9/11 and the Deep State

[Lauren Johnson]

I am reclaiming some worthwhile stands from a thread sent to the Bear Pit: https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...#post52781.

Specifically I am addressing Jeffrey Orling's request from #40:

I asked for you to lay out the case for 9/11 being a deep state event. A case for disaster capitalism can be made vulture capitalism, opportunism and behavior of powerful state institution promoting their self interest, but I suspect a deep state event is a pre-planned conspiracy of *the deep state*.

This my attempt to work with your request. I welcome critique. First, what is the deep state? PDS credits the term to a Turkish origin. From Wikipedia:

The deep state (Turkish: derin devlet) is alleged to be a group of influential anti-democratic coalitions within the Turkish political system, composed of high-level elements within the intelligence services (domestic and foreign), Turkish military, security, judiciary, and mafia.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] The notion of deep state is similar to that of a "state within the state". For those who believe in its existence, the political agenda of the deep state involves an allegiance to nationalism, corporatism, and state interests. Violence and other means of pressure have historically been employed in a largely covert manner to manipulate political and economic elites and ensure specific interests are met within the seemingly democratic framework of the political landscape.

Given this view of the deep state, it would follow that deep politics would describe the the interactions between factions within the deep state, between the deep state and the state, and amongst the factions within the state influenced by the deep state. For example, the Warren Commission is a classic example of the latter: how the state pretends to investigate what must not be investigated.

I recognize these definitions are those of PDS, but they seem to be more helpful to me.

Finally, the state of the union of the deep state by 9/11. You say this in #31:

I suspect it's possible to infiltrate the national security state with spies who are in policy or in *actionable* positions... to do like change the motorcade route, for example. Who might these spies be operatives for? Someone who wanted JFK killed! And there could be a lot of people and so forth who wanted to see him killed. Spies are supposed to be invisible and I suppose can be placed to steal information or do engage in actionable decisions.

I take my lead from Fletcher Prouty on this when he claims that when he left the military in1964, his role of liaison between the JSOC and DCI/CIA (Allen Dulles), there were moles inserted throughout the government. By the time of 9/11, the COG initiative provided the deep state with a powerful platform to elevate iself tot the level of a sophisticated bureaucracy.

So, to get back to the original question: how can we understand 9/11 as act by the deep state without it being a MIHOP operation, or even LIHOP, for that matter.

Let's say that the deep state, which I view as having evolved to the level of a sophisticated bureaucracy through the COG initiative, has a policy of allowing a terrorist act(s) to take place within the USA borders, such that all the outcomes that we see now were planned. We have the GWOT; we have the growth of the national security state, etc. So we wait for it to happen. There are people out there who hate us, and the will strike sooner or later. This is not LIHOP because no one knows what the It is. Viewed this way, 9/11 can be seen as both a disaster capitalism event as well as one of the deep state. I think that this is your consistent position. This is one which can be fairly argued. And I think it is fatally flawed.

Now, this is where, Charles Drago's Deep Political Science class is so essential @ #30.

1. In order to understand deep political operations, we must investigate them with the utmost, best informed intellectual discipline and rigor.

I'm sure we agree on this much.

2. Before we can answer the "who" and "why" questions related to suspected deep political operations, we must first answer definitively the "how" question.

3. Let us look to the JFK assassination and the best investigations of it. We have discovered the "how" of that deep political operation and its cover-up: JFK was murdered in a triangulated attack by world-class gunmen who depended for success upon control of the motorcade route and the stripping of motorcade's security; the cover-up of JFK's murder was dependent upon the identification and manipulation of a "patsy" whose links to unrelated U.S. intelligence operations would hinder honest investigations by non-complicit federal law enforcement and intelligence officers, upon the "patsy's" linkage to individuals and groups who later would be identified as false sponsors, and upon the cooperation, coerced or otherwise, of officers of government who for whatever reasons were witting accessories before and/or after the fact.

4. Based upon the "how"-informed hypothesis that the JFK assassination bears all the hallmarks of a deep political intelligence operation, and given our prior knowledge of how deep political intelligence operations such as the JFK assassination were structured, we must create a working hypothesis of the JFK plot's structure (see the Evica-Drago conspiracy model).

5. Based upon our "how" discoveries, we must reverse-engineer the plot within the context of a process of elimination: Who could have been responsible for conceiving and executing the crime and cover-up in the observed fashions? Who could not have been responsible for doing same?

6. Based upon the results of the reverse-engineering and process of elimination, we must begin to fill in the slots of the conspiracy model we've hypothesized.

I really would have preferred that you would have taken up CD's invitation to do this. Charles, if you are out there, I would invite you to continue the process here or in a new thread! I suggest you and all others here at teach the teachable, not the unteachable.

Now, how would one answer the Jeffrey Orling position? How can one say there is a substantial index of suspicion towards deep state involvement at least with prior knowledge of the 9/11 event? The following argue this direction: 1) suppression of FBI investigation of suspicious persons training how to fly a jet without take off training, 2) easy entrance of 9/11 participants into the US who were on watch lists, 3) Air Force exercises which would served to confuse air defenses, air traffic controllers, and evacuate defensive assets from the NY and DC areas, 4) ignored warnings of terrorist air attacks from multiple sources, 5) shorting of airline stock and subsequent cover-up of the source of these acts, 6) warnings for government officials to not fly on that weekend, and finally but limited to 7) testimony that VP Cheney was involved in giving orders with regard to not taking action on the incoming whatever that was involved in blowing up Pentagon.

All of these taken together indicate foreknowledge by elements the USG and military of the hijacking of airliners in the North East CONUS around 9/11. This is not the hallmark of an inefficient bureaucracy; it is in fact the hallmark of plans having gone well.

Does this prove the case? No, but it is my attempt to use CD's methodology to show how one can move from a deep state/disaster capitalism model, to one in which the deep state engaged in LIHOP or MIHOP.

Ultimately, I believe that 9/11 was a carefully planned and ultimately successful operation. There are many unsolved and probably unknowable facts regarding this act of treason. Did the buildings come down by accident or were they intentionally brought down. I think the evidence favors the latter. But the stronger we move the index of suspicion towards deep state involvement, the less we need to argue the fact. In short, we do not have to have all facts before claiming knowledge that we were violated by traitors.

[Charles Drago]

In the aforementioned, now exiled thread, I suggested the following to Jeffrey Orling:

We must base this exchange on shared definitions, in this case those proffered by Peter Dale Scott:

"DEEP POLITICS" is defined as all those political practices and arrangements, deliberate or not, which are usually repressed rather than acknowledged.

A "DEEP POLITICAL SYSTEM" is defined as one which resorts to decision-making and enforcement procedures outside as well as inside those sanctioned by law and society.

In re your postulate that "government or even intel operations... [did not manage] to win 3 wars in 3rd world countries despite having a military budget greater than the entire rest of the world," and my response, "What makes you think that the goal of the deep political system is to 'win' the wars which you reference?":

Do we agree that the wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan were planned and initiated by "deep political systems" as defined by Professor Scott?

Do we agree that the war in Vietnam was a war of aggression prolonged for reasons unrelated to American strategic planning and military capabilities to win it?

Do we agree that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were wars of aggression prolonged for reasons unrelated to American strategic planning and military capabilities to win them?

Do we agree that the protection and enhancement of global drug trafficking were prime motivating factors in the decisions to wage all three wars?

Do we agree that insuring maximum profits for defense industries was a prime motivating factor in the decisions to wage all three wars?

Do we agree that said profits would be increased in direct proportion to the ability of deep political systems to prolong all three wars?

Do we agree that protection of and access to fossil fuel supplies were prime motivating elements in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars?

Do we agree that all three wars were nothing more or less than additions to a "perpetual war for perpetual piece" global strategy designed to preserve the tribalism upon which the few depend to control the many and to preserve and protect their own hegemony?

Do we agree that the Cold War was a fictive construct, and that JFK was murdered on the orders of those power groups that were "above Cold War differences"?

Jeffrey replied thusly:

[COLOR="#FF0000"]I suspect that the wars mentioned were undertaken to advance several agendas, none of which has anything to do with the security interests of the USA... which is what the DOD is supposed to have as its core mission. Of course the national security ruse is always hauled out, but hard to believe on its merits... Afghanistan a threat to me?

So I suspect that those pushing the wars are doing so for power and money and the military itself needs to justify its very existence and budgeting. If no threats... why do we need such a huge expensive DOD? Money can be from MIC procurements, weapons sales, drug trafficking, resource and labor exploitation, and the related media and other businesses which make out from the war efforts.

And then there are the politicians who trade on deception, myths illusion and fear to keep them in power and cash. If the people voted those wars wouldn't have started and if once started would have been ended a lot sooner were it not for the greed for money and power of the insiders and the already powerful.

The 1% don't make the wealth from working... but from deals. War is a big series of deals.[/COLOR]

In response, I asked the question that logically follows:

So then ... Do you retract your arguments that "government and intel operations" cannot be responsible for 9-11 because they are so incompetent that they could not win the wars under discussion here, and that rather than being a conspiracy originating in deep political processes, 9-11 may be written off as "a series of failures of a huge lumbering system and a massive cover up of incompetence"?

Jeffry came back with (in part):

No I do not retract that statement. I do accept the notion of false flags... but not of the scale of something like 911. This is way more complex as a MIHOP conspiracy... if it is... than say the sinking of the Maine or the the Gulf of Tonkin or Reichstag fire. Each of these were relatively *minor* acts which led to big wars.

After Greg Burnham weighed in to comment on Jeffrey's apparent double-thinking, Jeffrey ticked me off with the following:

I am not here to discuss the JFK assassination. This is a thread about 9/11. Let's relate your deep political analysis to 9/11 kindly.

Greg and I independently shot back, in the following order:


I was discussing Deep Political critical thinking.
Thank you, Greg.

Jeffrey, either understand the deeper reasons why I choose to enlighten our discussion of 9-11 investigative methods by referencing the RELATED deep political event that is the JFK assassination, or take your ignorance elsewhere. Kindly.

This should bring everyone up to speed.

[Phil Dragoo]

Although I had come a long way since the high school English class intercom announced, "Covert gunmen fired a series of salvos shattering the president's brains and insuring the Vietnam War. Your buses are assembling at the entrance to take you home for the weekend," I thought 911 was a counterterrorism failure.

In one hand, the conspiracy-crossfire-coverup-coup. In the other, a tragic failure.

At some point the Gran Torus drew me into the vortex with millions of tons of rubble, all transformed on the orbit to the outer rim into two, two, two wars in one.

Jeffrey, I have seen a few still who hold that "that forty-year-old conspiracy is not relevant" and here comes Grace Slick on the Jeffersonian Helio Courier buzzing over the Amazon, her voice rising above Simon Cowell's praise, "Life is change; How it differs from the rocks; I've seen their ways too often for my liking."

Apart from metaphysics (all time is now, one surface, et cetera), consider that the manipulation by clandestine means of markets, their access and exploitation, including but not limited to, regime change, destabilization of currencies and populations, sabotage, false-flag attacks, assassination and mass murder is the modus operandi of the grand cabal personified by Nelson Rockefeller then, by any given consortium of defense industries and drug cartels, oil-producing blocs.

My man, heroic John O'Neill, the FBI counterterrorism chief warning, warninglo and behold his briefcase of confidential casework is stolen when he is called to the phone at an FBI seminar. He will die in the tower collapse.

Colleen Rowley complains to Robert Muellerand surprise, surprise, Mueller's contract is extended two years by President America-Can-Absorb-Another-911.

We are drawn into the vortex of the torus. Lulled by O-the-tragedy, O-the-beastly-Islamists.

And we wind up taking out the Saudis' and Iranians' trash, and keeping the Silver Train A-Rolling out of Poppystan.

Those are winding down. We're gonna need the next, big thing.

We have the National Defense Resource Preparedness Act. The purchase of 450 million rounds of .40 cal. hollow points. The president may detain, interrogate and assassinate anyone.

The Matrix maintains there is no connection between the actions of that lone gunman and the actions of these fanatics.

I posit now, having come round the outside to the apex, thatwait for itEl Gran Cabal de los Cabrones created and operated those kabuki characters.

There is no duality nor dissonance, no failure, no incompetence, no tragedy, no bureaucratic Peter Principle.

There is the imperative (at root, the emperor) to power, to profitbut I repeat myself.

It is deep because it is overlaid with plausible denial.

The motive has always existed. The means evolve.

[Keith Millea]

The purchase of 450 million rounds of .40 cal. hollow points.

Phil,I believe the total comes to 750 million rounds of .40 cal. hollow points.Great post as usual. :wavey:

[Lauren Johnson]

Phil, Your reference to the torus as a symbol of ... of what? Of a timeless, unidimensional horror? We are the borg. Resistance is futile. Assimilate.

Max Weber pushed the envelope far beyond what his critics were able to comprehend when he talked about the Iron Cage:

Iron cage, a sociological concept introduced by Max Weber, refers to the increased rationalization inherent in social life, particularly in Western capitalist societies. The "iron cage" thus traps individuals in systems based purely on teleological efficiency, rational calculation and control. Weber also described the bureaucratization of social order as "the polar night of icy darkness".[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_cage#cite_note-0][/url]

Now we have progressed far past the iron cage to the torus. But what do you mean "we" white man? Dostoevsky wrote , If there is no God, everything is permitted. But what if our god is the torus?