LIHOP: 9/11 propaganda created to protect U.S. Gov't.

[Abe Linkman]

It makes no sense to say that the bush Administration just "let 9/11 happen on purpose". In fact, the very idea is totally implausible, except as a fabricated story idea to divert attention, and provide a defense to the Government.

The 9/11 attacks could not have happened by themselves. The U.S. has too many defense and security procedures which are automatically triggered by actions like those which happened on 9/11. So, the only way the attacks could take place without being thwarted, is if someone ordered the appropriate defense mechanisms to stand down. Thus, it is an impossibility for the Administration to have "let it happen on purpose." It wasn't a matter of just standing around and "letting" things take place. ACTIONS were taken that made it possible for the attacks to occur.

LIHOP is the final fallback position to provide plausible deniability for the perpetrators and supporters of 9/11. LIHOP is a fuzzy concept that can be endlessly defined and sold to the public. It can be sold as anything from: bureaucratic incompetence to outright negligence (by lower-level officials in the military and/or civilian sectors), to even criminal negligence (not by the perps or their supporters, of course).


LIHOP is a fabrication.
MIHOP has a 100 year history here in the U.S., as in other countries.

[Sick of Bullshit]

1. I disagree with the last paragraph

Since "LIHOP" includes the phrase "on purpose", it expressly indicates willful intent. Thus it would exclude incompetence and simple negligence.

[Abe Linkman]

3. Take another look at what I said.

I said it "can be sold" in a lot of ways. "They" have a well-known track record of trying to convince us of all kinds of things that aren't true.

[shirlden]

2. Ok....I can take MIHOP

I am an either or person.....LIHOP or MIHOP. But nothing less.


:kick:

[Abe Linkman]

4. Please explain how it could be LIHOP.

Tell me how it could have been LIHOP, without someone TAKING ACTION (giving orders etc.) that made it possible for our defense and security procedures to be breached.

[ramblin_dave]

5. LIHOP vs MIHOP

LIHOP just means the terrorists conceived of and planned the attacks on their own and were allowed to carry them out. This included covert help to make sure they weren't discovered or interfered with and perhaps got needed technical assistance.

MIHOP means the regime and/or those wishing to help the regime conceived of these attacks and perpetrated a hoax to make it look like a terrorist act.

These are just terms which are not perfect but serve for discussion purposes.

LIHOP or MIHOP, either would be capital treason.

[Turbulence]

7. and who were the terrorists in this case

since there seem to have been no hijackers?

[ramblin_dave]

8. In which case?

The basic LIHOP case supposes that al-qaeda terrorists were on board and that they were allowed and helped to pull off their attacks.

One MIHOP version is that al-qaeda terrorists were covertly recruited (used as patsies) by the regime or pro-regime planners and used to carry out the attacks

Other MIHOP versions speculate that some sort of remote control was used to guide the planes and no actual terrorists boarded the planes.

I don't see how anyone can rule out absolutely that were no hijackers. That scenario is only one among many.

[Old and In the Way]

6. Could be MIHOP, but LIHOP is my take on the event.

MIHOP would need to have overt planners that actively plotted against the US. Too many people I think to be counted on to keep this a secret.

LIHOP, on the otherhand, could be accomplished by ignoring warnings (ex. August briefing)and having a few people in the right chain of command to delay reactions to the events unfolding (ex. Meyer's visit with Cleland).

[Bushknew]

9. Proof of MIHOP?

<<MIHOP would need to have overt planners that actively plotted against the US. Too many people I think to be counted on to keep this a secret.>>

Well, the people at the Project For The New American Century are now in power.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html

[Ani Yun Wiya]

10. I would agree.

That LIHOP is a fabrication (ala plausable deniabiltiy).
My view if DIFFAP:
Did It For Fun And Profit.

Consider that such aircraft do have "back-up" guidance computers in the lower decks.
Who on the plane or along the way would notice two parachute jumps, if the operatives boarded the planes, did some "re-programming" and then just simply left.
And yes there do exist means to accomplish just this sort of "jump".

This scenario WOULD exclude any hijackers, Arab or otherwise.

[JackRiddler]

11. What pray tell is the moral difference?

LIHOP and MIHOP are just two versions of an inside job. In the one, someone who really wants to pull off a terror attack from the outside is assisted from the inside. In the other, those on the inside fabricate the attack from the outside. Either way, those on the inside are equally guilty. It's one thing to argue which seems likelier, from our lowly perspective with little to go on in the way of concrete evidence but a very powerful circumstantial case. It's another thing to say that the advocates of LIHOP are in any way defending the Bush admin. Morally and legally, LIHOP would be just as bad as MIHOP! So please don't pose this as a moral or political difference.

Politically, however, people who aren't convinced of either are more ready to understand and accept the possibility of LIHOP. Which in turn is a step on the way to MIHOP. Again, please don't present these two hypothesis as being mutually exclusive or morally antagonistic. The case for LIHOP is, for the most part, also the case for MIHOP.

[Chris R.]

12. The simplest explaination

The simplest explaination is that Junior Bush is incompenent. Join us in protesting the fact that his administration had sufficient warning but failed to act.

A group of us intend to protest at ground zero in Manhattan on 9-11 for the second anniversary of the terrorist attack. We intend to protest the incompetence of the Bush Administration in failing to prevent the attacks despite the warnings issued by the Hart-Rudman Commission, Senator Hart himself, and the FBI agents in the field who raised the alarm of Arabs seeking commercial flight training, but not being interested in how to take off or land an airliner. We also intend to circulate petitions to have Senator Hart fill a vacancy on the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, chaired by former New Jersey Governor Tom Keane. The 9-11 Commission is studying how 9-11 could have been prevented. The Bush Administration is stonewalling the Commission. All those who feel that the events 9-11 were the result of the incompetence of the Bush Administration are welcome to join us.

Below is part of an interview with Senator Hart from Buzzflash:

August 4, 2003
INTERVIEW ARCHIVES
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/08/04_hart.html

Senator Gary Hart Talks about Terrorism, the Bush Administration and What's Not Being Done to Prevent Further Attacks

"And that was our first recommendation to the President. And it was that failure to act -– to begin to do that -– that I think permitted this event to happen."

A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW

If anyone knows that the United States -– and the Bush Administration -– should have seen September 11th coming, it’s Gary Hart.

Former Colorado Senator Gary Hart co-chaired both the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, which issued three public reports forecasting the age of terrorism and outlined a new, post-Cold War national security policy, as well as the Council on Foreign Relations task force on homeland security, which recently released its report "America -- Still Unprepared, Still in Danger."

Many of the issues Hart presciently raised and discussed in the 1970s and 1980s -- including military reform, intelligence reform, energy independence, and a number of others -- have now begun to re-enter the arena of national debate. In the late 1990s, Hart's mastery of security issues and grasp of foreign policy led him to make multiple and tragically unheeded predictions -- one as late as September 5, 2001 -- that America would be attacked by terrorists using weapons of mass destruction.

No longer a "prophet without honor" in the wake of 9-11, Gary Hart believes the United States is still woefully unprepared to intercept and respond to attacks on American territory. Like a latter-day Paul Revere, he is continuing to provide direction to both his party and his country in an age marred by terrorism.

(Much of this introduction is excerpted from Senator Hart’s weblog )

In the light of the recently released 9/11 report, BuzzFlash turned to Senator Hart to provide some insight into America's war on terrorism.

* * *
. . .
BUZZFLASH: Now, you co-chaired the Hart-Rudman report, and it was officially released just about the time that the Bush Administration came into office. And it received some coverage –- not a tremendous amount -- but some media attention was given to it. And I have a CNN article in front of me from February 1, 2001, which says, in the introduction to an article about the Hart-Rudman report, "While few officials doubt the group’s research, some question whether these suggestions are possible and necessary." How did you feel at the time that the report received coverage, but pretty much died down as much news does after awhile if there’s no one to keep it alive?

HART: Well, first of all, there were three reports. The first was issued sometime before the one you mentioned. These are all public -– rolled out in news conferences with full notification to the press. And the first report said that America would be attacked by terrorists using weapons of mass destruction, and Americans would lose their lives on American soil, possibly in large numbers. The date of that report was September 15th, 1999 -– two years, almost to the day, before the attack on the World Trade Center. Furthermore, a second report came out in the spring of 2000, and the third one is the one that you mentioned. The first of fifty recommendations, all of which were eminently doable, was to create a National Homeland Security agency. And if CNN or anyone else was saying that it wasn't feasible, well, two years later, we had one finally created. So the question was: are you going to do it before the terrorists attack, or afterwards? And unfortunately, the Administration waited until well afterwards.

I would point out also that the so-called newspaper of record, the New York Times, didn't print one word about that final report. Keep in mind this wasn't just another federal commission. This was the most comprehensive review of U.S. national security since 1947. And so we weren't competing with a thousand other federal commissions. This was groundbreaking stuff, and we had spent two and a half years putting these recommendations and findings together.

. . .


BUZZFLASH: In a news story prior to the interview, we were looking back on the history of the recommendations from the Hart-Rudman reports. And one news story mentioned that you had tried to warn the Bush administration, I’m quoting from them, "Hart pleaded with the Bush Administration to take the Al-Qaida threat seriously, throughout the spring and summer of 2001, with Hart even meeting personally with Rice just one week before the Twin Towers were attacked." Do you have any comment about this interpretation of events?

HART: I’d put it differently. There were fourteen of us, and not all of us agreed or shared the same degree of urgency about this threat. We all concluded that it existed. We all concluded that it was going to happen. The question was: would it be sooner or later? I felt, and I think a few others felt, a higher degree of urgency about this. And in my case, I went around the country. Keep in mind the mandate of the commission required that it be dissolved by February 15th, 2001. We got an extension because there were Congressional committees that wanted testimony from us. But by and large, once we delivered the reports, as a body, we had pretty much completed our work.

But individually, I went around the country, gave speeches and urged people to pay more attention to this. I also urged reporters and journalists to pay more attention. One of the speeches I gave was in Montreal, ironically, to an International Air Transportation Association meeting. And the next morning, the Montreal papers’ headlines were: "Hart Predicts Terrorist Attacks on America."

BUZZFLASH: And when was that?

HART: That was the day I went down to Washington and met with Dr. Rice, whom I had known before. And I said, "Please get going more urgently on the issue of homeland security." And that was September the 6th, 2001 –- five days before the attack.

BUZZFLASH: Rice has said that Bush was briefed, I believe, on August 6th of 2001 -– if that’s not the exact date, it’s within a couple of days –- that there might indeed be serious bombings by Al-Qaida in the United States, or hijackings, but that they couldn't predict planes would be flown into the Twin Towers or the Pentagon. Do you have any response to that?

HART: Our commission did not have the resources to give detailed projections as to how, when and where. But the fact is that for two years we had said this was going to happen, and one major step that needed to be taken was to coordinate existing federal assets, particularly our border control agencies -– Coast Guards, Customs and Border Patrol, and Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. We were very explicit about that, and we had been. And that was our first recommendation to the President. And it was that failure to act -– to begin to do that -– that I think permitted this event to happen. No one believes in absolute security. But the goal is to make it as difficult for the attackers as possible, and we had not done that. There had been no –- to my knowledge -– no major step taken by this administration in the period between January and September to stop these attacks, including coordinating the databases and communication systems of the Board of Control Agency and the INS. Everybody since 9/11 that’s looked at the situation has said the porousness of that system is what permitted these people to do what they did. And the question is: what, if anything, did the administration do between January 31st and September the 11th? And the answer is: not very much.

Now a commission of fourteen people cannot substitute for the federal government of the United States. The President had the power. The President controlled the FBI and the CIA. And when the tragedy happened, no one was fired. Why is that? Why was there no accountability? So instead of pointing the finger at us, and say: well, if you’d just told us they were going to use airplanes, and that the target was the World Trade Center, and it was going to be September 11th, maybe we could have done something. That’s total nonsense.

BUZZFLASH: Well, we’ve pointed out on BuzzFlash on a number of occasions that when Rice mentioned that they knew of hijackings, but not hijackings into buildings, that this was beyond ridiculous, because the way you stop a hijacking into a building is the same way you stop a hijacking.

HART: Right.

BUZZFLASH: And so though the ultimate destination perhaps, according to her, was not known to them, the means of preventing it was the same.

HART: Yes. I was told very recently that there was somebody in the intelligence community that created a scenario that did involve the use of airplanes. I haven't seen that scenario or where it came from, but I didn't know it existed until somebody said it –- that it had been in one or more scenarios.