed the overall attack in a catastrophic manner. For example, even if a potential hijacker had been stopped by airport security and that specific flight cancelled or delayed, it is unlikely that the conspiracy plot as a whole would have immediately unravelled, and therefore the other three hijackings would have gone forward as planned.

Just as importantly, the operational failure of any of the four hijackings, once underway, would not and did not undermine the potential of success for the other hijackings. Each hijacking was designed to occur separate and distinct from the others, to stand on its own, with a singular failure only impacting 25% of the operational potential of the overall event. Even two or three failures, compromising 50% or 75% of the operation, still allowed for the achievement of an impressive fatality count.
In point of fact, this operation suffered a 25% failure rate, in terms of united airlines flight 93 crashing into an empty field, killing a total of only 40 people, yet this failure in no way compromised the much greater success of the remaining 75% of the operation. It is worth noting that even if all four hijacked planes had crashed into empty ground, causing no on-ground fatalities, we would still have had 227 fatalities, not including the 19 actors, which would not allow for the overall operation to be deemed a failure, when judged free of bias.

  • Good luck: Yes, good luck. It is clear to any unbiased thinker that good luck, and it would even be fair to use the phrase blind luck, played a significant role in helping the 9/11 attack achieve its high fatality count. It was impossible for the strategic planners of the 9/11 attack to know for certain, or even to logically assume, that one or both of the world trade center towers would actually collapse, in response to an aircraft being flown into them. Not even the most learned building engineer could have known exactly how the buildings would respond to such a trauma, even if given factually unknowable in advance information such as the exact speed of the aircraft, angle of impact, or location/building height of impact.

If one or both of the world trade center towers had not actually collapsed, the fatality count would have been much lower, there is no doubt about that. In fact, the overall harvest count might have been as low as 500 , or even less, if the entire incident had played out exactly as it did, with the only difference being that neither tower collapsed. The strategic planners of the 9/11 attack may well have hoped to cause both towers to collapse, but if they were logical thinkers and tacticians, they should not have assumed this would occur, even assuming direct strikes to both towers. Therefore, what we have here, even given the 25% failure of flight 93, was a “best case scenario” which did involve an absolute element of good luck, allowing the fatality count to reach the 2,977 mark.

  • Strategic planning and execution: The 9/11 attack plan was good, both in terms of chosen targets and in terms of operationally training and preparing the attackers, mentally and physically. The plan contained built-in redundancies to compensate for isolated failures, which in fact did occur and were compensated for. The execution of the plan itself, was also good. All 19 hijackers successfully bypassed airport security. None of them betrayed the plot itself, either intentionally or accidently, as would be expected given the nature of humans. Once aboard the aircraft, tactical actions were good and successful, even taking into account the ultimate failure of the four hijackers on flight 93 to successfully reach their desired destination. They still succeeded in bringing the plane down. In terms of piloting their aircraft, we see excellent training and retention of knowledge by the three pilots who did reach their destinations and made impact exactly upon their chosen building targets.

To conclude, the 9/11 attacks are an example of good tactical planning and execution. They cannot be “redone”, however. This type of attack can only achieve results on this scale, as a singular, uniquely planned event utilizing the element of surprise both in time and in specific tactics. It is always possible to nitpick details, in terms of critique. For example, the three most successful hijackings utilized five hijackers. The one “failed” hijacking utilized only four hijackers. Perhaps it would have been more successful, if five hijackers had been used?
No tactical action can ever be “perfect”. It must be judged by results achieved, and reasonable potential for the achieved results. Analyzed fairly and objectively, the 9/11 attack must be given credit for being innovative, well-planned, well-executed, and successful beyond even the reasonable expectations of those who planned and executed it.
For anyone who might need to be brought up to speed, no pun intended, on the exact events of 9/11/2001, a very good factual overview can be found here:
Copyright © 2014-2064 The Seer of Forbidden Truth. All Rights Reserved.

One Comment

  1. There were FOUR planes?? I didn’t even know that. You’re the best “news anchor” ever! I enjoyed reading this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *