9/11: The Devil in the Details

In commemoration of the 13th anniversary of the "terrorist attacks" of September 11, 2001, an excerpt from chapter 10 of The Illuminati Zone by William Fevers (a pen name for yours truly) concerning the significance of numbers on that day which is proof that the official story is, to put it politely, incorrect:

“11 and 22 are particularly fortunate and excellent numbers,” Richard Cavendish writes in The Black Arts, “representing a higher plane of experience than the numbers 1 to 9. Eleven is the number of revelation and martyrdom.”

And multiples of 11 have a unique power:

“Just as adults always carry their inner child within them, the numbers 11, 22, 33, and 44 carry within them the number they can be reduced to. The number 11 is also 2 (1+1=2); 22 is also 4 (2+2=4); 33 is also 6 (3+3=6); and 44 is also 8 (4+4=8).”

There’s no avoiding the fact that 11 was a most unfortunate number on that infamous day in 2001. Consider the following from the web site, The Forbidden Knowledge:

● The date of the attack: the eleventh day of the ninth month. Add the digits in 9/11 (9+1+1) and the result is 11.
● The World Trade Center’s two towers each had 110 stories (11x10=110).
● The building known as 7 World Trade Center had 47 stories (4+7=11).
● The State of New York, the scene of the attack, was the eleventh state added to the Union.
● The year 2001 had 111 days remaining following the attacks of September 11.
● September 11 is the 254th day of the year (2+5+4=11).
● The Twin Towers themselves formed a symbolic number 11.
● The first plane to strike the towers on the morning of September 11 was Flight 11.
● Flight 11 had 11 crew members on board.
● Flight 11 had 92 persons on board overall (9+2=11).
● Flight 175 had 65 people aboard (6+5=11), and, of course, 1+7+5=13, the number notoriously associated with bad luck and, not surprisingly, the number of the chapter in the Book of Revelation in which the Antichrist appears on the scene. 5

The number 9 is also important in the occult.

According to Texe Marrs, occultists regard the number 9 as the “ultimate number of power and authority” for the usual blasphemous reasons. It was at the ninth hour on the cross that Jesus drew his final breath, and there are said to be nine orders of devils in Hell.

Submitted for your approval: world-shaping events in which the numbers 9 and/or 11, or multiples of one or the other, appear to have an occult implication:

● The Pentagon was also targeted on 9/11. Ground was broken for this structure, a think-tank for war, on September 11, 1941. Here we have 9/11 and, when adding the digits in the year (1+9+4+1), we get 15. Add one to five and the result is 6. When turned on its head, 6 becomes 9.

● World War I, the “war to end all wars” which the League of Nations hoped would usher in a world government, ended in the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month.

● President John F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963. That’s 11/22. Adding those figures gives us 33, multiple elevens.

● September 11 was also the date in 1973 when a coup d’etat took place in Chile. That event, triggered by policies conceived by the Rockefeller controlled Council on Foreign Relations, led to General Augusto Pinochet’s establishment of a military dictatorship that would last through 1990.

● The Berlin Wall fell on November 9, 1989. That’s 11/9, the reverse of 9/11, and when you add the digits in the year, you get 27 or 2+7=9 for a total of 11/99.

In none of the mainstream news accounts of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center was there any mention of whose idea those haughty towers were in the first place. Hang on to your hats, conspiracy buffs, because here comes a surprise: they were David Rockefeller’s dream!

These giant towers of Babel-like structures were deemed impractical by many. No doubt those who worked in them and bellyached about the constant swaying motion they experienced were never convinced otherwise. But Rockefeller always gets what he wants, so the towers, derisively nicknamed Nelson and David, went up at his behest.

The architect, Minour Yamasaki, didn’t live to see his arrogant masterwork destroyed. Of his baby, he said, “World trade means world peace, and consequently the World Trade Center buildings in New York . . . had a bigger purpose than to just provide room for tenants. The World Trade Center is a living symbol of man’s dedication to world peace.”

Architect Charles Jencks had a different take, however:

“Repetitive architecture can put you to sleep. Both Mussolini and Hitler used it as a form of thought control knowing that before people can be coerced they first have to be hypnotized and then bored.”

Indeed, Hitler recognized that architecture played an important role in the psychology of a totalitarian state. In Hitler and the Power of Architecture, Frederic Spotts describes Hitler’s obsessive participation in the design of new building projects in Nazi Germany:

“The overall effect - and, indeed, intent - was to aggrandize himself and to debase human beings into tiny objects, automations as insensate as the stone of the building.”

“Is it possible to imagine the World Trade Center as a ruin?” Eric Darton asked in his “biography” of the Twin Towers in 1999.

Prior to September 11, 2001, few of us could. Psychologically, 9/11 reinforced the feeling that we are tiny objects, vulnerable and easily crushed.

AVAILABLE AT AMAZON.COM

VISIT MY KINDLE STORE AT AMAZON

The Err to Gore Vidal

In the February 2010 Vanity Fair, Christopher Hitchens cast his critical eye on Gore Vidal, a man whose “tough-mindedness” and “subversive wit” he greatly admired. When participating in a panel discussion on the life and work of Oscar Wilde, Hitchens recalled the moderator proposing that Vidal was the Oscar Wilde of our time, “and, really, once that name had been mentioned, there didn’t seem to be any obvious rival.”

If one had been looking for Gore Vidal’s successor, Hitchens didn’t have any obvious rival either, and even now, with his voice permanently stilled, no rival seems likely to emerge. Vidal himself once championed Hitchens as his heir, but then came 9/11. The attack on New York and Washington D.C. had many ramifications, the most serious of which - the shredding of the Bill of Rights and the shedding of blood in Iraq - Vidal addressed in his controversial pamphlets, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace and Dreaming War. One of its more frivolous results was the end of the two writers’ mutual admiration society.

Suddenly, Hitchens regarded Vidal as a “crackpot” for proposing that the Bush administration had advance knowledge of the attacks and took merciless advantage of them to justify an invasion of Iraq and the suspension of many of our civil liberties. Hitchens wrote that “if it’s true even to any degree that we were all changed by September 11, 2001, it’s probably truer of Vidal that it made him more the way he already was. . .” As an example, Hitchens referred to Vidal’s previously stated belief that Franklin Roosevelt ignored warnings that an attack on Pearl Harbor was imminent, knowing that such a tragedy would rally support for America’s entry into World War II.

Prior to 9/11, Hitchens was seemingly on the political left, contributing to such progressive publications as The Nation. A closer look at some of his activities suggests that the heart of a right winger was beating in his chest years before that day in 2001. While the left marched in step, supporting Bill Clinton even as he was impeached for lying under oath in the Monica Lewinsky case, Hitchens joined the conservative choir, admirably so in my view, by condemning him, writing a book, No One Left to Lie To: The Triangulations of William Jefferson Clinton.

Hitchens didn't really change after 9/11. As he said of Vidal, “it made him more the way he already was . . .” Hitchens' words, which I replaced with an ellipsis - “and accentuated a crackpot strain that gradually asserted itself as dominant” - perfectly describe Hitchens himself who told USA Today that 9/11 was “an attack on America and its ideals.” George W. Bush had said that the terrorists “hate our freedom.” Different words expressing the same ridiculous sentiment.

Hitchens, the self-described contrarian, became an unofficial publicist for the Bush administration and its policies. Since he wasn’t on the government’s payroll, he was free to make statements that were more inflammatory, such as his description of the enemy as “Islamofascists.” Hitchens, like most Bush cheerleaders, failed to acknowledge that U.S. involvement in regions where we have no business being involved was, as Patrick Buchanan has stated, asking for trouble.

It’s a pointless argument, however, since the facts support the claim made by Vidal and others that the Bush administration had prior knowledge of the attacks. Of course, Hitchens, like others in the mainstream media, ridiculed such beliefs as unworthy of anyone but a “crackpot.”

Hitchens appears to have been something far more dangerous than a crackpot. He was a disinformation specialist. They come in all shapes and sizes, all colors and creeds, and can be found on the left, right, and in the center of every political party. Hitchens, I stated previously, “wasn’t on the government payroll,” but many journalists are secretly employed by the CIA, and have been since the days of the company’s forerunner, the OSS. In a 1977 article in The Washington Post, Carl Bernstein reported that the CIA’s “assets” included employees of virtually every major newspaper, magazine, and TV network, all of whom could be called on to do their bidding. Whether or not Hitchens was one of them, he certainly supported their agenda, something the true contrarian, Gore Vidal, never did.

In attempting to explain why Hitchens demoted him from idol to crackpot, Vidal told an audience that “I didn’t die. I just kept going on and on and on.”

And on he goes, a man without an heir, but he never really had one in Hitchens. Sure, they were both witty and had a gift for words, but Hitchens worked hard to counter Vidal’s most important message. Perhaps when Vidal called Hitchens his heir, he forgot to use the spellcheck. He may have meant “err.”

© 2011 Brian W. Fairbanks

VISIT MY KINDLE STORE AT AMAZON