By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Donald Trump reiterated his unsubstantiated claim that he predicted the 9/11 terror attacks a year before they occurred, stating he wrote about Osama bin Laden in a book. However, fact checks of his 2000 book reveal only a single, non-specific mention of Bin Laden, and no explicit warning or call to action regarding an impending attack. This recurring false assertion was made again as questions arise about the Trump administration’s assessment of Iran’s potential retaliation, with the president also claiming to have foreseen the Strait of Hormuz becoming a “weapon.”
Read the original article here
It’s a concerning development when a figure like Donald Trump, at 79 years old, continues to make claims that appear detached from reality, particularly when those claims touch upon deeply tragic events like 9/11. The assertion that he somehow predicted the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, resurfaces, and it’s worth examining why this particular narrative is so persistently problematic and, frankly, unbelievable.
The core of the issue lies in the nature of the “prediction” itself. It doesn’t appear to stem from any genuine foreknowledge of the specific events that unfolded that terrible day. Instead, the recollections often point to a much more self-serving and opportunistic response. We hear about a statement made soon after the attacks, not about averting them, but about how his building was now the tallest in Manhattan. This isn’t foresight; it’s a crass, almost immediate pivot to personal gain, even in the face of immense national tragedy.
To claim a prediction of 9/11, especially in the way it actually happened, is a significant leap. While it’s true that threats from groups like Al-Qaeda and figures like Osama bin Laden were known to intelligence agencies, and even that past attempts had been made, like the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, these are very different from predicting the precise method and scale of the 9/11 attacks. Many people were aware of the general threat, but no one, with the possible exception of fictional portrayals like in “The Lone Gunman” or works by authors like Tom Clancy, truly foresaw the precise horror of that day.
The language used to describe these claims often borders on the absurd, leading some to question the cognitive state of the claimant. Phrases like “Dementia Don” and suggestions to invoke the 25th Amendment appear frequently, reflecting a widespread concern about a person in the public eye exhibiting signs of cognitive decline and making increasingly outlandish statements. It’s as if the person has lost touch with reality, inventing words or claiming credit for things far beyond their capabilities, like predicting his next bowel movement or claiming to have invented basic concepts.
The repeated assertion of having predicted 9/11 also ignores past instances where the claim has been thoroughly debunked. It’s not a new fabrication; it’s a recurring theme that, for some reason, continues to be trotted out. This persistence in the face of evidence suggests a deep-seated need to be seen as prescient or heroic, a classic trait associated with narcissism. The idea of a deliberate failure to prevent an attack, supposedly to “own the libs,” is another disturbing facet of these pronouncements, implying a level of malice and self-serving action that is chilling to consider.
Furthermore, the way these claims are framed can be seen as an attempt to rewrite history, to position oneself as a savior in hindsight while having demonstrably failed to act effectively when in positions of power. This pattern of claiming to be the hero of every situation after the fact, while simultaneously botching actual responsibilities, is a recurring criticism. It’s a stark contrast to admitting genuine failures or simply acknowledging one’s limitations.
The public’s reaction to these statements often oscillates between disbelief and a sort of morbid fascination. The idea that someone would capitalize on or falsely claim foresight regarding such a devastating event is seen as deeply inappropriate and even cruel. It’s a testament to the strange and sometimes distressing nature of contemporary political discourse that such claims can be made and, for some, continue to hold sway.
Ultimately, the persistent claims of predicting 9/11, coupled with other erratic pronouncements, raise serious questions about judgment, memory, and a grasp on reality. It’s a narrative that, far from elevating the individual, serves only to highlight a concerning disconnect from truth and a troubling self-aggrandizement, especially when viewed against the backdrop of the actual events of that tragic day. The repeated emphasis on his age and alleged cognitive state underscores the gravity of these concerns for many observers.