You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #55: The difference between incompetence and MIHOP [View All]

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
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. The difference between incompetence and MIHOP
Is under two hours (i.e. when did the administration start to take advantage of the attacks - before 8:13 or after 10:06?). Generally, even the people here who don't think the government was complicit, think they manipulated the attacks for their own purposes, but that they started to do this after the last plane crashed. I would suggest that this is a false dichotomy and that excluding the period from 8:13 to 10:06 is acually excluding the most likely solution.

To my mind, the defence of incompetence applies to some extent (i.e. the US government is not great, sometimes it gets things wrong), for example, if it took General Arnold a few minutes to decide to go ahead and launch the first planes, then I don't see anything underhand in that. OK, it could have been faster, but, before the second plane was hijacked, it didn't seem to be an unusual emergency, so what was the hurry. However, the defense of incompetence does not apply to everything (for example, a possible attack on Washington is a no-brainer). So often (actually, always) the debate between CTers and debunkers is framed in such a way that there is a choice between incompetence being a defence for nothing and incompetence being a defence for everything - IMHO it is a defence, but only a a specific point, after that you have to ask questions and draw conclusions.

I'm not suggesting that the WTC wasn't demolished by explosives (if you ask me, there's no way a building with a safety factor of at least 2.6 (even after the impact damage) was destroyed by a 56-minute office fire), but that the no-757 argument at the Pentagon is an absolute donkey that doesn't even stand up to casual scrutiny. The same applies to most (but perhaps not all) of the arguments about the poor air defence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

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

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
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