A disturbing trend re: LIHOP

[IkeWarnedUs]

On Saturday, September 6, 2003 the Guardian newspaper in London published a piece by Michael Meacher. He does an excellent analysis of the Bush administration's actions in light of the close ties between this administration and The Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Mr. Meacher was a long time member of the Brittish Parliament with Tony Blair's Labour Party until Blair dismissed him last June in a dispute over genetically altered food imports. He pretty much concludes that President Bush and/or members of his administration knew that we were going to be attacked on September 11 and let it happen to further the PNAC plans.

I sent this to a few reporters I have spoken with in the past (phone, e-mail and/or in person). I also got onto a local liberal radio show and talked to the host about it. Everyone who responded said they just couldn't quite accept the idea that the Bush administration knew. These are all professionals who have been talking about PNAC for months. They just couldn't wrap their heads around the idea.

NO ONE in the mainstream media talked about Mr. Meacher's article. Remember when the German Minister of Justice said she thought Bush was doing a "Wag the Dog" with Iraq and then said, "That's a popular method. Even Hitler did that." Everyone was taling about it. Even the media whores were all over the story. How dare she compare Bush to Hitler!! This time NOTHING.

I think the silence goes beyond Rove's control of the media. Those were people who have been reporting on PNAC and Bush's lies and they said they didn't quite believe it. There is something else going on here. I think we are at a pivotal point and want to know if other DU'ers see it too.

It is hard to admit that a person you respect is doing something evil. It is even harder if you depend on that person for your very survival. Most of the time you don't decide not to admit it. The very idea is too scary and your mind wants to protect you. Your whole world could crumble if this person goes down.

Think of a woman - a housewife in her 50's. Never worked, doesn't even know how much the mortgage is or how much money they have. Totally dependent on her husband. She sees him go into their daughter's room at night and shut the door. She sees her daughter change into a dark, troubled little girl. She does the laundry so she sees the sheets. But she still tells herself nothing is going on. Even if the little girl tells her, she can't believe it. What would happen to her? She needs him. It can't be true.

Now I am not saying Bush is that powerful. It's gotten easy to accept that an individual politician is evil. It's almost assumed in some places. But this involves the President, Vice-President, Attorney General, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, the CIA and the FBI. Not to mention the majorities in both houses of Congress and far too many Democrats. That's power.

Do you see this too? Are people too afraid to connect the dots? Are they too afraid to even talk about it?

And what can we do about it?


Link to Meacher's article: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html

[DuctapeFatwa]

1. Head down, mouth closed, live longer

It hasn't been a good year for journalists who oppose the bush or sharon regimes...

[Vitruvius]

65. "Head down, mouth closed, live longer" -- IF one can call that "living".

And -- if the only way to "continue" one's career as a professional is to turn into a (BFEE) whore, one's professional career is over anyway. Better to keep one' dignity and -- iff necessary -- begin over in a new career.

[proud patriot]

94. A quote "get busy living or get busy dying"

A quote from shawshank redemtion.

Helps me make good choices remembering that quote .
I wish journalists could know freedom like I know
freedom .

[Bake]

2. I don't doubt that for an instant.

I think there are a multitude of people, whether voters, media types (whores), or otherwise, who simply refuse to consider, even in the face of evidence, the possibility that an American president knew it was coming and Let It Happen On Purpose. The analogy to the dependent housewife is an apt analogy.

I personally **can** conceive that possibility. I think the perpetrators of LIHOP actually must have considered that "this is sooooo evil that no one will suspect us." I can see Herr Rove saying it now, with a wicked smile, and Bush sitting there smirking about it.

In a heartbeat.

Bake

[soleft]

38. I just don't think they considered themselves evil when the planned it

I think they saw themselves as the good guys. Sacrificing a few lifes for the future security and properity of America. If the oil thing (end of production, life as we know it) is going to happen, it order to secure the blessed American way of life, a few thousand deaths would be seen as collateral damage. End justifies the means, God has chose us to be a beacon to the world, final battle between good and evil.

I think they believe themselves to be righteous men. No Dr. Evil getting of on how bad they are kind of thing. Especially Bush - believes he his destined for greatness.

[leesa]

104. Right, that's why billions of war contracts went to his buddies enrichment

Don't for a minute believe these people are noble or good. They are the worst con men alive. They don't give a shit about America except to maintain a secure place to live. They are bringing America down on purpose. They are the rich class and they intend to stay that way. They don't need America they have the whole world to exploit...or so they think.

[liberalhistorian]

62. I totally agree, I think it's simply far too much for

most people, even strident anti-Shrub, anti-PNAC people who generally know what's going on, to get their heads around the idea that their own president and his advisors and cabinet could even think about such a thing, let alone actually let it happen. Hell, it's hard even for me, the penultimate Bush hater.

Like you, though, I don't doubt for one second that they did, indeed, allow it to happen for their own purposes. These people are capable of ANYTHING to further their goals and get what they want, a few thousand American lives be damned. And that's why it just makes me crazy to hear the way people fawn all over him about 9/11, especially during the anniversary times. I wonder if the truth will ever fully come out, and if people will ever truly get wise?

[scarletwoman]

64. Well, this almost 54-year-old woman is still waiting for the truth about

the JFK assassination to "fully come out". The power of denial in this country is formidable indeed...

sw

[maryallen]

67. This 55-year-old woman ...

Is ALSO (and STILL) waiting for the truth to come out about the Kennedy assassination.

[scarletwoman]

70. Ah well, we should live so long.... (n/t)

[Ani Yun Wiya]

100. Some details may come out...

In ten more years. 2013 is the end of the 50 year lock put on certain things.
(The documents and other things from his wife.)

By that time I wonder how many people will even have any interest.

I am still waiting to see again what I saw in the very first tv airing of the events of that day.

There was film shown that was never shown again.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

3. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

And this country is just about one nostril away from drowning in it.

It has been for years. Why we have that limp-licking loser squatting in the White House. For now.

[Pastiche423]

4. All we can do

is to keep pushing for truth. When I hear, people can't handle the truth, I call bullshit. It is one more piece of propaganda, IMHO.

I live for the day a true investigation sees the light of day.

[MuseRider]

5. I must say

that it took me awhile after I heard about LIHOP to get to that point. I have gone all the way over to MIHOP. Give them some time to think about this. I would have believed if I had seen horns growing out of Bush's* head but LIHOP took a while. This is probably the first many have heard about this.

[janekat]

6. It's a phenomenon known as "Cognitive Dissonance"

"People abhor inconsistency; they just don't like conflicting beliefs in their lives," Cooper explained. When two things we believe are in conflict, we iron out the wrinkles of dissonance."

[Eloriel]

17. Was it Goebbels who said

It's easier to sell a Big Lie than a Small Lie?

That the Bush Administration wasn't involved, either LIHOP or MIHOP, is the Big Lie. Cognitive Dissonance is probably why Big Lies succeed.

Eloriel

[bobthedrummer]

108. It was Hitler in "Mein Kampf"

"The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, because the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than theyare consciously and intentionally bad.

The primative simplicity of their minds renders them more easy victims of a big lie than a small one, because they often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell big ones.

Such a form of lying would never enter their heads. They would never credit others with the possibility of such great impudence as the complete reversal of facts.

Even explanations would long leave them in doubt and hesitation, and any trifling reason would dispose them to accept a thing as true.

Something therefore always remains and sticks from the most impudent of lies, a fact which all bodies and individuals concerned in the art of lying in this world know only too well, and therefore they stop at nothing to achieve this end."

Adolph Hitler; "Mein Kampf"

[Eloriel]

116. Thanks!

Quite chilling.

Eloriel

[msmcghee]

7. It is infuriating, I agree.

OTOH - If I imagine what was going on in the WH prior to 911, I see dubya really not engaged. I see him pretending to be the "manager" by "delegating" authority to those around him (all PNAC members or totally with PNAC ideologically).

I'm sure they - in their meeings with *Bush assured him that there was plenty of time to get serious about terrorism - like after setting up their wealthy corporate donors with sweet buiness deals and eliminating regulations so they get get their payoffs (cash flow stream) flowing.

But there probably were several reasons other than the urgency of getting the payoffs flowing for what happened.

1) Clinton's staff had handed off to them an urgent need to address bin Laden and terrorism. They hated Clinton so passionately that they probably had little desire to follow up on anything that came from his administration - just in case Clinton might be given credit for something that they did.

and 2) Most important, they probably figured that a terrorist attack, if it came, would play to their benefit. Their main policy paper (1998) stated as much. That's why they not only ignored Clinton's advice - they pulled the FBI and military off of ongoing anti-terrorist activity.

But I doubt seriously if dubya personally considered the tradeoffs re: terrorism that were being made by his PNAC advisors. So I personally doubt that *Bush LIHOP. He was jogging, clearing brush on the old ranch, watching baseball games and eating pretzels.

His advisors (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rice?, et al) OTOH did LIHOP and effectively MIHOP.

By being an idiot pretending to run the foreign policy for the most powerful nation on earth - when he did not have a clue about what was at stake - or how to even approach such a task - IMHO he LIHBMS (let it happen by malevalent stupidity) which is probably even worse.

edit spelling

[Birthmark]

8. LIHOP and why it fails to impress

Ok, I'm finally going to weigh-in on this. <sigh> Here are the problems that I think need to be addressed in LIHOP scenario:

1. The evidence needs to be presented in a concise, honest fashion, free from aggressive language.

2. The evidence must be straightforward with no six degrees of separation games being played. Amibguities should be decided in favor of the Administration. (Sorry, but it's the only way you'll convince most people.)

3. The evidence needs to support LIHOP in a way that differentiates LIHOP from mundane bureucratic SNAFUs. What someone *should* have known as opposed to what they did know is the sticking point.

4. Even if the first three problems are solved, it must be shown that the extent of the attack was known prior to 9/11. It is possible that the Administration knew that an attack was imminent but was in the dark about the details. It is virtually impossible to defend a nation the size of the US from all attacks, so specific foreknowledge is essential to the LIHOP scenarios.

That's the short and broad list of what must be done to convince most people of LIHOP. All LIHOP scenarios that I have seen suffer from one or more of the above defects. Most play 'connect the dots' in ways beneficial to their preconceived answer.

Obviously, I think that the reason LIHOP gains little traction is a bit more complex than simple denial. A *huge* claim is being made. Overwhelming solid evidence is required to substantiate it. Until such evidence is presented, LIHOP will be regarded largely as a tinfoil hat issue.

[IkeWarnedUs]

15. Birthmark, did you read Mr. Meacher's article?

That's exactly what Mr. Meacher does. Please read it. I would love to hear your thoughts about the case he makes.

As far as whether they knew how bad it would be - I have to take exception to that. Two towers down or one? Towers stand but destroyed by planes? Four planes hijacked and crashed, but fewer people killed? Four planes hijacked and only two crash? What outcome could possibly be acceptable?

I think I understand your point - maybe they had a vague idea that something was going to happen but didn't dream it would be so bad. I started there. Read the article.

[Birthmark]

26. Meacher's argument

In the interest of brevity, I am going to lay aside Meacher's arguments relative to PNAC for now. I think that they are ambiguous, but we can discuss that later. So, I'll wade into the 9/11 specific comments that Meacher makes.

"It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested."

1. He has provided no evidence that the advance warning was specific enough for the Administration to prevent. I doubt that such warnings gave dates, targets, or method of attack. The burden is on Meacher to provide this evidence.

2. Providing a list that contains the names of four of the nineteen hijackers is made with 20/20 hindsight. It should be pointed out that there 196 names of people who were not hijackers. It fails to support a contention that is more sinister than simple incompetence.

"It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit Washington targets with aeroplanes."

Again, this is only tied to 9/11 by hindsight. I'm sure that the government is aware of many terrorist plots to attack the US in many ways. Evidence needs to be produced that shows that the Administration knew that the attack they were warned of involved planes.

"It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001)."

How does this or (any of that paragraph) support the notion that the Bush* Administration allowed 9/11 to happen? This seems like a disingenuous ploy on Meacher's part to influence the reader through innuendo.

"Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large airliners. When US agents learned from French intelligence he had radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his computer, which contained clues to the September 11 mission (Times, November 3 2001). But they were turned down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month before 9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin Towers (Newsweek, May 20 2002)."

1. I think the fact that leads weren't followed is pretty solid. What is less clear is how this can be construed as a LIHOP plan rather than simple negligence.

2. Who in the FBI specifically turned down investigating Moussaoui? If it was the Director of the FBI (or higher) then there is a case. Alternatively, if it was lower down the chain of command and it can be shown that it was on orders from higher up then a case can be made. So far, I've seen nothing that eliminates negligence.

"All of this makes it all the more astonishing - on the war on terrorism perspective - that there was such slow reaction on September 11 itself."

This is simply an argument from incredulity. While I understand (and even share) the incredulity, it is insufficiently tied to LIHOP. It is again indistinguishable from ineptness. Until substantial evidence rather than coincidence is presented, ineptness is the default answer.

"None of this assembled evidence, all of which comes from sources already in the public domain, is compatible with the idea of a real, determined war on terrorism."

How the war on terror is fought is unrelated to LIHOP scenarios.

Meacher's arguments are utterly lacking in ambiguity and substance. He relies on innuendo, coincidence, and post-hockery. If 9/11 *was* the result of LIHOP, then those responsible should be imprisoned for life. However, until there is credible evidence to support LIHOP, I must dismiss it as unsubstantiated allegations. To be honest, LIHOP reminds me greatly of the many allegations against Clinton. They are built on similar premises and utilize ambiguous 'connections' to imply evil.

[Sterling]

29. cooperativeresearch.org

You will find the data that supports his arguement.

[Birthmark]

36. I took a quick look - not impressed.

Tell you what,though, I'll take about a week to go through and specifically show where I think that they are wrong and why.

[Sterling]

52. Why not now?

Maybe just address a tiny bit?

What do you think about the put options that were traced to known BFEE institutions and players?

What do you make of the business ties between the Bin Laden family and the Bush family?

What do you make of the Carlyle Group?

What do you think when you read the PNAC plan and consider the concept of peak oil?

I would like to see some of these issues addressed specifically rather than vague dismissals.

That is how these kinds of exchanges unfortunately go usually. Someone says "you can't prove it" but never really bothers to discuss specifics.

I think we both know the devil is in the details and there are plenty of details for sure.

I invite objective scrutiny to the issue. Unfortunately it is hard to come by from critics of the LIHOP/MIHOP theories.

[Sophree]

55. Give him/her a chance.

It's a lot of info. to sift through. There are many people on this board who were extrememly skeptical at first, but changed their minds after reviewing overwhelming evidence.

[Sterling]

56. Sure but at the same time

If he needs time to digest information which is completely understandable why would he claim to be unimpressed? Unimpressed with what? That was what I asked.

I just threw up a few points I remember being impressed with when I started researching 9-11. I just wondered if these things did not make an impression on the poster and why.

[proud patriot]

95. It took me nearly a year

Before I felt confident that bush LIHOP...

[rman]

98. to much there to judge by a quick look

it seems you have already made up your mind.

[stickdog]

101. Just connect the dots, dude.

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/local/6742902.htm

[scottxyz]

35. BirthMark, you failed to rebut Meacher's smoking gun

BirthMark, you fail to rebut the most damning detail in Meacher's column: (1) no fighter jets were scrambled in time on 9/11, (2) fighter jets WERE scrambled on 67 occasions in the months before, as required by FAA rules.

I also had a hard time coming around to LIHOP. The main difficulty I had was, I didn't know how fast fighter jets could be scrambled for a plane deviating from its course, nor, indeed, how many times before 9/11 that had actually been done.

In other words - I used to be ok with the fact that fighter jets hadn't been scrambled in time on 9/11 - until I found out that fighter jets had been scrambled lots of times before.

Why didn't you address this point in your rebuttal? It seems so much more important than the lesser points you do rebut.

From the Meacher column:
The first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html

So what you have here is: (1) lots of warnings (from 11 other countries' intelligence services) that an attack is coming - specifically an attack involving Al Qaida, hijacking, and using planes as weapons and (2) you had routine scrambling of fighter jets on many earlier occasions.

This, along with all the other circumstantial evidence, at least warrants an investigation. FAA rules were broken here - that much is definite. We know the law was broken - the question now is, who broke the law, and why?

[Birthmark]

39. I addressed it obliquely.

That no fighters were scrambled is a fact that I don't dispute. What I fail to see is how Meacher provides any evidence that it was anything other than a screw up. The burden is on him to prove his assertion, not on me to prove he's wrong.

[Sterling]

54. He shows that we broke with SOP

which means it was more than just a screw up. Was anyone fired for this "screw up".

[Sophree]

57. And stand down orders

During an emergency can only be given by the highest level of military command.

FAA personnel are not allowed to talk about the events of that morning- at all.

And why wasn't a single person even slightly reprimanded for negligence? Why was the person in charge of air defense PROMOTED? How in the world can you reward such gross "negligence?"

[Sterling]

61. And why wasn't a single person even slightly reprimanded for negligence?

I have only heard of promotions. Since when do you promote people for failure or incompetence?

It seems logical to assume if the 9-11 attacks were due to gross negligence people would be help accountable but instead they are rewarded?

[scarletwoman]

63. Promotions were given to the folks who cooperated in the coverup.

I see no other way to explain it. Like the award and promotion that was given to the FBI headquarters official who refused to pass on the FISA request from the Mpls. FBI office that was investigating Moussaui in August, 2001.

I don't have the woman's name handy (the one who got the promotion), but it's just one of MANY outrageous events in this complex mass.

And no one's brought up John O'Neill yet -- the FBI's terrorism/Bin Laden expert who was ordered to BACK OFF investigating the Saudis once the bush* junta took control. Now that's damn PURPOSEFUL in my book!

sw

[scottxyz]

83. Smoking Gun: Fighter jets scrambled 67 other times, but not on 9/11

What was new to me about Meacher's article was the twofold statement about the fighter jets:

(1) NO fighter jets were scrambled in time on 9/11.

>>OK, bad, but maybe not such a big deal.
"The dog didn't bark, Watson."


(2) Fighter jets WERE scrambled 67 TIMES in the months before 9/11.

>>OK, this IS a big deal.
"The dog USUALLY barks, but didn't bark this time, Watson."

[Sterling]

16. Overwhelming solid evidence

There is plenty of that but most people won't bother to look at at and if the d the efuse to address it with any critical thiking as you just did.

In spite of the media black out the issue has gained considerable traction. For example 30% of Germans feel the US was responsible for 9-11.

As for making it straight forward some of this stuff involves a little more attention than the average American Idol fan has at any given time. To really undertstand it one must be willing to take the time to look at the information. More people are doing it all the time.

[Birthmark]

28. I have yet to see solid evidence.

I haven't read everything (no one could), but I haven't seen any evidence that wasn't ambiguous, or that didn't rely on hindsight or innuendo. If you know of some, I'd be delighted to learn about it.

[Sterling]

31. Cooperativeresearch.org

You are correct. There is a huge amount of information to consider to be able to truly have an informed and objective opinion about this stuff.

I have studies the subject a lot in the last two years and I still need to be reminded of different pieces of the story. CooperativeResearch is one of the best sites that does not have an "agenda".


GlobalFreePress.com has a video that covered the 9-11 commission headed by Tom Kean. In the video Tom compliments the victims families who raised questions based on the information you can find at cooperative research.org.


He never denied or debunked anything the families said. The commissioners just went on and on about how "impressed" they were with the research.

[Eloriel]

117. For me, there are plenty of things that are pretty damned

unambiguous, but if you're looking to defend your position of denial, I'm sure you'll find little or nothing that fits your requirement on this point.

To me, some of the heaviest things are the simplest:

* no planes scrambled
* no real investigation -- in fact, Cheney himself literally threatened Daschle over the prospect of holding Congressional investigations
* Put options
* they most surely DID know that planes could be used as missiles -- they'd guarded against that in July in Italy at the G8 or whatever by putting Bush on a U.S. Navy ship
* Intel from SO many countries warning us, some of the warnings with extraordinary specificity. We were warned by Israel, Great Britain, Germany, France (?), Russia (Putin himself!!), Phillipines, Egypt, Jordan, "and possibly Morocco," said one article. (Who did I forget?)
* "Lucky me, I hit the trifecta."

and many, many more things. I used to have a LONG list ready off the top of my head, but memory fades.

But look. Here's the deal. As I said, you WILL be able to find all sorts of nits to pick about any piece of circumstantial "evidence" that you're presented with without any problem. You're a bright guy, you can do it. You can avoid the truth. Calling this or that piece of circumstantial evidence "ambiguous" is a perfect ruse -- hard to argue with.

BUT, if you take a solid look at the entirety of it, it's going to be pretty hard to dismiss.

So here's a challenge for you: Prove to yourself you're NOT just in denial. Go to cooperativeresearch (link above) and really immerse yourself in the whole thing for about a week. And even then, don't make any decisions one way or the other. See what keeps bubbling to the surface for you. Mull it over. See what happens.

Here's what happens for me. I have NO problem with LIHOP. I have a great deal of problem with MIHOP -- NOT because there isn't ample evidence to support it, just because it's something I don't want to believe, somewhere deep inside I just don't WANT to believe it. However, at those times all I really have to do is mull over some of that "ambiguous" evidence -- and nothing else makes any sense at all. Intellectually, I'm there. Emotionally, no and may not ever be there.

Eloriel

[Thoth]

27. go to Onlinejournal.com

go to the 9-11 book section, and order "Mohammad Atta and the Venice Flying Circus" video. I've watched the Mike Ruppert video, which is very good, but this one just blows the official story out of the water. The official 9-11 story is a conspiracy theory in itself, one full of holes. Also, go to Standdown.net for the timeline of the attack and non-response by the Air Force.

[Sterling]

32. Yes the official story is a "theory"

GlobalFreePress.com has a video that covered the 9-11 commission headed by Tom Kean. In the video Tom compliments the victims families who raised questions based on the information you can find at cooperative research.org.


He never denied or debunked anything the families said. The commissioners just went on and on about how "impressed" they were with the research.

[Birthmark]

40. I should point out...

...that even if the official story is dead wrong, that this doesn't make LIHOP true. LIHOP must stand or fall on the weight of the evidence that it presents.

[Sterling]

43. As I see it the bulk of the information supports LIHOP/MIHOP over

the coincidence theory. I t seems obvious that more damning evidence has gotten out than the PNACers are comfortable with and the fact they are doing everything they can to stall a real investigation only supports the notion they are guilty.

I can objectively follow this story where ever it leads but as it stands now it appears the official story is false and the information available points to criminal wrongdoing.

[haymaker]

53. Anyone can play ostrich on this, Birthmark,

because so much of what is needed is being kept secret behind a stone wall. That and a scared/angry populace, a prostrate media, and an agressive and well-funded Bush defense mechanism.

All that, and even moreso that a great many people would give George a pass regardless, based upon their realization that if it were remotely true, the Republican Party would go down in flames for years, along with everything they believe in. Not to mention the integrity of our nation and the relative security of the planet. They just refuse to even consider it. They have no choice.

The biggest question here is how far will they go to keep it under cover? My guess is all the way. They would distract the world by starting a nuclear war with Korea rather than let the truth get out.

You can give those fucks cover all you want. They knew they were going to hijack planes, and not traditionally. Remember they already admitted that they suspected traditional hijackings. Can you imagine Al Gore trying to get away with that one? Yet no warning to the pilots union. No warning to the flight attendants union. No warning to the baggage handlers. No warning to airport security personnel. No warning to NORAD. No warning to the air traffic controllers. No warning to the Air Force, obviously. No heads up at all to anyone.

Except Jeb, he managed to change his powers regarding a State of Florida Executive Order defining his ability to deploy the national guard in the event of "massive terrorist attack" just four days before 9/11.

But you knew that.

[Sterling]

58. "They have no choice."

Yes that is why many on the right cannot deal with talking about this. I was a guest on a right wing "Patriot" movement radio show. They seem to think the BFEE was behind 9-11. During the call in Q and A someone said

"Why do you do this to our guy. (Bush) We have been waiting for years to get rid of Clinton and now you want to talk about things Bush is doing that will only help them hurt our guy".

Some people are willing to acknowledge they believe PNAC is responsible for 9-11 but unwilling to deal with it beyond that.

[haymaker]

59. It just goes to show you,

they care more about getting what they want than they do about our nation. Traitors all.

[Birthmark]

68. I gotta ask

"Except Jeb, he managed to change his powers regarding a State of Florida Executive Order defining his ability to deploy the national guard in the event of "massive terrorist attack" just four days before 9/11."

If they knew what was going to happen on 9/11, then why would FL law need to change? Obviously they would have known that FL was in no danger if what you say is true.

[Sterling]

77. Possibly because they knew that was where Bush would be

When the deed went down?

I am not convinced the change in Florida law is related but I don't dismiss it either. It is easy to see how having marshal law enacted in the event the "project" backfired and the "official" story did not take would be useful to the BFEE.

There are a lot of details about *'s actions and travels that day that would lead one to believe they had a plan b in case things went poorly and Bush did not "hit the trifecta" on 9-11.


He ended up at Offit AFB in Ned. where a handful of business leaders and Bush supporters, some of whom had offices in the WTC "happened" to be that day.

Certainly worth scrutiny but by no means the crux of the case against Bush.

[Birthmark]

110. Ah, now we're in business.

Many aspects of that day do indeed bear a closer look. However, if we want to learn anything then we must approach the investigation as objectively as humanly possible. If we go into it looking for evidence to support one conclusion or another, it is quite likely that we will be able to find some evidence to support our prejudice. If we simply look at the facts and let them determine our course and our conclusions then we will probably arrive at something close to the truth.

[haymaker]

80. More inane, apologist bullshit.

No one said they knew exactly what was going to happen that day. They knew a terrorist attack, probably what kind of terrorist attack, was going to happen soon and did NOTHING to stop it or disrupt it whatsoever.

Keep looking out for George and Jeb, they are going to need your help.

Keep thinking that ONLY if they knew exactly when, where, and how the terrorists were going to attack could they have done ANYTHING to stop or disrupt it. It is a perfect little hidey-hole for you.

As a matter of fact, if they didn't know exactly when, where, and how they were going to do it, one could summize that their actions should have been even MORE broad, not NOTHING AT ALL, which is of course what they did. I shouldn't say they didn't do anything, they did try to stay out of DC for as long as they could.

I think you're giving shelter to every troll on the board, good job!

[Birthmark]

109. I understand

All who disagree with you are evil. lol

[goforit]

82. In comparison to lihop disbelievers, I guess the world is still FLAT!!!

If people would re-examine *Sr.'s past, then LIHOP not only is probable, it is FACT!
And is quite elementary at best!!!!
Some say Americans have an eigth grade mentallity at best,
Well their total disbelief of something blatantly evident is
2nd grade at best.


There is so much evidence pointing straight to them,
Yet there is no Justice System to take action.

Nostradamus was right!

They are the third anti-christ!!!

[LunaC]

93. Here 'ya go....

Write to [e-mail] for a copy of "The Stealth Coup" and see if it meets your criteria.

[IkeWarnedUs]

112. I got my copy of The Stealth Coup

Quite an impressive body of work.

I don't know that it would satisfy Birthmark's criteria for two reasons.

1. It isn't "free from agressive language". I don't mean that as a critisism, but I think I understand what Birthmark means. It is obvious in the way it is written that the author doesn't like Bush and the people surrounding him. Its hard to write about these guys and what they are up to and not let a little agression slip out. It is a well documented argument and pretty convincing, but I think someone like Birthmark could try to dismiss it by saying the author has her own agenda.

2. I don't think Birthmark is ready to accept LIHOP no matter what argument anyone gives.

Which illustrates my point. Some people just can't bring themselves to admit what the evidence shows.


On edit: I want to make clear that I am not saying The Stealth Coup is biased or slanted. Just that I anticipate Birthmark would be put off by what he (she?) called agressive language. It isn't written like an encyclopedia entry. I encourage anyone trying to understand LIHOP to get a copy from LunaC.

[LunaC]

119. I challenge Birthmark (or anyone) to dispute the facts

First, thanks for your interest, honest assessment and kind words. I hope that others will get a copy and also weigh in.

That being said, I challenge ANYONE to explain how it's NOT MIHOP when the attack on Afghanistan was planned in July, scheduled to begin by mid-October and that 911- lo and behold by some strange coincidence - just so happened to provide a convenient justification to the public for "Pipelineistan" to begin right on schedule!

I won't even get into the $43 million U.S. gift to the Taliban or Pakistan's involvement.....

And did you catch Germany's continuous involvement (complicity?) in the background?

[DrBB]

9. That's one of the built-in fail-safes

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, as Sagan so usefully put it. How do you "prove" LIHOP? It's a given that they Let It Happen, because their job was to stop it and they didn't. QED. But how do you prove On Purpose? Short of finding a memo or a credible whistle-blower, the best you can do is show incompetence. It almost comes down to a matter of interpretation.

I think they Let It Happen More Or Less On Purpose. They heard the reports and they knew something was coming, but it was easy to say, well, what can we do, not a specific enough threat, plus lotsa other stuff we got on our plates and, hey, W's on vacation. And the underlying motive for that, among people like Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rummy was that line in the PNAC manifesto about it taking a "Pearl Harbor-style event" to really spark the changes they wanted. So they said to themselves, fuckit, no one else is making a big deal about this, and really it wouldn't be the worst thing for the country and the world if Something Happened, so let's just not think about it, let's just not issue any orders, let's just think about other stuff, cuz there's plenty on my plate, lotsa high-priorities, and hey, what happens happens.

Which results in a classic family-drama situation (I like your abused spouse analogy): namely, after the violence, Everybody Knows, but by god nothing's more important than getting things back to normal, reassuring ourselves we're One Big Happy Fambly, so just let's not talk about what we all know we don't want to talk about m'kay?

And the stink of that secret oozes out and everyone senses it and we're all in this family in a sense and so when somebody like Meacher speaks up, well, what we do is we kinda look at him like, well, like there's nothing behind our eyes, absolutely nothing, and then we go back to talking about the weather. And later, after he's left the party, we say Who invited that guy anyway, and everyone agrees it would be a mistake to invite him again.

[tom_paine]

12. Damn, that's a nice post, DrBB

I just wish it wasn't so true.

[ComerPerro]

18. Outstanding post, very concise

Its true, we need absolute proof before we can credibly make a claim. This is why, I think, the administration didn't see any problem going through with LIHOP. "Sure, we knew about the attacks, and we let them happen. But I would like to see you prove that."

One thing I have been doing when I discuss this idea with people that are open to it is I bring up odd activity beforehand and during by the administration. I also mention the countless ways that 9/11 amd the post-9/11 climate of fear benifits BushCo. Then I mention how the administration discouraged investigations, underfunded the 9/11 comittee, and other attempts to curb any inquiry to that day.

By then, people are usually horrified and enraged, because it seems like a very real possibility.

I think they suspected it, deep down, but didn't want to think about it.

[Gordon25]

69. You have to be joking...

"Its true, we need absolute proof before we can credibly make a claim."

If that is the case may I humbly inquire what the court system and jury system are for? Cops arrest people on suspicion and hold them in jail all the time. People are convicted of crimes all the time on the basis of circumstantial evidence. People have been executed on the basis of such evidence.

New American Heritage Dictionary: "circumstantial evidence: Law. Evidence not bearing directly on the fact in dispute, but on various attendant circumstances from which the judge or jury might infer the occurance of the fact in dispute."

I don't hear anyone here claiming to have proof of LIHOP or MIHOP. What we have are various kinds and pieces of evidence which seriously challenge the credibility of this administration's explanation of what happened on 9/11. (Why, for example, after only three weeks, did Bush order all Justice Department personnel including the FBI to stop investigating the events and direct their attention instead to preventing a recurrance? And why has he stonewalled or slow marched the congressional commission and independent commission suposedly investigating it? )

It is not our responsibility to prove LIHOP or MIHOP. All we have to do is examine the evidence available to us and ask the questions the evidence raises.

It is this autocratic and corrupt administration's responsibility to prove to us what happened, not the other way around!

Gordon25

[Sterling]

73. Thank you for pointing out the legal system does not work that way.

Why do some people feel the government should be held to a LOWER standard than Joe Six Pack?

[ComerPerro]

81. Yeah, I wish it were that way

And ideally, it is.

Its not fair. And I don't agree with it.

But the problem is, people would rather trust the administration than listen to us, until we get really solid proof.

[Mairead]

115. Well, as the author Terry Pratchett pointed out in one of his Discworld

novels: some crimes are hard to see because they're so big that we're living inside them.

[scottxyz]

37. Good explanation

DrBB, your explanation makes the most sense.

[MadHound]

106. How do you prove on purpose?

Simple, two step answer. First time, second, keep picking around the edges until something gives. This is one of those thing you and I may not see in our lifetime, but somewhere in the future the truth will come out.

Look, for years and years the official story on Pearl Harbor was that it was an unprovoked attack on US military interests in Hawaii. Turns out after six decades and more research than can be done by one generation of people that Roosevelt and his aides drew up and followed a concise eight step program to gode Japan into this attack.

Then there is the Kennedy assasination. While I don't think anybody actually believed the magic bullet theory, many were content to believe the lone nut gunman theory and let it lie. But a small number of people were willing to continue the investigation, and finally in '76 the US government was forced to admit that the assasination was a conspiracy. Unfortunately official interest in this matter waned quickly after this, and it is left in the hands of the independent investigators to flesh out this conspiracy.

911 is going to require time, patience and perseverence to unravel. Start with some of the more obvious loose threads, thing like why the fighter jets didn't follow SOP, why were FEMA members flown into New York the day before, why did Jeb Bush declare marshall law and call up the reserve just days before, for no good reason. These and other matters are where we need to pry, and eventually something will give.

Remember, the self-stated cornerstone event in all of these PNACer's plans was that they needed a Pearl Harbour type event to set everything in motion. Well, it turns out that Pearl Harbor was a MIHOP event. Look at this administration and ask yourself honestly, with all the wealth and power to gain, wouldn't these people do a MIHOP of their own?

[Ilsa]

10. It's very hard to wrap your mind around

the fact that they knew and did nothing. It's like hoping the "funny uncle" isn't really molesting the kids. It's a hard thing to imagine that our president could behave so callously and treasonously. As much as I despise Bush, even I have a hard accepting this, yet it seems logical when looking at the evidence.

A friend explained FDR "knowing" that Pearl Harbor was going to happen, or perhaps could happen. My understanding is that FDR's administration knew the Japanese were going to attack, and that Pearl was a potential target, but they had no idea the scope of the damage that could be done, or that Japan would also launch attacks against other Allied interests so quickly. Hearing about this moment in history has helped me come to terms with LIHOP, especially considering the military momentum Shrub could gain from the tragedy.

I think the degree of devastation might have been a surprise to Shrub, but I don't think it bothered him after the cameras were off at Booker Elementary school. Last night's radio "skit" of Malloy, et al reading from Vanity Fair's article of how Pickles and George managed to find something to smile about that day convinced me of their heartlessness and their ability to disconnect from regular joes like us. I didn't sleep soundly at all for a week and I knew NO ONE involved in the tragedy. I slept due to sheer exhaustion; as Obi Won said, "There's been a disturbance in the force". Yet WA and Pickles announced at the end of the year that it was one of the best years of their lives, just rubbing it in.

Anyway, your post was wonderful and thought provoking. I don't know if my history (above) is correct, but i trust the source that explained it to me.

[jafap]

96. too much empathy

I have seen too many movies. Watching 9/11 on TV did not seem real to me. When I saw Joe Theisman's leg snap on Monday Night Football - I said Omigod! and only watched it once. Watching 9/11 was no more real to me than the scene in Blue Thunder where the missile hits the building. I was more troubled by all the ovations JR's big speech got and that he basked in the event like it was a wet-dream for him. He was a Cowboy, bay-bay. He was gonna ride into town and lead a posse to gun down the BAD GUYS.
My paternal grandfather was a staunch Republican and his initial response to Pearl Harbor was - LIHOP. I understand that is now a respected theory, but it is not being taught in High Schools or trumpeted on the news, is it? If LIHOP is not inconceivable for Pearl why should it be unthinkable for people as untrustworthy as the BFEE?
Although, for me the strongest suspicion is the lack of any effort to protect the Pentagon, from a screen-writing perspective doesn't the Phonident look alot studlier if he shoots the other two hijacked planes down?
Also, like Osama, they did not expect the buildings to fall down and greatly increase the death toll. I think someone else said it - it should be up to them to prove that it was NOT LIHOP. They need to provide explanations and alibis because they have motive and opportunity and a previous criminal record.

[Ilsa]

11. dupe

[JohnyCanuck]

13. Foreign press picks up slack of US media whores

If the US media whores are doing their best to ignore the elephant shitting on their living room carpet, the foreign press is not. Mike Ruppert has a new report up on his web site. Apparently he got major attention from the mainstream press on his recent German trip and has been in touch with the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) and given them interviews for a documentary they are preparing on 9/11.

There to film me at the Walker Stage was an A Team production crew from the Canadian Broadcasting Company, well into work on a major documentary about 9/11. I had spoken with the producer, Bruce Livesey, several times from California and had been surprised to hear him acknowledge the accuracy of my research . He had also found material that corroborated my controversial work in the case of Delmart "Mike Vreeland. Vreeland, who had claimed to be a US Naval officer, while incarcerated in a Canadian jail, had written a note warning of the attacks a month before they took place. He had also provided startlingly accurate details about the murder of Canadian intelligence operative Mark Bastien even before the facts were known to the Canadian government. Bastien's murder occurred well after Vreeland had left Moscow in 2000.

I will be eager to see their finished product.

Another gratifying moment came when the CBC took me to Ground Zero to shoot footage of me looking at a place I had visited twice before. As I was leaning over a railing, looking down into the still-stark ruins with the CBC crew filming me, a New Yorker leaned over and asked me who I was. I told him and I told him what I thought had happened. Without hesitation, the man, who had been there on that fateful day, said that he absolutely believed my analysis and thanked me for being there.

We next went to the Radisson Hotel where the CBC crew filmed an hour and a half interview with me. After that, it was off to the Riverside Church where Dick Cheney had, just hours before, spoken at an event sponsored by the New York City Port Authority. The network vans were packing up to leave as we arrived. They had no interest in what was planned for later that night. It was their loss. As it turned out, press from several countries including Greece was there, along with the CBC and representatives from influential magazines likes Harper's.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/091703_not_one_night.html

[IkeWarnedUs]

19. Foreign press is all over this

Outside the US LIHOP is pretty much a given.

Over the past few weeks I have spoken with people (visiting Chicago) from Nigeria, Hungary, Poland, Trinidad and the Phillapines. All of them told me Bush LIHOP. They're amazed American's are so blind and a couple of them said they have a pretty low opinion of Americans because of it.

[Sterling]

20. I think even without all the "oddities" it is pretty obvious

Who had the most to gain? Who has shown us they had a plan waiting for such an event?

2+2=4

[BeFree]

14. Yep, too horrible to admit it may be true

Especially if you are part of the estate of movers and shakers. It's relatively easy for folks like us to blast away on an internet forum, and quite another to do so very publically.

If it ever comes to light that LIHOP was the MO of the day, it will be because of a few brave, selfless media types coming out with the story. I look forward to that day. The sooner it comes, the better.

One way to bring that day closer is for them to read all the web stuff pertaining to 9/11..... Most of the story and links can be found on the archives of DU's 9/11 forum. Point your contacts there...

[RainDog]

21. Normal to disbelieve this

The easiest explanation, the one that fits with Americans' view of their country is that an outside force was totally responsible for this.

I don't *know* if they LIHOP, but because they have worked so hard to deny an investigation and to claim everything is off limits, I think it then becomes the "easiest" explanation, knowing the way people work, to think they are hiding something.

what are they hiding? I don't know. I think they, as employees of the people of the U.S., owe us an answer.

What I find helps if you want to talk about this is to acknowledge that FDR was accused, back 44 or 45, by another democrat, of having foreknowledge. I'll have to go back and find that in the newspapers I have from that time.

Then there's the Operation Northwoods, which was reported on ABC news, and which was first revealed in that former agent's book...I think it's Body of Secrets, by Bamfield? He was the one who first admitted that the joint chiefs of staff, in 1963, wanted to fake acts of terrorism, killing American citizens, in order to blame the acts on Cuba and justify an invasion of that country.

That is the most damning idea, to me...that this was known by the intelligence community for forty-ish years....but not known by everyday Americans.

Then there's the issue of the 9-11 widows and the investigations they have done and the failure of the Bush administration to answer those questions...things about scrambling planes, the precedent set with Payne Stewart. Questions about Bush sitting in the classroom when he could have been making those decisions which were his responsiblity about military action.

There's the issue of so many other nations warning our leaders of an upcoming attack on U.S. soil, and the issue that the widows bring up about the FBI going directly to right flight school in Florida immediately after the hijackings while telling these same widows there was no way they could investigate every flight school. When Breitweiser asked how they were able to immediately identify the school where the terrorists trained, the FBI man said...Just got lucky, I guess.

Then the issue of Bush stalling an investigation for a year, then appointing a man , Thomas Kean, who was in biz with a known financier of terrorism (and a relation by marriage to bin Laden) until three weeks before Kean's appt. bin Mafouz was listed as a financier of terrorism in 98/99...so why was Kean in biz with him...esp. after 9-11, and why did Bush appt him?

People who have no knowledge of the crimes the bushies and reagan committed during Iran/Contra and with Iraqgate need to be educated.

Even so, it does take time for such an idea to become imaginable. I did not want to think about the possibility of such a thing. It took a long time for me to be able to acknowledge that Bush and his junta could have done this.

knowing they stole the election helped. knowing they used fascists to kill in Chile during the overthrow of Allende, knowing they used Klaus Barbie to train a "new SS" in the central American massacres helps to be able to think these people could do this.

But most people do not have the inclination to think this, because to do so requires a response which opposes this administration, and most people want to think the Bushistas are watching out for our safety rather than imperiling it.

However, if you look at what Bush has actually done to protect this country, or rather not done, you can ask people if Bush has another agenda.

There has been more attention paid to denying civil rights and to busting unions than to protecting Americans.

[Gordon25]

22. Just three little questions...

...to ponder as you think about this.

1. How is it that five of the alleged hijackers were trained at U.S. military schools here in the U.S. (three listed Pensacola Naval Air Station as their home addresses on their drivers licsences)?

2. How is it that no fighter aircraft were scrambled to protect the Pentagon despite the fact the two towers had already been hit and that they had a nearly forty minute lead time from the time the plane that hit the Pentagon was known to have been hijacked and headed for Washington?

3. How is it that eyewitnesses report Mohmmed Atta (supposed ringleader) was living with an anglo girlfriend in Florida, going to strip clubs and hosting cocaine parties in the months leading up to 9/11? Sound much like a Muslim religious fundamentalist suicide bomber to you?

Sorry, I guess that's four questions.

Gordon25

[maggrwaggr]

23. The general public hasn't heard enough about Northwoods

Everybody should read the Northwoods document.

And everybody should ask themselves one question: Why did Bush stay at that school knowing that we were under attack?

There's only one possible answer: Because he knew he was perfectly safe. He knew that no planes were going to hit him.

[Gordon25]

24. And, he had to have ordered...

...his secret service detail to not follow standard policy and immediately remove him from possible harm's way. The school appearance had been promoted for weeks. The country was apparently under attack. And the secret service waited twenty minutes for him to finish the goat story and then they left with neither sirens nor flashing lights for the airport where it was well known Air Force 1 was standing by waiting for him.

I'm sure it was because he didn't want to upset the children with too much drama. Don't you think? :evilgrin:

Gordon25

[Birthmark]

25. Sorry, wrong reply button.

[davsand]

30. I'm a product of the Viet Nam era.

Folks like me grew up hearing that we had no troops in Cambodia and that Agent Orange was not causing problems for the guys who came home to die horrible deaths years later. We lived thru Nixon and Watergate, and we were there to watch Iran Contra hearings. We were a generation of disbelievers when it came to the government.

On 9/11 I sat in my office with my boss--a longtime friend and fellow middle ager--and I alternated between tears and numb horror. I will never forget asking the questions, "How could this happen? Who was asleep at the switch?" He had no answer to that.

A few days later, we were talking and I told him that I felt it had been allowed to happen or maybe even planned by people in our government. At that point, they'd found the "hijacker's passport" in the shell of what had been the WTC, and they'd found the rental car with the instruction manuals for the airplanes written in Arabic or something equally damning.

This man who is politically savvy, and was there for WaterGate and Iran Contra and Viet Nam looked me in the eye and told me I'd lost my mind--that our government would never do that. He felt it was impossible to accept that anyone would allow death on that scale for personal gain. I told him Bush knew. We agreed to disagree on the subject, but it was an uneasy truce.

A few weeks later, we talked about the subject again. He still refused to accept that they'd allowed it to happen, but he had to conceed that it had been in the media that our intelligence community had been warned that something was afoot. At that point, he still held to the idea that it had just been some huge error--a cock-up of massive proportions.

I'd tell him stuff along the way and I'd given him articles to read. When the headlines were "Bush Knew!" he had to conceed that maybe it was possible that they'd really dropped the ball. He still couldn't get his head around the idea that maybe they'd made it happen, but he was forced to admit that somebody either screwed up or else it'd been allowed to happen.

I kept on giving him articles, and finally, after the "investigation" into 9/11 he was forced to admit that there had been no discussion of WHY it had happened, and it was starting to look like it had been allowed to happen. He then looked at me and told me point blank that he'd thought I was so blinded by my hate for Bush that I was irrational.

The last time we talked about it he told me that he'd had a terrible time accepting that anyone could allow something that horrid to happen. He told me, "I lived thru Viet Nam and Watergate. I should have seen it sooner."

I've found that I get much further with people talking about the fact that we'd been warned multiple times and nobody acted. I point out the lack of response that day and that somehow procedures were not followed. I then point out that nobody has been fired and that we still don't know what exactly went wrong that allowed it to happen. I then say that we will never be safe until we know exactly what went wrong that day and get it fixed. I finish with the statement that they owe all of us--especially the familes who were left behind--an answer.

Laura

[Junkdrawer]

33. The Strawman Dichotomy: "No US President would kill 3000 people"

That's the sticking point: Every time the facts start to guide one close to the truth on this, someone says: "No US President would kill 3000 people and destroy two skyscrapers in NYC - the heart of US capitalism" and the investigations stop cold.

But, what if the Bushies knew that there was going to be a hijacking? What if they planned to use the hijacking to justify a pre-planned attack on Afghanistan? WHAT IF THEY STOOD DOWN DEFENCES WITHOUT KNOWING THE EXTENT OF THE PLANS? That possibility is almost never discussed.

[scottxyz]

41. The theory I hear a lot is...

The theory I hear a lot is, they knew the planes were going to hit the WTC - they just didn't in their wildest dreams think the towers would collapse.

[Junkdrawer]

49. If someone told me, prior to 9-11, that there would be a hijacking...

and the hijackers would take over piloting the planes, I would have thought that the hijackers wanted to be sure they could fly the planes to a destination of their choosing. Hijacking and hostage drama were almost synonymous.

Again, I point to this article from DU May 2002:

The Story So Far

[PaDUer]

74. Might be...

Does anyone remember the group that put out an album with a pix of the wtc getting hit and collapsing? There was a lot of legal things about it, however, They MADE the group pull the album, THEN...it happened! It was on the net, I read it, how I wish I copied it, because it's GONE, just like all the other important things...Does anyone remember it??

[AntiCoup2K4]

126. You mean this one?

Take a close look at the picture on your left - this is the album cover that The Coup's publicity firm wishes nobody had ever seen. The release of their fourth album "Party Music" was planned months in advance of September 11th, and their label's art department decided to give them a fiery cover to match Boots' fiery rhethoric. The album had yet to be distributed nationally when the twin towers were hit that fateful day, but a few copies with accompanying art had been lent to magazines and music editors for promotional purposes. In no way did they intend to exploit this tragedy, but like the fact the attack occurred at 9-1-1 on American calendars it became a freakish coincidence no one involved would ever be able to forget. Soon their album's cover was a coast to coast bulletin on Headline News, and sad individuals who had never even heard the album were condemning it as unpatriotic.

http://www.rapreviews.com/archive/2002_01_partymusic.html

[Sterling]

44. Do you honestly believe

"No US President would kill 3000 people and destroy two skyscrapers in NYC -
the heart of US capitalism"

This is a valid position?

[Junkdrawer]

51. Every time someone tries to question any aspect of 9-11...

oh, say, the lack of fighters, a Republican immediately shouts: "Are you saying a US President would kill 3000 people and destroy two skyscrapers in NYC" and the opponent always says, "No, of course not. But these are serious questions and I think that our preparation to prevent the next attack..." and so on. I never hear: "What if defenses were stood down without knowing the full extent of the hijacker's plans".

[Sterling]

60. I hear that as well.

But the funny thing is that LIHOP was invented by a poster on DU called Ewing 2001 who created the LIHOP theory for those who know about the "oddities" of 9-11 and know they official story is bogus but refuse to accept that Bush is "evil" enough to have MIHOPed.

That is the biggest problem with LIHOP. Once you have learned enough to accept LIHOP you realize it was more likely MIHOP.

[friendofbenn]

88. 1 problem with mihop

1.why would atta kill himself for the u.s?

[scarletwoman]

89. How do we know he did?

We only have the bush* junta's word for it, after all. He's part of THEIR "conspiracy theory" -- for all we know, he's been handsomely set up for life at an undisclosed location.

We already know that at least 6 or 7 of the *alleged* highjackers have turned up alive and well in Egypt, Jordan and elsewhere. It's been reported in several reputable media sources.

For a real thought-provoker, take a look at this:

Ghost Riders in the Sky
http://feralnews.com/issues/911/dewdney/ghost_riders_1-4_1.html

sw

[Sick of Bullshit]

72. How about rephrasing the question?

Would a US president who went to the Supreme Court to stop the counting of votes, who hid his governor's papers in his father's library, who hid his father's vice presidential papers by issuing an illegal executive order, who appointed known criminals to high offices, who engaged in insider trader but was let off the hook by his president father, who bragged about signing people's death sentences after reviewing their circumstances for maybe 15 minutes, who holds the record for executions carried out by a governor (and whose brother comes in at Number 2), who reinstated federal executions after a moratorium of 38 years, who started a war against an impoverished third-world country after only nine months in office, who attacked another third world country on the flimsiest of "evidence", who bragged to Bob Woodward that the US would "bring death and destruction to the four corners of the world", who joked about "hitting the trifecta" because of the 911 attacks, and who sat on his ass in a second-grade classroom after knowing that the towers had been attacked (and stating that he had seen the first attack live on the school TV), would such a man allow two skyscrapers to fall?

[PaDUer]

75. The SEALED records...

hmmm...the answers might be in there...

[Sterling]

78. I saved this in a word file. Too true to be funny.

Thanks.

[indepat]

34. If we the people are afraid to connect the dots, then don't we the people

deserve our fate, deserve the government we get?

[Sterling]

48. Maybe

I wish we could somehow avoid our fate individually by working to expose the truth but I am afraid it is compulsory.

[frank frankly]

42. what does LIHOP mean?

help?

and, kick!

[ComerPerro]

45. Let It Happen On Purpose

The premise is, Bush and his administration had warnings about 9/11 and decided to not do anything to stop it. Its a very strong theory, considering the reports of warnings they recieved, their actions before the attack (Bush and Cheney went and hid for a month, Ashocroft stopped flying commerically in July 2001 because of security alerts) and especially their actons afterward.

[frank frankly]

46. they sure did!

these bastards are going to jail...

[PaDUer]

76. WHEN??

Not soon enough!! They're in deep shit, and w/ the way the chimp is acting and raising his hand, there's more to come, soon...What next is going down?!

[SnohoDem]

47. LIHOP = Let It Happen On Purpose n/t

[IkeWarnedUs]

50. LIHOP

Let
It
Happen
On
Purpose

On edit - I should have known DU'ers would have responded!

[pretzel4gore]

79. :) but it's good to see you're all paying

attention!!!

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

66. How is it disturbing?

If someone comes up with concrete proof (i.e., courtroom-tight) they LIHOP, then people will believe it. If not, LIHOP will continue to be a mere theory.

I happen to believe in FUBAR rather than the LIHOP theory. However, if solid proof (not circumstantial blog bullshit ala Ruppert) comes out, I will join the LIHOP bandwagon.

It is certainly possible that the administration LIHOP, but my (and most people's - rightly so) standard of proof is pretty high here.

A tape of senior officials discussing the imminent plot to hijack planes and crash them into the WTC and agreeing to let it happen is the type of proof I am talking about.

[Sterling]

71. You may never accept it then.

"A tape of senior officials discussing the imminent plot to hijack planes and crash them into
the WTC and agreeing to let it happen is the type of proof I am talking about"

I doubt they were that dumb but who knows?

I don't think that that is the standard for convicting anyone in a court of law. I tend to gauge my skepticism in that way. If we were to have a trial could there be a conviction?

I think in a civil court it would be no problem. However criminal court would be harder to prove but then again if we were in the process of a trial we could actually compel people to testify and subpoena documents that are being kept from the public now.


You have set a standard of proof that goes beyond anything required to put someone on death row. Not very reasonable or logical.

Can I ask what specifically you find wrong with the work of Mike Ruppert?

It's fine to offer an opinion but it is difficult for objective readers to take it seriously without some specifics to back it up.

Wouldn't you agree?

On edit:

As for disturbing, I don’t know about you but I find it very disturbing that it appears our government was complicit in the murder of 3k of my fellow NYers. I can't think of anything more disturbing in fact.


I think the implications are very frightening. I have yet to see how this revelation will not tear the country apart. I can understand how people who have more invested in Bush and his agenda have a hard time facing these facts and addressing them rationally.

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

84. Agreed. But it is possible that LIHOP/MIHOP is not true.

The standard to prove that the administration willfully killed, or allowed 3,000 people to be killed, would be the highest this country has ever seen. I am talking the most definitive of definitive evidence. This allegation is not comparable to simple murder. It must be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I'll stick with FUBAR until proven otherwise.

As for Mr. Ruppert, here is one specific example of his 9-11 takes. One of his most famous claims is that a jailed Canadian (or person jailed in Canada) predicted the 9-11 attacks and presented his written prediction in a sealed envelope to his incarcerators. Apparently the jailers opened the envelope later (Britney and Christina were not present) and discovered the shocking prediction. Ruppert was so impressed that he reported this bombshell and offered $1,000 to anyone who could disprove this amazing revelation. That is correct - $1,000. Come on, Mike - I'll lay 1K on a hand in Vegas - put out some real cash. Needless to say, we don't hear much about the jailed Canadian 9-11 insider any more.

Edit: comma

[JohnyCanuck]

85. We'll see I guess

From Mike Rupperts latest report on his trip to Germany and the 911 events that Cynthia McKinney, Will Pitt and others attended in New York posted at www.fromthewilderness.com

There to film me at the Walker Stage was an A Team production crew from the Canadian Broadcasting Company, well into work on a major documentary about 9/11. I had spoken with the producer, Bruce Livesey, several times from California and had been surprised to hear him acknowledge the accuracy of my research . He had also found material that corroborated my controversial work in the case of Delmart "Mike Vreeland.Vreeland, who had claimed to be a US Naval officer, while incarcerated in a Canadian jail, had written a note warning of the attacks a month before they took place. He had also provided startlingly accurate details about the murder of Canadian intelligence operative Mark Bastien even before the facts were known to the Canadian government. Bastien's murder occurred well after Vreeland had left Moscow in 2000.

I will be eager to see their finished product.

Ruppert also reports he gave the CBC an hour and a half interview. Of course maybe he's just lying, right.

www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/091703_not_one_night.html

See Post #13

[Dissenting_Prole]

120. Ruppert did meet with the CBC.

CBC Producer Bruce Levesey is a real person. My information is that they plan to air the story in mid-to-late-October.



http://www.viewerplus.com/product.asp?Stat=One&ID=12043

[Gordon25]

86. You really ought to get your facts straight...

...the man in question was a U.S. Naval Officer who, in open Canadian court, had his attorney call the Pentagon and ask for his office. The call confirmed he had an office there.

I could go on, but there is no need. You obviously are either intentionally attempting to discredit Rupert's work through half-truths, innuendo, fiction and sarcasm; or, you have never actually taken the time to examine the evidence you claim causes you to dismiss him; or, you have a really bad memory and make things up to fill the holes.

Gordon25

[scarletwoman]

87. Think, "Collateral damage"

They wouldn't have known HOW MANY people would be killed, they would have figured that SOME people would be killed -- maybe a few hundred.

I don't think ANYONE expected the towers to completely collapse, that was a surprise to EVERYONE.

The question is NOT could they have allowed 3000 people to be killed, but would they have been willing to see SOME people killed. You know, what's their tolerance for collateral damage in an operation to further their agenda?

sw

[ComerPerro]

90. That is a terrific way to phrase it

After all, this is the administration that said that dead Iraqis was a small price to pay for the freedom of the remaining Iraqis (you know, the ones who were going to greet us with flowers and songs of praise?). This is also the administration that dismissed the looting as "celebrating".

[MadHound]

107. Have to disagree, I think they were counting on large casualtie figures.

Face it, if the towers hadn't crashed, if the casualty rate was low, these folks couldn't have rammed through the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and the other odious legislation that they did. They needed the big body count, the big splash, to get people so horrified and numb and acting instead of thinking. Then Bushco could stampede the herd and ram their wishlist through.

Combine this with eyewitness accounts of multiple explosions right before the towers fell, eyewitness accounts that the fire wasn't that bad(firemen on the scene were calling for only three hoses to put out the fire in the South tower. That's a relatively small fire) and other evidence on the scene and it just doesn't add up. Plus the fact that we all saw the big lie on television. The towers fell virtually straight down. They didn't tilt, they didn't hit any other building. They came straight down. That my friends is a controlled demolition.

But hey, make of it what you will, I've been called on my tin foil before.

[scarletwoman]

127. I understand where you're coming from...

However, I think one must take into account the low pain threshold of American society as a whole. Even a loss of 500 lives in such a spectacular fashion would create self-righteous outrage in a complacent 'victim' culture such as ours.

I've looked into the various theories about "controlled demolition" and such -- it certainly makes one wonder. But to me the most compelling and important piece of understanding to take from this event is that there are forces who will stop at nothing to further their agenda. The details don't matter so much as simply wrapping one's mind around the overriding fact that there are people so caught up in their power trips that the lives of the anonymous masses mean absolutely nothing to them.

sw

[Minstrel Boy]

111. about the "person jailed in Canada" story

First of all, this is a very small part of the 9/11 picture, and it's still unclear what it contributes to an understanding of that day. But I have to speak up about this, because I didn't hear of Lt Vreeland from Ruppert. I first heard of him from my oldest childhood friend, Vreeland's attorney.

He's a prominent Toronto lawyer, specializing in extradition cases, and was present when the warning was written, sealed and handed to prison officials. He then spent the next month trying to get the RCMP and CSIS to take seriously Vreeland's message. And he was present on Sept 13, when the prison officials unsealed the envelope.

He called the Pentagon in open court and confirmed Vreeland's position. The prosecution claimed Vreeland had hacked into the Pentagon's computers while in prison. Now tell me, which is more credible?

My friend also asked several contacts in Canadian Intelligence to quietly check out Vreeland. And he did.

Vreeland had information on the death in Russia of Canadian diplomat Marc Bastien which has subsequently been proven accurate.

Vreeland, while on bail, vanished before a decision was rendered on his refugee claim. He still owes my friend a bundle of $$$, so he's not exactly holding a candle for him. For what it's worth, he believes Vreeland was not totally forthcoming, and was feeding him disinformation along with the truth. Not unexpected behaviour, he believes, from a long-time intelligence operative.

What the Vreeland story means doesn't matter to me. It doesn't inform my understanding of 9/11. But some matters, such as the warning and the Pentagon's inadvertant confirmation of Vreeland's standing, are simply indisputable and part of the court record.

[ComerPerro]

91. You will never see proof

All records from this administration will be sealed forever.

[LunaC]

92. My personal experience

I've been circulating a timeline of the PNAC's theft of the WH and rise to power. I documented that 911 was MIHOP and all that followed was pre-planned. Even though it was referenced with the original docs, mainstream domestic and foreign news media and independent researchers with impecable reputations, many people had a hard time wrapping their brain around the current Admin being THAT evil while others immediately Got It because it confirmed the uneasy feeling they couldn't quite identify. It's difficult for the Common Man to grasp that the U.S. is in the early stages of Fascism....I know *I* was certainly blown away when the full realization hit!!

All we can do is keep educating the Sheeple even if the media won't. If it takes a grassroots "Spread The Word" campaign, so be it! We may not immediately change minds but we can make our neighbors more aware and watchful so they'll see the Truth for themselves over time as the Smirk's lies keep going, and going, and going, like the Energizer Bunny and the power grabs are overwhelmingly obvious.

For a copy of "The Stealth Coup" (a PNAC primer including BBV issues, Cheney Energy Task Force overview, Afghanistan/Pipelineistan, 911 MIHOP, lies/lies and moreso, shadow groups, intentional "shaping" of public perceptions, the desperate rush for war, comparisons to Fascist regimes, et al) write to [e-mail]

Keep hammering the message home....the tides will slowly turn but only if we keep churning the water.

[IkeWarnedUs]

105. I've seen the same thing

I have passed out literally thousands of copies of "The President's Real Goal in Iraq". It was published in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspaper in September 2002, right after the National Security Strategy was released. The author, Jay Bookman, was one of the reporters who said he couldn't accept the idea of LIHOP.

I talk to just about everyone I come in contact with about this. I leave copies in bathrooms and at payphones. I give them to people in drive-up windows and standing in line. Most of the time I don't know how well or even if they get it. Once in a while people get hostile - more often they say they will read it and are at least curious.

When I get to actually sit and talk about it, I find more and more people with that "uneasy feeling" you talk about who are starting to get it and just need to see it laid out for them.

Just like the abuser in my opening thread, the neo-cons count on people being scared and NOT TALKING ABOUT IT. Silence, shame and fear are their greatest weapons.

I'm looking forward to reading "The Stealth Coup" (just sent you an e-mail).

[9215]

97. Why not just forget the whole thing?

Fuck it! Americans dont' care. The pressdoesn't care and feeling good is a "good" thing. Take some fuckhead opiates and kick back. What's wrong with that.

PS. Also you must attack the goddamn suckers like MEEEEE, who talk about this shit. They are the most contemptible slime.

I say let the stupid motherfuckers eat their own shit and learn to like it. I dont' give a fuck about them or their fuckhead kids who they send to war to get them out of the house.

They asked for it they got it and now THEY and they alone need to deal with it.

[Matilda]

99. A disturbing trend re: LIHOP

It's very frustrating when you try to give people some facts
and they  only say "No, I refuse to believe that could
ever happen.
It's impossible" and end the discussion.  But I found
this quote from
playright Arthur Miller which makes a lot of sense:

"Few of us can easily surrender our belief that society
must somehow make sense.  The thought that the state has lost
its mind and is punishing so many innocent people is
intolerable.  And so the evidence has to be internally
denied."

I often find myself thinking "but everyone knows
...." and realise, no they don't know if all their news
comes from mainstream press and their opinions from talkback
radio.  Most people are too lazy to think for themselves and
are only too happy for someone else to just fill up the
vacuum.  It's pretty scary, when you think what's at stake in
the world right now.

[IkeWarnedUs]

103. Great first post

" . . . the evidence has to be internally denied." summed up my point perfectly.

I'm curious about what context Arthur Miller said that - what he was talking about at the time.

Welcome to DU.

:hi:

[Matilda]

125. Great First Post

Thank you so much, and sorry I didn't reply sooner. I'm in a different time zone, so when you're logged in, I'm sleeping.

I found the quote on one of my favorite websites, "Third World Traveler", which is put up by Rabbi Michael Lerner. He has heaps of quotes by liberal writers and thinkers on his main page, and the Miller one has been there for ages, but he gives no date as reference.

Thank you for your welcome - I only found DU a few weeks ago, and I love it, so perhaps our paths might cross again.

[moof]

102. No " People " died in the WTC, remember what Babs said

"But why should we hear about body bags and deaths and how many,
what day it’s going to happen, and how many this or what do you
suppose? Oh, I mean, it’s not relevant. So why should I waste my
beautiful mind on something like that?"

that is because Babs knows that none of the real people,

her ruling class " people " ever come home in body bags.

[janekat]

122. They're just from a "blue Gore" state .....

so they don't count as far as Bush is concerned.

[azrak]

113. And this housewife

lives where? 1940's Germany? If she lives in The US now then she is blind as well as stupid. Your analogy makes little sense. To ascribe the power you are talking to to an idgit like Bush is tin foil stuff. Nixon was smarter and more powerful and couldn't pull off even a tiny % of what you think has happened.

[Abaques]

114. After reading all these posts....

I believe that there is not a preponderance of evidence supporting LIHOP or MIHOP but I have an open mind.

What needs to be done is a thurough and impartial investigation into exactly what happened and who knew what and when they knew it. I do not believe that such an investigation can occur until we have removed Bush from the White House.



Pretending that anything can be proven until Bush is out is just counter-productive.

[Bridget Burke]

118. So everybody should just shut up until Bush is out?

Because you say so...

I think we should keep asking questions. Until all of them are answered.

[Abaques]

121. Ummm, no...

First, I didn't say "shut up" to anyone.

Second, I do think that questions should be brought up about what exactly happened on and before 9/11. In fact, I think its vital that we ask those questions.

But what I don't think is that we should make judgements about whether or not LIHOP or MIHOP happened until we can trully investigate them impartially and without interferance from Bushco.



If you think thats telling someone to "shut up" then you are mistaken. Only by asking questions will we make any kind of investigation happen, but when we provide the answers to those very questions that we raise, then it rings hollow.

So we need an independent investigation. It has to be an impartial (and hence non-partisan or bi-partisan) investagation that has either governmental or major media backing. Anything less (like when the people on this board claim it) and the majority of Americans will see it as some tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory bs, whether or not its correct or not. Thats just the way things work.

[LunaC]

123. "Independent investigation"?

What do you think we're doing here if not independently investigating "government or major media" sources? The WH has repeatedly thwarted formal investigations into MANY of its dealings so you'll hit a brick wall in that regard. If you're looking for something educationally constructive to do before you lean back into your easy chair waiting for someone "official" to tell you what to think, read "The Stealth Coup" then come back and dispute the evidence that points to MIHOP. Until then, you're speaking from naivete.

[Sophree]

124. I think that's what we all want.

We want the unanswered questions answered. As some have pointed out above, the stonewalling only creates more doubt and suspicion- What are they trying to hide?