Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What is your HOP level? (Rate your degree of 9/11 skepticism)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 11:15 AM
Original message
What is your HOP level? (Rate your degree of 9/11 skepticism)
To celebrate 5000 posts (do I need a life?), I am reposting this old article to make the point that the most important debate is not that between debunkers and speculators.

I contend that everyone from Option 3 up is a 9/11 skeptic, and that 9/11 skeptics have a common interest in uniting to demand without compromise full disclosure, accountability and justice, given the impact of 9/11 as a crime in itself and even more so as a triggering event. This is also the way likeliest to settle the question of what really happened on September 11th. Speculation may be right, and it's even vital to pursue it academically in alliance with empirical study of the available evidence, but it's also cheap. Only a political alliance can pierce the veil and the mental hold of the cover-up.

But this is also a parlor game: Where do you place yourself on this scale? (In doing so, please note the "Note on Demolitions" following Option 7.) Sorry if this is long but I value precision over the easy undefined slogans that people often like to adopt.

From http://summeroftruth.org/lihopmihopnohop.html

WHAT IS YOUR "HOP" LEVEL?
TEN SCENARIOS OF WHAT MAY HAVE HAPPENED ON SEPTEMBER 11th, 2001
By Nicholas Levis

(Original April 1, 2004 - revised May 2006)

Of the attempts to categorize 9/11 theories I've seen, some beg questions or unfairly characterize what people think. Most are simply vague in their terms. I have tried to do better with the following list of nine graduated options, which I believe fairly describe the differing opinions people actually have (short of those who believe in divine or extraterrestrial intervention). This remains a mental exercise, but I hope it helps sharpen our logic.

1 THE OFFICIAL STORY

Nineteen hijackers planned 9/11 and carried it out using knives and mace to hijack the flights, without requiring any help from outside the Bin Ladin/al-Qaeda terror-cell networks. Despite the indirect warnings and predictions from investigators and counterterrorism experts, the U.S. government prior to Sept. 11th did not acquire or synthesize any intelligence useful enough to prevent the attacks. In fact, it makes sense that the attacks were not prevented, since the terrorists took advantage of our free society and weaknesses in the system. In other words, the opposition should stop trying to use 9/11 against Bush or anyone else. 9/11 skeptics merely discredit themselves.

2 INCOMPETENCE THEORY

Accepting the official story, this option adds the likelihood that the failures to prevent or defend against 9/11 were due to incompetence, or even criminal negligence on the part of the White House, FBI, CIA, NSA and/or other intelligence and law enforcement agencies. It is unthinkable that US government operatives intended to allow the attacks, or would have consciously failed to act on specific foreknowledge. Those who suggest this are either crazy or outrageously beyond the pale. Nevertheless 9/11 is still worth investigating to clear up where the failures lie, especially so that the government can provide better protection in the future and wage a more effective War on Terrorism.

This was the tacit line of the Kean Commission, although The 9/11 Commission Report found failures only at the middle and lower levels of civilian agencies like the FBI and FAA. During their tenure, the commissioners repeatedly emphasized that they were not looking to assign blame. Wesley Clark, Carolyn Maloney and a few other Democratic Party politicians have voiced a more controversial variant of this hypothesis, suggesting that the failures were at a high level and ultimately lead back to Bush and his incompetent leadership. This approach is usually coupled with an emphatic promotion of the "War on Terrorism," calls for stricter "Homeland Security," and a tactical critique of the Iraq war as a distraction from the real mission of destroying al-Qaeda.

3 SAUDI DOUBLE CROSS, BUSH APATHY

As in choice 1, the U.S. was blindsided. But a far greater and more active role than until now admitted was played by influential Saudi fundamentalists, at least in financing and lending support to al-Qaeda. The Bushies don't want that to get out, because it will make them look bad given their long history of doing personal business with Arab oil interests. That is why Bush and Co. obstructed the 9/11 inquiries, and the administration may have also called off FBI terror investigations prior to Sept. 11 as a favor to their Saudi clients. Although they may have recklessly facilitated the attacks, the Bushies would have acted to prevent them - that is, if they had been smart enough to figure out what was coming in advance.

This is more or less the view of Greg Palast in his book, "The Best Government Money Can Buy," and of Michael Moore in the film "Fahrenheit 9/11." It is also the underlying philosophy of the lawsuits brought against Saudi interests by lawyers representing September 11th families. Senator Bob Graham, who co-directed the congressional 9/11 investigation of 2002, has since identified Saudi Arabia as home to the financial interests supporting al-Qaeda; although he has steadfastly failed to mention the far more explosive Pakistani connection.

VARIANT 3a: TALIBAN DOUBLE-CROSS, PAKISTANI CONNECTION

In early 2001, Bush & Co. looked away from the possibility of a terrorist attack, lowered the intensity of Bin Laden investigations, and sent aid to Afghanistan. All this was done to facilitate back-channel diplomacy with the Taliban. But when the Taliban refused to accept a unity government and a pipeline deal, the US told them that they had a choice between "a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs." Al-Qaeda ended up striking the United States just before Bush would have struck at the Taliban. This is the line of Dasquie and Brisard's best-selling book, "The Forbidden Truth."

Many researchers, such as Paul Thompson of the Complete 9/11 Timeline, focus more closely on the role of the Pakistani military and in particular the intelligence agency ISI, which fathered the Taliban in the 1990s and until 2001 maintained close ties to al-Qaeda as well as to the CIA. Even according to the official story, Pakistan was the geographic center of planning and logistics for the 9/11 plot. Furthermore, the ISI appears to have financed the alleged hijackers directly. Researchers who focus on the Pakistani Connection hypothesize that the ISI carried out a double cross, or else served as a sub-contractor to another intelligence agency (possibly the CIA) in organizing the hijackers for the attacks.

4 WISHING FOR PEARL HARBOR ("Letting It Happen")

Bush & Co. intentionally looked the other way in early 2001, expecting and hoping an attack would happen so that they could push through the otherwise infeasible world-domination plans they themselves laid out in their "Project for a New American Century." The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were prepared well in advance of September 11th. Administration members knew vaguely that an al-Qaeda attack was coming; they may have even provoked it (as in choice 3a), and they made sure that it would not be prevented. But they did not directly assist the attacks, or do anything to incriminate themselves. (Adherents of this view often surmise that administration members were surprised at how horrible the actual attacks were, and shocked by the collapses of the WTC towers.)

This position is popular at "Democratic Underground," as a default for those who suspect LIHOP but who think the evidence is too thin.

5 FULL LIHOP/LIHOP PLUS
LIHOP = "Letting It Happen On Purpose"

As in the official story, hijackers were dispatched by "al-Qaeda" (the Bin Laden-inspired cell networks) to carry out the 9/11 plan. However, Bush & Co. and/or other elements within the U.S. government, secret services or establishment knew about the attacks in advance and worked to ensure they would happen, with the intent of exploiting a New Pearl Harbor. This insider help may have included protection of the alleged hijackers, obstruction of FBI investigations, a standdown of air defense, an intentional leadership AWOL during the attacks, and possible construction of other excuses for inaction, such as "we were only holding a wargame and it was subverted by evildoers." This is the minimum position of Michael Ruppert, David Ray Griffin, and the mainstream of the 9/11 truth movement.

VARIANT 5a, LIHOP PLUS: The insiders took additional steps to guarantee that the 9/11 plot would succeed (why leave something so important in the hands of amateurs?), for example by infiltrating and helping out the hijackers, possibly even replacing them with loyal doubles or steering the planes (or drones) by remote control, or doing whatever else was thought necessary.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I think the likeliest hypothesis is of an inside job that exploited a "genuine" terrorist plot. Sometime between the Bojinka Plot of 1996 and 9/11 itself, the original Islamic-extremist dream of crashbombing planes into American targets was subverted and then steered to fruition by masterminds within the US power elite. This is the logical way to leave a robust trail of evidence pointing to the patsies. The perfect plot would produce a patsy who sincerely believed he had himself committed the crime - like Marinus van der Lubbe, the man who went proudly to his execution for burning down the German Reichstag (parliament) in 1933, although there is no realistic doubt the Nazis themselves set the fire.

6 NORTHWOODS 2001
MIHOP = "Making It Happen On Purpose"

There were no hijackers. The whole thing was planned long before 2001 and finally executed as an inside job by elements within the US intel apparatus and/or the Bush mob. They created the false-flag excuses, using patsies or a completely fake list of perpetrators. The planes were likely flown by remote control, or were replaced in mid-flight by drones. Wargames mimicking the actual attacks were held on Sept. 11 so as to confuse the majority of the military and provide a back-up cover story. The whole thing might as well have been Made in Hollywood, and was in fact pre-figured in Hollywood productions such as "The Lone Gunmen" pilot episode of March 2001, "The Siege" (1998), "The Long Kiss Goodnight" (1996) and other films. In fact, such movies may have been used consciously as propaganda preparation. This is the conclusion of author Mamadou Chinyelu, Webster Tarpley, John Leonard and others.

7 NWO RULES
NWO = "New World Order"

Same as Northwoods 2001, but the master plotters are not just "elements within the US" but the global ruling elite - a hardcore faction of which decided, as a group, to orchestrate an incident allowing them to gain greater control of the world Zeitgeist. 9/11 allows their proxies to seize key resources, reshape the world, drop the democratic facades and transition to open corporate feudalism. Planetary depopulation is one of the likely ultimate goals. The Bush mob are lower-order handmaidens, who may not have been privy to the details of 9/11 in advance. The real players steered the propaganda before and after 9/11 to make it work. This is the approach of Chaim Kupferberg, Michel Chossudovsky and Don Paul.

8 ROGUE FACTION / "NEOCONS"

Bush & Co. themselves were blindsided by super right-wing elements within the U.S. mil/intel complex, who effectively attempted or even succeeded in staging a coup. This is how I interpret the views of LaRouche and his followers, Thierry Miessan, and others; Tarpley also tends in this direction.

NOTE ON DEMOLITIONS: Scenarios 5a to 8, all of which qualify as "Inside Job Theories," may or may not include the idea that the WTC buildings were brought down by pre-planted explosives. While the demolition theory (for those who believe in it) is considered to prove that 9/11 was an inside job, one can easily believe in an inside job without requiring demolitions. Those who make the case for inside job with demolition generally focus on two possible sets of motives. One is based in the theory of psychological operations ("psyops"): the downright biblical vision of collapsing towers generates an even greater shock than the plane hits. It traumatizes the hundreds of millions who see it live or on television, making them far more susceptible to the mental programming of a new enemy image and a perpetual "War on Terror." The other set of motives draws from the pedestrian world of material gains: the buildings were obsolete and full of asbestos, and an orderly disposal would have cost billions; the owners made a killing on the insurance; the destruction stimulates a later re-development of Manhattan; the damaging records stored in WTC 7 were destroyed; etc.

9 THIRD STATE THEORIES

Various theories, usually pushed by lone crusaders, have mixed and matched to lay the primary blame on China, Russia, German Nazis, or other, sometimes bizarre combinations, in one case even suggesting the Canadian government was directly involved in circumventing North American air defenses. The most important of the third-state theories so far was the one pushed by Cheney and many of his neoconservative allies, who posited a direct Iraqi connection. Although they have mostly ceased promoting this idea, it had a fateful impact as a justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Opinion surveys still show consistently that many Americans think the Saddam Hussein regime was involved in the September 11th events.

Otherwise the most common third-state theory lays the primary blame with Israel or, more vaguely, "the Zionists" who are purported to run the US government. Eric Hufschmid and Christopher Bollyn have advanced the view that Israel was not merely complicit in a larger US-run plot, but provided the actual origination in blind-siding the US government so as to engender a world war between Islam and the West, and orchestrate the destruction of Israel's Arab enemies. This idea of "Israel MIHOP" appears to be widespread in the Arab world.

If you still think the primary locus of the plot was within the U.S. military-intelligence apparatus, go to choices 5 to 7. For Saudi Arabia or Taliban, go to choice 3. For al-Qaeda as a network acting alone without support from any state, go to choices 1 or 2.

10 DON'T KNOW

More than four years after the attacks, the 9/11 research community still has yet to establish genuine peer review and a common data base, and seems incapable of resisting a number of persistent, long-ago discredited errors and exaggerations. (To cite just a few representative examples of the apocrypha cluttering the writings of many a 9/11 skeptic: The Magic Passport of an alleged hijacker, reportedly found by a policeman at the WTC during the actual attacks, was attributed to Satam al-Suqami, not Mohamed Atta. Tom Kenney's FEMA team, firefighters from Massachussetts, were sent to New York on Tuesday, and not on "Monday" (Sept. 10) as he misspoke on CBS. The only evidence that Condoleezza Rice delivered the Sept. 10th "no-fly" warning to Mayor Willie Brown of San Francisco was an anonymous caller to a radio show. Marvin Bush did not direct or oversee the security system at the World Trade Center; he was a shareholder in a relatively minor security contractor.)

Some have rushed to describe complete scenarios of given events that seem to incorporate all facts, but are still unlikely and unprovable. Researchers, citizens and even lawmakers lack the power to subpoena records, or to call up witnesses who could answer the relevant questions. The government has destroyed and suppressed evidence and intimidated whistleblowers, and appears all too happy to see 9/11 shrouded in layers of fog and dust. Many actors have their own reasons to pump out misinformation, including: agencies of the U.S. and other countries; officials looking to cover themselves or score points; the corporate and many within the grassroots media; opportunist authors; and, possibly, phony whistleblowers and witnesses. The worst impulse is to declare the case closed for one's favorite scenario, in advance of actually having the evidence in hand.

As genuine skeptics we must keep probing and correcting and we must, obviously, keep fighting for independent investigation and disclosure - even as we work on larger political strategies to deal with the reality that the US government will never disclose the full truth of 9/11, until the people force the issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
freedom fighter jh Donating Member (490 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 05:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. Yes, we need full disclosure
To me, it seems obvious that airplanes could not have caused the towers to collapse the way they did. Therefore, something else must have collapsed the towers. Certainly the Bush administration has made every effort to cover up the truth; this is a sign that they were involved. But on the question of who did it I can only speculate.

On the HOP question, I don't know enough to have an opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabbat hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. why do you believe
that planes crashing in at 500+ mph destroying large portions of columns both on the perimeter and interior core, plus fire weakening the remaining ones, could not have caused the towers to collapse?


How do you think they were "taken down then" any proof to back up your theory?

It is not obvious to me that the damage that the planes did, plus fires to weaken the remaining columns, could not have taken down the towers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Stop, both of you...
The OP explicitly says that demolition theories are secondary (see 5a-8). I don't want to see another thread killed with 38 pictures of rubble and squibs.

I think the differing perspectives on 9/11 are rendered fairly in the above text, no matter who is right.

So where would you rate yourself?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. so there was another thread?
thanks

I thought I saw it :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freedom fighter jh Donating Member (490 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-29-07 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #4
18. I wasn't trying to derail your thread , . . .
. . . only to answer your question as best I can when I couldn't see how I fit into your scheme.

I know they're lying. I know this because of the way the towers fell. I'm sure it wasn't 1, and most likely it wasn't 2. Beyond that, I really don't know what happened. I have no opinion on how it was related to the Saudis, the Taliban, Operation Northwoods, NWO, the Neoons.

At first glance, I thought going with #10 meant trashing the 911 community, but now that I look more closely I think you mean, simply, "don't know." I'll go with that. Make me a 10. We have to keep up the questions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabbat hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-30-07 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #4
22. I am at 2
incompetance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-29-07 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. Let's take it around this way . . .. steel frame structures do not fall from fires . . . .
Are you aware that the WTC towers were built to withstand one or more commercial jets, fully loaded, slamming into them?

Are you aware of the CORE structure of the WTC towers ?

Are you aware that the jet fuel -- basically kerosene -- burned off in the first 10 minutes?

Are you aware that the firemen having reached the floors where the plane impacted suggested that the fires were under control and they only needed one line to put them out???

Are you aware that never before and never since has a steel frame skyscraper collapsed because of fire???

Re what is visible to the human eye as "demolition" --
Fire from the fuel was not hot enough to melt surrounding steel --
Thermite/Thermate has been identified -- which is used in demolition -- Thermate is a distinct brand.
Look critically at the buildings -- there was no plane flying into WTC7 -- small fires;
indications that there were instructions to "pull it" -- i.e., a demolition reference.
Look at the North and South towers . . . . fires were on topmost floors, not below -- those floors were COOL.

I'd also begin saying to those who are in denial of this . . . .
what of current circumstances makes you so sure that we have a government which gave us illegal war
and represents some of the most corrupt governing the world has ever seen, but it wouldn't do this?

9/11 families fought for an investigation which turned out to be a sham --
9/11 families have been very challenging to the official 9/11 story --
9/11 families have studied the many questions -- the many conflicts -- the many coincidences --
and do not feel that these questions have been suitably investigated.
Perhaps it would be worthwhile for you to at least look at what the 9/11 families are saying --
look at their questions. They have a website.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-29-07 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #7
16. That sums it up pretty well.
Some people just won't let go of that Moslem terror network thing. Too much invested in it, I guess. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-29-07 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. Right -- and, in fact, the 1993 attack on the WTC is just as unbelievable --
Edited on Sat Sep-29-07 10:30 PM by defendandprotect
with suppressed investigations of the "hijackers" --

A hijacker returning for his deposit for a truck which was blown up!!!

Another myth not investigated sufficiently and public in the dark about the weird facts we do know!!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabbat hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-30-07 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. why is the 1993 attack
unbelievable?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-01-07 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #21
28. Because FBI members knew about it --
Because a bomber doesn't go back to get a refund on a deposit for the rental of a truck he's exploded -- does he?

In fact, look it up -- but I think some FBI member or more were working with the bombers and funded some of the materials???

They had told the guy where to put the truck -- against a post -- and he didn't --

supposedly --

It's been a long time since I read about that case . . . . so you should check it all out yourself --

google it.


MEANWHILE . . . of course Oklahoma bombing is also a farce ---

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabbat hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-30-07 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #7
20. are you aware
that the plane they were designed to withstand was a 707 and it wasn't with a full load of fuel
are you aware that there was a TON of other things that were flammable in the offices (office furniture, carpet, etc)

the core structure was steel columns.

Are you aware that the fire that the firemen reached was the lowest part of the fire, not the main body of the fire? ie the bottom of where the plane entered the building. did you see all that smoke coming out of the buildings? you know what that smoke was? office furniture on fire. when foam is on fire it gives off a thick black smoke, much like a crude oil fire would.

Are you aware that the WTC buildings were fairly unique in their design (tube within a tube)?

Are you aware that "pull it" is NOT a demolition term?

Are y ou aware that the fire did not have to be hot enough to melt the steel, merely weaken it?

go check out a blacksmith sometime, they do not melt the iron/steel they work with, but heat it enough so that it becomes softer and easier to work?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sagesnow Donating Member (311 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 03:35 AM
Response to Reply #1
46. I'm in the #7 camp. Definitely MIHOP
This four part video crystallized all the many reasons I believe that 9/11 was MIHOP. To me, it's now clear that Cheyney/Bushco used 9/11 to destroy Iraq and Iran's plans to start trading oil in Euros instead of Dollars. (Which would precipitate a drop 75% drop in the value of the Dollar) This finally explains for me why it was extremely necessary to kill the Bush's old arms trading buddy, Saddam Hussein, and why all of a sudden we HATED our old allies, France and Germany. 9/11 was the false flag operation the Ruling Elites needed to engage the US military so they could checkmate any further attempts at switching Petro-dollars to Euro-dollars. Unfortunately Bushco's checkmate looks like endless stalemate of an occupation to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jonathan Pollard Donating Member (59 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 08:27 PM
Response to Original message
2. I was LIHOP first
I was LIHOP first, but what convinced me about MIHOP was WTC7 and the Pakistani ISI-Mohammed Atta-George Tenet connection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-29-07 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. Excellent points; and not understanding these connections will cause many to not understand fully --
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-03-07 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #2
38. What you mention are two of the more spooky aspects of 911
Edited on Wed Oct-03-07 01:24 PM by truedelphi
I wrote an article published in Jan 2002 in The Coastal Post that made me VERY SKEPTICAL of the 911
scenario that the government protrayed.

You can read it here. I want to point out tht everything in the article was researched - and much of what I wrote I got off the official CIA website that was up and running at the time
http://tinyurl.com/2m3o4a

The fact that a bit before 9/11, our "diplomats" had threatened Afghanistan with bombs if they did not offer up a pipeline - that was just surreal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 11:55 PM
Response to Original message
6. 1000% or more . . .. that this was carried out by Cheney/Bushco --
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-29-07 07:29 AM
Response to Original message
9. If there were really any evidence for a conspiracy, there wouldn't be so many versions of the story.
Edited on Sat Sep-29-07 07:30 AM by Perry Logan
The Truthers can't agree on a single element of their theory. If there were any real evidence that 9/11 were an inside job, the Truthers could at least get their story straight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
subsuelo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-29-07 08:01 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. You misunderstand.
Edited on Sat Sep-29-07 08:25 AM by subsuelo
There are several possible theories as to what took place, and I don't think that many "Truthers" have much problem with that.

In fact, it is a testament to the honesty of "the Truthers" that they don't all huddle up and piece together a single solitary story that somehow neatly bundles all possible scenarios into one package that everyone takes some solemn oath to stick to through thick and thin.

You see, we "Truthers" aren't like that. Uncovering the truth isn't about pledging allegiance to one single story, in which divergent opinions are marginalized and ridiculed. We leave the neat gift-wrapped stories to the Bush Administration and their loyal minions.

This isn't a religion. "Truthers", it appears, understand that. Why don't you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-29-07 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Can you make it more obvious that you didn't read this thread?
So fine, we'll put you down as a 1, since you might get that far.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
subsuelo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-29-07 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. Why read the thread, Jack?
Would you read the post if you already knew everything there was to know about Sept 11th?

* That everything the 9/11 commissions says is true.
* That everything regarding 9/11 that Bush has said is true.
* That everything reported on by the mainstream media about 9/11 is true.

With that perspective, there really isn't anything here to debate, is there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HCE SuiGeneris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-30-07 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #9
23. You are a great labeler...
congrats! :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-30-07 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. The irony of that accusation in this particular thread...
Priceless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HCE SuiGeneris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-30-07 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. Ahh -- irony is a funny thing. Perhaps your reply could be construed as ironic.
It is priceless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-30-07 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Do you need a monitor screen for that sputter? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wayfareralibis Donating Member (35 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-13-07 02:29 AM
Response to Reply #9
40. And what do the Untruthers agree on?
Edited on Sat Oct-13-07 02:30 AM by wayfareralibis
Whatever they are told by General Electric owned media and members of the current administration? That IS where your theory comes from, you know.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-13-07 05:55 AM
Response to Reply #40
41. I personally prefer Unbeliever rather than Untruther
I think CT'ers calling the reality based community Unbeliever makes you sound more in line with your fictional position.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-29-07 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
12. Put me down at about a 2.2 nt
I'm good to about here

As in choice 1, the U.S. was blindsided. But a far greater and more active role than until now admitted was played by influential Saudi fundamentalists, at least in financing and lending support to al-Qaeda. The Bushies don't want that to get out, because it will make them look bad given their long history of doing personal business with Arab oil interests......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedSock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-29-07 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
13. 5/5a and some of 8
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CJCRANE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-29-07 11:54 AM
Response to Original message
15. 5 and some of 3 and 3a
Edited on Sat Sep-29-07 11:56 AM by CJCRANE
and some of 7 (i.e. there some sort of co-ordination between the various factions or assets in each country to try and push it along).

Also I think Cheney was more involved than B*sh, although B*sh in his typical "one-minute manager" style probably knew an outline of what would happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Anarcho-Socialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-29-07 06:17 PM
Response to Original message
17. I am between 2 and 3, but closer to 2
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgetrimmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-30-07 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
24. I do not have a "hop" level but a "FOP" level....
WWFOP..... We Were Fucked On Purpose!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-01-07 01:44 AM
Response to Original message
29. 5a, I think, if I understand you correctly . . . BUT
"al Qaeda" is itself manipulated, if not controlled, if not an outright invention of ultra-RWers within the ultra-RW-controlled "national security" apparatus of the US
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-01-07 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. Degrees of intentional instrumentalization...
Or of outright fabrication of "al Qaeda" by intel services, at least as a possibility worth investigating, begin from Option 3 up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-01-07 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
31. Almost certainly (2) but wouldn't rule out (3)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beam Me Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-01-07 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
32. 6, 7, 8
I tend more toward the 7 but I don't like the term "NWO" or "Illuminati." I don't know who did it and I don't know how they did it in detail but I have no doubt -- zero -- that it was planned and executed by people who had a lot to gain by doing it. WORSE, they've gotten away with it (for the most part) and that does not bode well for any of us.

We need a full, transparent, criminal investigation. I don't know that we'll ever get it but that is what is needed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CGowen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-02-07 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
33. I'm MIHOP so it's something like (6,7). Regarding David Ray Griffin
I haven't read any of his books, but I had the impression that he tends to MIHOP and not LIHOP, although you say that CD can be LIHOP, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-02-07 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
34. Incompetence Theory rules! It gets re-proven by the Bushites every day.
Edited on Tue Oct-02-07 04:38 PM by Perry Logan
Of all the administrations in U.S. history, this one is the least likely to have brought off 9/11.

There's also the matter of courage. The neocons are pretty corrupt, but there's not a shred of evidence to indicate that any of them are capable of mass murderer. It seems to me they just don't have the guts or the competence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pauldp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-03-07 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #34
36. And the Iraq war was or was not based on lies? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-02-07 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
35. How did you manage to put the 911CR in a different category from the "official story"?
Explain your reasoning on that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-03-07 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. No problem
Perhaps they should be called "Original Official Story" (nothing to see here) as opposed to "Current Official Story" (incompetence) but the official story did evolve from "shut up, you're helping the terrorists, this should not be investigated, the scenario was unimaginable and anyway we need to focus on our enemies" to "oops, lots of little people fucked up, we need to make some reforms" (9/11 Commission). As you surely know, the Commission had its critics on the Bush-supporting right who said it was a defeatist exercise looking for scapegoats (although this was not the case, in my opinion). No reason that a properly rendered version of what different people think should not account for that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-13-07 12:08 AM
Response to Original message
39. I'm a 4.5 at the moment
And I think that the "no plane hit the Pentagon" crap is government disinformation to discredit LIHOP by lumping us all in with the most extreme theorists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jimlup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-20-07 05:56 AM
Response to Reply #39
44. 4.6 just a lttle more 5 than 4
The truth movement is generally full of it. Unfortunatly, since they've made questioning 9/11 look ridiculus real investigations and questions can now be dismissed out of hand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
number6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-14-07 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
42. put me down as number 6
" There were no hijackers. The whole thing was planned long before 2001 and finally executed as an inside job by elements within the US intel apparatus and/or the Bush mob. They created the false-flag excuses, using patsies ....." US intel apparatus or the MIC (military industrial complex)

I don't necessarily rule out "hijackers" but the question is who were they ?

I don't rule out the Pakistani ISI as being as major player.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
intheflow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-20-07 02:59 AM
Response to Original message
43. I'm a 5 with strong 6 leanings.
I believe WTC 7 was a CD, which adds credence to all the inside job theories.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tafiti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 06:19 AM
Response to Original message
45. I'm squarely in the 2 camp, peppered with some 3 and 3a.
Some of 4 isn't completely outside the realm of possibility for me, but 5 and beyond are just plain nutty, especially 7 & 8. 9 is utter nonsense.

Noam Chomsky's http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoDqDvbgeXM&NR=1">comments captures my viewpoint pretty nicely, particularly this part:

"For one thing, they would've had to have been insane to try anything like that. If they had, it's almost certain that it would've leaked. It's a very poor system - secrets are very hard to keep - so something would've leaked out...very likely. And if it had, they'd all have been before firing squads, and that'd be the end of the Republican party forever. To take a chance on that..."

The neoconservatives and military-industrial ubercapitalists are swimming in an ocean of profits regardless of how the attacks were carried out. So anything beyond "letting it happen" simply wouldn't have been necessary. In fact, letting a terrorist attack happen would make much more sense anyway, because trying to affirmatively prove that they let it happen on purpose vs. due to incompetence would be nearly impossible. Subjective intent can only be inferred, not proven. There was simply way too much at stake, re: Chomsky quoted above, for them to actually plan it and execute it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
biermeister Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
47. I would agree with 5 and probably lean
towards 6. There is a group in our government that had so much to gain (power, financial, etc) by this event. Some of the most notable names associated with 911 have made some nice cash in the arms & security fields since. Makes me wonder if they knew something prior to the event.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
48. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-02-07 07:32 AM
Response to Original message
49. Still at #4, where I have always been
--or maybe 4.5. I suspect that MIHOP is government disinformation to discredit LIHOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Geek_Girl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-05-07 08:51 PM
Response to Original message
50. 5
I just haven't seen convincing proof that there were absolutely no hijackers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
51. Definite 5. Thanks for creating this!
I came across this through another website, so it's good to see it here at DU. To me, the 9/11 wargames are the best proof of government complicity, any other explanation relies too heavily on coincidence. I'm not sure about the remote control variation, I think the whole flight school/leaving flight training manuals in the car at the airport parking lot cover story is more indicative of prior military/intelligence training (i.e. these 'beginning flight students' had skill, not luck doing loop-de-loops, etc.) than remote control, although the possibility some of the hijackers are still alive may be more indicative of remote control, though not enough to convince me that there was no al-Qaeda plan, that it was all MIHOP via PNAC.

Thanks for posting this. You should make a poll of it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. Thanks. I DID make a poll of it in 2003
Edited on Tue Nov-06-07 08:19 PM by JackRiddler
back when it was allowed in GD, which is the only place it makes sense to hold a poll (since that's where most DUers are).

As luck would have it, I've bookmarked that thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=233219

Check out the thread for exact numbers, I summed up the results as follows:

JackRiddler (1000+ posts) Thu Aug-28-03 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. a final kick...

277 voters so far, and the trend remains the same:

40-percent-plus believe in "Wishing for Pearl Harbor"

About equal numbers believe in the worse or less bad scenarios...


I posted it again a year later, but cannot find the later poll because I didn't bookmark it and the DU archives search function is demented (sorry).

In 2004, options 5/5a had the plurality with about 35-40 percent, as I remember.

I think on DU today, with all the persistent backlash against "conspiracy theory" (whatever that is) and the dissemination of no-planes-anywhere disinfo since then, the plurality would again be at 4; you might even see a plurality for 2. The truth "movement" has triumphed in getting awareness of the ideas out to everyone, but opinions have also galvanized and hardened. One example is that you could not post this poll on DU anymore without having it relegated here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 11:13 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC