• 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

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

I'm just saying maybe someday we could know, one way or the other, how hard is this to understand? You're making this sound like it's an absolute unknown. I disagree, nothing is unknowable, especially human affairs.

But enlighten us: How will you be able to get those facts without
using Woo?
Click to expand...

Through serious investigation.
 
Oliver said:
I disagree - only one department had to ignore a threat and
refuse to notify other agencies in case of LIHOP.
Click to expand...


Because no other department would ever investigate a lead on its own initiative would they?

At the absolute minimum, to ensure success, the CIA, FBI, NSA and Defense Intelligence would all have to be in on it. Given that any Americans involved would be committing treason, they absolutely could not risk someone from another department picking it up.



Oliver said:
And for what reason are names within the congressional inquiry
blackened anyway?
Click to expand...

To protect their identity.



Oliver said:
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:
Click to expand...

Well frankly I'm glad you have absolutely nothing to do with any country's national security. National Security is not a slug line for a political PR campaign. When national security is breached people die.

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
Because no other department would ever investigate a lead on its own initiative would they?

At the absolute minimum, to ensure success, the CIA, FBI, NSA and Defense Intelligence would all have to be in on it. Given that any Americans involved would be committing treason, they absolutely could not risk someone from another department picking it up.

To protect their identity.

Well frankly I'm glad you have absolutely nothing to do with any country's national security. National Security is not a slug line for a political PR campaign. When national security is breached people die.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...


Depends on who is investigating what. There is a reason
why there is a NSA and a CIA. They have different tasks,
you know? So it is indeed possible that one agency knows
more than the other.

And we know that the Iraq War was planned long before
9/11. Nothing new here.

So LIHOP isn't provable. And it really doesn't matter what
you or the Truthers believe. Both sides are "groping in the dark".

These are the facts.
 
gumboot said:
I believe the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for LIHOP.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...


Wrong - the burden of proof is on evidence, not:

1. The burden of proof is on the person who claims LIHOP
2. The burden of proof is on the person who claims "OCT"

Both are wrong.

The burden of proof was on the 9/11 commission report
and the congressional inquiry. Both failed to answer this
question. Didn't they?
 
Oliver said:
Depends on who is investigating what. There is a reason
why there is a NSA and a CIA. They have different tasks,
you know? So it is indeed possible that one agency knows
more than the other.
Click to expand...

Of course, but what is guaranteed is that ALL the departments I mentioned are actively looking for evidence of terrorist attacks. The NSA is your signals intelligence. You need them in on it, otherwise they're going to pick up communications that implicate you in the plot. Remember that reference to "the system blinking red"? Most of that would have been communications chatter picked up by the NSA.

The FBI is doing domestic counter-terrorism. The August 2001 PDB indicates there were at least fifty FBI investigations throughout the USA specifically looking into Al Qaeda. If you're the CIA and you're committing treason you CANNOT risk one of those fifty teams finding out.

See the problem Oliver? They're interlinked. The final problem with LIHOP is that LIHOP only makes sense if it's of benefit. But the people actually doing the LIHOP are not people like George Bush or Dick Cheney. LIHOP happens at the sharp end of the stick. CIA field agents. FBI special agents. NSA analysts. THEY are the only people who could "let" something like 9/11 happen. And there's simply no reason for them to do so. Especially not given the very high risk of being caught at facing the electric chair.

-Gumboot
 
Oliver said:
Wrong - the burden of proof is on evidence, not:

1. The burden of proof is on the person who claims LIHOP
2. The burden of proof is on the person who claims "OCT"

Both are wrong.

The burden of proof was on the 9/11 commission report
and the congressional inquiry. Both failed to answer this
question. Didn't they?
Click to expand...


Oliver, you're assuming the commission is knowingly withholding the evidence for LIHOP.

You have no proof for that assumption.

ETA: and you're working backwards from that assumption to claim that we will never know, since the commission is withholding this said information.

Do you understand your circular logic here?
 
Caustic:

The others are right, it was brave of you to so openly admit to the faults in your site and its work. Also brave to so openly offer it up for criticism. I hope the trend continues (and I think it will) and you are equally as open to having your evidence corrected, or called out as bogus or unreliable as it may (or may not) happen.

TAM:)
 
Oliver said:
Wrong - the burden of proof is on evidence, not:

1. The burden of proof is on the person who claims LIHOP
2. The burden of proof is on the person who claims "OCT"

Both are wrong.

The burden of proof was on the 9/11 commission report
and the congressional inquiry. Both failed to answer this
question. Didn't they?
Click to expand...


I had to stundie this...

-Gumboot
 
Oliver:

LIHOP cannot be proven or disproven completely, of course, but LIHOP, as a probability, can be shown to be HIGHLY UNLIKELY.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
Oliver:

LIHOP cannot be proven or disproven completely, of course, but LIHOP, as a probability, can be shown to be HIGHLY UNLIKELY.

TAM:)
Click to expand...


And I would agree - if they wouldn't have classified 28 pages
within the "congressional inquiry about the 9/11 attacks".

We don't know what's within this text - so it doesn't matter
what is likely or not - since likeliness is something for Woo's,
not for skeptical people.
 
Caustic:

Your most recent post on your site...I enjoyed it...well written, articulate.

You are right, the attacks did drive the USA into patriotism, it drive them to war, but that is EXACTLY what OBL and Al-Qaeda wanted. They wanted the war of all wars, Islam versus the infidels. OBL has said this himself.

So in fact, it panned out exactly as OBL wanted (in terms of the USA response, not his ending up going from cave to cave).

TAM:)
 
Oliver said:
And I would agree - if they wouldn't have classified 28 pages
within the "congressional inquiry about the 9/11 attacks".

We don't know what's within this text - so it doesn't matter
what is likely or not - since likeliness is something for Woo's,
not for skeptical people.
Click to expand...

It is classified for a reason, why would you assume it is evidence of LIHOP, rather that names, people, information that is either of national security concerns, or "covering their asses" issues.

TAM:)
 
As for the "Saudi/Pakistan" connection, I have no doubt that both countries have their hands dirty wrt 9/11, at some level of govt. I do not think in either case it was to the level of govt sponsored terror (ie given the blessing of the govt and its leaders), but I think both regimes had people who were secretly supporting Al-Qaeda.

TAM:)
 
Oliver said:
And I would agree - if they wouldn't have classified 28 pages within the "congressional inquiry about the 9/11 attacks".
Click to expand...

There could be incriminating evidence for LIHOP in these pages, and there could be absolutely nothing relevant to LIHOP in there too.

And you're assuming this commission is the only way to find out. If the evidence is out there, someone can find it, someday, by some other means.
 
T.A.M. said:
It is classified for a reason, why would you assume it is evidence of LIHOP, rather that names, people, information that is either of national security concerns, or "covering their asses" issues.

TAM:)
Click to expand...


I wouldn't have any problems if something is a "national security"-Issue.
The problem with the current Administration is: "Oh, that's inconvenient
for us, let's make it a "national security issue" to get it off the public table".

That's how they play this game all the time. And even if I don't understand
how this is possible - I completely understand that you cannot trust these
guys.

I have no idea why a blow-job is being persecuted while the Reps can
make whatever they want. Where is the balance in that? :confused:
 
We all know your mistrust in the Bush administration, but it is not proof in and of itself for LIHOP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom