Is LIHOP plausible?

[e^n]

I've been having a debate/discussion over at LC with NK-44 and I brought up the fact that I consider LIHOP to be entirely plausible. I thought I had mentioned this over here at some point but I cannot find anything through searching so here goes.

I have no real trust, love or belief in the Bush Government. I think their debasement of science and their attitude towards homosexuals and medical research is immoral. I believe that corporate interests may be considered significantly more important than the welfare of the poorest people in the US by a large amount of the current Administration.

Disregarding all the available evidence for the moment, if I was told by a friend that he believes the US government deliberately allowed the attacks of 9/11 to be carried out in order to further their political ambitions and allow for a second invasion of Iraq I would have to say that it was entirely plausible.

However, the evidence I have seen points to generic warnings and non specific information which (in hindsight) of course should have been acted on more seriously.

My question is to the members of this forum and specifically those much more well versed in the theories around this than me:

• Would you consider (disregarding available evidence) LIHOP to be plausible?
• Taking evidence into consideration, do you believe that LIHOP is plausible?

The latter I add because it is entirely possible that a lack of coherency between agencies or a lack of appropriate way to escalate a warning / report received may show that the government simply wasn't operating efficiently enough to receive such reports, never mind disregard them.

Incidentally you'll find the original thread here: http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=19292

 

[Brainster]

Disregarding all the available evidence for the moment, if I was told by a friend that he believes the US government deliberately allowed the attacks of 9/11 to be carried out in order to further their political ambitions and allow for a second invasion of Iraq I would have to say that it was entirely plausible.

However, the evidence I have seen points to generic warnings and non specific information which (in hindsight) of course should have been acted on more seriously.

My question is to the members of this forum and specifically those much more well versed in the theories around this than me:

• Would you consider (disregarding available evidence) LIHOP to be plausible?
• Taking evidence into consideration, do you believe that LIHOP is plausible?

No and no. In fact, LIHOP is even less plausible than MIHOP. At least with MIHOP, you could control who's aware of the actual plot, because you're making the decision to allow them in the loop. With LIHOP, there would be people who knew well before the top members of the administration; either the CIA or the FBI or some law enforcement agency would have discovered the plot, and it would have moved up the chain of command.

And besides, suppose the administration had busted the plotters just before the plan went operational? Yeah, it would not be spectacular because in that case 9-11 didn't happen; it would be like the Millennium plot or Operation Bojinka. But they'd surely get quite a boost out of it; perhaps not enough to invade Iraq, but Afghanistan surely would have been carried out with support from most elements of the US.

As with MIHOP, LIHOP is the triumph of hope over reason.

 

[Loss Leader]

Disregarding all the available evidence for the moment, if I was told by a friend that he believes the US government deliberately allowed the attacks of 9/11 to be carried out in order to further their political ambitions and allow for a second invasion of Iraq I would have to say that it was entirely plausible.

Why in 2001 would the Bush government think the 9/11 attacks would be a good excuse for a war with Iraq?

Think of it this way: Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Zero of the hijackers were from Iraq. All of the money for the hijackers came from Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaida network operating out of Afghanistan. Zero money came from Iraq. The hijackings were the work of Islamic fundamentalists. Iraq was one of the most western and secular nations in the Middle East - Islamic fundamentalism was actively supressed by Hussein. After the attacks, zero evidence implicating Iraq was found.

So, why would the Bush administration be so sure that they could sell the American people on the fact that Iraq was the enemy and not the Saudis? Granted, they did actually manage to confuse many Americans on this very issue. But why would they be so confident as to think they could?

Every day, the US was flying missions over Iraq to keep their airspace closed. At any time, we could have pretended to see something dastardly on the ground. We could have pretended to lose an aircraft to an Iraqi missile. Hell, we could have shot down one of our own planes or five or fifty. The death toll still would be a fraction of 9/11 and only soldiers trained to give their lives for their country would die.

So, I don't think LIHOP is a possibility because the Bush administration's response to 9/11 makes no sense if it were.

 

[Good Lt]

• Would you consider (disregarding available evidence) LIHOP to be plausible?

No. Saying it's possible is certainly fair. Saying it's plausible (ie, likely) is ludicrous.

It is possible that I could be struck by lightning three times today. However, there is such a minuscule, infinitesimally small chance of this occurring that it becomes completely implausible while still being remotely possible.

• Taking evidence into consideration, do you believe that LIHOP is plausible?

No. There is too far much evidence to the contrary and none in the affirmative.

 

[R.Mackey]

My question is to the members of this forum and specifically those much more well versed in the theories around this than me:

• Would you consider (disregarding available evidence) LIHOP to be plausible?
• Taking evidence into consideration, do you believe that LIHOP is plausible?

Let me split some hairs here.

The general idea of LIHOP to me is plausible. It does not violate any laws of Physics, and is conceivably within the realm of schemes that human beings might attempt to perpetrate.

Having said that, the idea that the September 11th attacks were LIHOP is not plausible. The evidence is clearly against this. This is also not at all expected behavior, even lacking any evidence, given the rather large and unusual steps the United States Government would have to enact to ensure that nobody, say a lone wolf CIA analyst or a lucky fighter pilot, just happened to interfere.

This also ignores that there is no evidence for LIHOP. Even so, at best the idea is plausible, but wrong.

 

[Kiosk]

Your first question is unanswerable, unless we've been wrong all these years and telepathy is real. I have no more faith in Bush or Cheney than you do, but I wouldn't presume to know the precise extent of their scruples, something which would be necessary to assess the plausibility of LIHOP while disregarding the evidence. Or rather, for that assessment to be meaningful in any sense other than as a measurement of one's own cynicism.

Second question: big fat no. There's zero hard evidence to support LIHOP directly, and the best stuff that LIHOPpers can scrape together also supports far simpler and more plausible theories (incompetence / lack of communication / poor decision making / a combination of the above). So Occam's Razor says no, and unless something significant turns up, that's the way it'll have to stay.

ETA: There's also no evidence that I'm "much more well versed in the theories around this than you", especially compared to some of the gentlemen above. Thought I'd chip in though.

 

[beachnut]

Why in 2001 would the Bush government think the 9/11 attacks would be a good excuse for a war with Iraq?

Think of it this way: Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Zero of the hijackers were from Iraq. All of the money for the hijackers came from Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaida network operating out of Afghanistan. Zero money came from Iraq. The hijackings were the work of Islamic fundamentalists. Iraq was one of the most western and secular nations in the Middle East - Islamic fundamentalism was actively supressed by Hussein. After the attacks, zero evidence implicating Iraq was found.

So, why would the Bush administration be so sure that they could sell the American people on the fact that Iraq was the enemy and not the Saudis? Granted, they did actually manage to confuse many Americans on this very issue. But why would they be so confident as to think they could?

Every day, the US was flying missions over Iraq to keep their airspace closed. At any time, we could have pretended to see something dastardly on the ground. We could have pretended to lose an aircraft to an Iraqi missile. Hell, we could have shot down one of our own planes or five or fifty. The death toll still would be a fraction of 9/11 and only soldiers trained to give their lives for their country would die.

So, I don't think LIHOP is a possibility because the Bush administration's response to 9/11 makes no sense if it were.

Good points, Saddam was shooting at us for all those years, we did not need 9/11 to go get Saddam. LIHOP would not be very good, most people if they "knew" there was a big plot, would risk all to save the many. Most people are good, only 9/11 truth makes up the bad guys are in charge crap; only 9/11 truth would be capable of killing the few to mislead the many.

 

[OldTigerCub]

I think Brainster and R.Mackey pretty much said what needs to be said. My answer would be no. There was nothing to be gained, and so much was lost in the aftermath of the attacks of 9-11. Regardless of what anyone thinks of the Bush administration, or the direction our country has gone since, there was a feeling of an improving economy and a sense of security before 9-11 that the administration was counting on for political capital. That capital was lost in a heartbeat when the attacks occurred. No administration would want to deal with the aftermath and repucussions of such an attack, let alone allow it to happen,

 

[bofors]

I consider LIHOP to be entirely plausible.

You might find Arabesque's essay on "Disinformation and the Misleading and False LIHOP/MIHOP Dichotomy" interesting: http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html

If the Israeli Mossad planted the controlled demoltions and the arab hijackers actually flew the planes to their targets, all Dick Cheney had to do was order a NORAD standdown and otherwise ensure that the US "looked the other way" (in other words a LIHOP scenerio), what is the significant difference between MIHOP and LIHOP?

Either way it is treason.

 

[beachnut]

You might find Arabesque's essay on "Disinformation and the Misleading and False LIHOP/MIHOP Dichotomy" interesting: http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html

If the Israeli Mossad planted the controlled demoltions and the arab hijackers actually flew the planes to their targets, all Dick Cheney had to do was order a NORAD standdown and otherwise ensure that the US "looked the other way" (in other words a LIHOP scenerio), what is the significant difference between MIHOP and LIHOP?

Either way it is treason.

What a load of junk. Not even any evidence. Good job, zero evidence, lots of crazy ideas. I love the stupid idiotic (dumb) stand down stuff. Real stupid is the stand down. Stand down is a dumb idea, and the easiest way to be exposed is to order a stand down. Gee, I was active duty Air Force on 9/11. No stand down order; makes your ideas real dumb. You see, if everyone did not get the "stand down" order we would screw up the day, and if we got a stand down order, we would tell the world. So which part of real dumb did you miss on the stand down order? Dumb; super dumb web site.

 

[boloboffin]

The Bush Administration could have done everything it did do if they had caught all 19 hijackers at the gates.

LIHOP is ludicrous.

 

[Sabrina]

I would have to agree with R. Mackey and Brainster as well. I consider the CONCEPT of LIHOP to be plausible, but only REMOTELY possible as it relates to 9/11. The government is full of people who have no particular loyalty to any given President or major political figure; all it would take is one of them spotting something odd to blow the whole thing wide open. And believe me, given our natures, it is HIGHLY unlikely that the individual(s) could be induced to keep their mouths shut when there's the possibility of worldwide fame and millions of dollars in question. So I'd have to answer no to both questions personally. That's not to say I support the Bush government; far from it. I may be a sworn member of the Armed Forces, but nothing prevents me from badmouthing the Pres if I'm so inclined; after all, I only have to show him "respect" (read: military courtesy) if I'm in his prescence, not outside it. And I may work currently in the IC, but the vast majority of people in the IC have few if any political ties and can pretty much say what they wish about the government in general.

 

[Hyperviolet]

I think it's plausable.
However, only if a small amount of people were actually aware of a detailed attack and just keep their mouths shut.
Including a whole agency or government body? Then no.

Per contra, i think the incompetence theory has, by far, the most supporting evidence.

 

[Max Photon]

Not LIHOP. MIHOP.

* * *

e^n,

LIHOP is not plausible, because it would have afforded too little control to US military deception planners (MILDEC).

Remember, the motive for 911 was to manufacture consent for a series of illegal invasions. Those attacks required enormous planning efforts, spanning years. The attacks had to go forward, and hence 911 had to go forward. LIHOP would have exposed planners to uncertainty.

MIHOP, in stark contrast, gave MILDEC planners total control, and enabled them to use the tiniest team possible - a key to successful deception maintenance.

Remember, when you look at beautiful complex fractals, they are (often) generated by the simplest of functions, iterated.

Similarly, a tiny MILDEC team - feeding back a picture - can effortlessly generate bewildering complexity.

Not LIHOP.

MIHOP.


Maxhop

* * *

 

[GreNME]

The Bush Administration could have done everything it did do if they had caught all 19 hijackers at the gates.

LIHOP is ludicrous.

You really think they could have still done all they did? I don't know, that sounds a bit of a stretch, but I could certainly see them doing many of the things they did.

I agree with those who have already said that while the LIHOP is within the realm of possible it is still not within the realm of plausible. The evidence just doesn't support it, and at the very most the evidence points to the administration being poorly prepared to handle such threats instead of ready to let one happen to advance an agenda.

 

[Good Lt]

Not LIHOP.

MIHOP.

I just love how you believe this.

Thanks for the laughs. Really.

 

[Good Lt]

Remember, the motive for 911 was to manufacture consent for a series of illegal invasions.

I think the Islamists who did it would disagree.

Those attacks required enormous planning efforts, spanning years.

Yes. The Islamic terrorist killers who executed the attack were planning for it starting as far back as 1998. We know this.

The attacks had to go forward, and hence 911 had to go forward. LIHOP would have exposed planners to uncertainty.

Except that the planners were not MILDEC or the US Government. They were Islamic terrorists who factored uncertainty into their plan.

MIHOP, in stark contrast, gave MILDEC planners total control, and enabled them to use the tiniest team possible - a key to successful deception maintenance.

How many? Who were the "team" members?

Remember, when you look at beautiful complex fractals, they are (often) generated by the simplest of functions, iterated.

We're not looking at a fractal. We're looking at a terrorist attack.

Similarly, a tiny MILDEC team

How many? Who was in charge? What branch of government were they from? Who made the call? Who planted the *snort* thermite?

 

[suicidesamurai]

This wasn't the first time Al-Qaeda attacked us. The Taliban was supporting them. We didn't need 9/11 to take out the Taliban. Even if we did need something, it could have been a much smaller attack overseas. No need to make such a spectacle.

To consider the plausibility of LIHOP or MIHOP, I would need to see a plausible motive. I can't find one.

 

[Cuddles]

I agree with Good Lt.. LIHOP is certainly possible, and it is impossible to ever prove wrong. All it would take is a few reports being "accidentally" misplaced, or for someone to make sure intelligence was focussing in the wrong place and it "they" could certainly have allowed something to happen, even if they didn't know exactly what it was in advance.

However, it certainly isn't plausible. To start with, there is no evidence. You can speculate all you like, but without evidence it's completely pointless. Even assuming it did happen, it may not even be possible to ever get evidence, since that would require access to people's minds. Secondly, it isn't falsifiable. Thirdly, as has been said so many times, there is no motive that actually makes any sense. 9/11 was not propitious to policy, to coin a phrase.

Is LIHOP possible? Yes, in the same way that quantum physics says it's possible for all the particles in a teapot to spontaneously teleport to Pluto. Is LIHOP plausible? As plausible as New Horizons finding a herd of teapots orbiting Pluto.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

I think the conclusion all of us should note is,

'Evidence points toward 19 Arab Men who have connections to men at high positions within Al Qeada. Currently, no evidence points towards the US Government.'

If there is anything the Media have got wrong (And it is a lot), the simplistic notion of 'Bin Laden done America' has got the truthers confused.