There's something about Rosenberg that I don't like but I can't put my finger on it.
There is something about her analysis of the anthrax events that is missing.
There is no suggestion of alternatives.
She's damned determined that the perpetrator was a good guy gone bad, not a bad guy doing bad.
I'm still thinking a research student, long gone and likely dead since part of the goals of these horrendous acts is "dead men tell no tales".
I believe Rosenberg still disconnects the events of 9-11 with the anthrax scare and yet, it is the very similarity of the basics of ALL the plots that binds them into one.
Two NY Anthrax Hits = Two Tower Hits and
Two Politician Hits = Two DC monument Hits.
I am now of the thought that the Anthrax letters were originally supposed to come FIRST to set the nation in disarray but the plans were changed when Moussaoui was captured and they couldn't be certain that the mails and Anthrax could operate on a precise schedule and the risk of getting through security would become greater. Anthrax would be changed to the SECOND event.
Atta started running all over the place, initiating the change of plans and taking on the task of delivering Anthrax packages on a one to one basis.
Moussaoui is a bigger fish than we think.
He's looking for "time" and "effect" with his outbursts. He knows exactly what he is doing.
Rosenberg is stuck in her thinking pattern and has to think start thinking "out of the box.
Sac