To those who still refuse to accept LIHOP or MIHOP...

[Flubadubya]

I have a question for you...

If the Bush administration has no qualms whatsoever about allowing some 900+ Americans die (so far) in Iraq to further their PNAC agenda, why is it so hard to imagine that they could not be so callous as to allow people to die in a catastrophic terrorist attack, knowing full well that it would be the single, most important, catalytic event that would absolutely propel their political agenda into full realization?

I'm sorry, I do not have the trust and faith that either Bush, Cheney or any other member of that administration to be beyond such a contemptible and heinous act. In fact I believe they are quite capable of such. Anyone who would willfully mock the impending death of another human being, and over whose life or death the mocker has direct control (i.e. the execution of Karla Faye Tucker by George W. Bush), is, in my book, capable of great coldness, even to the point of willfully and knowingly allowing a terrorist strike on this country to suit a very grand geopolitical goal.

Moreover, some are not even aware that for a few months after 9/11, Bush went around making speeches to his "party elite" touting the 9/11 event as one of the three elements of his great "Trifecta". The man was actually boasting about it. Not familiar with this? Google it!

If you still don't perceive Mr. Bush to be a true sociopath, you might want to examine that possibility a little more aggressively. Do the research. You may be stunned at what you find, but you may be less inclined at that point to give him much benefit of doubt.

Now, that is just MHO.

[Sporadicus]

1. I'm Firmly in the MIHOP Camp

Jim Hoffman has discovered a document which I believe may be very important to the 911 skeptic movement. This document superseded earlier DOD procedures for dealing with hijacked aircraft, and it requires that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is personally responsible for issuing intercept orders. Commanders in the field are stripped of all authority to act. This amazing order came from S.A. Fry (Vice Admiral, US Navy and Director, Joint Staff) so it appears to me that responsibility for the US armed forces "Failure to Respond" rests directly with Fry for issuing this instruction, as well as with Donald Rumsfeld for failing to execute his responsibility to issue orders in a timely fashion.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction CJCSI 3610.01A (dated 1 June 2001) was issued for the purpose of providing "guidance to the Deputy Director for Operations (DDO), National Military Command Center (NMCC), and operational commanders in the event of an aircraft piracy (hijacking) or request for destruction of derelict airborne objects." This new instruction superseded CJCSI 3610.01 of 31 July 1997.

This CJCSI states that "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."

Reference D refers to Department of Defense Directive 3025.15 (Feb. 18, 1997) which allows for commanders in the field to provide assistance to save lives in an emergency situation -- BUT any requests involving "potentially lethal support" (including "combat and tactical vehicles, vessels or aircraft; or ammunition") must still be approved by the Secretary of Defense. So again, the ability to respond to a hijacking in any meaningful fashion, is stripped from the commanders in the field.

While none of this relieves the Bush Administration from ultimate responsibility from 911, nevertheless there is the possibility that this discovery could somewhat diffuse the power of our movement's message about the "Stand Down", since it is now clear that it was implemented through a routine administrative memo.

If this comes up as an issue at the Washington 911 cover-up commission, it would be interesting if Fry could testify as to the reasoning behind making it bureaucratically impossible for the DOD to respond to hijackings in a timely fashion.

The relevant documents are on the Web at:

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/docs/intercept_proc.pdf


http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/d302515_021897/d302515p.pdf


Best regards,

Jerry Russell
www.911-strike.com

On edit: links fixed

[1monster]

4. Both links are broken ;:o(

[Dufaeth]

2. Good point

I hadn't considered this point, and it's always been one of the hardest parts for me to get past on the LIHOP theory. Everyday I come closer and closer to believing it.

[RedSock]

3. 911 commission this week

but didn't the 911 commission this week say that rumsfeld was NOT in the intercept loop at all -- and that is was cheney

[EstimatedProphet]

5. Absolutely agree

It amazes me that people always try to project such empathy on leaders, Bush in particular, especially after seeing his reaction to everything after 9/11.

[ItsThePeopleStupid]

6. questions

who, at a minimum, would have to be part of the conspiracy?
what would be the goal?

I try to think about this rationally from time to time, but my mind just reels at the thought of it. It's much more even than letting 3000 people die, it's just...a conspiracy of monsters.

[Flubadubya]

7. See if this might answer any of your questions...

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

"Conspiracy of monsters"... yup, that 'bout sums it up!

[ItsThePeopleStupid]

11. been there already

Okay, the goal is (increasing) world domination,

the people are all the neocons?

I just would like to read something specific--a plausible scenario.

Here, I'll start:
You need Rumsfeld, Cheney, someone in a high position at CIA (Tenet?), high position at FBI (or possibly Ashcroft instead) especially to block FISA warrants...

On edit, never mind. It's not up to you to come up with a detailed scenario. But I'd still like to hear one from someone, someday.

[troublemaker]

8. Nice Straw Man

The implication is that faith in Bush's decency is the key objection to LIHOP/MIHOP. I doubt that's even in the top 100 reasons for skepticism... I've never heard anyone say "I accept almost everything about LIHOP/MIHOP but I can't believe Bush would do that."

I don't put much past the Bush crowd, but I personally reject LIHOP/MIHOP because there is no reason to accept it. If there were any reason to accept it I would.

The burden of proof always falls on extraordinary claims. I can no more *disprove* LIHOP/MIHOP than I can disprove the existence of Santa Claus. Chipping away at the official story is no more evidence of LIHOP/MIHOP than chipping away at something Charles Darwin said once is evidence *of* the events described in Genesis. Removing a disproof is indeed part of the process of proof, but only a tiny part. The removal of ALL disproof of something merely gets you to even. There has to be an affirmative case.

If someone would like to write an active case *for* LIHOP/MIHOP it would be interesting to read. Anyone?

[leesa]

9. How many active cases do their have to be. You are Waaaayy

behind in your reading!

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[NightOwwl]

12. moved post to another similar forum

[Flubadubya]

13. Say what???

:wtf:

[NightOwwl]

14. Flubadubya

I meant to say I moved my post to another thread (same subject) because it had more activity. I think mopaul started that one.

Different thread, not different forum.