Openmindedness on the subject of 9/11.

[mhatrw]

If you don't like any of the choices, please feel free to make up your own in your response.

[mhatrw]

1. Oh, please participate, OCT defenders!

Just how open minded are you?

[MervinFerd]

4. O' please don't.

This is like participating in a newspaper poll on Scientific Creationism. Playing the game just gives the horseshit a bit of shine.

[mhatrw]

5. What an open minded comment!

Please vote for choice 5.

[wildbilln864]

2. good poll question...

thanks for posting!

[salvorhardin]

3. Open minds...

"Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid." — G.K. Chesterton

"Credophile: A person who gets pleasure from belief and pain from doubt. Once having embraced a belief, it takes something more than mere disproof to make him let go." — L. Sprague DeCamp

[mhatrw]

6. More ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

[petgoat]

7. You missed LIHOP.

LIHOP is pretty inescapable, IMHO, though I could be wrong and it might just be
negligence, and it very well could be MIHOP through and through.

[greyl]

8. LIHOP & MIHOP are degrees of Inside Job, aren't they? nt

[petgoat]

9. I see an inside job as one planned and carried out by the

insiders, either alone or in collusion with a group of outsiders,
or in opportunistic deliberate coincidence with action by a
group of outsiders.

An embezzlement by an employee, or a robbery or burglary staged
with the cooperation of an employee I would see as inside jobs.
Sander Hicks's "Big Wedding" thesis, that the Bushcists knew the
attacks were coming and decided to improve them by blowing up
the towers, would also be an inside job incorporating LIHOP
elements.

But LIHOP also includes unimproved attacks by outsiders.
It's entirely possible that the Bushcists knew the hijackings
were coming, but assumed they would be conventional hijackings
and assumed they could respond heroically, and they were
completely blindsided by the ferocity of the attacks. It's
possible that the towers and building 7 were blown up by al
Qaeda and 93 was blown up by its hijackers and these facts
are being covered up to protect the security people responsible.

[greyl]

10. If Al Qaeda blew up the towers, why would they cover it up? nt

[petgoat]

11. They wouldn't. The government would cover it up because

revealing that fact would embarrass Marvin Bush's security
company. It would also weaken the case for war, since
part of the blame for the towers' destruction would then
be shared by the Kuwait-American Corporation.

[greyl]

13. "The government" is suppressing Al Qaeda's statements of responsibility

for demolishing the towers with bombs? Okayyyy. You really think that's a reasonable possibility?

[petgoat]

14. There are no al Qaeda statements of responsibility for

demolishing the towers with bombs, so that's not a reasonable possibility.

[greyl]

15. Your claim in post #11

means that it if Al Qaeda bombed the towers, it's probable that the Gov is covering up the Al Qaeda admissions of responsibility.

Now, it's not a reasonable possibility?

[petgoat]

19. Where do you get the idea that al Qaeda is claiming they

bombed the towers? And how can the government cover
up their claims if they want to make them?

[greyl]

20. It was your idea in post #11 nt

[petgoat]

21. Oh, I see where you're coming from.

My view was that al Qaeda was not in a position to cover up any
bombings, because they could not order the steel destroyed or
the evidence suppressed or the investigations hampered.

Why would they not take credit for a bombing?

1. They might want to do another elevator shaft bombing in the future,
and putting the world on notice as to their modus operandi would not
be smart.

2. It gives them blackmail material with the Kuwait American Corp
and George Bush. Maybe that's how they got the Americans to let
Osama go at Tora Bora--threatened to reveal that they blew up the
towers and building 7.

3. Leaving the impression that the planes brought the towers down
increases the perceived threat of aircraft as weapons. "Beware
of those ubiquitous objects that fly over every ten minutes" is
a more effective worldwide terror message than is "Beware of swarthy
men messing around in elevator shafts after midnight."

4. If al Qaeda is in partnership with the Bushcists on this, revealing
the bombing would then hurt their partners.

[greyl]

22. Wouldn't studying marine life be more rewarding for you? nt

[petgoat]

28. You want me to sleep with the fishes?

Studying marine life doesn't pay much.

[greyl]

29. Har, no, no. It's just that

I occasionally think time spent analyzing these conspiracy theories could be utilized more fruitfully. Marine life is an endlessly fascinating, mind blowing subject. I wasn't talking career choice, only self-guided exploration.

[petgoat]

30. After the crisis of the hijacking of the world's only superpower by

a criminal regime is dealt with, fascinating marine life will still
be there, we hope.

[LARED]

16. LIHOP is Criminal Negligence (n/t)

[KJF]

12. I picked the first option

"I'm leaning inside job, but I'm willing to consider a cover up of criminal negligence"

We'll see how it comes out. Even if it is an "inside job", it doesn't mean Cheney, say, has to be involved.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

17. I actually thought it was LIHOP at one point

I didn't think anyone could be that incompetent and I felt that the motive was there because the GOP had gained so much politically from the tragedy. As one examined the actual practicalities I realised that LIHOP/MIHOP were unlikely and my previous description of complex relationships between personalities was flawed. I also found that I had heavily underestimated humanity's capacity for incompetence and laziness. I find the general "proof" the 9/11 Truth Movement presents for MIHOP to be terribly unconvincing and sub-empirical. Am I open-minded? Yes I am, but unless there is some huge evidence that blows the whole case wide-open to the satisfactory of various technical experts then I consider it unlikely to be returning to a LIHOP belief or a MIHOP one.

One should note that if one ever says "Nothing will ever convince me that.." when approaching a particular field, then one has non-viable epistemological foundation.

[petgoat]

18. When you're dealing with black ops, government coverups,

and media intimidation, lack of evidence is to be expected.

However, the act of suppressing and destroying evidence is itself
evidence.

[mogster]

23. I've had just the opposite pattern

At first, incompetence. Of course, no one can watch Bush in action without - at least - considering that. I remember seeing a 911-site in 2002 back at home in Norw., and my reaction was a sneer. Hah! Then I started to hang out at various US boards, and didn't look too closely at 911 because there was so much else to get into. There was all sorts of 911-activists around all the time, getting all kind of feedback on their posts, I guess. I wasn't too interested until this summer, when I 'revisited' that day in pictures and also watched a number of movies about 911. Anyho what one believes, that sure was a horrible day! Now, there's a slow trickle of data that doesn't add up. Add logic; how one would expect people to react in a crisis like that, especially government people trained to do exactly the things they didn't do. Then too much too fast; the case was made only days after the attacks. Add the enormous secrecy surrounding the investigation, the incomplete 911-report, various rw groups fighting like heroes to release videos that doesn't show anything.. too much to explain away.
I just want the investigation reopened and all evidence found being made public at once, for all people to see.

[greyl]

24. Under what circumstances would you trust the investigation?

Please be as thorough and specific as possible.

[mogster]

31. Oh, any investigation satisfying the US 911-movement

Would also satisfy me. It would be open and including, for sure.

But how about you, greyl? Where do you stand on this issue?
Do you want the 911 reopened and re-investigated, or are you satisfied with what we've been told?

[wildbilln864]

25. there was no...

investigation!

[wildbilln864]

26. I repeat!

There was NO investigation! There was only a whitewash!

[greyl]

27. Your reply is erroneous. nt