His "argument," such as it is, is easily debunked. It combines sense with nonsense, and it is very easy to distinguish the two, unless you are antisemitic, but that is precisely the problem.
Several things are very clear to me from a careful assessment of both official and critical evaluations of the 9/11 attacks. First, the striking aircraft alone simply could not have brought down either of the two buildings in the manner in which they fell, much less a third building which was not hit by a plane (I expect the one intended to do that as a "cover" had ended up in that Pennsylvania field), given the available physical evidence and a wealth of expert testimony. This means the attackers had assistance on the ground, and it had to have been active before the attacks occurred: preparing buildings for controlled demolition is not something done haphazardly in the midst of chaos.
Few people who have looked at the evidence closely would disagree with this. He continues:
Second, only two intelligence agencies had the expertise, assets, access and political protection to execute 9/11 in the air and on the ground: our CIA...
Many would also readily agree about the CIA, and it is indeed significant when a man with his military credentials confirms the obvious, but this is only the bait. Now comes the switch:
... and Israel's Mossad. Only one had the incentive, using the "who benefits" principle: Mossad. And that incentive dovetailed perfectly with the neo-con's agenda and explicitly expressed need for a catalytic event to mobilize the American public for their wars, using American military power to destroy Israel's enemies. Only the unexpected strength of the Iraqi resistance kept Syria and Iran from being attacked in the second Bush Administration. Thus, the evidential trail for 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq run from PNAC, AIPAC and their cohorts; through the mostly Jewish neo-cons in the Bush Administration; and back to the Israeli government. None of the denials and political machinations can alter that essential reality. Terms such as treason, betrayal and deceit do not overstate the case against them.
This is utter nonsense. Sabrosky, like a good Marine, is telling us that the CIA had no incentive to implement "the neo-con's [neo-cons'] agenda and explicitly expressed need for a catalytic event to mobilize the American public for their wars," because -- according to Sabrosky -- the purpose of these wars is "to destroy Israel's enemies." The U.S. has no interest in oil or gas or in military dominance of the Middle East! We're just there to help out the Israelis!
1) It distracts attention away from the real crimes of the Israeli government (the siege of Palestine).
2) It distracts attention from the "other" -- and in fact ONLY -- intelligence agency that could have done 9/11.
3) It feeds antisemitism, which in turn can be forcefully denounced and used to reinforce 1) and 2).
It should be clear that Sabrosky, with his intimate military connections, would never have been allowed to make the statements he has made without these strategic goals having been carefully considered. Consider what the effect would be if, in contrast, he had followed through with the much more logical argument that since the CIA is more powerful than the Mossad it would be foolish to assert that the Mossad tells the CIA what to do rather than vice versa. Suppose Sabrosky had used his military expertise and inside knowledge to explain to us in more detail his statement that the CIA has "the expertise, assets, access and political protection to execute 9/11 in the air and on the ground." Surely he has more knowledge of that than he does about the Mossad.
Needless to say, this won't happen. Sabrosky has accomplished his mission. The antisemites, along with the deniers -- are already frothing with delight at having their faith restored in Uncle Sam. I suspect he will receive a military commendation.