Think about how much harder it would be to plan 9/11 than it would be to bait Muslim extremists into doing it. The most believable conspiracy theory I can imagine is that PNAC neocons purposely baited Muslim extremists and then held the security doors open to allow them in and get their 2nd Pearl Harbor once they were on watch. That would cost much less money, require much less planning, and much less cover up than a complete inside job.

Your thoughts?

The closest I see in that direction is covering the mole who intentionally misinterpreted the intercept saying when the attack would occur, and that doesn't indicate prior intent but on the clean side covering an ally and on the dirty side Cheney obeying his owner.

but they couldn't have known it would actually work unless they did it

If the firemen did not die
If the buildings did not fall
If the passports did not fall into the hands of the one man who named the 19
If the helicopters COULD HAVE rescued the people on the roof (which any other time they would have, had it not been imploded)

you and other non-believers use the faux logic that it had to be a lot of people and they would have been seen

They were seen and nobody cared

(momma, why is that man putting explosives in the walls cried a kid that Sunday before
What an imaginination you have Son...cried the mother, now look at the view

They did it all out in the open

There was no mystery at all

We all were just too blind to see it. with our eyes wide shut

All they needed was an attack on American soil to scare Americans into submission. Supposing that the buildings falling was just a bonus. Supposing it worked better than they hoped. Supposing more damage was inflicted than they imagined would be inflicted.

supposing they just bombed an aspirin factory

but-
It was the Gray Davis effect that convinced me THEY did it and knew
Gray said an alert was phoned in, and he closed or was going to close the bridges in California

He was ordered (at point blank range?) to re-0pen them that NOTHING was going to happen

How did THEY know?

Unless THEY were the ones that did it and knew nothing else was on the horizon.

That one moment convinced me.

Wouldn't have been enough to scare Americans into submission.

Intelligence agencies. We have several of them with gatherers and interpreters all over the world.

if the official story was true- the official intelligence people didn't convince anyone of anything, so nothing would have been different

And how could they know everything anyhow

What if one of them just called an agency in California (or delivered a letter)

They couldn't possibly know anything everywhere

Let's suppose though they did- if that were the case, then the official story still lied. Because none of that was in the official story
So its still a lie.

They didn't have to know everything. They just needed to know enough.

The 9/11 commission investigators could have honestly not known and not discovered any evidence of planned vulnerability if it were covered-up well enough. It would be hard to believe that they didn't suspect a cover-up. But it wouldn't be hard to understand why they would choose to avoid investigating suspected cover-ups, especially at that time. And suspicion is not the same as knowing. But even if they did know, exclusion of information is not the same as a lie.

I think that much of the negative leadership that US citizens are subjected to, both from the government and private sector, can be better understood by taking into account the distinction between Letting Things Happen and Making things Happen.

The ratio is probably something along the lines of 10:1 in favor of letting things happen instead of making things happen.

The Bush's- everything they do is pre-planned

everyone else- everything they do is happenstance

Take the bush's out of the equation and nothing of the 15 or so EVENTS of the last 45 years would have happened

The LIHOP/MIHOP debate has been around for years.

It was determined some time ago that those who are sitting on the LIHOP interpretation simply haven’t done enough homework or let their thinking evolve or mature, as it surely must.

I googled for “LIHOP MIHOP” and selected the following from the first 100 entries:

"LIHOP and MIHOP are very different ideas in terms of execution, but they are basically equivalent morally. Whether a government deliberately and knowingly allows an attack to take place or gets directly involved in making it happen, that government is ethically responsible. Either way, the government in question has commited an unspeakable act for the sake of political expediency…. it really doesn't matter which occurred, because either would have extremely disturbing implications - implications which would be similar no matter how they actually did it (passively or actively).

… but there is a difference -- the same difference as between standing by and watching someone get assaulted while doing nothing, vs. actually beating up the victim onna head with a 2x4.

… this analogy is flawed. Presumably, the bystander did not actively desire the victim to get assualted, and did not plan to be standing right there when it happened for his own advantage - but that's the truth of the LIHOP scenario.

There’s more of that debate here: http://www.philosophaster.com/other/salvag.../9_11_poll1.htm

***

Then there’s the old Occam's razor misdirection ploy, or the incompetence, indifference, and ignorance on the part of the authorities argument, based on the insights of a 14th century Franciscan who most assuredly hadn’t heard the mystical visions someone had back then about thermite, PROMIS software, compartmentalization, or Dyncorp, MITRE, and the 10-15 simultaneous war games being held by multiple Federal intelligence and military agencies simulating the crash of aircraft into buildings.

Nor had old Occam gotten the memo about how the Commission was going to be stacked with people with obvious conflict of interest and proven track records in hiding the truth or misdirecting public and formal investigation, or which did not require those who testified to do so under oath, be delayed for well over a year in its work.

And somewhere Occam had mislaid the prior issue of Popular Mechanics which had forecast how abominably NIST was going to handle the “science”.

And I don’t think Occam was at all familiar with the remote-control piloting technology linked to the comptroller of the Pentagon where they’d lost trillions [is it true that the accounting offices were right where the Pentagon impact point was, the spot the aircraft had to do a 270-degree turn in order to hit?].

I think Occam needs a new brand of shaving crème.

**********************

“…individuals in the 9/11 truth movement have used the LIHOP vs. MIHOP to fracture the movement … once people get involved in 9/11 truth seeking and get exposed to the work of Steven Jones, Richard Gage, Kevin Ryan, and Mike Ruppert’s early insider stock trading work, as well as David Ray Griffin’s brilliant research (see www.TheShellGame.net for links to their work), you quickly realized that the events of 9/11 were most likely engineered and executed by those high level officials in the government, and not by 19 Arabs.”

“…the ISI Chief in Pakistan which is virtually a sub-division of the CIA, sent $100,000 to the so-called hijacker Muhammed Atta just before the 9/11 attacks were carried out.” [ah, those links back to Iran-Contra and the BCCI game]

http://www.opednews.com/populum/print_frie...uth__22liho.htm


From the famous “Arabesque” article:

“… the misleading and false “Made it Happen on Purpose” (MIHOP) and “Let it Happen on Purpose” (LIHOP) dichotomy. What is a false dichotomy? George Bush gave us this famous example in his response to the 9/11 attacks: “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”[3] False dichotomies such as these are commonly used to inaccurately frame debates in political discourse. Also known as the false dilemma fallacy, it is used to create a false binary choice:

1 Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).
2. Claim Y is false.
3. Therefore claim X is true.[4]

“LIHOP” has been used to imply all of these variable, distinct, and even contradictory claims:

1. The planes were “allowed” to hit their targets
2. The hijackers were “allowed” to fly the planes into their World Trade Center
3. The hijackers were “allowed” by NORAD to fly the planes
4. The hijackers were “allowed” by NORAD and the secret government to fly the planes into their targets while simulated War Game hijacking scenarios simultaneously took place to enable a stand-down.
5. The remote-controlled planes were “allowed” by NORAD to fly into their targets while simulated War Game hijacking scenarios took place.
6. The Illuminati “allowed” the planes to hit the buildings
7. Bush “let” the planes hit the World Trade Center while reading about a pet goat

These hypothetical examples clearly demonstrate the weakness of the LIHOP/MIHOP labels. On their own, they specify nothing while pretending that the intended audience understands their meaning. LIHOP has also been used to mean any and all of these claims:

· Government or insider foreknowledge of the attacks[14]
· Government or insider responsibility/negligence/complicity for the attacks[15]
· Government or insider cover-up of incriminating insider responsibility for the attacks[16]
· Government or insider benefit, and motive for the attacks to happen[17]
· Government or insider participation to help facilitate (allow) the attack to be successful
· Hijacker responsibility for the attacks

Noteworthy is that the first five points are also common to MIHOP.

The inaccurate LIHOP term is a misnomer; even if you believed the attacks were fully “allowed” to happen, this involved “making it happen” coordination—even the clumsy term admits it was “on purpose”. 9/11 Family member Mindy Kleinberg, in an opening address to the 9/11 Commission hints at this issue:

“It has been said that the intelligence agencies have to be right 100% of the time. And the terrorists only have to get lucky once. This explanation for the devastating attacks of September 11th, simple on its face, is wrong in its value, because the 9-11 terrorists were not just lucky once. They were lucky over and over again. When you have this repeated pattern of broken protocols, broken laws, broken communication, one cannot still call it luck. If at some point, we don’t look to hold the individuals accountable for not doing their jobs, properly, then how can we ever expect for terrorists to not get lucky again?”[18]

The official 9/11 conspiracy theory depends on omission and ignorance of the coordinated and simultaneous “failures”. David Ray Griffin gives a particularly hilarious example:

“Another reason for skepticism… is that the incompetence of the FAA on that day… is too extreme to be believed. The task that the FAA allegedly failed to perform repeatedly that day—notifying the military when an airplane shows any of the standard signs of being in trouble—is one that the FAA had long been carrying out regularly, over 100 times a year. Can we really believe that virtually everyone—from the flight controllers to their managers to the personnel in Herndon and FAA headquarters—suddenly became ridiculously incompetent to perform this task? This allegation becomes even more unbelievable when we reflect on the fact that the FAA successfully carried out an unprecedented operation that day: grounding all the aircraft in the country. The Commission itself says that the FAA “[executed] that unprecedented order flawlessly.”[19] Is it plausible that FAA personnel, on the same day that they carried out an unprecedented task so flawlessly, would have failed so miserably with a task that they, decade after decade, had been performing routinely?”[20]

If all of these “failures” happened simultaneously as we are told, was it “luck” or was it “made” to happen? If these simultaneous failures were intentionally coordinated (i.e. “made” to happen), how can the inaccurately named LIHOP theory even exist? The LIHOP label absurdly implies that a massively coordinated “failure” was not MADE to happen, while the MIHOP label has been used to indiscriminately imply that parts of the attack were not ALLOWED to happen. It is impossible to choose between the two unless by inaccurate generalization. Both happened, and yet both “theories” pretend that only one or the other happened, which is demonstrably misleading. For these reasons, MIHOP/LIHOP is a misleading and false dichotomy, inherently ambiguous, and easily results in straw-man arguments. Paradoxically, they are misleading because they are so simple—their meaning shifts depending on the context in which they are used easily resulting in misinformation. Because the false MIHOP/LIHOP dichotomy emphasizes many of the same things, a false choice occurs when it is framed in this way:

“The 9/11 attacks were “MIHOP”. Any evidence, area of research, or unanswered questions that appear to be “LIHOP” are therefore disinformation, false, or not worthy of consideration.”

This is a straw-man argument as explained above since the 9/11 attacks would have been impossible without the simultaneous planning and enabling the event—the attacks were both intentionally and simultaneously made (MIHOP) and allowed (LIHOP) to happen—not one or the other.

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/d...opmihop_06.html

He goes on:

“Consider this reductio ad absurdum illustration to progressively demonstrate why these terms are inaccurate, misleading, and even absurd when used in an inappropriate context. One of the most significant 9/11 anomalies observed was that the aircraft were seemingly "allowed" to hit their targets without interception by NORAD—ignoring standard and routine intercept procedure.[21] This clearly shows that some aspects of the attack involved “letting it happen” even as others were “made to happen”. However, the aircraft could also have been “made” to fly by remote control, but a successful attack still would have been impossible without a “let happen” stand-down. But even this would be too simple a characterization. Was the stand-down actually LIHOP or was it “MIHOP” under the smokescreen of simultaneous pre-“made” war-game scenarios “coincidentally MIHOP” to involve simulated hijacked aircraft?[22] What about the alleged hijackers—were they incredulously “LIHOP” to attend flight training schools at US military bases or was this a “MAKE it Happen no matter how ridiculous it looks” deal?[23] This also assumes that plane-as-missile MIHOP intent would LIHOP the alleged patsies to MIHOP—they couldn’t even MIHOP their Cessnas properly! After failed lessons, some of the MIHOP-wannabe hijackers were not even LIHOPED to fly anymore.[24] And then we are told that this LIHOPPITY Hanni Hanjour managed to “allegedly” “MIHOP” his LIHOP plane into the ground floor of the Pentagon (oops—that’s LIHOP)![25] Some of them were so MIHOP incompetent they apparently couldn’t even MIHOP their own deaths.[26] On the other hand, it’s impossible to MIHOP a “LIHOP” back-story without patsies MIHOPED to blame with supporting “MIHOP-believe” planted and fabricated evidence (discreetly disguised as ‘LIHOP’ of course).[27] For example, in the pre-9/11 LIHOP Able Danger program that was (MIHOP) running, the LIHOP terrorists were LIHOPED to stay in the US while under MIHOP observation and surveillance. Don’t be confused! The LIHOPS were obviously manipulated as part of an imaginary LIHOP cover story (this evil set-up was pure MIHOP, of course). These LIHOPPERS wouldn’t even know their MIHOPDALIHOP[28] fate. The only trick was that we had to fool [MIHOP, of course] the LIHOPPERS to HOP on their LIHOP planes so that it would give the (MIHOP) appearance of LIHOP. This phony cover story would then be sold as LIHOP to the naively MIHOP-Uninformed public with MIHOP assistance from the Media.[29] Who's to blame for this MIHOP situation? What about those suspicious promotions of those MIHOPPISH LIHOPPERS who LIHOPPED on 9/11?[30] Those who were given promotions for LIHOP serve to actually secretly divert the blame away from the real MIHOPPERS—and I’m not talking about the Bush/Cheney MIHOPPLINGS. You’re not dumb enough to fall for that LIHOPPISHY nonsense are you?[31] But was this purely a MIHOP affair, or did others dabble in LIHOP while MIHOPPING? Did some of the MIHOPS assign others to LIHOP? Like the LIHOPPISHING young man who asked Dick ‘MADE 9/11 HAPPEN on PURPOSE’ Cheney “do the LIHOP orders still stand?”[32] MIHOPPING MAD Cheney replied “of course the LIHOP orders still stand, did you hear any LIHOPPING or MIHOPPING orders to the contrary!??” As with the LIHOPPER planes at the World Trade Center, the MIHOP order to LIHOP from Dick ‘Mr. MIHOP’ Cheney predictably resulted in another preventable 9/11 LIHOP event. Of course, what I really want to know is how the heck they managed to MIHOP those fire/plane-crash surviving LIHOP passports?[33] In the end, who cares that insiders are HOP responsible regardless for the deaths of 3000 people?—we need another investigation just to sort out this more important MIHOP/LIHOP stuff!

As you can see, in this context the terms are rendered useless and ridiculous. These misleading labels are often not used to understand 9/11; frequently, their function serves to distort and obfuscate. When this happens, it is tempting to say that these labels function as part of the 9/11 cover-up as misinformation or disinformation when they are used to falsely dismiss and attack certain types of incriminating evidence as “not complicit enough”; framing legitimate understandings of complicity into imaginary and destructively illegitimate labels.”

“The frequently inaccurate and misleading LIHOP/MIHOP dichotomy is the embodiment of the debasement of language; a subversive attack against subtlety, critical thought, and reason. These terms effectively think our thoughts for us: “LIHOP is bad! MIHOP is good!” They are framed as if they were opposites while inaccurately concealing their precise meaning from us. More accurately, these terms are different shades of the same thing—not opposites. When these terms are inappropriately employed in misleading contexts and false paradigms they function as disinformation and misinformation—possibly as a deliberate part of the 9/11 cover-up.”

“9/11 researcher Mark Robinowitz explains, “the false debate between ‘let it happen’ and ‘made it happen’ is a distraction. There is a large amount of credible evidence that 9/11 was allowed to happen, and that it was given technical assistance (via wargames and probably remote control) to make sure that it happened as desired.”[49] “

9/11 Blogger George Washington observes another inherent problem with the LIHOP/MIHOP dichotomy:

“It has become clear that, whatever their original usefulness, the labels lihop and mihop now create more confusion and division within the truth movement than clarity. Why? Because mihop advocates think that lihops are ‘limited hang out’ gatekeepers who are intentionally suppressing the most damning evidence of complicity in the attacks, as a way to stall the 9/11 truth momentum. And many lihop advocates think that the mihop proponents are stressing crazy or at least non-provable physical evidence theories which distract and waste energy, cloud the waters, and divert attention away from the most solid evidence of government complicity which will be believed by the most people.”[55]

“Mark Robinowitz writes: “Binary thinking is a tool of control… Within the 9/11 truth movement, there is a false dichotomy between whether 9/11 was LIHOP… or MIHOP… This divisiveness keeps government critics from uniting.”[57] A COINTELPRO letter by FBI director Edgar Hoover revealed that the “instigating of or the taking advantage of personal conflicts or animosities existing between New Left leaders” was a deliberate strategy to divide activist groups.[58] Effectively, the LIHOP/MIHOP dichotomy is used to accomplish exactly this on the internet and discussion forums whether by design or accident.[59] This is the difference between disinformation and misinformation; just as one can promote bad information with or without knowing it is bad information, misleading and inaccurate terms can be utilized without comprehending or correcting their inaccuracy.

If the MIHOP/LIHOP dichotomy is agreed to be divisive, misleading, and inaccurate (i.e. disinformation or misinformation), what terms should we use instead? “Inside Job” and “insider complicity” are far more descriptive and accurate labels, but even these have problems of their own depending on how they are used to frame understanding of the 9/11 attacks. Although more useful and precise than the false LIHOP/MIHOP dichotomy, "inside job" suffers from a similar problem. On its own, it starts with the conclusion and assumes that the intended audience knows the necessary facts. In this context, "inside job" is useful to those who know the evidence, and useless to those who do not.”

“ LIHOP and MIHOP are frequently vague, inaccurate, and misleading terms that continuously damage and impede analysis and understanding within the 9/11 truth movement. It is my thesis that the terms should be rejected and abandoned. They create a false and misleading dichotomy by ignoring that the 9/11 attacks involved elements of both “making it happen” and “letting it happen”. While the label MIHOP is inaccurate when it fails to account for aspects of the attacks that were allowed to occur (i.e. apparent NORAD stand-down), LIHOP is inaccurate when it fails to account for the things that were made to occur (i.e. NORAD war game exercises involving simulated hijackings). “

“When these labels are followed by specific explanations and analysis they are somewhat more useful, but without clarification they are dangerously open-ended:

· Who made it happen?
· What happened?
· How did it happen?
· Why did it happen?
· Why is the official story wrong?
· Which parts of the official story are wrong?
· What parts are true?
· And most importantly, how can you prove it?

These are all questions that MIHOP and LIHOP do not answer when they are not followed with explanation or precise definition; on their own these terms are virtually meaningless. They avoid the complex nature of reality by avoiding subtlety and nuance.”

the LIHOP/MIHOP dichotomy is:
· Distorted and misleading since "let" and "made" are hopelessly vague if not clearly defined.
· A false dichotomy. The 9/11 attacks involved both "allow" and "made" coordination; intentional “failures”, intentional planning to allow the attacks to be successful, and deliberate participation in the attacks. The LIHOP theory incorrectly implies that a massively coordinated “failure” was not MADE to happen, while the MIHOP label is often absurdly used to imply that parts of the attack were not ALLOWED to happen.
· Ambiguous for its user. Meaningless if the terms are not specifically qualified, commonly resulting in straw-man arguments. They are often ineffectively employed as empty rhetoric; assertions frequently framed without supporting explanation or argument. By themselves, they are empty containers; conclusions without analysis or even clarification.
· Ambiguous for its intended audience. Uniquely perceived by the intended audience when terms are not clearly defined.
· Virtually identical. Both emphasize insider complicity, while encompassing many of the same types of evidence.
· Divisive. Used to falsely frame the 9/11 truth movement as being divided

The false LIHOP/MIHOP dichotomy should be rejected for all of the above reasons. A historical component of FBI COINTELPRO included the purpose of weakening and dividing activist groups through provoking unnecessary internal debate and division; effectively what the MIHOP and LIHOP labels accomplish with or without the intent of its user. When these terms are not used to clearly understand, analyze, or advance understanding of the attack, this false and misleading dichotomy diverts the truth movement away from its unified belief that 9/11 was not properly prevented, investigated, and explained or that government officials, insiders and unknown guilty parties were never held accountable or reprimanded.

See also http://911research.wtc7.net/resources/web/foreknowlege.html


For more on CIA foreknowledge of the WTC attacks, which also supports the Iran-Contra/bailout connection, see http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...1_krongard.html

***

“The Bush administration is not unhappy with allegations of LIHOP because that distracts from MIHOP. If LIHOP can be proven to the public the Bush cabal can simply say: Well, we had no idea it would be that bad! They can feign ignorance, incompetence, etc., which everyone knows is endemic in Washington DC. But 9/11 was made-in-America and was MIHOP (it had to have been done by people working within the system). LIHOP is, at best, incompetence. MIHOP is murder and treason.

But actually LIHOP is also murder and treason. If Bush & Co. believed that a staged terrorist attack was coming which would kill many people, but failed to act to try to prevent it, then they are accessories to murder. If they believed that a staged terrorist attack was coming which would traumatize the country, but failed to act to try to prevent it, then they are guilty of treason….

Those who push LIHOP and ignore MIHOP are protecting the 9/11 mass murderers.”

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wrp_replies.htm

****************

Read and review the entire long, complex page at
http://www.oilempire.us/lihop-mihop.html

especially
WHAT IS YOUR "HOP" LEVEL?
by Nicholas Levis
April 1, 2004

****

From the conclusion to the oilempire page:

"We lack the power to subpeona records or bring up witnesses who could answer given questions. We have been flooded with misinformation from many sources: agencies of the U.S. and other countries, officials looking to cover themselves or score points, the media, opportunist authors, fake whistleblowers and putative witnesses. The worst impulse is to declare the case closed for one's favorite scenario. We must keep probing and correcting."

*************

Finally, there are the words now famously recorded about the modus operandi of the Bush administration whose leader was so vacuously caught like a deer in the headlights reading “My Pet Goat”:

“That's not the way the world really works anymore…
We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.'"

Ron Suskind, Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush, New York Times, October 17, 2004

Gee... must have been another thread-stopper .. or a lot of folks forgot how to type.

"How can the gov't be innocent in 9/11 when we have caught it lying so many times (WACO, Ruby Ridge, no WMDs, USS Liberty, Operation Northwoods, Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor, etc.)??

In law, if you determine a person lies ONCE during his testimony, it can be assumed that he lied in the remainder of his testimony.

How come we do not hold the gov't to the same standard as it holds us to?"

as Vern Gosdin a country singer sang

"That just about does it now, doesn't it"

Game set Match

Those that don't think it is, again, they want it to not be for their own nefarious reasons

There is a major effort right here, to ignore anything of any importance when it comes down to the Bush years, yet nit-pick a hair out of place
when it comes to today, and distract deflect, etc.
What they don't realize is, either THEY are part of the effort to make people's thoughts slide to something else, or they are being played.

Because there is NO debate anymore, when the truth is evident.

The reason that accounts for this one of us is that the

government has a much bigger stick...

I still think this is an important distinction for understanding how the social system works. I never meant to imply that one should or could make a determination whether the events of 9/11 could be lumped together and the whole ball of wax, placed in one category or the other. The point is that it
is a conceptual schema for disambigulating the concept of 9/ll. Some events were likely let happen by someone in authority and some events were likely made to happen by someone in authority.

There is no difference between LIHOP and MIHOP morally. There is a vast difference between the two in regards to investigating and prosecution.

The facts are LIHOP would be easier to pull off and would leave less evidence behind than MIHOP would leave. So investigating MIHOP may be biting off more than one can chew initially in either case. There is no such extra risk investigating LIHOP. If you are investigating MIHOP and LIHOP was the real case, you are much less likely to find enough evidence for a trial and much more likely to get a mistrial. Whereas with the reverse, investigating LIHOP while MIHOP was the real case, investigating LIHOP won't spoil any opportunities of either a trial or conviction. IMO investigating LIHOP is more likely to yield enough evidence to move to an MIHOP trial than originating an MIHOP investigation is likely to even get a trial.

I can already hear the response to this. "If you investigate LIHOP, then you won't catch all the conspirators. You'll only get the low man on the totem pole or a scapegoat convicted." What I say to those people is, if you can't even prove who's on the totem pole, good luck trying to even get the lowest man, let alone the mastermind.

Because the government is not one person. The government is many people. On some level, the government even includes you.

Since you asked, I think a lot of planning was needed.

1. As a pilot, I can tell you that some form of radio guidance was needed to hit the buildings. Beacons had to have been planted in advance. No bumbling 200 hour pilot could have done it unassisted.

2. The world's mightiest air force, capable of stopping a supersonic soviet bomber must have been told to stand down. Cheney had appointed himself head of NORAD a few months earlier.

3. There is no way WTC could have fallen straight down from impact, as steel melts 1000 degrees higher than jet fuel. At worst, it would have buckled and been ruined, but not collapsed. Hence charges must have been set in advance. And WTC 7 was never hit at all, yet it fell into its footprint as well.

4. Continuing on, there is no way that the "shoe bomber" Richard Ried could have detonated plastique with a match. You need a detonator. Ask Viet Nam era vets - they used C4 to cook their meals with. It just burns like sterno unless detonated. Yet we remove our shoes in deference to this non-possibility.

5. Further still, TATP, "the mother of satan" takes hours to make, needs a 10 degree environment, and creates abundant toxic fumes. Does anybody think this would not be noticed in the lav of an aircraft? Yet, we cannot carry liquids, creams and lotions because of this "threat".


FEAR.

FEAR.

Oh, yes, and IGNORANCE.

Bill, are you trying to say something like it is better to try to prove a case of limited charges that you have better chance of winning than an ambitious case of many charges that might depend on a successful Hail Mary pass to win? If you are I would agree with that. But that is different from investigating. With investigating you try to look into all of the possibilities, including the ones you think very unlikely, to see which ones pan out. Typically, even in an investigation which turns out a lot most possibilities don't pan out.

Of course when you are trying to sell the public on an investigation a different calculus obtains. You could claim a lot and get people excited, and do the investigation. But if the investigation does not turn up as much as expected many will become cynical, even if some remain convinced that something big is there. And of course claiming a lot could just turn off a lot of people in the first place, they could just say, "Oh, please!" and dismiss what you want. So it might be better to start modestly, with limited claims that are more plausible and more likely to be proven, and interest the public in an investigation. Once the investigation is started then you can look into all kinds of leads, and if you find a lot more than you first talked about in making the argument for investigating then you lose nothing. With the reverse you might not even get the time of day, and risk looking foolish even if you do.

As someone who is skeptical of both MIHOP and LIHOP myself I think the most productive thing to look at is the possibility of accessory after the fact. And that is where what Sibel Edmonds has been talking about comes in. But I must say, that between LIHOP and MIHOP I find MIHOP relatively more plausible. With LIHOP you are entailing many risks. How can you be assured that the perpetrators will do what you want them to do? You aren't controlling them in any fashion. So I am not sure that LIHOP is realistic in the case of something as complicated as 911. I think that if government plotters discovered an ongoing terrorist operation and decided to let it proceed so that they could exploit it then they would inevitably seek to monitor and manipulate the terrorists. So the lines between LIHOP and MIHOP would be blurred. But even then I think that such a case would be more difficult to execute than an outright MIHOP one, where the government plotters would be controlling and planning everything from the beginning.

If you were a prosecutor in case in Essex County, Mass. and made that argument about a client of my sister's public defender office then I think one of her staff would eat you for breakfast. Now you might score well enough in casting doubt on the defendant's credibility, making the jury and judge consider his or her testimony as not too reliable. But to show that one does lie is not the same as showing that they always lie. One could be lying in denying that they ever robbed stores when they had 20 times before, yet be innocent of the particular store robbing charge against them.

If I had told you when we had lunch that you would have a small piece of lettuce stuck like glue to the middle of your forhead for over 10 minutes, you would have been sceptical of that too.

Regardless of if any or all this was true, it wouldn't disprove a LIHOP scenario. You could still have willing American conspirators in on a LIHOP scenario. One could even speculate that Cheney was part of al Qaeda. It would be highly unlikely, but not impossible. I'm not even going to rule out the possibility that al Qaeda was a fabrication. The point I'm making on this thread is that LIHOP would be much easier to pull off than MIHOP. It would be much easier to aggravate, instigate, arm, and make way for real terrorists, than it would be to fake terrorism while getting hundreds, if not thousands of non-terrorists get in on the conspiracy or look the other way. Even with the planned military exercises, it would be easier to tip off a real terrorist organization of the opportunity then it would be to set up a false flag during those exercises.

you say tomato I say tomatoe

either way THE OFFICIAL STORY LIKE I KEEP SAYING IS A LIE.

If only 1 fragment of the official story is a lie, then it all is a lie, as an official story is official.

Therefore, either way, the official has been proven to be a lie.

This is exactly what I mean. It's not so much what you find or search for during the investigation. It's what you claim you are looking for before you get access that determines the likelihood of even getting that investigation.

As for getting the required resources and access during that investigation, one would need to use existing evidence found during the lesser ambitious investigation to get support for the more ambitious investigation. That would most-likely be proven in either a closed-door congressional trial or public trial with lesser charges in order to expose the more incriminating evidence.

I think the level of risk depends on where you are sitting during the LIHOP. If most of your money is in foreign bank accounts and you are flying around in Air Force One or hiding in a concrete bunker, you don't have much to lose.

The level of damage during 9/11 wasn't necessarily planned. Like I said, the towers falling may have been more than anyone expected. In fact, the towers even getting hit may have been more than what was expected. Even a close call would have been enough to scare the public into submission.

Well of course, but what is the point? Because some 911 Truthers have made completely ridiculous allegations against the BBC I am skeptical about what they say. But I don't dismiss all of their allegations as a matter of course. Simply because a lot of them support Sibel Edmonds doesn't make me inclined to think that she is suspect.

YeP! You lead from your strength and see what develops from there, otherwise failure is a slam dunk. Starting a probe from what Edmonds found will lead to anything that happened because it makes people drop dime on each other, no use speculating beyond her facts because that's putting on blinders that can lead yo to a dead end in the maze.

Depends upon what the government plotters would see as important assets. They would not necessarily be solely concerned about their personal well-being. After all, powerful people are usually also very concerned about maintaining and extending their power. (Can't we all agree that for the Bush-Cheney crowd that particular concern was especially strong?) And the point is, the less control and knowledge you have the more risk there is that important assets could be hit. And it is really more than that. One thing about powerful people is that their ability to control things tends to be very important to them, in fact many are downright obsessive about it.

just bringing Sibbel into the conversation is another great sleight of hand

because one has nothing to do with the other, and is independent of each other

you can have both at the same time

and the public's opinion of what Sibbel has to say would probably get met with a yawn anyhow

It was the cartoon grandiose of 9/11 that got them hypnotized

Undo what happened 9/11 and EVERYTHING would be different

The difference may be where the perceived key sources of power reside, temporarily or permanently. What if a 9/11 conspirator, mastermind, or accessory (whatever you want to call it) felt that they had little or nothing essential to lose on U.S. soil, and even more to gain with any unanticipated further amount of damage on U.S. soil?

Bush didn't have anything to lose anywhere because their goal was to get into Iraq and they actually wrote out what they needed by saying they needed
another Pearl Harbor and they accomplished 150% of what they set out to do.

Well theoritically you could. But I for one think the BBC thing is ridiculous, while Edmonds' allegations are very plausible. I was just saying that the first does not invalidate the second because there are people who push both. Now I would find people who pushed the first to be less than reliable, but that would not mean that everything they contended would be wrong.

I don't know what the BBC thing is
Just another distraction

I really liked that quote by Brecht- to deny that the official 9/11 story is bogus is to want the lies to continue.

That quote seems to have hit the point it was suppose to now doesn't it?

Allegations that people in the government mistranslated intercepts to protect 911 plotters, and that such people were protected by the Bush Administration would be met with a yawn?

But if they had less than complete control and knowledge then why would they assume that the plotters would only hit targets in the U.S.? And I really think that they would likely value control and knowledge for its own sake.

Because the U.S. is the biggest target, and all it takes is one good hit for either the terrorists to send a strong message or to scare the citizens into submission.

I remember watching "Gangs of New York" when one of the bigwigs was asked what to do about the uprising. The answer was "Kill half of them, hire the other half" as he casually continued to play is game of billiards.

The BBC thing was the ridiculous allegation that the BBC was in on the conspiracy because they announced that WTC 7 had collapsed before it had (but was burning), which also showed the intention of bringing down WTC 7. We discussed this before. Now not everyone agreed with me, but I argued that these allegations were utterly absurd.

I was trying to establish a general point, one that was no more of a distraction your mention of our lunch and the hypothetical claim about lettuce stuck to my forehead.

False ideas, whether they are lies or not, will continue if we cannot rationally discuss these things.

Arne, did I stump you on my last post, or do you find my point foolish, circular, or not worth debating.

they would not even know who she is, so it would be ignored
At the same time she would be in the press, what would happen is they would find someone to offset her testimony.

Get the Bush's for taking it down in the first place, and that will get their attention

Get the 9-11 widows (the 1/2 of them that do not believe the stories) and that would be something

Then on top of that, Sibbel's testimony would mean something alot more.

None of this matters one whit.

My point is that the images that we watched and the script we were given to explain what we saw DO NOT PASS THE SMELL TEST.

This job was not the work of an outside agency without some inside help. Not just looking the other way - help. The radio beacon, the stand-down order, the pre-planted demo charges...

All of these take great planning and attention to detail.

For example, a few months before 9/11, there was an upgrade to the elevator systems in both towers. That meant that workment had access to the inner structure of the buildings, just behind the drywall, from the top floor to the bottom. That would have been a perfect time to plant demo charges.

All I am saying is, what we were told is BS; what actually happened was a JOINT EFFORT.

No other way is possible.

you and I and magmak know that 100% full well

It seems like arneoker, for whatever reason, cannot let that thought exist, and neither can bill
So they keep being shifty and shady in their changing the theme.

I sure do wish you'd get off this kick of yours about how, at some level, the government is me.

Yes, perhaps it is, at the level that I have to pay it some taxes -- though not much anymore personally as I am on disability income only -- or that I am 1/300,000,000th of the population for whom our representative democracy exists to make decisions on my behalf -- but I stopped swearing allegiance to it incrementally decades ago when it asked me to continue my training to learn how to kill someone on its behalf while it lied to me about some episode in the Tonkin Gulf ... yes, they lied then too -- or perhaps it was the time when I was onsite at ABC-TV evening news and watched the producers take repeated phone calls from "someone in the government" who probably was a friend of Bill Casey's who wanted them to tank the reports coming in via Ted Koppel and friends in Hong Kong -- or perhaps it was when I woke up to what happened in Dallas and watched what happened in Memphis and LA -- or perhaps it was when I wrote a haiku two days after 9/11 or maybe it was the warning I e-mailed to my daughter in NYC on 9/10/01 or maybe it was just the dozens and dozens of times I watched GHWB and GWB lie to me, or maybe it was the time I sat on the fringe of the roadway off the edge of Walker Point...

At any rate, you're talking to the wrong dude when you say 'the government is you' because I didn't ask it to support what Israel has been about, or go to war with Iraq or Afghanistan -- in fact, I quite pointedly asked it not to, in the form of letters and e-mails to my Congresscritters... and, as you are probably quite aware by now, I've been an outspoken dissident for years now.

But then I read the books written about Leonard Peltier, and the one by Bukovsky on his days in Lefortovo, and the reports from some ridge in Idaho, and the lessons of Oklahoma City, and the many files about MK-Ultra...so I have taken great pains to kill that part of me that is the government because the government that purports to represent me is the most immmoral, dishonest, destructive, pathologically-sick entity on the face of the earth.

That's like saying Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone.

I doubt there is a person in this country who honestly believes that the 19 hijackers were not purposely helped by someone else within the agencies that could have prevented it. The question is: to what extent. I also doubt that anyone believes that the 9/11 commission report told the whole story. The questions are: what was left out on purpose and what was fabricated in it.

There is no doubt that there is cover-up in every major crime that lead to conspiracy theories. Often, the cover-up has a stronger stench then the rotting corpses or the conspiracies that lead to them. For every piece of previous concealed evidence that is exposed, I could give at least 5 reasons or more as to why someone not involved in the conspiracy would want to conceal that evidence.

I didn't meant to make this a thread about the likelihood of foul play from our own governmental. We all know that there was at least some. I'm concerned about the likelihood of LIHOP vs MIHOP. I think LIHOP was more plausible.

What thought are you accusing me and Arne of suppressing?

Another strawman
Lee Harvey didn't act at all.

Neither did James Earl.

But bringing their names into the equation...

There were no 19bumblers at all.

99% chance that picture of Ahta at Boston Airport was a phony picutre (though it matters little).

Collateral damage wasn't just the ones killed or their families.

I think he had help.

Most people do.

I sure wish you would get off of this separatist (almost survivalist) kick and accept that you have a role in solving the problems our government currently faces, instead of treating me like I'm blaming you personally for mistakes or evil plots members of your government were and currently are involved in.

We use to get along great before you lost patience with holistic problem-solving and decided that the individualistic paranoid "us vs them" mentality was more comfortable. Now I can't even talk to you or (let alone the other member on this thread who's inflated imagination you protect) without being suspected as a government PSYOPS agent for not 100% agreeing with everything you say. If you are not ready to debate on a holistic and philosophical level, then it's best not to even address any of my points, because most of them are holistic and philosophical.

It's not a strawman. A strawman is arguing against a position that nobody has, like what you just did by implying that I held the position that Lee Harvey Oswald acted. If you actually read the part where I said "That's like saying", you'd know that it was a comparison of what the statement I was responding to was like.