• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Debunk-a-LIHOP

Caustic Logic

Illuminator
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,494
Enough arguing with no-planer brick walls!
Here is my website about what I think may've happened on 9/11:
http://they-let-it-happen.blogspot.com/
I open it to full ctitique by all. I've put this off long enough.

Problems I'm aware of:
- I'm an expert in none of the fields I tackle.
- I use flippant 'truther' language and have truther bias, as I have from the morning of 9/11.
- yes, I used imagination to fill in gaps and 'make' things line up. This is what any detective will do when provided incomplete evidence, which is the only situation you'd ever need a detective. But I realize this is serious stuff and I need to get fact straight.
- I wrote some of this as far back as 2002, but most of it was revised in 2005, and some is from later. So some of the facts are dated or wrong in some way (like the location of Stratcom), and I probably cited some completely erred sources that I haven't self-debunked yet.

Gumboot offered once to debate me on these points, and now seeing the site, he says:
"put bluntly, regardng the first link, yes it's all wrong."
Wow! All wrong?

It's the weekend, which means family time, so I won't be able to sit here and respond real-time. I will go over it when I can though and see what people have to say. Actual factual rebuttals of key points will get the most attention. Simple insults and emotional rants based on my weakest points may not interest me at all. I'm looking for bigger patterns - the chain of command, delays in shoot-down order, personnell placements, radar questions, fighter response/empowerment, etc. as well as the logic behind my circumstantial argumets.

Thanks in adnvance all for input and helping cure me of my dangerous delusions.
 
Caustic, this a very brave step you took! Good for you.

I suck at remembering facts and details, but if you need this thread to be derailed, give me a call! :)
 
Enough arguing with no-planer brick walls!
Here is my website about what I think may've happened on 9/11:
http://they-let-it-happen.blogspot.com/
I open it to full ctitique by all. I've put this off long enough.

Problems I'm aware of:
- I'm an expert in none of the fields I tackle.
- I use flippant 'truther' language and have truther bias, as I have from the morning of 9/11.
- yes, I used imagination to fill in gaps and 'make' things line up. This is what any detective will do when provided incomplete evidence, which is the only situation you'd ever need a detective. But I realize this is serious stuff and I need to get fact straight.
- I wrote some of this as far back as 2002, but most of it was revised in 2005, and some is from later. So some of the facts are dated or wrong in some way (like the location of Stratcom), and I probably cited some completely erred sources that I haven't self-debunked yet.

Gumboot offered once to debate me on these points, and now seeing the site, he says:
"put bluntly, regardng the first link, yes it's all wrong."
Wow! All wrong?

It's the weekend, which means family time, so I won't be able to sit here and respond real-time. I will go over it when I can though and see what people have to say. Actual factual rebuttals of key points will get the most attention. Simple insults and emotional rants based on my weakest points may not interest me at all. I'm looking for bigger patterns - the chain of command, delays in shoot-down order, personnell placements, radar questions, fighter response/empowerment, etc. as well as the logic behind my circumstantial argumets.

Thanks in adnvance all for input and helping cure me of my dangerous delusions.


Problem is: You cannot debunk "LIHOP". All necessary files somehow
turned into "National Security".

And especially honest Skeptics should accept this as well:
"We do not know - so we can't prove or disprove it".
 
And especially honest Skeptics should accept this as well:
"We do not know - so we can't prove or disprove it".

While I somewhat accept that the evidence can be particularly weak when debunking LIHOP, that is simply because the amount of evidence which should be available would be minimal anyway if done properly. Because of this we can say that the theory has very minimal testability (is that even a word?). The default position however is to be skeptical, and considering the wealth of evidence showing the rise in islamic fundamentalism (should I just say Islam? I just watched Ayaan Hirsi Ali's AAI speech) and Osama Bin Laden's desire to strike the west I believe Occam's Razor would not support LIHOP.

Sorry for the rambling post style, doing about 5 things at once at the moment.
 
Hi Caustic Logic,

Good on you for stepping up. I hope you are open to learning - it's a skill the Conspiracy Theorists who push no-plane and similar theories have never learned.

Your first point:

You said:
Is Osama bin Laden, or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, or whatever deputies planned the ghastly attacks really that stupid that they couldn’t foresee the chain of events their actions would trigger? Were they not aware the attack might be seen as a “catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor,” or fail to realize who would benefit most from the political fallout? If not, their collective intelligence is clearly brought into question. If so, either the true motives of al Qaeda or their guilt for the attack must likewise come into doubt.

Osama Bin Laden has often said that it was the Battle of Mogadishu that convinced him he could drive the US out of the Middle East by attacking the homeland.

If we go back to Somalia, 1993, Al Qaeda joined the Muslim militia there, bringing with them the tactics they had employed so effectively against the Soviets in Afghanistan. One particular tried and true tactic was to use RPG-7's to take out the tail rotor of Russian helicopters, causing them to crash. Ambushes would then trap the soldiers sent to rescue the helicopter crew.

This is exactly what happened during the Battle of Mogadishu. Except the Americans proved superior soldiers. Despite a total of five Blackhawks being shot down, the Americans lost only 18 men and achieved their mission objectives.

But to the American people, 18 dead soldiers (some being dragged through the streets on CNN) was too much to stomach, and the USA left Somalia.

Bin Laden assumed, if 18 dead soldiers could make the mighty USA turn tail and run, imagine what thousands of dead civilians would do.

Hence the embassy bombings, hence the millennium plots, and hence 9/11. The problem is it backfired. In that regard I think 9/11 and Pearl Harbor has a great similarity. They both do nothing other than to "wake a sleeping giant, and fill him with a terrible resolve".

-Gumboot
 
While I somewhat accept that the evidence can be particularly weak when debunking LIHOP, that is simply because the amount of evidence which should be available would be minimal anyway if done properly. Because of this we can say that the theory has very minimal testability (is that even a word?). The default position however is to be skeptical, and considering the wealth of evidence showing the rise in islamic fundamentalism (should I just say Islam? I just watched Ayaan Hirsi Ali's AAI speech) and Osama Bin Laden's desire to strike the west I believe Occam's Razor would not support LIHOP.

Sorry for the rambling post style, doing about 5 things at once at the moment.


But that's the problem here: The official version can be true
but there is still a chance that someone let it happen within
the CIA, for example. We don't have the financial ties which
would reveal the whole plot and who else was involved.

Stupid enough: Many are happy with "Osama did it - end of story".
Being a skeptic, it doesn't convince me at all. Especially regarding
the blackened names within the congressional inquiry.

The Saudi's had a "free pass" - being swept under the carpet from
all official investigations...
 
Last edited:
Some immediate thoughts...

You refer at least twice to Payne Stewart's 80 minute-ish intercept as being "swift", and yet are amazed that the 9/11 planes weren't intercepted in less time. Seems a little odd.

You think "Rumsfeld's" changes to the intercept protocols meant that he had to be notified before intercepts took place. But when you look at the previous version of the protocols it's clear that isn't true (http://www.911myths.com/html/hijack_assistance_approval.html). No matter what Mike Ruppert says.

Similarly, there's no evidence that the ATC saw "false blips" on their radar - that's another case where Ruppert hopes assertion will count as evidence.

Finding the terrorists passports did not require a "miracle". Personal belongings were recovered from all the crash sites (http://911myths.com/index.php/Personal_Effects_and_the_Crash-Proof_Passport).

You recount the "trained by the US military" story, but don't spell out the age differences. Some of these stories seem to refer to a group who were around in the early/ mid 1990's, when the hijackers involved where around 15. It just doesn't work (http://911myths.com/index.php/Hijackers_trained_by_US_military?).

You quote Von Buelow as though he was verifying Joe Vialls "Home Run" idea - he wasn't. He simply repeats the allegation, and says he doesn't accept it, though finds it worth considering (http://www.911myths.com/html/home_run.html).

And I'm out of time! But I'm sure you'll get plenty of other responses.
 
Last edited:
Problem is: You cannot debunk "LIHOP". All necessary files somehow
turned into "National Security".

And especially honest Skeptics should accept this as well:
"We do not know - so we can't prove or disprove it".


That's complete garbage. There's ample testimony and ample evidence to indicate the US intelligence agencies didn't know 9/11 was about to happen.

One of the major flaws with LIHOP is it's not something the administration can do. The administration are not responsible for preventing terrorist attacks - the various government agencies are. So LIHOP actually requires the largest number of collaborators, because it requires entire government departments to be in on it. The FBI, NSA, CIA, DoD... they all have to be in on it for LIHOP to work. In fact about the only people that don't need to be in on it for LIHOP to work are the Administration.

-Gumboot
 
That's complete garbage. There's ample testimony and ample evidence to indicate the US intelligence agencies didn't know 9/11 was about to happen.

One of the major flaws with LIHOP is it's not something the administration can do. The administration are not responsible for preventing terrorist attacks - the various government agencies are. So LIHOP actually requires the largest number of collaborators, because it requires entire government departments to be in on it. The FBI, NSA, CIA, DoD... they all have to be in on it for LIHOP to work. In fact about the only people that don't need to be in on it for LIHOP to work are the Administration.

-Gumboot



I disagree - only one department had to ignore a threat and
refuse to notify other agencies in case of LIHOP.

And for what reason are names within the congressional inquiry
blackened anyway?

I know - "national security". That was the excuse for everything
revealing the whole plot since 9/11. I don't buy that - and why
should I anyway? :boggled:
 
Problem is: You cannot debunk "LIHOP". All necessary files somehow
turned into "National Security".

Agreed, LIHOP is impossible to disprove, as it goes to the state of mind of specific individuals. However, "debunk" and "disprove" are different concepts, and Caustic Logic's evidence is capable of being debunked.

I've seen a couple of examples already. Firstly, Caustic, your argument that the Payne Stewart case was not unique is based on "common sense and some evidence", the common sense being that nothing is unique, and the evidence being that the pilots scrambled on 9-11 didn't expect the events that followed. With respect, neither of these is any kind of rational argument. In the comments section, however, you go as far as to say "that original article and the official story are dead wrong" on the basis of a scenario you yourself qualify with the word "perhaps". I think you're allowing yourself to be convinced by your own conjecture here.

Secondly, in "Muzzling the defense?", you refer to the June 2001 order that stated:
In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference D, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval.
Your claim is that this meant that:
In other words, the automatic scrambling of fighters was no more – the Secretary of Defense now had to personally sign off before fighters could be sent up, and specifically in response to a hijacking.
I recommend you look at the 911 Myths page, http://www.911myths.com/html/hijack_assistance_approval.html, which addresses this point. The June 2001 order (which can be seen at http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf) superseded a July 1997 order (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01.pdf) which stated that:
In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will monitor the situation and forward all requests or proposals for DOD military assistance for aircraft piracy (hijacking) to the Secretary of Defense for approval.
Comparing the wording of these orders, you should be able to see that the June 2001 order actually introduced an exception in which requests did not need to be forwarded to the Secretary of Defense. Far from removing powers from local commanders, the June 2001 order in fact specifically gave them the authority to respond to an immediate emergency without going via Rumsfeld's office; a rather strange move if those issuing the order were trying to prevent any response to the 9/11 hijacks.

For me, that one piece of evidence argues so strongly against any widespread LIHOP scenario (as opposed to some single individual deciding to conceal knowledge) that I'm not even prepared to consider it any further. You may disagree, but I suggest you consider the possibility that this smoking gun is pointing in exactly the wrong direction.

Dave

ETA: MikeW beat me to it on the second point.
 
Last edited:
Problems I'm aware of:
Gumboot offered once to debate me on these points, and now seeing the site, he says:
"put bluntly, regardng the first link, yes it's all wrong."
Wow! All wrong?

Thanks in adnvance all for input and helping cure me of my dangerous delusions.
I have to agree with Gumboot, he is correct.

Delay in shoot down order? I remember taking an oath to defend the US from all enemies foreign and domestic. OOPS, THE shoot down order was given to me when I was 22 years old, as a 2nd Lt. Darn, you are wrong about a few hundred years. If I had been airborne and if I knew the planes were being used as missiles to destroy us, then I could act to prevent it. Your junk defies logic, whereas my statement can be debated, your stuff is plain wrong.
 
And especially honest Skeptics should accept this as well: "We do not know - so we can't prove or disprove it".

This is not God we're talking about, but human affairs. We can always know and find out things when humans are concerned.

You can't apply agnosticism here.
 
This is not God we're talking about, but human affairs. We can always know and find out things when humans are concerned.

You can't apply agnosticism here.


I didn't mentioned god. I'm talking about "we don't know",
not about "We don't know, let's ask our Woo-God".

Fact is: No one can disproof LIHOP. Can you (without Woo)?
 
But that's the problem here: The official version can be true
but there is still a chance that someone let it happen within
the CIA, for example. We don't have the financial ties which
would reveal the whole plot and who else was involved.
Ok sure, and I'm all for continuing the investigation, but as yet there seems to be no evidence?

Oliver said:
Stupid enough: Many are happy with "Osama did it - end of story".
Being a skeptic, it doesn't convince me at all. Especially regarding
the blackened names within the congressional inquiry.
I have no doubt that various intelligence agencies were either directly or indirectly involved with the groups that planned this, primarily because that is the whole purpose of intelligence agencies. They can't know everything and quite often (See 7/7 suspects) the agencies come into close contact without realising it. They are intruding into a separate society and as such will always have connections with terrorists even if they had no actual communication whatsoever.

The Saudi's had a "free pass" - being swept under the carpet from
all official investigations...
Well indeed, no huge surprise there, but I stand by my position that I see no reason for US government involvement without actually seeing the evidence for it. We know OBL hated the US enough, we know they had the resources and abilities to do what was done and the methods used seem to be as effective as you would expect for the intended result. Essentially I don't see that there's anything wrong with the story and I haven't seen the evidence which would support complicating it with LIHOP.
 
How can you say that? Maybe I cannot prove or disprove it, but maybe someone can, someday. I'm sure we can know, one way or the other.


No, you can't - unless the blackened names within the congressional
inquiry are revealed.

However - if you already made up your mind about this, you're no
skeptic, no matter what side you believe.

Fact is: "No Facts, no conclusion. We do not know. Period."
 
bs from bnut, good luck

I didn't mentioned god. I'm talking about "we don't know",
not about "We don't know, let's ask our Woo-God".

Fact is: No one can disproof LIHOP. Can you (without Woo)?
That is why there is no LIHOP. Your argument is faulty, not close to reality, but made up BS of political nature. Your very arguments prove there is no LIHOP in a science setting because the way you put it. You do not say who, you just say it is them, and we can't find them cause it is them, but you are unable to tell us who. Your theory becomes stupid.

It appears you are saying, since I ran off the road when there were cars parked in the road when I came over the hill, I LIHOP; because I could have gone real slow, but I was going the speed limit because I did not know there were idiots in the road stopped over the hill. LIHOP, is also applied the person parked in the road across the double yellow. And the car parked in the other lane, LIHOP, not leaving me a way to drive around them. Or the rock that deployed the air bags and fatally damaged the car, it could have been removed by me if I would walk the escape routes along the road to work to remove hazards; like removing UBL before 9/11 and finding out about the PLOT, we LIHOP. Oops, it is LIHOP.

LIHOP< NO, you have to prove it, it is not LIHOP until you come up with proof. Until then, it is just a surprise terrorist attack; and your ideas are called Monday Morning Quarterbacking, unless it was Monday Night Football, then it would be "Tuesday Morning Quarterback", now TM by KAB 2007.

Take you LIHOP theory and prove it. Got Facts?
 
No, you can't - unless the blackened names within the congressional inquiry are revealed.

That's your assumption that the only way to know is through this information. How can you say we won't be able to tell in another way?

Fact is: "No Facts, no conclusion. We do not know. Period."

I would remove the "Period" and replace it with: "Until the evidence is found".

That's what skepticism is.
 
That's your assumption that the only way to know is through this information. How can you say we won't be able to tell in another way?

I would remove the "Period" and replace it with: "Until the evidence is found".

That's what skepticism is.


Because we don't have the final connections. And nobody so far was
able to pull it our of their [fill in the blank].

But enlighten us: How will you be able to get those facts without
using Woo?
 
On to more points...

You said:
Tightly controlled actions, like issuing an order for fighter jets to shoot down a civilian aircraft, constituted an emergency and had to originate with the President and pass through every link in the chain to the responsible fighter pilots.


What's important to remember first is that the CJCS order pertaining to intercept of hijacked aircraft states quite clearly:

3. Procedures

a. General. Military personnel will provide the following types of
support: intercept, surveillance, lift, equipment, and communications.
Military personnel may not participate in a search, seizure, arrest, or
other similar activity. This restriction would include the apprehension
of aircraft hijackers or use of military aircraft (fixed-wing or helicopter)
or other vehicles as platforms for gunfire or the use of other weapons
against suspected hijackers.

CJCSI 3610.01A (PDF)

While the above is from the infamous June 2001 changed order, this particular section of the order was not altered from the previous version of the same order. The list of changes was actually very minor, and is at the front of the document.

Secondly, the restriction cited above - which prohibits use of gunfire against hijackers - is due to the Posse Comitatus Act. Under the Posse Comitatus Act federal troops cannot be employed in a domestic law enforcement capacity.

There are exceptions to this, however:

1) By authorisation of the Constitution or Act of Congress
2) Under authority of the Attorney General if invoking US Code Title 18 Sect.831 (Prohibited Transactions involving Nuclear Material)
3) Under authority of the President if invoking the Insurrection Act



You said:
As the 9/11 Commission explained, “prior to 9/11, it was understood that an order to shoot down a commercial aircraft would have to be issued by the National Command Authority (a phrase used to describe the president and secretary of defense).” [2]

The problem with the above phrase is, of course, that it wasn't really understood at all, because no one had really envisaged a scenario in which a civilian airliner would have to be shot down. The authorisation from the President actually came from the other end. Faced with the realisation that they would need to use deadly force, Major Nasypany, Colonel Marr, and General Arnold between them discussed who could legitimately give authorisation to use force.

It was General Arnold who made the decision that he needed permission from the President to use force against a civilian airliner. What's important is he made that decision on the day. It had never been contemplated before. It was then NORAD that sought that permission from the President via the VP.




You said:
This Chain of Command was not ordinarily needed to get escort fighters off the ground – this could all be done automatically and at intermediate levels, as indicated by the swift fighter response in the Payne Stewart case.


There's a number of issues here. A chain of command was needed to scramble escort fighters, as clearly laid out in both FAA regulations and DoD regulations. The process was:

ARTCC controller
To ARTCC supervisor
To FAA National ARTCC centre (Herndon)
To FAA Hijack Co-ordinator at FAA HQ (Washington DC)
<Decision to Request Escort Made>
Request issued to NMCC (Pentagon)
<Request Granted or Denied>
Intercept orders issued to NORAD via NORAD chain of command

This has always been the procedure, and an attempt was made to follow it on 9/11, although the first request for AA11 never got past the FAA HQ, and the processing of the request for AA11 held up the other requests.

It's also interesting that you cited the intercept of Payne Stewart's learjet.

We can learn a lot about the limitations of NORAD interception by looking at this case. The NTSB report into the crash is available online.

The first thing to note is that this incident is the ONLY time in the ten years prior to 9/11 that NORAD deployed alert fighters to intercept an aircraft over domestic US airspace.

At 0933 EDT Jacksonville ARTCC lost contact with the aircraft. The controller then sought military assistance.

At 0954 CDT a lone F-16 Test Pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin AFB reached within 2,000ft of the aircraft and attempted to make contact.

There's some vital facts to bear in mind at this point.

The first is the time. There's a change in timezone here, because the lear jet crossed into the Central Time Zone. It looks, on first glance, like it only took 21 minutes from loss of contact to interception. However because of the change of time zone you have to add an entire hour. This first interception took 81 minutes, not 21.

Secondly, this aircraft was not a NORAD aircraft, was not an alert scramble aircraft, and significantly, was not armed. This was simply a local military aircraft already in the air.

NORAD did eventually send interceptors though, if you read on...

At the end of this document we have some tables that list the 29 NORAD alert sites at the time of the document's writing. It is worth pointing at that the document is specifically about reducing the number of alert sites to 14.

Back to the NTSB report, we see that at 1113CDT two Oklahoma ANG F-16's intercept the aircraft and at 1150CDT they are joined by two North Dakota ANG F-16's.

There are no alert sites listed amongst the 29 for Oklahoma, however Fargo, North Dakota is listed. Assuming that Fargo remained an air defense site after the reduction in alert bases, that means NORAD first got interceptors on station at 1150CDT - 3 hours and 17 minutes after communication with the aircraft was lost.

Without putting too fine a point on it, 3 hours 17 minutes was too long to pull off a successful intercept on 9/11. So all the Payne Stewart intercept really tells us is it's highly unlikely NORAD could have intercepted any of the flights on 9/11.



You said:
These guidelines, in effect since 1986, oddly changed just three months before September 11, with Rumsfeld asserting the sole authority to allow fighters to take off at all. This is covered in more in detail in the post "Muzzling the Defense?"

I've previously touched on how minor the changes in the June 2001 DoD order were.

The document states:

The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval.

This is what Conspiracy Theorists got their panties in a twist about. However they never bothered to find out what reference d) was...

d. FAA Order 7610.4J, 3 November 1998, “Special Military Operations,” was added as a reference.

This is FAA Order 7610.4J here.

That link has only the pertinent section - Chapter 7: Escort of Hijacked Aircraft.

7-1-2. REQUESTS FOR SERVICE

The escort service will be requested by the FAA hijack coordinator by direct contact with the National Military Command Center (NMCC). Normally, NORAD escort aircraft will take the required action. However, for the purpose of these procedures, the term "escort aircraft" applies to any military aircraft assigned to the escort mission.

In other words the Secretary of Defense was not consulted for Hijacking Escorts.



You said:
The 9/11 Commission’s final report later stated in its blameless way: “As they existed on 9/11, the protocols for the FAA to obtain military assistance from NORAD required multiple levels of notification and approval at the highest levels of government […] The protocols did not contemplate an intercept […] On the morning of 9/11, the existing protocol was unsuited in every respect for what was about to happen.” It became even more unsuited in the days and hours and even minutes before the attacks, and on the morning of September 11th, strangely, the National Command Authority’s chain of command seemed to sprout new links, swap out old ones, and seemed to not be anchored down to anything. The following posts deal with the US leadership response and the flailings and failings of a Chain of broken links.

The above comment is interesting, however there's no evidence that the new staff positions had any negative impact on air defense response times. Ben Sliney, in particular, did exceptionally well on his first day.

Further, because of the quick actions of staff at Boston ARTCC and NEADS, the chain of command was skipped and a more immediate air defense was assembled. Finally, the USSS also got in on the act and scrambled additional aircraft from Andrews AFB - again an improvised defense. The reality is the improvised defense cobbled together by Boston ARTCC, NEADS, and the USSS, although ultimately unable to prevent the attacks, was far superior to any defense the proper channels could have provided.

-Gumboot
 

Back
Top Bottom