I am reclaiming some worthwhile stands from a thread sent to the Bear Pit: https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums...2781#post52781.
Specifically I am addressing Jeffrey Orling's request from #40:
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: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*.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.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. 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.
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 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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.