For me, logical proof of MIHOP.

[reprobate]

First, I asked myself, if Osama bin Missing were the one person behind 9/11, with no help from the criminal administration,just what would be his primary goal? I believe that any true fundamentalist would strike at the Great Satan himself, the leader of the Evil American Empire.

But wat, how many terrorist attacks on George W. Bush have we seen? Oh, you say, but would the government publicize such attacks? Let me suggest that an attempted terrorist attack on * would put even the Jackson trial on page two. They would have no choice, it would be the biggest news and would raise sympathy for bush, so they'd love to publicize it.

But there have been no attempted terrorist attacks on Captain Corageous by the vast terrorist conspiracy that would just dearly love to crow about taking out the one person hated by most of the world.

So I have reached a conclusion: the terrorist leadership has no intention of getting rid of * in the near future, unless and until they find a replacement paymaster. So, if the terrorists aren't after him, it seems a logical conclusion that they weren't the true perpetrators of 9/11, just the fall guys.

Ergo, Bush did it! MIHOP.

QED

[BlueEyedSon]

1. How do you explain the first WTC attack then? nt

[Cleita]

8. Even though it was on Clinton's watch, no one really knows

who was behind it. There is the official story, but.....

[Zynx]

36. Fine. Who carried it out, other than the guys in jail for it?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

9. Just setting the stage. What would you call it?

[BlueEyedSon]

12. By whom?

[Just Me]

50. Former, CIA-trained, PO'd at being screwed, BFEE ops.

Just a thought.

[Lone Pawn]

17. Obviously PNAC did it, half a decade before its founding.

[CTLawGuy]

2. friendly devil's advocacy

I have never gone on a date with Anna Kournikova...

I have never tried to go on a date with Anna Kournikova...

therefore, I MUST not desire to go on a date with Anna Kournikova.

Valid or not?

[ComerPerro]

10. I'm gonna say invalid

Because its a different scenario. Why would bin Laden be held back by a notion that he probably can't hit Bush? He is a radical terrorist, afterall, and the attacks on 9/11 show that he will go to extreme measures to prove a point.

In your example, you have never tried to date Anna Kournikova, apparently because you know you can't get a date with her.

But using thinking that would be applied by someone capable of committing unspeakable acts of terror, there would be no such limitation.

To frame it specifically to your example, a terrorst might contend that you have no desire to go on a date with Anna, because you have never tried to.

Lets not forget that the hijackers took their own lives in the process.

[CTLawGuy]

13. so it is

IMPOSSIBLE that there is another explanation for the terrorists not striking Bush other than they don't want to?

so its not possible that they aren't equipped right now to do that?
and its not possible that the secret service protection and other security would make their attacks very difficult to carry out, so they decide that trying is not worth it?

What you are saying is that it MUST be true that if Bush walked alone into OBL's headquarters, they would not do anything to him, which I think is hard to believe.

[ComerPerro]

19. Whoa, slow down

Im not saying that at all. I am just saying that a lack of attacks on Bush does not necessicarliy indicate a lack of means.

[CTLawGuy]

21. you're right it doesn't.

just like it doesn't indicate a lack of desire

it doesn't indicate one or the other clearly. You need more info.

You can't say what the OP has said with any certainty.

[SpiralHawk]

40. So, you're telling us that Anna K. is free?

In that case, ask her if she'd like to 'do' a late lunch with me on Friday.

[Kazak]

3. What about that fourth plane?

Just playin' devil's advocate with ya?

[BlueEyedSon]

5. Woof! Nice avatar!

[ComerPerro]

20. That would explain why it was downed

and why Bush was not in DC

[bryant69]

4. This seems parallel to the Conservative Argument

We haven't been attacked since September 11th. Clearly Terrorists must want to attack us. So President Bush must be doing a great job protecting us from Terrorists.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[leveymg]

6. In WW2, Allies never tried to kill Hitler. He hurt the German war effort.

Maybe the worst thing UBL and the others can do to us is to leave Bush in office as long as possible.

My neighbor, the retired CIA guy, said that the other day. Hey, maybe there really is still some intelligence in the community.

But, of course, he's retired.
:bounce:

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[Catholic Sensation]

14. Do you actually know what terrorism is?

I want your definition before posting further.

[Lone Pawn]

15. Not a logical proof.

Let's logically look at this.

1. If OBL as we know him exists, he would want to attack Bush.
(Entirely unproven conditional. He could realize attacking Bush would make a martyr of him;not unlikely considering the importance of martyrdom to his movement. And he has gone on record repeatedly stating that Bush's inept leadership helps AQ's cause.)

2. He has not attacked Bush, therefore he does not want to attack Bush.
(Assumes there are no other reasons he did not attack Bush; it could be that they have been dedicating themselves to ensuring Iraq and Afganistan do not turn out according to Bush's plan, and it could be that they are in no condition to launch a strike against the most heavily-defended man on the planet.)

3. Therefore he does not exist as we know him.
(Contrapositive is a logically valid statement--assuming truth of 1 and 2.)

4. Therefore Bush did it.
(There are more than two possible actors in 9/11. Exclusion of one does not imply the other.)

Your post is four logical statements, of which three are invalid. I don't think that counts as a 'proof' for anything.

[LunaC]

16. Here's more proof for you

Check out the link in my sig line...the timeline spells it all out.

[lectrobyte]

18. Why would you assume terrorists would want to kill * ?

That seems like the last thing they would want. They *need* him. Interesting analysis here:

http://www.gurus.com/dougdeb/politics/TS101.html

[The Magistrate]

44. That Link, Comrade, Contains An Excellent Analysis!

Thank you very much for bringing it to the forum!

[Carni]

22. How did only around 2000 people die out of a building that held 60,000?

Think about that for a minute--in the aftermath of all that carnage at both the towers and the Pentagon only about 2800 people lost their lives. Don't get me wrong that is substantial but not when you sit and break down how many people were in and out of the WTC daily.

I am not sure of the exact floors involved but the south tower was closed for remodeling on a substantial number of the top floors.

The Pentagon as we all know was almost empty in that particular area of the building.

Call me a tin foiler but that seems more than likely a very odd coincidence and if the south tower had been evacuated swiftly after the north tower was initially hit the death toll would have been that much lower.

Do I personally think it was a MIHOP? I am not sure but my gut instinct tells me that there is something funny about the terrorists not getting as much bang for their buck as they could have.

I have heard it stated that the reason they hit the WTC so early is because the later the flight the more chance there is for delays etc.
I am not sure I buy that argument.

There is also something funny about the video tapes of Atta and his cohort--a number of months ago I watched a show that featured an interview with the first airport employee that checked Atta through security (on the first leg of the trip)

He mentioned on camera (while watching the tape of Atta at the next connection) that Atta had apparently changed his clothes-- why did he change his clothes if he almost missed his plane in Boston?

I guess my point is...was that real video footage or something provided to us (like Atta's passport that happened to be on top of a pile of rubble)

If the video is real how did Atta find the time to change his clothes and WHY did he change his clothes?

Just something odd that caught my attention months back!

[Snivi Yllom]

23. First, both towers only had around 17,000 at the time of the crashes

Second, the planes hit before many had arrived for work.

Third, many in the second tower had time to evacuate before the second plane hit.

Fourth, the majority of those below the impact sites escaped.

If you want to educate yourself and use your brain instead of buying the garbage conspiracy theories check out this thorough collection of scientific reports and analysis.

http://wtc.nist.gov/

Draft report on project 7: Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communication
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-7ExecutiveSummary.pdf
NIST estimates that there were 8,900 ± 750 people in WTC 1 at 8:46:30 a.m. on September 11, 2001.
Similarly, NIST estimates that there were 8,540 ± 920 people inside WTC 2 at 8:46:30 a.m. New York
City officially announced 2,749 fatalities at the WTC complex, including emergency responders, airplane
passengers and crew (but not hijackers), and bystanders. NIST estimated that of the 17,400 ± 1,180
occupants inside WTC 1 and WTC 2 at 8:46:30 a.m., 2,163 to 2,180 perished. No information could be
found for 17 persons. More than twice as many occupants were killed in WTC 1 as WTC 2, largely due
to the fact that occupants in WTC 2 used the 16 minutes between the attacks on WTC 1 and WTC 2 to
begin evacuating, including the use of elevators by some occupants in WTC 2.

[Carni]

24. The morning of 911 the media was claiming the buildings held 60,000

They hit before many arrived for work? Oh wow REALLY?

Did you actually READ what I posted?

That was my point-- WHY would the terrorists plan their attack for a time slot when many people had not yet arrived for work. That would be one of the points I was making.

The purpose of an attack by terrorists is to create terror and as much death and injury as possible--not to schedule something for minimal impact to save lives.

I also said IF the south tower had been swiftly evacuated AFTER the first plane hit then there is no reason to think that anyone in the south tower would even have died.

Again, it was not the norm that the ST was not evacuated.

The terrorists couldn't possibly have known that assorted snafus would create a situation where people were told to stay in the south tower.

No shit about people surviving below the impact sites (I think I knew that thanks so much)

If I am wrong about the number of people that the WTC held then my mistake...but I hardly find anything else I pointed out to be conspiritorial -- my point was that I would have thought that the terrorists would have planned an attack at an hour of the day that would have created a much higher death toll.

[The Magistrate]

26. In Such Matters, Ma'am

There are always competing considerations. The most important would be contriving the hijackings in the first place; early morning flights tend to have fewer passengers, and early morning security is generally more lax.

[Carni]

27. Yes, that's what I have heard and seen theorized numerous times

And that may very well be the reason that they made the attack early in the day.

I do appreciate your civil tone--it's so refreshing compared to the insults strewn around and the I am smarter than you crap that one encounters!

[Snivi Yllom]

33. exactly

[Lone Pawn]

30. There are several reasons the attack took place early.

First, as has already been said, they needed empty flights and low security.
Secondly, their purpose was *not* to cause death, it was to cause destruction. The Pentagon is not a population center--flying the airplane into any office building or sporting arena would have killed far more people. The purpose was a symbolic strike against the buildings, not the people in them.
Thirdly, hitting in the morning ensures it will be the first thing Americans hear when they wake up, and will hear and see it all day long.

[Carni]

42. That depends on which terrorism "expert" you listen to

Some claim their motive is large death count others dispute that.

In addition bin laden's demand for years had been the removal of US troops from Saudi Arabia--he got that very thing didn't he?

I find it interesting that in bush's so called "war on terror" he gave bin laden exactly what he asked for (in addition to letting him ride a mule out of Tora Bora because we *outsourced* his capture)

But getting right down to the point of LIHOP, MIHOP... or whatever
(and I veer towards LIHOP because I cannot imagine that anyone is so stupid that they cannot understand the implications of a PDB that said "Bin Laden determined to strike within the US")

Who benefitted from 911?

Bush is the only one that I can think of that benefitted--in my mind that is not conspiracy theory it is basically a fact.

Did they make lemonade out of a lemon, or did they know about the attack in advance?

[Lone Pawn]

53. So bin Laden didn't benefit from 9/11?

Well, let's see what's happened:

1. The entire world hates America in a way they've never before.
2. The mideast is more volitile than it's ever been.
3. US troops are out of Saudi Arabia.
4. He's still a free man.
5. Terror organizations are barely hampered--terror attacks tripled last year, and have increased every year since '01.
6. The apostate secularist Saddam Hussein is gone, and in his place will be an Muslim government.
7. The US is mired in Iraq, bleeding soldiers, dollars, and the US public's appetite for war.
8. With the US's influence down, China has taken the initiative and is pushing to become an Eastern counterbalance to US power.
9. The US is incapable of preventing Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon.
10. And America thinks it's winning, and is slowly falling asleep again.

Well, I can certainly see how bin Laden's goals aren't an inch closer...

[smirkymonkey]

54. That's not because of 9/11, it's because of the Bush Administration.

Our own government is destroying us better than any terrorist organizaton could ever hope to achieve.

[Lone Pawn]

55. And how would they have done any of that without the 9/11 bait?

We took it.

[smirkymonkey]

56. I still can't help but think that 9/11 was just the catalyst to get

public support for their reign of terror. :tinfoilhat:

[Carni]

59. Bush is reaping bigger spoils EOM

[Snivi Yllom]

31. But the South Tower was evacuated

Likely the flights were selected for proximity to the targets and similar timetables. Another likely reason is picking very early flights that had few passengers whom could offer resistance to their hijacking. Who knows why they picked those exact flights, but it's logical to assume the above.

There was a miscommunication reported where WTC personnel announced over the building fore intercom for workers to return to their office.

And the media was wrong about the total number of occupants, it was closer to 50,000 but with 25,000 visitors daily.

[Zynx]

35. They also wanted coast-to-coast flights with big aircraft

[Carni]

29. OH AND BTW the maximum occupancy for the WTC towers is 50,000

Not 20,000 according to the below -

My whole point was that if the terrorists had struck at a later hour when the towers were full and hadn't slammed into a vacant wing of the Pentagon they would have killed more people.

I didn't say that there were 60,000 people in the building -- I said the occupancy was quoted as being around 60,000 at peak times.

When the first plane hit, the Twin Towers were at well below their typical daily peak occupancy. Only about half of office workers normally arrive before 9 AM, and many were delayed by voting, since it was an election day. Few tourists and shoppers were present at that hour. Two hours later the buildings would have held around 50,000 people rather than the 20,000 actually present. If the strikes had been in the middle of the day, and the impacts had been centered and at the 45th floors (just above the surrounding buildings) 30,000 could have been trapped and killed.

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:JrInvrp08AoJ:911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/bodycount.html+peak+occupancy+world+trade+center&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[Snivi Yllom]

32. obviously they pulled off their attack

and obviously it was infamously successful.

I think you are being a bit too paranoid in trying to say it was not as successful as it could have been.

[Carni]

37. Let's see..."personal" paranoia or basic common sense?

I would THINK that terrorists as I stated earlier would have wanted to get the most bang for their buck I fail to see that this would have anything to do with my "personal paranoia"

I note you are not admitting to the fact that YOU and not I posted info that was WRONG regarding the occupancy capacity in the twin towers.

[theboss]

38. You don't think they got bang for their buck?

Yeesh. 3000 dead. Two landmarks destroyed. One damaged. America humiliated.

I think the whole plan was based on which trans-continental planes could be most easily hijacked.

[Carni]

47. Bad choice of words I guess

My original point was that when everything was said and done the death count was light compared to what it could have been.

[Zynx]

39. Most successful terror strike in history isn't bang for the buck?

[Lone Pawn]

41. Oh, 9/11 wasn't "bang for the buck..."

So why did they even aim for the Pentagon if civilian casualties were the goal?

[Carni]

46. No, not compared to what it could have been

If their goal is just property destruction why are Dem Senators bothering to scream about containers coming into the country that aren't searched? Why bother--they won't want to kill anyone with radiation if they can just blow big buildings up for a spectacular presentation.

[Lone Pawn]

52. There are different attacks for different goals.

Clearly a dirty bomb is aimed at frightening an imaginitive populace rather than doing any damage--hell, in every government drill, more people are projected to die in accidents trying to escape the area than from radiation.

[DS1]

25. I'm not expert, but the President, no matter who it is, isn't

the Great Satan, the Great Satan is the apathetic people of the U.S.

[theboss]

28. No President has been subject of a terrorist attack

Therefore...by your logic...there can be no terrorism.

[Disturbed]

34. The 911 Attack had been in the planning stage...

for over two years. Who the Pres. or Admin. was did not factor in. It was a message to Amerika.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[LiberallyInclined]

43. my pet goat...

the day of the attacks, * was at a pre-announced appearance at an elementary school...one would assume that the terrorists would keep track as well as they could as to the location of their quarry-
and yet- there was no attempted car-bombing or any other attempt to attack the prez, or the school he was appearing at.
and even after they were sure that it was am attack, bush and his entourage stayed at the school for over 20 minutes, keeping all of the children in the school at in jeapordy, should an attack on the school appearance had been planned as part of the 9/11 attacks.
Unless, of course- they knew that the school would not be a target...

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[chlamor]

51. .

[lonestarnot]

57. Well this is good, but the reasoned look at events circumstantially points

to bushitler and his cronies as the MIHOP bunch.

[Liberal_Dog]

58. Let's Try This...

The 9-11 attacks were to last for a period of roughly 90 minutes or so. What was the US Military going to be doing during that time?

For the attack to be successful, the US Air Force and air defenses had to be effectively neutralized for that hour and a half.

How was Osama, from his cave in Afghanistan, able to accomplish that?