Saturday, October 07, 2006

either a conspiracy - or a conspiracy.

the events of 9/11 were obviously the result of a conspiracy.
the attacks were either a conspiracy - or a conspiracy. the
outcome was 'mission accomplished' - for somebody.

the idea of the attack may not have been dreamed up by
saddam hussein, as fantasised by some conspiracy theories -
it may not have been dreamed up by hani hanjour, and it may
not have been dreamed up by marvin bush, but it must have
been dreamed up by somebody, by more than one person.
it was a conspiracy. it was not a coincidence. it was not a
series of accidents.

certain things seem obvious, regardless of who planned it. for
one thing, the plan appears to have run late. for either kind of
conspirators, long attack times were undesirable. for friends of
hani hanjour, the big question would be, 'how long before the
fighter planes show up ?' for the friends of marvin bush the
question becomes - 'how long have we got before people get
suspicious about the absence of fighter planes ?'

unresponsive and off-course planes were in the sky for an hour
or more, so surely the plan ran late ? it may have simply been
the late take off of flight 93 - these things happen - but in that
case we are looking at a complex and interconnected plan, not
just four separate attacks. why else would flight 77, real or faked,
be late arriving over the pentagon ?

if the friends of hani hanjour staged the attacks, afterwards
they were going to be dead. if the friends of marvin bush staged
the attacks, afterwards they would have to be prepared for a
major cover up, and an enquiry. the best person to handle an
enquiry would be one of themselves. from their viewpoint it
would be obvious that the person in charge of the subsequent
enquiry would need to be a key conspirator. if that person were
not aware of all aspects of the conspiracy - how would he know
what information, and which characters, to protect ? the person
to control the enquiry would have to be selected and agreed on

in the event the enquiry was headed by thomas kean, of fiduciary
trust international. this company had offices in the south tower of
the world trade centre, just a few floors below where it was struck
by the second plane. (the second plane was the 'star' of the 9/11
show, and this was bound to be so, unless the attacks on the two
towers had been almost simultaneous. this would be the case
regardless of the identity of the conspirators. some of the cameras
trained on the first strike were bound to capture the second.)

anne tatlock, the c e o of fiduciary trust, was away in offut air
force base, omaha, nebraska, on september 11th. so was
warren buffet the investor. so, later in the day, was george bush.

warren buffet's investment portfolio went up, not down, after the
attacks. this does not indicate conspiracy, but neither does it
contradict the faint possibility of foreknowledge.

fiduciary trust was up and running again very quickly, having
backed up all of its data, and having a well prepared emergency
plan and procedures. as in the case of warren buffet, this does
not indicate being forewarned, but neither does it contradict the
possibility of foreknowledge.

similarly, after the 1993 attack on the world trade centre, fiduciary
trust was up and running again within one hour - even before the
cause of the power failure was known to be a bomb. that was pretty

the 1993 attack was also a conspiracy - either way. from that point,
in 1993, it became possible for interested parties - government,
terrorists, owners, occupiers, insurers - to visualise the possibility :
'what would have happened if the tower had fallen ?' almost
certainly private meetings would have been held by some of these
interested parties to consider that question.

one of the people who responded to that attack was a jewish
academic, philip d zelikow, who wrote an article published in 1998
entitled - 'catastrophic terrorism, tackling the new danger.'

zelikow was later appointed executive director of the commission
of enquiry into 9/11 and may well have held the real power within
the commission, with kean as a front man. in effect, zelikow had
begun to write about the catastrophic attack upon the world trade
centre in 1998 before it happened. he had dared to imagine the
'transforming event' - the attack that would be the 'new pearl
harbour' for the neo conservatives.

also following on from the 1993 attack on the world trade centre
a further question would sooner rather than later have occurred
to the owners and insurers of the buildings -
'if the twin towers ever become obsolete or unprofitable, how
will they be demolished, and who will insure the demolition ?'
regardless of any conspiracy or attack, the eventual demolition
of the towers was going to be a headache.

in 2004 a block which was part of the world trade centre was
rebuilt. the old, demolished 'world trade centre 7' had 47 storeys
in 570 feet, or 12 feet per storey approximately. this reconstructed
'world trade centre 7' has 50 storeys in 750 feet, or 15 feet per
storey approximately - three feet in the difference. this is because
of modern underfloor computer wiring requirements. that is why
the twin towers were becoming obsolete, and would have become
impossible to maintain - or to demolish either, for that matter. they
was unsuited to modern concentrations of computers. as for a
demolition, who would insure it ? the hazards were unprecedented.

so we do not know who the conspirators were, but we do know
who were the interested parties. we can call them the friends
of hani hanjour and the friends of marvin bush, and we also have
to add to these interested parties a third group - we could call them
the friends of larry silverstein, for convenience. the property people.

there are also the interests of those who make the foreign policies
of the state of israel, in that any terrorist attack by muslim arabs
would be bound put the focus of american anger upon israel's rivals
for regional power in the middle east. we could call these the friends
of benjamin netanyahu.

finally there are the interests of the pentagon, and the military /
industrial complex that benefits from 'the enterprise' - the massive
flow of tax dollars into the whole range of defence projects and
military expenditure. call these the friends of 'the enterprise.'

n.b. all of the above are listed as interested parties, not guilty parties.

it is not necessary to hit one's head off the brick walls of the 'official
version' or the 'conspiracy theories.' certain things are fairly clear
either way. possible future attacks must have been under consideration
in the minds of certain of the above interested parties at least since the
previous attack in 1993.

long in preparation, the actual attacks probably ran over schedule on
the day. we are talking about a conspiracy - but the existence of that
conspiracy does not then exclude a malfunction, or a cock-up, a coup,
a counter-coup, insider dealing, an insurance scam, or even deliberate
removal of a 1933 double eagle coin from the vaults of world trade
centre 7 to the safety of fort knox.

the double collapse of the twin towers was going to be a 'world
spectacular' even if it had been a regular demolition job. everyone
would have had many years to consider the implications. it was
always going to be big. it was always going to be on television. the
obsolescent world trade towers had to come down one day. they
might even have decided to give mayor giuliani the privilege of
pressing the button.


Blogger debt is wealth said...

The towers were a huge and uninsured aesbestos liability. This was doubtless part of the reason for the toxicity of the fallout from the building collapses.

4:48 AM  
Blogger debt is wealth said...

WTC 7 "pull", not collapse, etc.:

unprecedented power-down of buildings the weekend before:


4:50 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home