Why it could not have been LIHOP

[rollingrock]

(and no, it is not a reference to the International House of Pancakes).



LIHOP = They (Bushco) Let 9/11 Happen on Purpose
MIHOP = They Made it Happen on Purpose


For those that accept the buildings fell as a result of controlled demolition, LIHOP is out of the question.

Why?

Because the LIHOP theory assumes that Al Qaeda memebrs were responsible for planning and carrying out 9/11, which would require that they were also responsible for planting the explosives in the buildings. This of course is impossible because it means they would have had unfettered access to the WTC buildings. Al Qaeda would also have needed blueprints of the WTC in addition to expertise in controlled demolitions. I think we can all agree, none of these conditions could have been remotely possible, so I think its pretty safe to rule out LIHOP.

That leaves just two other possibilities:

1) the official story is correct, or at least the part of it that says the buildings were brought down by the plane impacts and/or fire.

2) or MIHOP, where 9/11 was planned and carried out by members of the Bush administration and their accomplices.

[Bolo Boffin]

1. The OP is jumbled but essentially correct, logically.

By jumbled, I mean that it posits the buildings being controlled demolitions and then offers two options at the end, one of which would not be true if the first premise is assumed correct.

But I do agree that if you think the buildings were CDs, you are arguing MIHOP.

[rollingrock]

2. Thanks bolo

for clearing that up.

[hack89]

3. MIHOP does not need CD

The CIA could have set up a bunch of Arab patsies to carry out 911 and assisted them by revealing weaknesses in our security and by turning a blind eye to their activities in the US.

[mrgerbik]

4. and maybe add

Demo into that scenario ... to explain the anomalies in the collapses. This would've taken years to plan. seems reasonable to me. only a handful of people would have known.

[hack89]

5. But since the truth movement can't explain the "anomalies"

without dipping into some serious pseudo-science, perhaps the anomalies are figments of CTrs imaginations. Why do you think that such a small group have the smarts to deduce CD where millions of engineers see nothing?

It surely would help if after seven years, the truth community could put forward a detailed theory on how a CD was carried out. Right now you have nothing but endless questions.

[procopia]

6. There are endless questions

with the official theory right now.

[hack89]

7. Not really

there is a tiny group of people on the fringes of the internet. There will always be "questions" - they are the basic fuel of conspiracies. Look no further than the Birther conspiracies about Obama's birth certificate - they have endless questions too.

[mrgerbik]

8. the OCT is a theory, just as CT - equal weight in the realm of discussion

[hack89]

10. No

the NIST reports, along with the ARUP studies, were published for review by the world engineering community. Apart from that tiny fringe internet group, it is accepted that the WTC collapses were not due to CD. There is a huge body of work that was created, published and distributed in accordance with standard scientific practices. None of this applies to the truth movement. There is no real science, no rational theory, no peer reviewed experimentation, nothing. Just endless questions.

How can you call it a theory when you can't even begin to tell me just how it was done?

[whatchamacallit]

13. Did NIST investigate CD?

Not challenging NIST's theory is not the same thing as accepting "the WTC collapses were not due to CD". NIST didn't disproved CD because NIST never considered it.

[hack89]

16. You are missing the big point here

why investigate CD - everyone knows that CD would have brought down the towers. Why investigate the obvious. Now the FBI did a criminal investigation that found no indication of explosive - a huge problem that the truth movement always ignores.

The fundamental basis of the the truth movement is that the towers could not collapse without CD - only CD would cause a collapse. What NIST and ARUP proved through real science is that CD was not requirement for the collapse - that structural damage and fires were adequate. So not only has the truth movement failed to produce a rational theory for CD, they haven't even proved the most important part of their argument - that CD and only CD would have caused the collapse.

[SDuderstadt]

24. Oh, yes, they did....check out their FAQ....

n/t

[procopia]

9. 36% is not so tiny

2006 Scripps Howard survey

[hack89]

11. By that argument, the earth is 6000 years old

and the Bible is accurate about the creation.

That was not my point - this is not a matter of public opinion. We are discussing science and engineering - the NIST reports in particular. 36% of all engineers do not believe in CD - trust me on this.

[procopia]

12. Sorry, can't...

If you expect me to believe 36% of engineers do not believe in CD, then you need to provide proof. Most engineers haven't expressed a public opinion.

[hack89]

17. OK nt

[whatchamacallit]

14. Do you believe in Jesus?

Just wondering...

[hack89]

15. no. nt

[wildbilln864]

18. who said millions of engineers see nothing?

besides you? Where's the data on that? Millions probably haven't even looked at it very closely but that's a guess.
And why must we have a complete theory? How could we without access to certain info?

[hack89]

20. OK - millions have no opinion

because they are not surprised by the results.

[defendandprotect]

70. Are you authorized to speak for those "millions" . . . ??

[rollingrock]

19. 'Millions of engineers'

List them by name please.

Otherwise, you're talking out of your rear.

[hack89]

21. OK nt

[OnTheOtherHand]

22. well, not so much

It's like referring to the vast majority of biologists who accept the broad outlines of evolutionary theory, or the climate scientists who accept anthropogenic climate change. One doesn't know them all, but one infers them from the absence of serious expert controversy.

The analogy isn't perfect, of course, because how the Twin Towers fell isn't a matter of theory. But the absence of serious controversy is suggestive nonetheless.

[rollingrock]

23. Who are these mysterious scientists?

they allegedly number in the millions, but you can't name any of them?

"the absence of serious controversy is suggestive nonetheless."

Literally hundreds of scientists and engineers have come forward to dispute the official version of events.
And all of them can be identified by name and title, unlike this nameless and imagined group of 'millions' you claim to exist.

[Bolo Boffin]

25. "literally hundreds" -- barely hundreds is also an apt way to describe it n/t

[procopia]

26. hundreds of independent engineers and architects

vs ?

[Bolo Boffin]

27. software engineers, electrical engineers, etc.

How many structural engineers with tall building experience you got at AE911Truth, eh? How many architects with tall building experience? Give me that figure, please.

[procopia]

29. Hundreds

of independent professionals with knowledge of the fundamental laws of physics have publicly challenged the OCT. How many such independent (that is, unbiased by potential government grants, contracts or paychecks) professionals have spoken out in support of the OCT?

[SDuderstadt]

33. I don't get it....

let's say a "independent professional" IS biased by potential government grants, contracts or paychecks. What's to stop them from joining with the "9/11 Truth Movement" now that we have a new Democratic administration? More importantly, of the "hundreds of independent professionals" the comprise Architects and Engineers fdr 9/11 Truth, are you seriously claiming that none of them have similar entaglements? What has happened to them even while Bush was in office? Are you claiming that they really risked retaliation?

[procopia]

57. Are you seriously questioning

whether those who benefit from contracts, grants, etc., might be reluctant to offend their benefactor? Do you think everyone who disbelieves the OCT joins a 911 truth organization?

[SDuderstadt]

61. Do you seriously think all engineers have contracts with...

the federal government, let alone FEMA or NIST? If an engineering firm has contracts only with a state, county or municipal government, do you really think they would fear retaliation for exposing the murder of 3,000 citizens by the federal government?

This reminds me of the impeachment of Clinton, when RWers claimed the lack of evidence against him just showed "how sneaky he is".

[rollingrock]

30. I asked first

How about a list of independent experts that support the official story? If I could see their statements about how controlled demolition could not have been a factor in the collapses and how Building 7 fell, who knows maybe I could be convinced that fire and planes were the culprit.

[Bolo Boffin]

31. Absolutely -- consult the list of contributors to the NIST reports n/t

[rollingrock]

62. You consider the NIST

to be an independent source of information?

[Bolo Boffin]

63. You consider any association with NIST whatsoever

to challenge the independency of any person or group?

[rollingrock]

64. Say what?

I'll take that as a yes.

[Bolo Boffin]

65. And I'll take yours as a yes.

I fear that your demand for purity in sources proves much more useful to eliminate actual evidence than it is an honest way of determining truth.

[SDuderstadt]

35. Here's a simple question....

the American Society of Civil Engineers was deeply involved in various aspects of the 9/11 investigation. They have 135,000+ members. Did you see a significant percentage of them up in arms about ASCE's conclusions? No? I didn't think so.

[rollingrock]

36. All 135,000 were involved with the 9/11 investigation?

LMAO.

[SDuderstadt]

43. Show me where I said that....

my point was the organization is 135,000+ members strong....surely if ASCE's work in the investigation was bogus, you would expect some sort of uproar from the membership.

[procopia]

37. ASCE

was paid by FEMA to investigate the WTC collapse.

[SDuderstadt]

44. So fucking what?

Are you suggesting that ASCE would compromise its repuation and integrity because FEMA asked it to?

[procopia]

49. *sigh*

Why would FEMA have to ask? Those who are paid by the government have inherent bias, particularly in the case of this administration.

[SDuderstadt]

51. You've got to be kidding....

You honestly expoect us to believe that ASCE (again, 135,000+ members) is so beholden to the government that they would cover-up 3,000 murders? Really?

[procopia]

58. Obviously

I believe a LOT of people are unwilling to publicly challenge the OCT, either because they benefit personally from 9/11 (and many have), or because they are partisan, or maybe they just don't want to be called an outrageous conspiracy theorist. There could be lots of reasons and ways to justify them, especially when people feel helpless to do anything about it. It's much much easier just to look away.

[AZCat]

59. Do you believe that because there is evidence of it...

or because it helps you prop up your belief system if you think other people feel the same way, yet are afraid to speak out?

Can you substantiate your claim that many people have benefited personally from September 11th? I wouldn't want to have to call you an "outrageous conspiracy theorist" just because you make wild allegations you can't support.

[SDuderstadt]

60. Or, it's a lot easier to look at the "evidence" for CT....

and realize there just isn't really that much there....clipped quotes, etc.

[SDuderstadt]

32. The American Society of Civil Engineers has....

135,000 + members. Why aren't they up in arms?

[Bolo Boffin]

34. And talk about motivation -- showing fakery on the part of government scientists means

all of that government money would move their way! Careers could be made and destroyed here, research funded, patents developed and granted, fortunes! Fortunes.

All that 9/11 dynamite and not a reputable engineer with a flint to be had.

[procopia]

39. You do remember the UCS statement,

don't you?

"The Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organizationn (a group of about 60 scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates) issued a 37-page report, "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking," detailing the accusations. The statement and the report both accuse the Bush administration of distorting and suppressing findings that contradict administration policies, stacking panels with like-minded and underqualified scientists with ties to industry, and eliminating some advisory committees altogether."

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2004/02/62339

[Bolo Boffin]

40. I'm not seeing where they had any problems with NIST there.

Points for trying, I guess, but still no dice.

[procopia]

48. The Bush administration

has consistently distorted science for its policies. Why should the NIST investigation be any different?

[SDuderstadt]

52. Because 3,000 people died.....

duh...

[rollingrock]

41. The statements of the UCS should have been a big story

but instead was promptly buried by the MSM.

[SDuderstadt]

47. That is total BS....

it was featured promonently. I know that CT's like to pretend that they've uncovered stuff that the rest of us just havven't been privy to, but we know that isn't true.

[SDuderstadt]

45. None of which had to do with....

9/11. It's rather silly to believe that a professional organization such as ASCE would lend its hand to covering up murder, Please.

[OnTheOtherHand]

50. excellent evidence against your position

To underscore Bolo's point, if UCS could issue this scathing report, what prevented it from issuing a scathing report slamming NIST for covering up the obvious CD of the towers (or whatever it is you think is obvious)? or at least citing it as a leading example?

If you step back and think, there is a remarkable dearth of independent support for the notion of a NIST coverup. The trouble is, there's no particular reason to bother to make a public statement that NIST isn't covering up. In the climate change, it's easier to find "scientific petitions" against it than for it, but the peer-reviewed journals -- and, in that case, the survey research -- tell different stories.

Incidentally, have you surveyed peer-reviewed journals on this issue? or would that be irrelevant because The Man controls the journals?

[procopia]

38. Because

their organization gets government funds. ASCE was paid to investigate the WTC collapse and also the levy failures after Katrina.

[SDuderstadt]

46. Name an organization that doesn't receive....

government funds in some way. You still have not explained why or how ASCE would compromise its findings not do you have any evidence at all that they did so. Have you even read ASCE's report?

[mrgerbik]

68. why wern't the 22,000 some employees of Enron up in arms when it was doing its worst?

..as an example

your position on this subject is not very insightful

[defendandprotect]

71. Did they care to oppose the Bush administration . . . ???

[AZCat]

42. Independent in what way?

Do you mean unaffiliated? Because that's clearly wrong. Gage himself has touted his AIA membership. Maybe he's just a shill for "Big Architecture".

[OnTheOtherHand]

28. huh?

The biologists who believe in evolution?

Heck, if one started listing the engineers who contributed to the NIST report, that might outnumber your "literally hundreds." But then, there are the literally hundreds of scientists who oppose evolution. And you'll never see the irony of any of it.

If you want to know what engineers think, go talk with engineers. But don't cherry-pick. Do your own research. And do it seriously.

[rollingrock]

53. So you admit that you're an IHOPer?

International House of Pancaking?

[OnTheOtherHand]

54. is there something about this subject you find amusing?

I was in NYC that day. If this is how much you care about it, you can go yank someone else's chain, thanks.

Got anything substantive?

[rollingrock]

55. Sorry if I find it amusing

that you consider the NIST report to be an independent source of information.

[OnTheOtherHand]

56. now you're making stuff up

I've never said boo about whether the NIST report is an independent source of information.

It's like bickering about whether all those tenured biologists are "independent," or whether their livelihood depends on hewing to the evil-utionist line. Lots of people think that evolutionary theory can't possibly be true, and can think of all sorts of reasons why creationism (or, if you prefer, intelligent design) might not get a fair shake. But at some point, the cascading ad hominems ought to serve as a hint that something is wrong. It isn't about one or two expert reports; it's about the whole orientation of expert opinion.

You may think that thousands of engineers just aren't curious enough to figure out what you Know about the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and/or 7 -- but based on the engineers I know, that's a bigger "coincidence theory" than anything proffered by the "OCT." If you believe that, I have to wonder how many engineers you know. If you believe something else, well... are they all on the take, or what?

[goforit]

66. Definitely mihop........We need to re-open this case, pronto.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

69. Agree . . . and I go with MIHOP . . . everything around 9/11 was contrived . . .

and conspiracy -- including 9/11.