Debunk-a-LIHOP

[yodaluver28]

I agree, 93 may of been shot down if it had made it closer to DC. That team of terrorist were the weak ones, I think.

Flight 93 was also the flight that only had four hijackers instead of five.

 

[gumboot]

Gumboot, you are the author of the piece most of the people here are considering THE source of debunking the mem that the american military miserably failed in responding to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. I think your cop-out isn't appreciated by most of the reading audience.

All my "piece" is, is a collation of evidence from various sources. It's a far cry from the work of some others here, notably on the matter of the WTC collapse, who are producing original work in their areas of expertise.

Anyone could have collated the material I did. It just happened to be me. Personally I value my photographic-interpretation related work much more because it's my field of expertise.

-Gumboot

 

[beachnut]

Gumboot, you are the author of the piece most of the people here are considering THE source of debunking the mem that the american military miserably failed in responding to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. I think your cop-out isn't appreciated by most of the reading audience.

@Oliver:

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

What failure. Why are you wrong on this one. There was no way to stop the WTC from being hit.

[bs on] the military let 77 hit the Pentagon, no one in the mil likes the Pentagon anyway [bs off]

The Pentagon was a stupid target. The Pentagon was much stronger target and would not trap as many people as in the WTC. Stupid target.

No one knew we had a terrorist attack until the second impact, oh not too good on this topic person. Explain how you can shoot down terrorist planes before you know what they are going to do? Hello, earth to CE, why are you so challenged on this single topic?

I knew the first plane was on purpose after I saw the big hole. I am a pilot and know on purpose on a clear day was most likely. I knew UBL was behind it when I saw the second plane hit. (behind it, means he knew and helped)

I think most of the military would speak up if we thought we should have shot down any of the planes. I think we may of got 93 if it was found in time approaching DC or a big town. But the passengers took care of the terrorist on 93, and that was the amount of time, the time 93 passengers acted at, it takes to figure out 9/11. Too bad you are unable to figure out 9/11 still, passengers on flight 93 figured it out in minutes, you may take years! Funny stuff when you think about it. So why are you truth people so unable to find facts to support you own lies and false information. Flight 93 passengers did it much faster than any truther.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Well, you seem to think that i think there is anything positive about being a pilot for the american military. Far from that, i think that any people who signed up for the military since Hiroshima are either insane or only into personal wealth.

Edited by prewitt81: 

Incivility removed.

 

[gumboot]

Well, you seem to think that i think there is anything positive about being a pilot for the american military. Far from that, i think that any people who signed up for the military since hiroshima are either insane or only into personal wealth.

Edited by prewitt81: 

Incivility removed.

You realise this is a personal attack? The insane comment, I get. The personal wealth one? I don't at all. Do you have any idea how little military personnel get paid?

-Gumboot

 

[Childlike Empress]

...

 

[332nd]

Well, you seem to think that i think there is anything positive about being a pilot for the american military. Far from that, i think that any people who signed up for the military since Hiroshima are either insane or only into personal wealth.

Edited by prewitt81: 

Incivility removed.

BWAAAAAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA!

 

[Childlike Empress]

I retract post #144. It wasn't meant to be submitted, it was a thought experiment. I know that for example Bowman would fit the former category and branding beachnut as insane isn't appropriate. Sorry - and good night.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Initial responses

Caustic, this a very brave step you took! Good for you.

I suck at remembering facts and details, but if you need this thread to be derailed, give me a call!

---
Thanks! You guys aren't all bad. But I take the bravery accusation as a sign I’m in for an ass-whooping. Courage hadn’t entered my mind; I just hadn’t been able to justify the time for follow-up, and still can’t, but too late now.
---

Problem is: You cannot debunk "LIHOP". All necessary files somehow
turned into "National Security".

And especially honest Skeptics should accept this as well:
"We do not know - so we can't prove or disprove it".

---
True enough, but then absolute proof of much anything is hard to get. Here I’m asking people to try and debunk “A” LIHOP construction. Actually the only evidence I needed to suspect LIHOP strongly was the TV news coverage coverage that morning, and I never expected to see much evidence. But clues did surface, or sure seemed to, and it’s from these I made my supporting case, here on trial (with results considered non-binding from my end).
---

Hi Caustic Logic,

Good on you for stepping up. I hope you are open to learning - it's a skill the Conspiracy Theorists who push no-plane and similar theories have never learned.

Of course, but it’ll take more than the standard PopMech book learnin’.

Osama Bin Laden has often said that it was the Battle of Mogadishu that convinced him he could drive the US out of the Middle East by attacking the homeland.
[…] to the American people, 18 dead soldiers (some being dragged through the streets on CNN) was too much to stomach, and the USA left Somalia. Bin Laden assumed, if 18 dead soldiers could make the mighty USA turn tail and run, imagine what thousands of dead civilians would do.

Rebuttal: In Somalia, we got our hand bit – but it was extended, so there was the option to simply pull back. Yes, it was taken as a sign of weakness. Then the Embassy bombings, the USS Cole… So al Qaeda learned what? Hit us in the chest, hard, and expect us to pull back to where? Once we’re attacked at home and can’t even feel safe there, all that’s left is to lash out and stop the enemy cold. We pulled out of nowhere as a result, quite the opposite in fact. If this was a bin Laden/whoever plan, IMO they had to have anticipated this, which brings me to TAM’s point (skipping a few, will come back):

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[/QUOTE]

Thanks!
I think this had to be the plans of whoever did the plans. It's possible they simply miscalculated, but c'mon... Perhaps al Qaeda wanted it, but 'we' played right into their hands if so because it's also clear the attack fit right in with what certain elements in power already wanted and, it seems, were planning for. That's the whole motive thing - if AQ wanted it, PNAC wanted it more. A sinsiter symbiosis.

BTW the post dates on these aren't accurate - I just rotate certain ones to the top. That one didn't really address TAM's interpretation, even thought it occurred to me later.

 

[prewitt81]

Let's get the topic back on track and away from personal attacks, please.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: prewitt81

 

[LashL]

I retract post #144. It wasn't meant to be submitted, it was a thought experiment. I know that for example Bowman would fit the former category and branding beachnut as insane isn't appropriate. Sorry - and good night.

My former post #149 (since deleted) was also a "thought experiment".

Thesis proven, just as I thought it would be. Gee, imagine that.

 

[beachnut]

Well, you seem to think that i think there is anything positive about being a pilot for the american military. Far from that, i think that any people who signed up for the military since Hiroshima are either insane or only into personal wealth. In that regard judging you by your posts you are clearly insane, nothing else.

Does this mean Bowman is out on your list of experts for 9/11, because he fits your ticket post better than I. Sorry Bob, but your babbling BS about 9/11 is insane.

Too bad this is not a thread about war. Not sure what the wealth or you weak nuke joke are about. Too bad.

But I am not the one defending the false information of 9/11 truth. Just you and Bob.

 

[beachnut]

---
True enough, but then absolute proof of much anything is hard to get. Here I’m asking people to try and debunk “A” LIHOP construction. Actually the only evidence I needed to suspect LIHOP strongly was the TV news coverage coverage that morning, and I never expected to see much evidence. But clues did surface, or sure seemed to, and it’s from these I made my supporting case, here on trial (with results considered non-binding from my end).
---

Thanks!
I think this had to be the plans of whoever did the plans. It's possible they simply miscalculated, but c'mon... Perhaps al Qaeda wwated it, but 'we' played right into their hands if so because it's also clear the attack fit right in with what certain elements in power already wanted and, it seems, were planning for. That's the whole motive thing - if AQ wanted it, PNAC wanted it more. A sinsiter symbiosis.

BTW the post dates on these aren't accurate - I just rotate certain ones to the top. That one didn't really address TAM's interpretation, even thought it occurred to me later.

UBL took credit, why not wake up and use real facts to support your conclusions.

PNAC, was not. Please come up with proof about PNAC, you must of missed the threads about PNAC. PNAC is an old worn out smoking gun that is not.

Evidence from the day of the attacks. OMG, here comes the Dan Rather junk. Why are people so easy to be fooled by 9/11 truth. What a bunch of junk.

PNAC stuff? Too bad you have no facts or evidence. Good luck.

 

[Caustic Logic]

There is incompetence in every field. As you know when a new president takes over there is not a new NSA, CIA, FBI, Military, ETC. I served for 28 years in the USAF, we did not stop working for any president due to politics, nor did I get new bosses due to their politics. You can blame the administration and the administration will blame the previous administration, but the buck stops with us.

So how can an incompetent administration get reelected after 9/11? Why, because it was not the administration that failed. If you blame the administration you have to blame the entire government, and then all the people who work in the government, and I was in the Air Force so it was my fault for obeying the stand down order, that was never given.

Okay, sorry, I have to address a couple of points:

Stand-down: I for one have never believed in or argued for a stand-down order. The failures of that morning being just accidental and nattural is quite plausible. BUT that it happened to fit so well with the new governmnt's existing plans, and that the attack was able to fly right through everything indicates to me a disturbing possibility - not even too remote or distant. I'm far from 100% on the air defense issues, esp. knowing so little myself in general.

It must be stated that if a LIHOP scenario were true, the Air Force was only the final barrier and given only minutes of heads-up and nothing much else. I've never faulted the pilots or commanders or, for that matter anyone in particuar (even with the people I have to name I at least address that they were just shuffled in and not active). The disturbing patterns I've found - and perhaps all wrong - have to do with the empowerment of the air defenses - their being sent the wrong way, their information, their authorization to fire (probably not needed, as you say and as I'd hope, but stilll...), etc... The very question of how it got to that point is a whole other and deeper issue.

But I love Monday Morning Quarterbacking, doesn't everyone?

When the stakes are this high, any call should be questioned on any day of the week IMO. Maybe the questions are totally off, but until I'm convinced...

 

[gumboot]

---
Thanks! You guys aren't all bad. But I take the bravery accusation as a sign I’m in for an ass-whooping. Courage hadn’t entered my mind; I just hadn’t been able to justify the time for follow-up, and still can’t, but too late now.

Thus far you've demonstrated a clear ability to engage in logical reasoned debate. Keep this up and you'll have no problems.

I think this had to be the plans of whoever did the plans. It's possible they simply miscalculated, but c'mon... Perhaps al Qaeda wanted it, but 'we' played right into their hands if so because it's also clear the attack fit right in with what certain elements in power already wanted and, it seems, were planning for. That's the whole motive thing - if AQ wanted it, PNAC wanted it more. A sinsiter symbiosis.

The only issue I wanted to raise from your post was this. I don't know if you have read PNAC, but a protracted counter-insurgency ground war in the Middle East is precisely what PNAC was trying to avoid. Now they have two.

Worth thinking about.

-Gumboot

 

[Caustic Logic]

To get back onto the topic, which is Caustic Logic's LIHOP blog, I noticed this in the most recent post:

Isn't that more of a MIHOP argument than a LIHOP one? I agree with Gumboot that Osama was hoping that the reaction would be similar to Mogadishu.

Interesting blog, Caustic; thanks for posting the link.

Not necessarily, but it can tend to lead that way. The blog was written from a LIHOP/MIHOP fence-sitter position, tho I lean more towards LIHOP these days. This would then bring al Qaeda's alliegances (at the top anyway) into question. They seem to have wanted about what 'our guys' wanted, what's now become World War IV in some estimates.

Sorry all, the rest will have to wait till tomorrow pm.

 

[gumboot]

Not necessarily, but it can tend to lead that way. The blog was written from a LIHOP/MIHOP fence-sitter position, tho I lean more towards LIHOP these days. This would then bring al Qaeda's alliegances (at the top anyway) into question. They seem to have wanted about what 'our guys' wanted, what's now become World War IV in some estimates.

Sorry all, the rest will have to wait till tomorrow pm.

Osama Bin Laden wants a Sharia Islamic state established which stretches from Spain to Indonesia. I don't think that's what PNAC wants.

-Gumboot

 

[ref]

Robert Bowman is a member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

That's enough to make him a full blown MIHOP theorist.

In his video presentations he presents clips of Loose Change, with the Pull It -comment, Silverstein insurance fraud and all that. Then he suddenly cops out by saying, I'm not sure the case is proven, but between the lines you can see he believes that way.

See this Bowman WTC 7 clip:

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

 

[OldSchool]

http://they-let-it-happen.blogspot.com/

This is the type of website which I most enjoy. There isn't anyway to debunk it. Whether or not the 911 plot of was really a conspiracy or they actually just let it happen the end result is the same, "Billions in government contracts". It amazes me how millions of Americans can be fooled that this is a war on Terror. This war is no more than a war based upon the all mighty dollar.

 

[OldSchool]

I spent 28 years in the Air Force. I am afraid you would be better at NORAD stuff than I, and I doubt CE can figure out the change made does not impact 9/11. In fact, it I have look up stuff to be sure you do not have to waste time and correct me.

Bowman? What a fool. When I see someone who believes Bowman, I know they are full of false information, as you say it; You use facts to make your conclusions. Who knows what Bowman uses, it is not facts.

"You can't handle the truth"

That's why they give CIA editors black magic markers.