A Question About LIHOP

[spooked911]

"Let it Happen On Purpose"

I would like for people to weigh in on this issue, since I think it is rather central to what we discuss here.

If you read Paul Thompson's posts here and some of the other evidence presented on this board, the evidence is really overwhelming that governmental authorities at some level knew "9/11 was coming".

The important question that follows from this finding is: if intelligence agencies knew a major attack was coming, but wanted an attack to succeed for geopolitcal reasons, would they really let the attack proceed in an uncontrolled manner?

To me, it seems logical that the people in the US who wanted an attack to occur would also really want to limit its scope. Thus, they needed to be able to control the attacks. They didn't mind if an aging skyscraper was knocked down, or that a small section of the Pentagon was knocked down, but they probably didn't want something like Congress hit or the Whitehouse hit. They probably didn't want to take the chance that a nuclear plant would be hit. Right?

This is where MIHOP comes in.

MIHOP="Made it Happen On Purpose"

This is where the 9/11 LIHOPers needed to control the attacks.

How would they control the attacks?

One way would be to have incompetent patsies as the hijackers and have the planes piloted by remote control.

There are other ways they could have controlled the attacks, but you probably get the idea.

The point is that the evidence leads naturally to MIHOP. And if there is MIHOP, there should be telltale signs from the physical evidence of MIHOP. For instance, the fact that no 9/11 hijacked plane warned ground control that they were hijacked, the fact that the transponders were all turned off, the strange flight path of the plane that hit the Pentagon and the strange fate of flight 93.

If you see problem with my logic here, please let me know.

[Rob Conn]

1. Division

I really appreciate the manner in which you are trying to push people to deal with basic facts. And I also think that you have touched on something here that's really important. As I keep saying everywhere, the LIHOP/MIHOP divergence is a sham. You point to one good reason. I get the sense that some people think they can get away with being Lihop, but that Mihop is too extreme, despite the fact that it appears that you have to intentionally tease the two apart. The truth is somewhere in between. I think you have suggested that different people in the government are guilty at different levels. I think that's quite reasonable, and that the distinction only serves to divide this community. - R.C.

[spooked911]

2. Right on!

[JackRiddler]

5. Completely agreed with spooked911's reasoning

Letting it happen automatically leads to arranging it, i.e. making it happen. And there's no clear dividing line.

However, I rarely see anyone on this board say, "I support LIHOP and reject MIHOP."

What I usually see is that if someone is deemed not radical enough by a certain element who insist on the WHOLE ENCHILADA,* the miscreant is then labeled as being "mere" LIHOP.

LIHOP may be a way of shielding yourself from saying inside job, but MIHOP is for many a way of out-flanking everyone else and always appearing to be the most courageous and therefore most right. Many act as though supporting LIHOP is tantamount to being a traitor and saboteur.

* Whole enchilada: no hijackers, no planes or plane swap, demolition by mini-nuke, passenger lists faked, al-Qaeda an invention, etc. etc.

[Old and In the Way]

3. The evidence supports an independent investigation, not

controlled by those who are the chief suspects.

Start with gross incompetence....3,000 died on 9/11 on their watch. The facts clearly show a body of pre-existing warnings were ignored (on purpose?). With an independent investigation that has the power to subpeona and prosecute, we can slowly unravel the whole ball. Those that did the direct obstruction in the FBI/CIA should be the first up. Charge them with criminal dereliction of duty. Let them cop pleas for telling the truth.

Everything evil that this administration has done has its roots in 9/11. Time to make them accountable with an independent investigation. Since no one has been held accountable, why should we think we are safer today than we were on 9/10/01?

3000 Americans died on 9/11....no justice served. What's the threshold for acountability? 30,000....300,000.....3,000,000?

[Kevin Fenton]

4. Point

I'm not a LIHOPper or a MIHOPper, but I don't see why a LIHOPper can't just say it was allowed to happen by people who didn't envisage the scope of the destruction. What had Al Qaeda done before - a couple of embassies and a small ship? If the fatalities estimate was for 500 people, then it was on the high side.

"but they probably didn't want something like Congress hit or the Whitehouse hit."
Why ever not? The south is full of smallish Greek revival mansions, what difference does one more or less make? If something hit the Whitehouse or Congress it would be an even more potent symbol than the Twin Towers. A wrecked Congress would be a fantastic symbol - then it would be even easier to portray it as an attack on democracy.

The pilots didn't warn ground control because they had a knife at their throat. The transponders were turned off so ATC had trouble finding the planes. American 77 copied the normal flight path of planes in the area until the last minute. What's strange about United 93? One of the hijackers figured he didn't want to die and scarpered, the others made a pig's ear of the hijacking and it got shot down.

[philb]

7. Think about it. Your version is totally implausible. As noted before.

[Kevin Fenton]

8. Which bit?

Which bit do you mean? Why is turning the transponders off to confuse ATC implausible?

[philb]

11. Most of it is to me, but mostly about the pilots. Note that de Grande-Pre

and the group of pilots all agree that what you suggest could not have happened.

[Kevin Fenton]

12. Pilots

What about the pilots?

I suggested that Al Qaeda had good pilots. What about this Flight Lieutenant Atif bin Mansour Khaled of the Pakistani airforce who lived with Atta for a year in Hamburg, was originally listed by CNN as one of the hijackers of American 77 and then disappeared from the manifest altogether? Surely this is about as suspicious as you can get.

[stickdog]

9. Who shot down Flight 93 in your scenario? (nt)

[Kevin Fenton]

10. Don't really know

I guess it might have been a fighter returning from the wargames. Most of the other bases had not launched by that time, so I doubt it was from, say, Toledo.

[philb]

6. Group of military and commercial pilots conclude 9/11 by remote control

A group of military and commercial pilots who understand the technology available and the flight system unanamously concluded that the official version had too many impossiblities and that the buildings were hit by planes directed by remote control. This is pretty persuasive support for your contention.


Colonel Donn de Grand Pre (ret), was the top US arms negotiator and dealer to the Middle East under the Ford and Carter administrations.
His book, concludes that the 911 terror attacks were done by government insiders and used remote control technology.

Col. Donn de Grand-Pre organized a symposium in Portugal for a 72-hour non-stop meeting of pilots to try to assess what happened on 9/11. the group of pilots were a wonderful mix of commercial, military and civilian pilots. At any rate, after three days, the decisions were unanimous. And I wrote my 24-page report up and submitted it to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. After deliberating non-stop for 72-hours the group has concluded that the flight crews of the four passenger airliners involved in the September 11th tragedy had no control over the aircraft. The planes were taken control of by remote control. And they get into how the military industrial complex clearly, that is elements of it, were in control of this . This is all explained in my books.

Book 2 is "The Viper's Venom," Book 3 which just came out is "The Rattler's Revenge

Portugal News Online- Portugal's National Weekend Newspaper in English 3-08-2002
(discussion of the symposium and of his books can be found on dozens of web sites)