How is foreknowledge compatible with MIHOP?

[1337m4n]

I think I asked this question in another thread, but the answer I got was dodgy and vague and didn't make all that much sense. So I'll try it again in its own thread.

I know of plenty of MIHOP theorists, who constantly bring up the "fact" that the government KNEW 9/11 was coming in advance. And I was reminded of the existence of such people the last time I checked out LCF. Surely most of you know of such people as well.

So I must ask: How do foreknowledge and MIHOP fit together? The government knew al-Queada was going to attack...but then attacked itself instead?

Actually, now I remember...I think the last explanation I saw was that the warnings were faked in order to throw the CIA off the trail of the REAL perps...who were...uh...the CIA...

Okay, I don't remember. Enlighten me.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

they found out al-queda was going to attack, so they rigged the towers with explosives so they would be completely destroyed because....i dont know, the theory kinda falls apart for me there



really the answer is because truthers have so little evidence to begin with they cant afford to let anything go, they NEED the ignored warnings, they NEED squibs, they NEED pools of molten steel even though that doesnt make sense with any theory ive heard so far, and lastly, they NEED remote controlled planes with missile pods that were hijacked by isrealis then switched out for tankers before cruise missiles were fired at the towers

 

[cisco]

Everybody knows Al Qaeda is owned and operated by the CIA. Duh!

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Ron: People have said the United States Government ignored warnings. Is that a fair assessment?

Avery: That's a very fair assessment.

It's called having your cake, and eating it too.

 

[Tippit]

I think I asked this question in another thread, but the answer I got was dodgy and vague and didn't make all that much sense. So I'll try it again in its own thread.

I know of plenty of MIHOP theorists, who constantly bring up the "fact" that the government KNEW 9/11 was coming in advance. And I was reminded of the existence of such people the last time I checked out LCF. Surely most of you know of such people as well.

So I must ask: How do foreknowledge and MIHOP fit together? The government knew al-Queada was going to attack...but then attacked itself instead?

Actually, now I remember...I think the last explanation I saw was that the warnings were faked in order to throw the CIA off the trail of the REAL perps...who were...uh...the CIA...

Okay, I don't remember. Enlighten me.

The problem lies in your faulty assumption that the government functions as some sort of monolithic entity. The idea that one faction of government could have simply been negligent in its response to intelligence does not preclude nor is it mutually exclusive to the idea that another faction of government played a direct roll in the planning and execution of the crime.

It's probably likely that the CIA itself is highly factionalized and compartmentalized. Why would any intelligence agency have complete transparency?

 

[Dr Adequate]

The problem lies in your faulty assumption that the government functions as some sort of monolithic entity. The idea that one faction of government could have simply been negligent in its response to intelligence does not preclude nor is it mutually exclusive to the idea that another faction of government played a direct roll in the planning and execution of the crime.

It's probably likely that the CIA itself is highly factionalized and compartmentalized. Why would any intelligence agency have complete transparency?

I think you're missing the point.

If some people, in whatever "compartment" of the government, knew in advance that AQ was going to carry out the 9/11 attack, does that not substantially weaken the MIHOPers claim that AQ did not, in fact, carry out the attack?

 

[Max Photon]

Foreknowledge is compatible with MIHOP if and only if Al Qaeda is the CIA.

 

[aggle-rithm]

So I must ask: How do foreknowledge and MIHOP fit together? The government knew al-Queada was going to attack...but then attacked itself instead?

It doesn't have to fit together. They're just asking questions.

Ask a troofer, and he'll tell you: It's someone ELSE's job (preferably, someone with extraordinary judicial powers but with no ties to the government) to come up with a theory of what happened. It's the TROOFER's job to cast doubt and make vague accusations.

Where would we be without them?

 

[aggle-rithm]

The idea that one faction of government could have simply been negligent in its response to intelligence does not preclude nor is it mutually exclusive to the idea that another faction of government played a direct roll in the planning and execution of the crime.

But it sure sets Occam spinning in his grave.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Foreknowledge is compatible with MIHOP if and only if Al Qaeda is the CIA.

That pretty much hits the nail on the head, Max.

Now let's take that one a bit further. Let's suppose that al-Qaeda is entirely controlled by the CIA, and that therefore the generally accepted sequence of events actually occurred; the only bit missing is that OBL and KSM didn't think up the idea for the attacks themselves, but got orders from above to carry out the attacks. This is the scenario I've seen described as MIHOP-lite.

In this scenario, what possible purpose is served by any further intervention on the part of the conspirators? For example, how does the collapse of the Twin Towers make things any more effective? Take away the explosives or the thermite, in the truther world view, and the blackened skeletons of the Twin Towers are left standing for all to see, a mass grave in the sky that stand as a monument to the atrocity committed against New York and the American people. Very few of the people above the impact zone would have got out alive. The death toll would still be in the thousands. Would public opinion have been any less in favour of revenge? The only difference is to make the conspiracy easier to detect. Also, by accepting foreknowledge and MIHOP, we accept the supposition that there are elements of officialdom that are not part of the conspiracy, and hence would be unwilling to go along with it before or after the fact.

Any flavour of CD alongside MIHOP-lite simply makes no sense.

Dave

 

[Max Photon]

The collapse of the towers was deemed to have maximum psychological destructive power

That pretty much hits the nail on the head, Max.

Now let's take that one a bit further. Let's suppose that al-Qaeda is entirely controlled by the CIA, and that therefore the generally accepted sequence of events actually occurred; the only bit missing is that OBL and KSM didn't think up the idea for the attacks themselves, but got orders from above to carry out the attacks. This is the scenario I've seen described as MIHOP-lite.

In this scenario, what possible purpose is served by any further intervention on the part of the conspirators? For example, how does the collapse of the Twin Towers make things any more effective? [snip]

That's a good question.

The answer is that the spectacular, much-replayed collapse of the towers were far more shocking than the mere notion of many dead people.

The collapse of the towers was judged to create the maximum damage to peoples' sense of terra firma, or security, far more than just reports of dead people in charred towers.

It was the much-replayed collapse of the towers that created the emotional spike necessary to manufacture consent to invade other countries.

Max

 

[stateofgrace]

That's a good question.

The answer is that the spectacular, much-replayed collapse of the towers were far more shocking than the mere notion of many dead people.

The collapse of the towers was judged to create the maximum damage to peoples' sense of terra firma, or security, far more than just reports of dead people in charred towers.

It was the much-replayed collapse of the towers that created the emotional spike necessary to manufacture consent to invade other countries.

Max

Oh I see, so what about the Pentagon and Flight 93 ? I guess there were irrelevant eh?

If the intention was to manufacture consent to invade other countries why go into Iraq? Why not blame Iraq? Why say Iraq had WMD’s?

Why oh why would a Government who is capable of supreme evil even be bothered about manufactured consent? Why not just do it anyway? Why give a crap a public opinion?

Equally so why as the consent now fallen away? Why don't the nasty evil Government do something about it? Why is the war inside Iraq so unpopular? Why do they NOT keep manufacturing public consent?

 

[JimBenArm]

Mere notion of many dead people? Mere notion? Are you really that unfeeling and callous?
Does the fact that these "mere notions" had family and friends mean anything to you? Oh, that's right, the only thing that's important is the pushing of your stupid, impossible thermite garbage. The real people are only an inconvienience to you.
How pathetic.

 

[cisco]

It doesn't have to fit together. They're just asking questions.

Ask a troofer, and he'll tell you: It's someone ELSE's job (preferably, someone with extraordinary judicial powers but with no ties to the government) to come up with a theory of what happened. It's the TROOFER's job to cast doubt and make vague accusations.

Where would we be without them?

They're captious.

I just learned that word yesterday while reading the dictionary. I foresee many opportunities to use it in conversations with and about troothers .

 

[Dave Rogers]

That's a good question.

The answer is that the spectacular, much-replayed collapse of the towers were far more shocking than the mere notion of many dead people.

The collapse of the towers was judged to create the maximum damage to peoples' sense of terra firma, or security, far more than just reports of dead people in charred towers.

It was the much-replayed collapse of the towers that created the emotional spike necessary to manufacture consent to invade other countries.

Max

OK, let's look into the alternate universe MAX-MIHOP theory and see how that plays.

The answer is that the enduring, impossible-to-ignore spectacle of the burnt-out towers was far more shocking than the TV replays of a collapse.

The spectacle of the towers was judged to create the maximum continuing damage to peoples' sense of terra firma, or security, far more than TV re-runs and a quickly-removed pile of rubble.

It was the continued visibility of the burnt-out towers that sustained the initial emotional spike long enough to manufacture consent to invade other countries.

Looks just as good to me.

Dave

 

[defaultdotxbe]

That's a good question.

The answer is that the spectacular, much-replayed collapse of the towers were far more shocking than the mere notion of many dead people.

The collapse of the towers was judged to create the maximum damage to peoples' sense of terra firma, or security, far more than just reports of dead people in charred towers.

It was the much-replayed collapse of the towers that created the emotional spike necessary to manufacture consent to invade other countries.

Max

how did the evildoers figure out that the collapse was necessary to the emotional response? did they conduct focus groups?

 

[Mince]

How is foreknowledge compatible with any kind of culpability? If I tell you I'm going to kill you, and I don't mind dying myself, how are you going to stop me. If, despite my warning and your efforts (if any), I still kill you, is it necessarily, partially, your fault? It's not like Al Queda sent the administration a memo:

On September 11th, 2001, sometime in the early morning, we are going to hijack 4 American aircraft (see attachment for carriers and flight numbers) and crash them into various American buildings including both World Trade Centers and the Pentagon. The operatives for this project have been in your country for quite a while and have been performing flight training.

Attachment:

American Airlines flight 77
United Airlines flight 93
American Airlines flight 11
United Airlines flight 175

What the hell constitutes foreknowledge? Bin Laden saying he's going to kill Americans?

 

[MikeW]

It was the continued visibility of the burnt-out towers that sustained the initial emotional spike long enough to manufacture consent to invade other countries.

Looks just as good to me.

Especially with (al Qaeda spokesman) Suleiman Abu Ghaith saying this a month after the attacks:

Finally, I address the US secretary of state, who cast doubt about my previous statement and downplayed what we said that there are thousands of Muslim youths who are eager to die and that the aircraft storm will not stop, God willing.

"Powell, and others in the US administration, know that if al-Qaeda organisation promises or threatens, it fulfils its promise or threat, God willing.

"Therefore, we tell him tomorrow is not far for he who waits for it. What will happen is what you are going to see and not what you hear.

"And the storms will not calm, especially the aircraft storm...

We also say and advise the Muslims in the United States and Britain, the children, and those who reject the unjust US policy not to travel by plane.

We also advise them not to live in high-rise buildings and towers...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/middle_east/1598146.stm

So there's been an unprecedented attack, hundreds of died, and al Qaeda are threatening to carry out more of the same. Is anyone really saying that if the towers didn't collapse then Bush couldn't have followed the exact same path?

 

[pomeroo]

Ron: People have said the United States Government ignored warnings. Is that a fair assessment?

Avery: That's a very fair assessment.

It's called having your cake, and eating it too.

Thank you for calling attention to this exchange. During my first foray into televised debunking, I asked Les Jamieson why he thought John Ashcroft was not part of the Impossibly vast Conspiracy. He looked bewildered. I explained that he makes a point of claiming that Ashcroft stopped flying commercial flights (untrue, of course) so, clearly, Ashcroft was afraid of something. Had he been in the loop, he would have had nothing to fear. He would have known exactly what flights to avoid. Duh.

One of the great weaknesses of the fantasy movement is that its members demand that every single one of their factoids be true despite the mutually-exclusive nature of some of them. The same set of people who blast Bush for not shooting commercial airliners over NYC blast him for shooting down Flight 93 in rural Pennsylvania. They see no problems in their "analysis."

 

[pomeroo]

Mere notion of many dead people? Mere notion? Are you really that unfeeling and callous?
Does the fact that these "mere notions" had family and friends mean anything to you? Oh, that's right, the only thing that's important is the pushing of your stupid, impossible thermite garbage. The real people are only an inconvienience to you.
How pathetic.

It is inconceivable that there can exist moral idiots of such obtuseness that they can seriously suggest that the murders of three thousand civilians might not provide a casus belli.