Conspiracy theories Part II (of III) – Blog No. 17.

 Conspiracy Theories Part II (of III).



The preceding post, Part I, tells the official story of the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York. This part looks at how it and two other cases might look through the eyes of a conspiracy theorist applying the same four-questions methodology set out in that post. In all three of these examples there is a strong smell of conspiracy. Part III of this blog will look at the downing of MH17 over Ukraine – a case for conspiracy, which is by no means settled one way or the other – but which almost certainly will be before the end of 2015.

The 9/11 Conspiracy.twin-towers-2_1817913c1

  • Cui bene? In retrospect it can be seen that of the several vested interests, Israel would have considered itself the greatest beneficiary of the War on Terror that followed the destruction of the World Trade Centre. Several senior members of the Bush administration were ardent Zionists. Three of them had been working in Tel Aviv prior to Bush’s coming to power. During their time there, they presented a paper, “A clean break” to the Israeli Prime Minister proposing the destruction of the ‘enemy’ regimes in Syria and Iraq as a stepping stone to the overthrow of the Iranian regime. Any action that could contribute to the demonisation of Islam was likely to increase western tolerance of Israel’s despoliation of the Palestinian population. Vice President Cheney, as a former CEO of Halliburton, had great ambitions for US oil companies in a post-Saddam Iraq. The USA’s neo-con consensus and the military/industrial/security complex all stood to gain from increased military action and enhanced governmental powers over the American public. The new owners of the Twin Towers were in line for a massive insurance pay-out At the same time, the Saudis would have a chance to see the removal of their enemy, Saddam Hussein (and, if it was indeed involved in a US agency led conspiracy, gain some brownie points with the US administration.) The above list is not exhaustive. There was no shortage of possible actors who stood to gain more than Bin Laden, who, in return for the fleeting satisfaction of revenge, must have been able to anticipate the loss of his safe haven with the Taliban government of Afghanistan – and ultimately his life.


  • Who was ready for the event? At the macro-level, according to Woodward in his ‘Plan of Attack: The Definitive Account of the Decision to Invade Iraq’ Bush had made the decision to invade Iraq within days of the event, and was pressing his intelligence services to prove the Iraqi involvement even though there was absolutely no indication that they could in any way have been involved or had any connection to al-Qaeda. At a micro-level, the Web has no lack of stories of fortunes made on the stock exchange prior to the event or of Israeli owned companies abandoning their leases in the Twin Towers in the weeks preceding the event. There is so much chaff being discharged by the propaganda machines that it is hard to authenticate any of these claims.



  • Integrity of any formal subsequent investigation. As few sane observers could accept the integrity of the subsequent investigation, conspiracy theorists have had a field day with this event, which has done so much to change the course of world history and which, more than any other event, would deserve a proper formal investigation. Ever since the event, successive US administrations have refused to go there. If such an investigation ever does take place it will probably be due to concerns about modern building safety standards. (If civil engineers and architects can have their minds set at rest by definitive proof that thermite, rather than an office fire, caused WT7 to collapse, they will be able to continue designing such structures with greater peace of mind.   With great reluctance and a year after the event (and the rushed destruction of much of the evidence) the White House appointed a commission of inquiry. Phillip Zelikow, who wasthe executive appointed to head the inquiry was a holder of joint US-Israeli citizenship and in frequent contact with fellow Zionists in the White House throughout, despite the ‘independent’ nature of the inquiry he was heading.. The terms of the commission were extremely restrictive and the two vice-chairmen both resigned on the grounds that government agencies were lying to the commission and refusing to produce evidence called for.


How many points on a probability scale of 1 to 10 (pull the other-one) should be given to the official version?


KellyThe Dr Kelly conspiracy. Dr. Kelly was the UK’s leading expert on Iraq’s bio-weapons programme. He was adamant that Iraq no longer had a bio-weapon capability or programme. However, Prime Minister Blair’s case for persuading the British public to invade Iraq alongside the Americans, depended on the bio-weapon threat. (Colin Powell’s waving the vial of Anthrax around at the UN was another aspect of this campaign.) Kelly’s expert opinion posed a real threat to the credibility of the ‘sexed-up dossier’ on the WMD threat posed by Iraq. In July 2003, Kelly committed suicide. There is no shortage of conspiracy claims on the Internet.

Article my Norman Baker, UK Minister.

Detailed list of pros and cons for suicide or murder. Both the above articles come from stalwart supporters of the status quo.

  • Cui bene? Blair and the remainder of the British and American advocates of the invasion of Iraq. There were also Iraqi advocates for the invasion who would have been anxious that their lies to the western intelligence services about Iraq’s WMD capabilities should not be discredited. The Western intelligence agencies, who were obeying instructions to create/find the evidence for the invasion of Iraq, were equally anxious that the claims of their Iraqi informers should not be discredited.


  • Who was ready for the event? Within three hours of Dr Kelly’s body being found, Lord Hutton was asked if he could head the enquiry


  • Coincidences and anomalies? Kelly died as a result of cutting the ulnar artery in his wrist – the artery is small and deep and not known to lay people. A surgeon, who has investigated, claims that it is virtually unheard of for suicide to be committed in this manner. Out of the 5-6,000 successful adult suicides attempts in the UK each year, Kelly’s was the only ‘suicide ‘ achieved in this manner in the year of his death.


  • Integrity of any formal subsequent investigation. The Prime Minister, Tony Blair, appointed a commission headed by Lord Hutton, a Judge renowned for wielding a safe pair of hands in support of the establishment. Its terms were extremely restrictive. The most crucial evidence, a coroner’s report into the death, was never produced as the British government has consistently claimed that the Hutton Inquiry was an effective substitute for a coroner’s inquest. As a consequence of the government’s adamant refusal, Dr Kelly is just about the only suicide in Britain never to have had a proper inquiry into the physical cause of his death. Having declared the cause of death to have been suicide, Lord Hutton ordered all documents relating to the case to be frozen for seventy years – giving the reason that he wished to avoid distress to Dr Kelly’s family.

How many points on a probability scale of 1 to 10 (pull the other-one) should be given to the official version?


The Syrian Gas Attack conspiracy. At the height of the American, British, Saudi and Turkish campaign to remove the Alawite regime from power in Syria, there were allegations from both sides in the civil war that the other side was using Sarin gas both as a military weapon and as a terror weapon against civilians. The USA warned the Syrian government that such use of gas was a red line and that should they be found to be using it against the rebels, the USA’s armed forces would intervene on the rebel side. UN inspectors were dispatched to Syria to investigate the claims of the use of Sarin. While they were in Syria, they witnessed a nerve gas attack on a rebel occupied Damascus suburb that killed anything between 280 and 1,700 civilians. Ostensibly, the Syrian army was responsible for this war-crime.

  • Cui bene? The four powers working to overthrow the Syrian regime now had a justification to launch air and missile attacks and take down the Syrian army. Such intervention would not only accelerate the regime change sought by the external powers, but would give immediate relief to the rebel forces, which were at that time and place being very hard-pressed by Syrian government forces.


  • Who was ready for the event? As soon as the UN inspectors had determined that Sarin had been used in the attack, the White House requested Congress’s approval for an aerial attack on Syria. Likewise, the Cameron government requested permission from the House of Commons. The British House of Commons stopped the process dead by rejecting Cameron’s request. Congress followed suit and insisted Obama reach a negotiated agreement to rid Syria of chemical weapons. This he was enabled to do through Russian mediation.
  • Coincidences and anomalies? On the 18th August 2013 a UN delegation of weapons inspectors had arrived in Damascus at the request of the Syrian government. They were to investigate a Sarin gas attack against its soldiers, allegedly launched by the rebel alliance. On the 21st August a chemical agent attack occurred in a disputed Damascus suburb, just a few kilometres from the UN Inspectors’ hotel. It made little sense that the Syrian army would risk US intervention at a time when it was not at all in a desperate situation. Furthermore, serious questions were being asked as to the origin of the gas attack, as the missiles, which had delivered the chemical agent, appeared to have had too short a range to have been launched from any Syrian government base.


  • Integrity of any formal subsequent investigation. The UN inspectors confirmed that Sarin gas, delivered by missiles, had caused the fatalities, but were unable to determine which side had fired the rockets. The most likely version of the truth to subsequently emerge, implicates NATO member, Turkey in a false flag attack. This argument was put forward in an article by Seymour Hersh published in the London Review of Books in April 2014.


Hersh is a Pulitzer prize-winning investigative journalist with a consistent record of exposing unwelcome truths. It was he, who first exposed the 1968 Mai Lai Massacre in Vietnam. Ever since, he has been building up a network of sources within the US establishment, which would appear to be without equal. His unwelcome revelations in The New Yorker have aroused hostility in successive American administrations and there have been repeated attempts to destroy his reputation for accurate reporting. The US Government still maintains its official version that the Syrian regime was responsible for the massacre.

How many points on a probability scale of 1 to 10 (pull the other-one) should be given to the official version?



Something to add? Please leave a comment in the box below

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *