9/11 as a Deep Political Event

[Lauren Johnson]

My last post presented the much maligned Jeffrey Orling as having made a barely acceptable case for the 911 attack as a deep political event. I give him a C-. But within the bounds of PDS's def'n of deep politics, I gotta say it passes. I don't like it. I really don't like it. It was crap.

It's as if ... [things get hazy, and the room begins to spin]

I am a teacher who thinks he as done a great job explaining a difficult subject, and then the class stinker slides through barely passing making me look like a fool. But I have to pass the guy. He was right. Phil Dragoo, on the other hand, gets an A+ ... again. He's one of my best students ever. But it eats at me that the student I really disliked passes. In fact, even that C- is going to get me called into the Dean's office for a little talking to when he and his parents complain.

Then I have to sit down and ask, What happened? What did I do wrong? Then I get it. In my teaching, I was engaged in conceptual slippage. When I thought I was giving examples of deep political events, they were in fact parapolitical events. I started off the class making the distinction, and then from that point on the distinction vanished. My best stuff in what I was calling deep politics was in fact parapolitics and I never realized it.

I know what I'll do. I raise that kid's grade to a B+ so I don't get called into the Dean's office. And I teach the course exactly the same. Nobody cares. Nobody notices. It's a popular class. So what if the thinking gets a little sloppy.

I pour myself a whiskey and think: It just really doesn't matter. Nobody cares. Let's just let it slide.

I wake up. Jesus, what a bad dream. I glad you all of that never happened. ... Wait ...

[Magda Hassan]

Acknowledgement of something specifically done, like the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC 7, would lead to investigations and identifications of perpetrators.

Probably not. We have evidence in writing of the demolition of the banking sector and nothing has happened but the bankers have received bonuses for their trouble.

[Tony Szamboti]

Acknowledgement of something specifically done, like the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC 7, would lead to investigations and identifications of perpetrators.

Probably not. We have evidence in writing of the demolition of the banking sector and nothing has happened but the bankers have received bonuses for their trouble.

In that case those involved can say they did not actually commit a crime, as in 1981 and 2000 they got the politicians to remove banking laws, like the two Glass-Steagall Acts from 1933, prior to pulling any shenanigans.

The Savings and Loan crisis in the late 1980s and the 2008 banking crisis were both a result of eliminating these two major banking laws.

From 1933 to 1981 Savings and Loans had their investment risk limited. The law change allowed them to buy high yield junk bonds (the proceeds of which were used for hostile takeovers and gutting of large company's reserves by the likes of Mitt Romney and T. Boone Pickens) and when the Junk Bond market went down we all know what happened to the Savings and Loans. Interestingly, they were allowed to take the high risk while still having FDIC insurance. Paul Volker's proposed rule would now prevent that, but I am not even sure if that was passed.

From 1933 to 2000 Investment banks were not allowed to handle mortgages and the 2008 crisis was a result of them being allowed to get their greedy hands on them. The adjustable rate mortgage, with its clause allowing an increase in interest rates if sold, was the lever they used to bundle mortgages and sell them to buyers who could then raise the rates to get a return on their investment. The Investment banks provided no value to the mortgage. It was essentially a skimming operation, but legal because they removed the law prohibiting it. Of course, they called the law removing it a nice name "The Financial Services Modernization Act". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GrammLeachBliley_Act. The crisis occurred just eight years later when large numbers of home owners with adjustable rate mortgages were unable to pay the new higher interest rates demanded by the bundle buyers.

[Phil Dragoo]

Tony, you note

In that case those involved can say they did not actually commit a crime

This is deniability. It's possible because Curt Weldon could not expose Able Danger. Because John O'Neill's warnings were buried with him.

Earlier you had said

Of course, people involved in a cover-up can admit to some vague unethical behaviors, by what they sometimes use generic terms for, like the MIC, but these generalities would never lead to investigations and identifications of perpetrators.

A cover-up can always admit to general overall poor behaviors that will cause no harm. That way they don't sound completely off the wall while denying the part that can cause harm. What they can't admit to and vigorously attempt to point away from are specific crimes and behaviors which would show they were capable of those crimes.

You describe a limited hangout, A but not B because B would lead to C

While in theory no investigation of the Savings and Loan and 2008 China Syndrome were conducted, pro forma investigations were launched.

As with JFK and 911, S & L and 08CS were without punishment, except of course for the Boldens and O'Neills, et cetera.

The discussion concerns the repression of action, in this case, buildings fell to precipitate profitable wars.

The prime agency of the security state is clear, and yet, denied with only token statements by the extant subject.

Paul Simon advised the nearer "your destination, the more you slip-slide away"

Nothing concrete--pun-ishing clouds of dusty rhetoric notwithstanding