I haven’t dabbled in the dark waters of conspiracy theory for some time now, let alone the “big one”, 9/11 but here goes. It’s really more of a tangent in narratology than anything I “believe” but it makes a certain kind of sick(th) sense to me so I thought I would share it.

We’ve all seen Fight Club by now, correct? (Speaking of which, I bought boxing gloves and a friend and I are fighting tomorrow afternoon) Anyway, here’s a gratis plug for this fine media product:

Okay, now rewind and hit play on it, while using the video from this (turn down the audio on this first) (I’m sure somebody else must have pointed this out already):

It’s not the similarity simply of towers falling that I’m interested, but in the motivation which this movie presents for this identical symbolic act. Because the main conspiracy theories as well as the “sanctioned” government-penned conspiracy theory have never made sense to me as a writer, as a storyteller, and now as a strategist and a chess-player.

If the government “made it happen on purpose,” then they did so to initiate a new Pearl Harbor style event, PNAC, yadda yadda we all know the story. I’ve only ever heard people in the LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) bandwagon say that the government must have known it was going to happen, but noone - to my increasingly limited knowledge since I don’t hound-dog after conspiracy theories like I used to - has ever offered an alternative perpetrator to the stock photo cardboard cut-out government-approved “Middle Eastern-esque” terrorists. Who, if they hate America so much, why would they attack the WTC? Because what the hell is the WTC anyway? Never made much sense to me as a symbol of America. Why not the Statue of Liberty? You know why? So that the Statue of Liberty could remain as a stalwart fixture against the New York skyline offering us hope as a nation in the photographs of the missing Trade Towers.

But that diversion sidelines my real point by hinting back towards a MIHOP perspective: anyway, here is my operating theory at the moment. Take or leave it. I just find it emotionally satisfying as a story-teller. It makes pieces fit into place for me as far as human motivations go…

Ever hear of the Boxer Rebellion? You know who it was perpetrated by? A Chinese network of Fight Clubs. How is Fight Club organized? Just like Al Qaeda: a loose network of terrorist “cells” whose members could literally be anyone. Haven’t read the book (I suppose I should before I go off half-cocked with this), but in the movie as I recall their motivations for blowing up the towers at the end was so that they could erase physical history of credit card debt and reset the clock on civilization. A Jubilee. I don’t again know all the hairy details about the financial dealings and the business records which were lost in the WTC, but the thought certainly makes for a compelling storyline, does it not? That the WTC was taken down by America Fight Clubs in imitation of the movie? Wasn’t the first unsuccessful attack on the WTC carried out with a bomb in a truck, just like they do in the movie (they do do that, don’t they)?

The point here is not whether my theory is right or wrong. The point is to look at how strategy is employed through controlling perception within the media. If you’re playing chess and you are in a position where you know you are going to lose a piece either way, the smart thing to do is (1) goad your enemy into taking the piece you’d prefer they take which will (2) and this is even smarter: leave them in the position you’d prefer them to be in when you make your next move.

Timothy McVeigh, what was he trying to do?

Say you uncover a plot by a next-gen militia movement in America (Aramchek, Project Mayhem) which is so vast and powerful that you know if you prevent one of their several planned attacks, you basically will allow them to commit another one because your attention will be focused elsewhere. You then cover your butts by blatantly stopping the one move to goad them to put you into a better position on the board. Sure, it’s a variant of the LIHOP theory, but its the domestic agent which really pegs the human motivation angle for me. I’d like to see an official list of what domestic groups publicly claimed responsibility for 9/11, if any. I’m sure there must be some…

I watched Superman Returns the other day, which is part of what motivated this. In it the boss at the Daily Planet utters a line that goes something like, “Superman is the story, not the black out.” The trick then becomes sleight of hand. Superman is the planes flown by Arab “terrorists.” The black-out is the Towers being blown up as an inside job by Americans who have had enough of banks ruling their lives like feudal serfs. Imagine how much more psychologically damaging and divisive a story like that hitting the front page of every newspaper in the world would have been. It would have been civil war. So you could say, if my theory has any merit, that pinning the whole thing falsely on Arabs in order to have an excuse to wage a fake war on another continent actually saved the American way of life more fully from extinction than anything else would have. And after all, you know what they say the first rule of Fight Club is.

PS. Wasn’t also a big part of the legal changes made after 9/11 have to do with data collection and correlation across institutions and jurisdictions? Who do you think is really motivated to have all this information correlated? Certainly not the government: because having that information would cost them money to act on. But credit card companies - banks - they would make money by having that information.

Also wanted to mention the other day I realized some of the Seattle city buses are exactly the same color as the logo for the bank Washington Mutual which holds a major presence in this city (they sponsored the fireworks at the 4th).

Cops are just insurance agents with guns. They aren’t there to protect you but to report value estimates on property damage to banks that control localities. Remember: money can’t pay for itself and is therefore fake. But render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s so as not to arouse undue suspicion. Identity theft is only bad for credit card companies, so they get us to police ourselves because its cheaper than the fraud investigations would cost them. That’s why they call it strategy: because they found a way to turn fraud into a money-maker instead of a loser.

The wise general only allows his opponents to believe what he wants them to believe. As Sun Tzu explained centuries ago:

“Success in war
Lies in
Scrutinizing
Enemy intentions.
And going with them.”