9/11 as a Deep Political Event

[Phil Dragoo]

Able Danger identified a cell in continental United States a year in advance--and was shut down to stop its interference by a higher level of the cabal.

John O'Neill as chief of FBI counterterrorism warned of such an attack and was sabotaged, sidelined, and crushed in the collapse.

Special Agent Colleen Rowley of the FBI warned Middle Eastern men were taking flying lessons sans takeoff and landings and was ignored.

Ace Elevator an unknown beat world-class Otis for an extensive renovation up to the day of the collapse(s).

Sufficient temperature to weaken structural steel to initiate the collapse per the official model was absent.

Present were visual and audio evidence of controlled demolition to initiate collapse.

The result of a contrived event was to create a casus belli, a national call to war, manipulated into a two-theater decade of intervention.

The removal of Saddam Hussein may have been on a Saudi et al wish list--and USG is subservient.

The 90% of the world's heroin from Afghanistan's poppy crop thriving after the Taliban's removal is one clear end of that campaign.

Yet we were told the dangers were Iraq's WMDs and Afghanistan's role in 9/11.

Now we see what WMDs may have existed were exagerrated or nonexistent or moved, and the heroin, not the Taliban/Al Qaeda was the second cause.

We were told Al Qaeda hijacked airliners and crashed them into the towers causing the collapse.

Somebody hijacked some planes--they had interference to protect their preparation--and perhaps placement of charges prior to D-Day.

The collapse was not due to the crashing of planes but to the explosive initiation.

We have, not a simple outrage or "tragedy", but a complex and brutal hoax to stampede us to do the bidding of unknown principals.

Leading the rush to war were all the major figures of both the political parties.

The commission they established has covered up the nature of the crime.

From front to back I submit this is a textbook case of a deep political event.

[David Guyatt]

Able Danger identified a cell in continental United States a year in advance--and was shut down to stop its interference by a higher level of the cabal.

John O'Neill as chief of FBI counterterrorism warned of such an attack and was sabotaged, sidelined, and crushed in the collapse.

Special Agent Colleen Rowley of the FBI warned Middle Eastern men were taking flying lessons sans takeoff and landings and was ignored.

Ace Elevator an unknown beat world-class Otis for an extensive renovation up to the day of the collapse(s).

Sufficient temperature to weaken structural steel to initiate the collapse per the official model was absent.

Present were visual and audio evidence of controlled demolition to initiate collapse.

The result of a contrived event was to create a casus belli, a national call to war, manipulated into a two-theater decade of intervention.

The removal of Saddam Hussein may have been on a Saudi et al wish list--and USG is subservient.

The 90% of the world's heroin from Afghanistan's poppy crop thriving after the Taliban's removal is one clear end of that campaign.

Yet we were told the dangers were Iraq's WMDs and Afghanistan's role in 9/11.

Now we see what WMDs may have existed were exagerrated or nonexistent or moved, and the heroin, not the Taliban/Al Qaeda was the second cause.

We were told Al Qaeda hijacked airliners and crashed them into the towers causing the collapse.

Somebody hijacked some planes--they had interference to protect their preparation--and perhaps placement of charges prior to D-Day.

The collapse was not due to the crashing of planes but to the explosive initiation.

We have, not a simple outrage or "tragedy", but a complex and brutal hoax to stampede us to do the bidding of unknown principals.

Leading the rush to war were all the major figures of both the political parties.

The commission they established has covered up the nature of the crime.

From front to back I submit this is a textbook case of a deep political event.

I suppose we can add to your incisive lost Phil, the peculiar fact that the Bush family bought a 99,000 acre ranch in Paraguay nearby the US military installation Mariscal Estigarribia Air Base[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariscal_Estigarribia"].

P[/URL]araguay doesn't, I understand, have an extradition treaty with the US, thus making this ranch an ideal bolt-hole for the late president in the event he was ever in danger of arrest for war crimes or involvement in 911 etc.

Might it have been a planning case of history repeating itself I wonder?

Of course, it could be an entirely innocent purchase related, say, to the climate down there...

[Charles Drago]

"All those political practices and arrangements, deliberate or not, which are usually repressed rather than acknowledged." -- Peter Dale Scott's definition of "deep politics."


For me, the key word in Scott's construction is "repressed." In the lexicon we commonly use here, the word has a relatively narrow meaning. Here's my shot at it:

"REPRESS: v. To keep data hidden from public access to prevent the discovery of illegal political acts and to protect the individuals and systems responsible for and benefiting from them."

The acts of keeping private certain aspects of a political campaign ... would not rise (sink?) to meet the definition of deep political acts unless they were undertaken to hide "illegal" campaign activities.

A campaign has every right to view as proprietary, and thus withhold from public scrutiny, its legal and appropriate television advertising strategy. In doing so it would not be "repressing" that information, but only preventing it from being used by opponents to gain an unfair advantage.

If, however, said strategy included efforts to circumvent FCC rules and regulations and/or use illegally obtained funds, then the act of hiding those efforts would qualify as repression.

You may justly infer that I don't have any problems whatsoever with Scott's definition. I heartily invite comment on my reasoning as detailed above.

I remain uncomfortable with, if not opposed in principle to, rewriting the very definition of deep politics upon which this forum was founded. Further, if we are to challenge Scott on this matter, we should make every reasonable effort to engage him -- publicly and/or privately -- in the process.

Keep in mind that Scott himself perceived the need to re-think his earlier "parapolitics" concept, the process out of which deep politics emerged.

If we are to attempt to tinker with his current work, then it will be incumbent upon us not merely to reword it, but rather to improve upon it.

To reiterate: At this point I'm comfortable with what we have.

[Jan Klimkowski]

"All those political practices and arrangements, deliberate or not, which are usually repressed rather than acknowledged." -- Peter Dale Scott's definition of "deep politics."


For me, the key word in Scott's construction is "repressed." In the lexicon we commonly use here, the word has a relatively narrow meaning. Here's my shot at it:

"REPRESS: v. To keep data hidden from public access to prevent the discovery of illegal political acts and to protect the individuals and systems responsible for and benefiting from them."

Charles - I am perfectly content with Peter Dale Scott's definition, and I see nothing in my posts in this thread which is inconsistent with that phrasing.

[Charles Drago]

"All those political practices and arrangements, deliberate or not, which are usually repressed rather than acknowledged." -- Peter Dale Scott's definition of "deep politics."


For me, the key word in Scott's construction is "repressed." In the lexicon we commonly use here, the word has a relatively narrow meaning. Here's my shot at it:

"REPRESS: v. To keep data hidden from public access to prevent the discovery of illegal political acts and to protect the individuals and systems responsible for and benefiting from them."

Charles - I am perfectly content with Peter Dale Scott's definition, and I see nothing in my posts in this thread which is inconsistent with that phrasing.

Nor do I. Have I given the contrary impression?

[Jan Klimkowski]

Have I given the contrary impression?

No - sorry for any misunderstanding.

One of the strengths of the "repressed" element of PDS's definition is the evocation of the Unspeakable.

[Charles Drago]

Have I given the contrary impression?

No - sorry for any misunderstanding.

One of the strengths of the "repressed" element of PDS's definition is the evocation of the Unspeakable.

No problem.

FYI, my original attempt to define "repress" within the deep political context read:

"To keep data hidden from public access to prevent the discovery of illegal and/or immoral political acts and to protect the individuals and systems responsible for and benefiting from them." [emphasis added]

Given your spot-on "Unspeakable" insight above, I wish I hadn't changed it

[Phil Dragoo]

Among the unspeakable practices, unnatural acts this shadow state is given to committing

we prominently display JFK

and add (or subtract) the Towers

Political events and practices repressed rather than acknowledged

Matthias Broeckers presents a whole tiara of gems among them:

MB: It's the most important crime in the second half of the 20th century, it
is still unsolved and it marked in a way the end of the American Republic.
Since then the financial-military-industrial complex rules and no president
after JFK had the balls to challenge that. There is, in the words of Gore
Vidal, "a one-party-system with two right-wings"; there are corporate media
brainwashing the population 24/7 and propagating wars for global imperial
dominance; there are covert operations all over the world to ensure this
dominance - and this will go on and on as long the truth about the covert
operation, the coup d' état, against JFKs presidency is kept hidden.

Not the Dulles template of the lone gunman--even Ike wrote American assassinations were committed by disgruntled individuals--oh dear, and he allegedly warned us of the military-industrial complex, and Truman held fast against Dulles', though Dulles lied to Houston he'd forced Truman to recant.

Tony Szamboti has a pithy synopsis:

The spectacular collapses of the twin towers, which were most probably caused by controlled demolitions, shocked us all, and caused us to demand action against the foreign entities that we were told supported the hijackers. However, the placing of charges, to cause the controlled demolitions, would have required access to the interiors of the buildings, which outsiders were very unlikely to have had in highly secure buildings such as the towers and WTC7. It thus needs to be considered as to whether it is conceivable that the aircraft impacts were used as causal ruses, to allow the collapses to be blamed on outsiders.


If it were insiders who placed and detonated the charges in the buildings, one may wonder who would want people in Afghanistan and Iraq to be blamed if they didn't do it. It seems that a good hard look at the soon to be built U.S. oil company controlled gas and oil pipeline through Afghanistan to the Caspian area, and the privatization of Iraq's oilfields to U.S. oil companies, might be astart at solving that puzzle for oneself. Neither of these situations would have been possible, without the support of the American people, for the use of the U.S. military, to overthrow the previous governments of these countries.

Now in a stereo view of Hitler's Dulles-assisted flight from bunker to South American asylum (Grey Wolf, Ratline), David offers a contemporary tale discussed here:

http://www.gatheringspot.net/topic/gener...ich-exodus

An area where Chavez had a detachment of Bolivariana special forces (before technical services took him out), but in a more lurid interpretation at the end of the above link:


Oh, and both the Moonie and Bush land is located at what Paraguay's drug czar called an "enormously strategic point in both the narcotics and arms trades." And it sits atop the one of the world's largest fresh-water aquifers.

What a picture--the Fourth Reich's Wolf's Lair defended by narcowerewolves and supplied with the new gold: fresh water


Scott has recently presented an astounding exposure of U.S. use of and collusion with Al Qaeda--http://japanfocus.org/-Peter_Dale-Scott/3971


The repressed truth underlaying the political events of our time

[Lauren Johnson]

I have spent much time re-reading this thread to much benefit. Charlie Drago's post at #5 is an excellent review and a reminder that parapolitics is a kind of deep politics. He also reminds us of PDS's definition of deep politics: "All those political practices and arrangements, deliberate or not, which are usually repressed rather than acknowledged." He also reminds me of my previous challenge of PDS's def'n -- now that's embarrassing.

Allow me to continue with the thought experiment about what makes 9/11 a deep political event. Jeffrey Orling has been roundly criticized for his poor skills in deep political analysis. Further, Jeffrey has on several occasions made fun of deep politics. Ironically, given PDS's definition of deep politics, the core of Jeffrey's analysis is actually quite consistent with the definition.

Briefly, Jeffrey rejects any notion of 9/11 being a directly organized psy op originating from any source within the USG. It is not an inside job. Period. In fact, it is a version of LIHOP, Let It Happen On Purpose. He thinks that the MIC with its dominance within US political life has created an environment, which was eager for a terrorist attack which of course would be the casas belli for endless warfare. This attack was the inevitable consequence of decades of imperialism and is was commonly known within the security establishment that the discovery and preventing such an attack should never be a conscious goal. Any over zealously person who would catch on to such an attack should be ignored within the security apparatus, e.g. Colleen Rowley. Of course, this implicit policy position of intentional nonfeasance must be suppressed, which is illegal. It is therefore fits the definition of deep politics.

Ergo, Jeffrey Orling has been unjustly criticized.

Remember, this is a thought experiment to provoke critical thought and discussion.

[Tony Szamboti]

I have spent much time re-reading this thread to much benefit. Charlie Drago's post at #5 is an excellent review and a reminder that parapolitics is a kind of deep politics. He also reminds us of PDS's definition of deep politics: "All those political practices and arrangements, deliberate or not, which are usually repressed rather than acknowledged." He also reminds me of my previous challenge of PDS's def'n -- now that's embarrassing.

Allow me to continue with the thought experiment about what makes 9/11 a deep political event. Jeffrey Orling has been roundly criticized for his poor skills in deep political analysis. Further, Jeffrey has on several occasions made fun of deep politics. Ironically, given PDS's definition of deep politics, the core of Jeffrey's analysis is actually quite consistent with the definition.

Briefly, Jeffrey rejects any notion of 9/11 being a directly organized psy op originating from any source within the USG. It is not an inside job. Period. In fact, it is a version of LIHOP, Let It Happen On Purpose. He thinks that the MIC with its dominance within US political life has created an environment, which was eager for a terrorist attack which of course would be the casas belli for endless warfare. This attack was the inevitable consequence of decades of imperialism and is was commonly known within the security establishment that the discovery and preventing such an attack should never be a conscious goal. Any over zealously person who would catch on to such an attack should be ignored within the security apparatus, e.g. Colleen Rowley. Of course, this implicit policy position of intentional nonfeasance must be suppressed, which is illegal. It is therefore fits the definition of deep politics.

Ergo, Jeffrey Orling has been unjustly criticized.

Remember, this is a thought experiment to provoke critical thought and discussion.

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.

Acknowledgement of something specifically done, like the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC 7, would lead to investigations and identifications of perpetrators. It seems this acknowledgement must be stopped and the collapses portrayed as natural events due to damage and fire at all costs. No different than the at all costs defense of the lone shooter paradigm in the three major assassinations of the 1960s, and no acknowledgement of the serious evidence of more than one shooter in both Kennedy assassinations and that James Earl Ray was not involved in the King assassination.