This is like my wishlist of nikon photography that i specced up when bored, would give me the whole focal range from 14mm to 400mm...
Get over the obsession with covering the entire range, you just don't need to and it's a waste of money because you can never carry them all anyway and you'll often not have the one you want.
There are legions of pro photographers out there shooting with a 17-35 (or new 16-35) and 70-200 day in day out, on FX unless you're doing specialized stuff that's 95% of what you need.
I'd forget the 14-24, it's expensive and too specialized for day to day use, the 17-35/16-35 is a better option. I'd also forget the 200-400, it's lovely but how often do you shoot at those focal lengths? Hire it when you need it, in the meantime get a teleconverter for the 70-200 and get 75% of the capability for 10% of the price. (and if you do shoot at those focal lengths frequently the primes are a better option for serious work, the 200-400 is fabulous but a luxury in every way...)
Why one SB900, two SB600s would allow more options in most scenarios.
Spending that much I'd want the new super fast 24mm prime as well...
One compactflash card? one? Right....
Two D700's would be infinitely better value here also...I could go on but I think you're just drawing up a list of the most expensive kit you can for fun. None of it will make you a better photographer, looking at what you've posted in the past you need to improve your technique a bit before improving your kit. I don't mean to be overly harsh but people are producing better results with compacts and bridge camera than you are with a DSLR, don't for one moment think spending £20k on gear is going to change that.