We use conspiracy for actions that fit two parameters:
- They are planned between a group
- An effort is made to keep them secret, with whatever degree of success
If we are saying that government and corporate actions are not conspiracies, we must say either that they are not planned (as opposed to being planned well or poorly), or else that no attempt is made to make them secret.
Outside of the typical but stupid practice of casting aspersion on any theory that involves dishonesty in government, conspiracy theories are not only natural but necessary to any reasonable understanding of current events: insofar as government and corporate motives and actions are indeed concealed, self-government, self-direction, and autonomy require making educated guesses about what these fundamentally psychopathic institutions are up to.
Of course, that does not at all mean that all conspiracy theories are reasonable any more than all psychological or literary or linguistic theory is reasonable.
However, in this case, recent events should make it obvious that the attack on 9/11/01 was an inside job and false flag. We have had a good few responsible and enterprising commentators--Kolhatkar, here, but also Noam Chomsky--deny or at least denied at one time that this could be an inside job. It turns out that they were not correct. The reasons that such intelligent commentators were thoroughly fooled is worth considering. Since I myself was fooled as well, maybe I have a leg up on getting this started.
Chomsky's take, apparently after discussing the matter with engineering colleagues at MIT, was that the physics of the collapse of the building was complex and difficult to use as proof. He concluded that it could not be an inside job because logistics of planning and execution could not be kept secret. Sadly, this probably constitutes a major error in analysis based on a misunderstanding of what an inside job is and how it is likely to operate. I say sadly not so much because I am disappointed that Chomsky can be so misled--he's human, apparently--but because this means that such actions are far, far more easily planned and executed than I or most of us had believed.
Chomsky observed that to set up the buildings in advance for demolition required the collusion of too many people, people who would have varying self-interests and who would not therefore reliably keep a secret. This principle is actually rather good. It does indeed mean that George Bush could not likely have gone to the various chiefs of police and companies and military and so forth and arranged such things. The principle is well described by Edward Luttwak, of all people, in his early study Coup d'Etat. Basically, the more people you must inform of a coup or other dangerous conspiracy, the more likely it is that someone will turn you in and get you fried.
But of course, that is why American black ops people do not contact a lot of people within a country to arrange coups, and also engage in a lot of other violence and rotten play that take less organization than coups--like false fire events, in this case. The CIA, particularly, has been performing and overseeing such things since at least 1953, which surely means that there are sophisticated means and trained experts inside and outside of various organizations who can be tapped for such activities in ways that have been tried and refined over decades.
I am probably just as glad to not know all the details, but certain things may be regarded as obvious. The standard operating procedure for corporations who wish something illegal to be done is to hire it out. If it is particularly objectionable, you hire someone who is not likely to empathize with victims. If someone is to be killed, the killer is likely brought from across country and returned quickly. If the target is famous or there are many people, you probably hire foreigners. So you might hire dissatisfied Saudis to kill New Yorkers or Americans to kill Muslims more easily than you can hire Muslims to kill Muslims and Americans to kill Americans--though the latter can be done if you can divide people by race, creed, income, or gender orientation. You give them a lot of rot about terrorists or people who are not nice to women or whatever--a false flag event, ideally. But still, it would not be likely that Allen Dulles would have hired Irish mafia from Boston to kill John Kennedy, for instance, and the reasons for that are probably easy to understand.
Now, in the case of 911, where the Saudi government has seen fit to make large threats in response to threats of exposure and where the foreign nationals that we do know about were Saudis, what we would be looking for would be an adequately close connection between someone with the power and influence within the US to assure that defenses would be down and investigations nominal, and at the same time someone with sufficient connection to someone in the Saudi Kingdom to mandate parties to handle the logistics.