Monday, September 18, 2006

Thinking like a conspiracy planner

If we accept the fact that the American military had to be behind the September 11 attacks, at least to the extent of arranging not to shoot down any of the attacking planes, we have to assume that somebody associated with the Pentagon was involved in the creation of the conspiracy.  The planning of American conspiracies tends to be meticulous, with the problems arising in the execution of the plans (the kind of people you have to hire to do these things aren’t good at following orders).  Conspiracy planners have two issues:

  1. Create a plan that will accomplish the goals of the conspirators; and
  2. Don’t get caught.

In this case, the goal was to create a casus belli for a series of wars which would benefit the Pentagon generals (who thrive in wartime), materially benefit the military-industrial complex, ensure the reelection of Republicans, involve the United States in Netanyahu’s Zionist trick called the ‘war on terror’, and satisfy the strategic goals of the extreme Israeli right and its traitorous agents in the American government (in particular, to fulfill Wurmser’s Zionist Plan for the Middle East).  Such an ambitious project required a significant apparent attack on the symbols of power of the American Empire, in order to create the psychological climate of fear and rage which would allow the American public to be bamboozled into consenting to their government taking actions that were clearly against the interests of the United States.  To create the preconditions for war, it was decided to attack the World Trade Center, as a symbol of American economic power, and the Pentagon, as a symbol of American military power.

Attacking the WTC would have been enough had the planners been able to predict that the towers would have come crashing down.  Unfortunately, there was no way to know if the planes would cause the collapse of the towers, or merely cause a couple hundred deaths on the floors where the planes hit.  There was a perfectly good reason to arrange to use explosives to bring down the towers, as that would guarantee that there was enough damage to lead to the long-term plans of the conspirators.  In fact, the uncertainty over the fate of the towers probably lead to the necessity of staging an attack against the Pentagon, merely to ensure that at the end of the day there was enough physical and human damage to bear the weight of all the war plans.  Using explosives in the towers was impossible due to the fact that tons of explosives would have had to be planted in hundreds of places in a fully-occupied building (the one guy who nobody has ever heard of who claims the power to a tower was shut down over the weekend – anyone who has ever worked in such a building knows that the power is never completely shut down as the tenants of such buildings are paying for functional access 24/7, 365 days of the year –  is not even worth responding to, but the fact somebody has concocted this lie shows that the controlled demolition buffs feel the need to explain how the explosives were planted).  On top of that, the perfection required in the setting off of the charges could not be guaranteed in buildings which had suffered damage after being hit by airplanes.  It would have been a disaster to the conspirators if a tower had remained standing full of explosive charges ready to be discovered by fire investigators.  Planting charges is a gross breach of the second conspiracy planner’s issue, don’t get caught, and no meticulous planner would even consider taking such a risk.

The attack on the Pentagon would have been handled in the same careful way, ensuring that the goals of the conspirators were met while minimizing the risk to the conspirators.  In the case of an attack on the Pentagon, the risk was two-fold:  don’t get caught, and don’t get killed.  We can respond to some questions raised by conspiracy critics.  Diana Johnstone writes:

“But the real argument against the Pentagon hypothesis is that it makes no sense politically or practically. Why get rid of an entire airliner full of people, in order to make way for a missile to do the job attributed to the airliner? What is the point? I suppose somebody can come up with an answer, but does it make any sense? An airliner couldn't hit the Pentagon, so a missile was required? But the Pentagon is a very large target, visible in an open space. It is sturdier than the Twin Towers, having been built to withstand military attack, so destroying it was harder, but hitting it was not such an extraordinary feat.”

From What Really Happened (September 16):

“This 'no plane' nonsense is a government disinfo plant. Every media attack on those who doubt the official 9-11 story inevitably uses this hoax to make the 9-11 truth movement look silly.

The claim that there was no plane at the Pentagon makes no sense. If the 9-11 perps have to get rid of the plane and passengers anyway, why not crash them into the Pentagon? Why add complexity to an already complex issue to save the plane and passengers when you have to get rid of them afterwards anyway?

Why would the 9-11 perps even bother with such a hoax to substitute some other aircraft for the passenger jet, then have to destroy the passenger jet and the passengers somewhere else, THEN get rid of that wreckage so it would never be found?

Finally, hundreds of witnesses saw the passenger jet flying towards the Pentagon. Not one person reported seeing it flying away, and with the WTC already destroyed everyone was very sensitive to nearby aircraft. People were looking very carefully at anything with wings. Hundreds saw the passenger jet head towards the Pentagon. None saw it fly away. What do the ‘Pod people’ imagine, that Mr. Spock beamed the passenger jet up to the Enterprise at the last second?

The 'no plane' theory does not make any sense. It never has. It exists solely to give the mainstream media an easy-to-use handle to ridicule those who doubt the official story."

Leaving aside the rather obvious point that these arguments beg the question by assuming that there was an airliner attack, and the point that the Pentagon, with unlimited resources, would not have the slightest problem with disposing of an airplane, we can answer the questions by thinking like a conspiracy planner.  Why use a missile or explosives rather than Flight 77?  It’s obvious, isn’t it?  The Pentagon was full of generals, not to mention Donald Rumsfeld.  The attack was meant to be symbolic, not real.  Only one general, Lt. Gen. Timothy J. Maude, died.  Hani Hanjour, on all accounts a complete goofball and a guy whose last known flying lesson had to be taken with the instructors in the plane, a single-engine Cessna, because they didn’t feel he was competent enough in flying to trust him to take the plane up by himself, was supposed to make a 270 degree flight all around the Pentagon, missing the four sides with generals in them, and hitting the farthest side which was being renovated.  What if he had flubbed the hardest part for the pilot, which was bringing the plane down, overshot the wall, and hit the other side of the building.  No conspiracy planner could possibly take that risk.  Thus the necessity for alternate arrangements, and the complete lack of any evidence that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. 

Eyewitness testimony, particularly eyewitness testimony that has been prepped by being immersed in the Official Story of what happened (not to mention eyewitnesses that have been salted with ringers who parrot the Official Story), is useless, a fact that has been consistently proven when the issue is studied by psychologists.  Nobody was ready for this, nobody had ever seen anything like it, it literally happened in a flash, and everybody knew what was supposed to have happened before they were questioned.  I’m amazed that any credibility is put in this testimony at all.  In these circumstances, the only credible eyewitness testimony is from those brave souls who dare come up with something other than the Official Story. 

If you believe the Pentagon was involved in the conspiracy based on the fact that the Pentagon stood the planes down, you have to follow through on the logic and think like a Pentagon conspiracy planner.  A Pentagon conspiracy planner wouldn’t take the risk of planting explosives in the towers because he couldn’t take the risk of being caught.  The uncertainty whether the towers would fall, and thus the uncertainty whether the attack would cause enough damage to lead to the Pentagon’s plans, meant that a staged attack on the Pentagon was required.  The fact that the Pentagon was full of generals meant that an attack by Flight 77 was too dangerous, and something more under the control of the conspirators was required.  Just as profilers solve crimes by getting in the mind of the criminals, you have to think like a conspiracy planner in order to understand the conspiracy.  

 

0 comments: