9/11 and Covid-19 as Structural Deep Events: A Synopsis

Author’s Note: I recently co-authored with Kevin Ryan a paper titled ‘A Plausibility Probe of 9/11 and COVID-19 as “Structural Deep Events”’, published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. The full article can be read here, what follows is a 1500 word synopsis of it.

Whilst major crisis events are known to create political opportunities for powerful actors to move forward hidden agendas, serious exploration of such events is frequently dismissed as irrational, poorly evidenced, or even pathological, ‘conspiracism’. Fortunately, Peter Dales Scott’s structural deep event (SDE) concept, coupled with Lance deHaven-Smiths state crimes against democracy (SCAD) heuristic, provide frameworks for developing systematic and empirically grounded analysis of such events.

Structural deep events occur when real-word events are either exploited or instigated by powerful actors in order to advance policies that have structural-level consequences for a society. These events are driven by opaque networks, sometimes referred to as the ‘deep state’, which includes a variety of non-democratic, and sometimes criminal, elements. SDEs form one category of crimes or offences against democracy (see Figure One). SDEs can also be theorised as a form of ‘propaganda of the deed’, involving deception and real world action designed to influence beliefs and conduct.

Figure reprinted from ‘A Plausibility Probe of 9/11 and COVID-19 as “Structural Deep Events”’ (Robinson and Ryan, 2024)

Key elements of an SDE, and their observable implications, are set out in table one below and include: a) the existence of major policy drives with structural consequences; b) involvement of deep actors; c) manipulation of an event, including use of deception, through rapid reactions without proper investigation, manipulation of scientific and official investigations, deployment of propaganda in order to promote official narratives, and the existence of foreknowledge and planning.

Table reprinted from ‘A Plausibility Probe of 9/11 and COVID-19 as “Structural Deep Events”’ (Robinson and Ryan, 2024)

All of these SDE elements can be identified in the examples of 9/11 and the COVID-19 ‘pandemic’.

In the case of 9/11, US officials claimed that an Islamic fundamentalist terror network – al-Qaeda – were solely responsible for the hijacking of civilian airliners and their use as part of suicide missions in which the twin towers (WTC 1 and 2) in New York and the Pentagon were attacked and destroyed. Alongside the twin towers, a third skyscraper (WTC7) was also completely destroyed later in the day. This narrative was used to initiate a wide ranging ‘regime-change war’ strategy whereby attacks on countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya could be deceptively justified under the cover of a ‘global war on terror’. This regime-change policy reflected a structural-level policy agenda, articulated by neoconservatives during the 1990s, aimed at using US military advantage to shore up US hegemony into the 21^st century.  

Deep actors were involved including US military special operations operatives who played important roles with respect to enabling the alleged hijackers to enter the U.S., the control of security at the WTC complex, and ensuring that US air defences failed to intercept the hijacked airliners. The alleged leader of al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, was himself trained and funded by the CIA, whilst two of the alleged hijackers had been recruited into a CIA-Saudi intelligence operation.

Regarding the event itself, the reaction of authorities in terms of attributing responsibility and prescribing the appropriate policy response was immediate. On the day of 9/11, the Bush administration declared a global ‘war on terror’ and countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran were identified as targets. Subsequent official investigations into the attacks, conducted years later, were demonstrably flawed. Most notably, the investigation of why three skyscrapers were completely destroyed due to two airplane strikes, conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, failed to explain what had happened and involved ignoring and manipulating evidence. In fact, a preponderance of evidence now shows that the three buildings in New York were deliberately destroyed through controlled demolition.

Mainstream/corporate media aggressively promoted official claims whilst smearing anyone raising substantive questions. Finally, foreknowledge and planning are evidence by confirmed insider (or informed) trading prior to 9/11 in which bets were made on the share values of United Airlines and American Airlines (whose aircraft were purportedly hijacked on 9/11) going down. In addition, there were multiple training exercises on the day of 9/11 including those which disrupted the ability of the US air defence system to respond to the reported hijackings.   

In the case of Covid-19, authorities claimed there to be a new and exceptionally dangerous pathogen warranting extraordinary ‘health emergency’ measures such as society-wide lockdown and multiple non-pharmaceutical interventions. However, other structural-level agendas have been identified across the literature including: a) drives to advance policies related to ‘stakeholder capitalism’ and the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) via the so-called ‘Great Reset’ (see image one); b) policies to avert an impending crisis in the financial markets which involved the injection of billions of dollars into the markets and the need to suppress economic activity via lockdowns so as to limit the resulting inflation; and c) a wider biosecurity industrial complex with a political drive to strengthen elite control over populations, serve the interests of powerful corporations such as the pharmaceutical industry, and advance various technocratic agendas.

Image 1

The involvement of deep actors is evidenced in the UK by the expected forthcoming chief of MI6 heading a ‘bioterrorism centre’, as well as the GCHQ intelligence agency and the 77^th Brigade being tasked with disrupting online dissent. Germany’s Department of Health Security was headed by a General from the Bundeswahr. More widely, power elite networks associated with COVID-19 include actors involved with the WHO and WEF, as well as financial entities such as BlackRock and the Federal Reserve. Other deep politics linkages include Anthony Fauci’s involvement with biodefence and research, as well as connections with the Wuhan Institute in China, claimed by some to be the source of COVID-19.

Regarding events, authorities moved quickly in terms of declaring a ‘Public Health Emergency of International Concern’ and a global pandemic even though objective evidence of a new and dangerous pathogen was lacking. Subsequent analysis of data shows that, in Germany, ‘respiratory diseases were inconspicuous in 2020 and 2021’ and that, globally, death patterns were inconsistent with a ‘pandemic caused by a new respiratory virus’. Meanwhile, manipulation of scientific analysis can be seen in a) the redefinition of the term ‘pandemic’ so as to exclude ‘severity’ as a criterion, b) inappropriate use of the PCR test that led to overcounting of infections (false positives), and c) revised methods of counting deaths that did not require a test result indicating the presence of SARS-CoV-2. This led to exaggerated reporting of both COVID-19 cases and deaths.

Evidence of media bias and propaganda is extensive and includes widespread deployment of propaganda across democracies aimed at increasing fear and anxiety. Behavioural sciences techniques designed to manipulate beliefs and conduct were also employed whilst dissenting scientists and commentators were systematically suppressed. Many prominent and well-respected experts were censored.  

Finally, evidence of foreknowledge and planning included a training table top exercise, event 201, conducted in October of 2019, which simulated the ‘outbreak of a novel zoonotic coronavirus … efficiently transmissible from person to person, leading to a severe pandemic’. It was also the case that work was initiated on a PCR test and a vaccine in late December 2019 well before a single death had been reported. There was also prescient discussion of a ‘new super bug’ at the WEF’s Davos event in mid-January 2019.

In conclusion, both 9/11 and COVID-19 exhibit key features of an SDE. Structural-level agendas that provide plausible explanations for the manipulation of both events can be clearly identified. Further detailed analysis and research is warranted and the default dismissal of such arguments as conspiracism — irrational, poorly evidenced or pathological argumentation — is clearly not warranted.

In the case of 9/11, the preexisting plans to initiate a series of ‘regime change’ wars in order to shore up US hegemony in the 21^st century are well evidenced with official documents and insider testimony, and provide a clear rationale for the instigation of a ‘manufactured war trigger’ or ‘false flag’. For COVID-19, the linkages with structural-level agendas are, at least to date, less clear cut but the fact that major policy drives — the ‘Great Reset’, the ‘Going Direct’ plan and a wider biosecurity agenda — existed in parallel with the COVID-19 ‘pandemic’ response is highly suggestive the event was, at the very least, deceptively exploited in order to advance these agendas.

Deep state actors and manipulation of events can be identified in both cases as can manipulation of the events in question via rapid reactions, manipulation of science, and the deployment of propaganda. In the case of 9/11, the evidence of controlled demolition in particular provides powerful, if not conclusive, proof that it was an instigated SDE. Regarding COVID-19, evidence of foreknowledge combined with the evidence of manipulated science strongly indicate the event was instigated by political actors. Resolution of ongoing controversies regarding the nature and origins of SARS-CoV-2 could help to establish more definitively whether the COVID-19 event was instigated by political actors. Also, more analysis of the origins and evolution of the structural-level agendas — the ‘Great Reset’, the ‘Going Direct’ plan and a wider biosecurity agenda — would help to further clarify the extent to which these actors might have been involved in variously instigating or exploiting COVID-19.

Moving forward, future research should critically evaluate the evidence of SDEs presented here and determine whether any of it can be refuted. Also, application of the framework to other possible SDEs, such as the JFK assassination, would help to build a wider, conceptually informed, understanding of the likely prevalence of structural deep events. Finally, the framework presented here can be used in order to develop a template for detecting SDEs in real-time and helping analysts to rapidly gather evidence: As noted earlier, SDEs are a subset of crimes against democracy (CADs), and such real-time monitoring might considerably increase the possibility of there being legal accountability for these crimes.