LIHOP v. MIHOP - The most irrelevant question of all time...

[JackRiddler]

Just in case anyone doesn't know:

LIHOP=Letting It Happen On Purpose
Example: 9/11 was started by Arabs in the OBL set as the successor to "Project Bojinka," But the operation was detected, secretly backed and brought to fruition by elements within the U.S. secret govt. apparatus who understood the need for a new enemy and infinite casus belli.

MIHOP=Making It Happen On Purpose
Example: the whole thing was in fact a mil-intel set up from the beginning, a secret government black op

(For a complete graded treatment of variations in 9/11 theories, from Official Story to "New Northwoods," see
http://summeroftruth.org/lihopmihopnohop.html )

In the actual history of 9/11 skepticism, LIHOP was coined on this very message board (DU, that is) by ewing2001 (Nico Haupt), originally as a clever ruse to get people to think "Inside Job."

Nico's slogan was "first prove LIHOP, then SETUP." This was wise of him, though he later strayed from his own advice and became a rather rabid advocate of the bogus "pod" evidence, etc.

Unfortunately, much time is now wasted among 9/11 skeptics in arguing LIHOP v. MIHOP. This is a completely irrelevant debate, an attempt to construct a split where there is none. It misses the point of coining these terms in the first place, which was to convince the majority who still simply believe in the Official Conspiracy Theory.

Nowadays "MIHOP" is raised as a banner by some who wish to appear more radical, more courageous than others whom they claim are too wimpy or too accomodating of official accounts. Many a MIHOPer promptly accuses all other skeptics of being "gatekeepers." It is a rhetorical device for gaining the apparent moral high ground.

Lost in all this is the simple fact that LIHOP already amounts to treason.

What sort of evidence supports LIHOP?

- conscious and specific foreknowledge of the attacks, i.e., not merely "forewarnings," coming from many different sources;

- official surveillance of alleged hijackers well before 9/11, stories that cast doubt on their identities and motivations;

- advance preparation for attack response;

- advance prep of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq;

- inexplicable inaction by the air defense system and chain of command on the day;

- wargames that coincidentally mirrored the 9/11 scenario;

- obstruction of field investigations prior to 9/11;

- after-the-fact: destruction of evidence, silencing of whistleblowers, promotion of people who "failed," lack of accountability, conflicting official stories, obstruction of justice, delaying and limiting investigations, obvious omissions and cover-ups, culminating in the truly farcical conflicts-of-interest and absurd dissemblings of the Kean Commission.

All of the above qualifies as treason.

And all of the above can also be used to argue for the sort of investigations that may ultimately prove MIHOP.

In other words: LIHOP necessarily contains an element of MIHOP.

After all, how the hell can anyone "let" something happen "on purpose"?

If you are consciously obstructing FBI investigations that could uncover the alleged hijacker (or "patsies," if that's your preference) and so blow the plot beforehand, then that is the equivalent of "making it happen" on purpose.

Ditto if you are consciously obstructing air defense response so as to "let" it happen. This is a form of "making the letting."

In either case, LIHOP leads to MIHOP.

All that should really matter to 9/11 skeptics at this late stage are

a) arguments and items that convince more Americans to examine without prejudice the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job (without discrediting the 9/11 truth movment by falling into the "tin-foil" area)

and

b) evidentiary items pointing to particular crimes or violations by specific people who can be investigated, indicted, or otherwise pressured to sing.

Hell, even "criminal negligence" is a great argument if it can be used to open a criminal investigation into specific perpetrators or to convene a grand jury that could then issue subpeonas for the "heavier" evidence that points to inside job.

Prove LIHOP and you will bring down the administration and forever shatter the American peoples' faith in their National Security State and military-industrial complex. This would be a very, very good first step on the way to limiting and finally eliminating the odious, self-perpetuating, secret and tyrannical institutions that have replaced constitutional government in the United States.

Furthermore, the hardest iteration of MIHOP necessarily includes many LIHOP elements.

For example, let's say the Towers were blown up, the planes were flown by remote control, and all hijacker identities were invented by the CIA or some black-op team out of whole cloth. (I think the latter idea is total bullshit, but let it ride.)

Even then, it would still be true that most of the key administration people visible to us would be occupying LIHOP positions - i.e., they would be allowing the attacks to happen, without necessarily knowing exactly what was planned, or where the operative masterminds were headquartered.

Therefore, those who wish to expose 9/11 as MIHOP must first expose the LIHOP evidence pointing at specific visible individuals like Myers, Eberhard, Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Winfield, Frasca, Maltbie et al. before they could get on to the likely inside-operators who did day-to-day orchestration or the ultimate top-level beneficiary-masterminds.

LIHOP v. MIHOP serves to mask the real debate that 9/11 skeptics should engage in... which is much more complex, and which should revolve around questions of how to weight the differing forms of evidence and how to construct the case for 9/11 skepticism.

For the most part, MIHOP has become a shorthand for the "physical evidence" advocates. Most of them think that WTC demolition and "no planes at Pentagon" are absolutely proven.

(Others go all the way to missile pods on the WTC planes, or no planes anywhere, or whatever the exotic "new find" of the month may be.)

Unfortunately, the Pentagon thesis is worse than useless, because it is clearly unproven, and it is likely that a 757-shaped object caused the damage; whereas the demolition evidence is also not a sure thing (but very interesting to pursue, especially from the WTC 7 angle).

The only Pentagon skeptic I can take seriously is this fellow, who has actually set out to obtain the evidence by way of a FOIA request:
http://www.flight77.info/

Demolition "experts" I will take more seriously once one of them finally does the obvious by obtaining dust from Ground Zero, putting it under a spectroscope, and establishing whether the results correlate with the use of any type of explosive.

If they're among those poor souls who think the towers were blown up by mini-nukes, they can devise tests for that thesis as well using the exact same dust.

Those who do not take such steps to actually substantiate their forensic evidence arguments, but instead simply continue trumpeting them as already proven, are actually serving to discredit themselves.

I still think 9/11 is an inside job, i.e., an event orchestrated by elements of the black-op empire working within the Bush administration, a huge crime.

Enough of the "political" evidence points there to merit an immediate criminal investigation by a truly independent body with prosecutorial powers. The only standard necessary for that is PROBABLE CAUSE.

But I see no need of the "exotic" items to advance the case for probable cause, convince Americans, and initiate these investigations.

Once initiated, true investigations can expose what evidence is there. We might finally settle open questions such as "what hit the Pentagon" with the actual evidence, rather than a bunch of irrelevant exchanges on this board about how much ground resistance a 757 generates, or what its mangled landing gear parts should look like after an explosion.

So if you've read this far, please heed my call:

The most important thing you can do RIGHT NOW is to go start your backyard protest in your town; to hold a film showing or find some other way to communicate to your neighbors; to start an investigation that could actually be published in a local paper; to get involved in the actions coming up in DC and New York; etc. etc.

And NOT to waste time arguing with LARED, Boloboffin and the rest of the crew who have curiously appointed themselves to defend the Official Conspiracy Theory by perpetually attacking strawman arguments on Web message boards.

Here's a case for 9/11 that I can endorse, by the way:

www.JUSTICEFOR911.org

[ROH]

1. Very important!

"Lost in all this is the simple fact that LIHOP already amounts to treason."

[Bolo Boffin]

4. Sure does.

And though I'm a proponent of negligence here, I think it's of a criminal order too. From everything I've heard about pre-9/11 warnings, you would have to try to be as ignorant as the Bush team was. They betrayed this country by ignoring the warning signs.

[JackRiddler]

5. welcome (n/t)

[graphixtech]

2. Excellent analysis

as usual, Jack.

Citizens who would like to do something towards collective change
might consider becoming active in their area's 911Visibility group.


http://septembereleventh.org/



"Navigation for 9/11 Newbies:"

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050204132153814


Threshold Fears and Unanswered Questions about 9/11
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050307174111734

By Peter Phillips
commondreams.org
March 6, 2005

The intrepid director of Project Censored cuts to heart of the 9/11 truth dilemma, which is not the absence of evidence but the public's fear to know. It is perhaps time for some of us in the movement to rest the factual case, and address the jury's fear. It's still by far the biggest hurdle we face and Phillips starts to help us surmount it here. - Editor

For many Americans, there is a deep psychological desire for the 9/11 tragedy to be over. The shock of the day is well remembered and terrorist alerts from Homeland Security serve to maintain lasting tensions and fears. The 9/11 Commission report gave many a sense of partial healing and completion - especially given the corporate media's high praise of the report. There is a natural resistance to naysayers who continue to question the US government's version of what happened on September 11, 2001. This resistance is rooted in our tendency towards the inability to conceive of people we know as evil; instead evil ones must be others, very unlike ourselves.

We all remember, as young children, scary locations that created deep fears. We might imagine monsters in the closet, dangers in a nighttime backyard, and creepy people in some abandoned house down the street. As we get older we build up the courage to open the closet, or walk out into the backyard to smell the night air. As adults there are still dark closets in our socio-cultural consciousness that make it impossible to even consider the possibility of the truthfulness of certain ideas. These fearful ideas might be described as threshold concepts in that they may be on the borders of discoverability, yet we deny even the potentiality of implied veracity - something is so evil it is completely unimaginable.

A threshold concept facing Americans is the possibility that the 9/11 Commission Report was on many levels a cover-up for the failure of the US government to prevent the tragedy. Deeper past the threshold is the idea that the report failed to address sources of external assistance to the terrorists. Investigations into this area might have lead to a conclusion that elements of various governments - including our own - not only knew about the attacks in advance, but also may have helped facilitate their implementation. The idea that someone in the Government of the United States contributed support to such a horrific attack is inconceivable to many. It is a threshold concept that is so frightening that it brings up a state of mind akin to complete unbelievability.

Philosophy/Religion professor David Ray Griffin has recently published his findings on the omissions and distortions of the 9/11 Commission report. Griffin's book brings into question the completeness and authenticity of the 9/11 Commission's work. Griffin questions why extensive advanced warnings from several countries were not acted upon by the administration, how a major institutional investor knew to buy put-options on American and United Airlines before the attack, and why photos of the Pentagon immediately after the attack show damage inconsistent with a crash of a 757 airliner.

Additionally, Griffin notes questions remain on why the 9/11 Commission failed to address the reports that $100,000 was wired to Mohamed Atta from Saeed Sheikh, an agent for Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), under the direction of the head of ISI General Mahmud Ahmed. General Ahmed resigned his position less than one month later. The Times of India reported that Indian intelligence had given US officials evidence of the money transfer ordered by Ahmad and he was dismissed after the "US authorities sought his removal."

Also, the 9/11 Commission report failed to address the reasons for the collapse of World Trade Center (WTC) building 7 more than six hours after the attack. WTC-7 was a 47-story steel frame building that had only small fires on a few floors. WTC buildings 5 & 6 had much larger fires and did not collapse. This has led a number of critics to speculate that WTC 7 was a planned demolition.

Overall concerns with the official version of 9/11 have been published and discussed by scholars and writers around the world including: Jim Mars, Nafeez Ahmed, Michael Ruppert, Cynthia McKinney, Barrie Zwicker, Webster Tarpley, Michel Chossudovsky and many others. The response to most has been to label these discussions as conspiracy theories unworthy of media coverage or further review. Pursuit of a critical analysis of these questions is undermined by the psychological barrier about 9/11 issues as threshold concepts - too awful to even consider.

We may be on the borders of discovery regarding the possibility of a great evil within our own government, and perhaps others outside as well. We must step past the threshold and have the courage to ask the questions, demand answers, and support research into all aspects of this American tragedy. Perhaps the closet isn't as dark and as fearful as we envision. If we don't courageously look and search into the deepest regions of our fears how can we assure our children and ourselves a safe and honest future?

Peter Phillips is a Professor of Sociology at Sonoma State University and Director of Project Censored a media research organization.

David Ray Griffin's book "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions" is available from Olive Branch Press.

--

Peter Phillips Ph.D.
Sociology Department/Project Censored
Sonoma State University
1801 East Cotati Ave.
Rohnert Park, CA 94928
707-664-2588
http://www.projectcensored.org/

[philb]

3. LIHOP was documented in testimony by officials to 9/11 Commission; ...

http://www.flcv.com/offcompl.html
http://www.flcv.com/warnings.html
and Griffin's books and etc.

But the official's testimony and other evidence referenced in Griffin's books comes pretty close to documenting MIHOP as well.

Perhaps the focus on physical evidence and the obvious disinformation out there that confuses such discussions has diverted attention from the obvious fact that LIHOP has clearly been documented.

[delver]

6. Yes, LIHOP/MIHOP is pretty pointless

as i and others have said before, getting your head around the IMPLICATIONS of "9/11 Truth" or whatever you want to call it, is a pretty grueling process. the brain seems to latch on to specifics and labels rather than grasping the bigger picture. feeling like you've "achieved" LIHOP or MIHOP doesn't mean SHITHOP unless it propels you to start taking action and spreading the truth.

personally i like to reiterate that i don't claim to know exactly how it happened, but that there is a hell of a lot of evidence for government complicity and it is simply a FACT that there are huge, glaring LIES and OMISSIONS in the official story.

final point: do you think the US government's intelligence and military apparatus would let some islamic fundamentalist hop on some planes, hijack them and crash them into the targets of their choice!!?? oh, well maybe they just watched on radar and knew exactly where they were going!!!! fuck that, LIHOP=MIHOP=GET OUT IN THE FUCKING STREETS

[ladjf]

7. Outstanding post by JackRiddler.

[JackRiddler]

13. thanks!

[spooked911]

8. Great post! As Paul Thompson points out, LIHOP and MIHOP are not

monolithic descriptions. That is, some administration officials and elements of the government may be guilty of LIHOP while others are guilty of MIHOP. This may seem obvious, but it is often obscured by the black-and-white use of the LIHOP/MIHOP terms.

I might note that the fellow who did this site: http://www.flight77.info does not seem to be a real skeptic but rather just wants to show it was flight 77 that really hit the pentagon.

[bronco2121]

11. skeptic

spooked911 wrote:
I might note that the fellow who did this site: http://www.flight77.info does not seem to be a real skeptic but rather just wants to show it was flight 77 that really hit the pentagon.

respectfully, as the fellow - i'd have to say i am a real pentagon skeptic. or more accurately, i'm really skeptical about what happened at the pentagon. otherwise, i wouldn't have bothered with the lawsuit.

i push my opinion hard that i think it was flight 77 that hit the pentagon in an attempt to balance the plane/no-plane argument. it's my opinion that flight 77 hit the pentagon, but i don't 'believe' it did. for the record, i am still very skeptical - even if i do argue a particular side.

it's a bit simple to say i just want to show it was flight 77 that hit the pentagon. what i just want to show is what really happened - and to put an end the arguments about missiles and flying pigs so that people can focus on other 9/11 related topics that may eventually bring and end to the insanity that is the war on terrorism.

cheers!
bronco

[JackRiddler]

12. hey there, bronco--

How pleasing that my mentioning your well-done FOIA effort has resulted in actually bringing you to Democratic Underground. Welcome!

I agree that you are a skeptic in the best sense of the term - you want the evidence, not the pre-conceptions; the video, not the mind constructs.

The point about the Pentagon strike that everyone has been missing is that "no planes" is useless as an argument unless it can be proven 100 percent. It's too friggin' narrow; people just blast each other, the discussion swirls around the hole like water down a drain.

The construction of alternate scenarios (cruise missile, A3, whatever) on the basis of such narrow evidence as is available is particularly reckless and stupid.

By contrast, a circumstantial case for foreknowledge built on many elements need not be at 100 percent; all that matters is that it suffices for probable cause for an investigation of particular individuals. And such a discussion ends up revolving around the whole context & motive for 9/11. It inevitably encompasses the whole pie.

In that spirit, these are the really interesting items to me about the Pentagon strike: advance rehearsal of the scenario in Oct. 2000 and May 2001; placement of the hit at the renovated & reinforced wing; difficulty of the maneuver by the failed pilot; failure to intercept the attack object (regardless of whether it was AA77); apparent discrepancies in the time of the hit (the "clock evidence"); immediate confiscation of the tapes you are trying to have released; bizarre coincidence of Olson making the first known cell call; bizarre presence of so many ringers as "witnesses" (which does not necessarily disprove AA77 but does imply foreknowledge).

All of these are indisputable public record.

THANKS FOR COMING AROUND & FOR YOUR EFFORT!

[spooked911]

15. Thanks for the clarification. I read one of your recent posts at your

site and got the impression that you frowned upon the idea that flight 77 didn't hit the pentagon. Sorry if I got you wrong.

I am skeptical of the idea that a normal 757 hit the Pentagon or that flight 77 hit it, but all the other alternatives seem kind of hard to believe as well.

I don't think the Pentagon hit is a great story for pushing government complicity, but I do find it an interesting mystery nonetheless.

[spooked911]

9. A few questions for Jack Riddler

First, is there an easy way to check if someone has signed the JUSTICEFOR911 petition? I am pretty sure I signed it but not toally sure. Should I go ahead and sign it even if I have doubts or does that mess up the name count?

Second, what way do you recommend talking to neighbors or even strangers about 9/11? How does one start such a conversation? I personally find this incredibly daunting.

Third, what film is best to show if one wanted to have a screening?

Thanks!

[JackRiddler]

10. my opinions

Thanks for the honor of asking these fine questions to me.

--"First, is there an easy way to check if someone has signed the JUSTICEFOR911 petition?"

Sure, I can search for your name if you send it to me, for example via PM. It wouldn't be the end of the world if you signed again, but we discourage fakes and dupes, we want real numbers.

(I'll do the 3rd question next, since it's easier than the 2nd.)

--"Third, what film is best to show if one wanted to have a screening?"

A question that inspires passions among the skeptics. Some will swear by films that I consider very sloppy and full of disinfo, i.e. the ones that claim to reveal everything you need to know in a few dramatic visuals.

These same people will tend to consider my choices wimpy, but I think it best to give people time and space to develop the idea of inside job (which so many people initially resist). So I like the combination of "Hijacking Catastrophe" and "The Great Conspiracy." The former makes no claim that the U.S. govt was complicit in 9/11. Rather, it introduces PNAC's plan for world domination and concept of a "new Pearl Harbor" and goes into the post-9/11 actions of the regime, establishing the motive and "who benefits." Then in TGC, Barrie Zwicker sums up some of the best arguments on air defense stand down, 9/11 cover-up commission, Pakistani connection, foreknowledge, historical precedents, and WTC 7. I think it's the most professionally done and accurate of the videos.

Another one I really like is the original "Truth and Lies of 9/11" by Ruppert, from Nov. 2001. This one is a giant, 3-hour history lesson on oil, banking, drugs, CIA and the secret government, and a rather complete case for "Bush Knew".

Look up SGTV - Shadow Government Television - for 3 half-hour segments that cover the stolen election and 9/11. These are very intelligent and have youth appeal.

I think "In Plane Site" and "Loose Change" are embarrassing disasters, easily taken down by the "debunkers." Alex Jones's work is more politically astute (i.e., it has a coherent world-view sort of based on logic by comparison) but really goes over the top; not the right intro for middle class people.

My site, summeroftruth.org, is one gigantic compendium of resource links - many of the earliest and most definitive 9/11 research source articles in the papers, the books, the videos, the films all on one page.

--"Second, what way do you recommend talking to neighbors or even strangers about 9/11? How does one start such a conversation? I personally find this incredibly daunting."

So do a lot of people. So did I, until I'd done it a thousand times (and each one was different). This is the perennial question and there are many approaches. The most important thing surely is to take your interlocutor seriously and on their own level, and to listen as well as speak. Try not to play "Crossfire," even if that's fun.

I have taken the opportunity of ANY political discussion to simply announce what I thought about 9/11. While many people then say they think the same thing, most people generally start off into one of the pre-set responses about "conspiracy theory" (e.g., "too many people would have to be involved," "where are the whistleblowers," "can they really be that evil," "the idea depresses me," "this is crazy/deluded," "you just want a simple explanation for the world.") So have some quick rejoinders ready and then shoot out the facts. Point out that the official story is a conspiracy theory, and that the worst conspiracy theory was Cheney's claim that Saddam did 9/11.

I have also approached it circuitously, sounding out how people feel about things before "going there." Some people are more tightly wound with the dominant propaganda and all you're going to do at best is get them to question a few things.

One thing to do is to just wear a button that says "Stop the 9/11 Cover-up", "Expose the Deception" or "9/11 Was an Inside Job." Or to give people deception dollars. That will get people started.

In New York we put up signs in visibility actions and all these people will come up to us with their "yeas" and "nays" and long conversations can ensue.

I've gone to many political events with the intent of posing "the 9/11 question" (which generally has to be different in each context). I've thrown it at Michael Moore, Richard Clarke, Dennis Kucinich, the 9/11 Commission itself, etc. etc. This will often get people coming to you afterwards to find out what you mean.

Always be ready with a website that you think is the right entry-level item, and with a book or video recommendation. Point out that it ain't a simple topic and it needs more than a few soundbites.

Nowadays people have the trauma behind them and are ready to talk rationally. Also, most seem to have been exposed to the idea. They might respond, "oh you're one of those people who think there was no plane at the Pentagon." If you get that one, no matter what you think about the Pentagon, odds are your interlocutor already has a strong opinion. Therefore you should be ready to immediately divert the discussion to other items that they may not know about, like the evidence for foreknowledge, fore-planning, the chain of command, etc. etc. I believe in painting the broadest possible canvas so that the details begin to look plausible and connected. If you get too deep into Mohamed Atta's personal life or some technicality of the timeline, many people will glaze over. Just be ready with references and try to motivate them to read on their own.

Irony is great fun but basically it only works with people who already agree with each other. Those who don't either don't get it or take it as disrespect, and there's little point in alienating them.

On the other hand, in contexts where the topic will NEVER be brought up, it's sometimes okay to FORCE it with a brief speech so that the yahoos and undecideds remain aware that there are people out there who don't agree with the official story.

Often all you can do is plant the seed of doubt for the first time; it can take months before people have digested the idea of complicity and are ready to examine it dispassionately, but I guarantee you that the seed-planting later bears fruit in at least half the people you approach.

Thanks!

[spooked911]

14. Thanks VERY much for your great suggestions

I have talked about 9/11 truth with only a few people. Here's my record:

1) Good friend who is very knowledgable about history-- completely uninterested in any "conspiracy" talk, wouldn't deal with it

2) my former advisor who I met after not seeing for many years-- definitely interested in what I had to say but very skeptical overall that the government would let its people be killed

3) my mom-- hard-core Democrat, not really into conspiracy-stuff, but doubts the official version

4) my dad-- more centrist than my mom, seems interested though not sure what he thinks overall, I think he is also skeptical of the official story

5) my youngest brother (22 yr old)-- was already highly skeptical of the official story

6) my younger brother (32 yr old)-- hates Bush but is dismissive of conspiracy talk, seems to think I am a conspiracy nut

7) my wife-- is easily convinced that there was a conspiracy but doesn't care. Doesn't think it affects her.

I have been too afraid of bringing it up with co-workers, since I have a supervisory position, I need to consider my reputation (which is already not optimal).

I live in a very red area, am afraid of bringing it up with my neighbors, but I think trying to show a film at the local library would be interesting.

Thanks again for the suggestions.

[Rob Conn]

17. Planting the seed

"Often all you can do is plant the seed of doubt for the first time; it can take months before people have digested the idea of complicity and are ready to examine it dispassionately, but I guarantee you that the seed-planting later bears fruit in at least half the people you approach."

Once again I refer to cognitive dissonance. Its possible to create in someones subconscious mind an unresolved contradiction that works toward resolution despite the conscious evasion of the individual. It may only be addressed in dreams or nightmares, but it can not be ignored. Contradictory facts, or a paradox, force the brain to hold certain information in RAM that it wants to set to one specific location, or ROM, for reference in the network. And it will turn to your dream life to force these decisions. Slogans can change you. Basic messages can express data that we are forced to address. The most practical methods to widely expose that message, and the specific messages to be conveyed, require a discussion that is happening all over the country among those of the 'second phase' - R.C.

[Rob Conn]

16. The Second Phase - Action

What you have roughly outlined here is the basis for the 'second phase' of this inquiry. The first involves our learning the uncensored version of our history, consideration of evidence, focus on prominent theories, social challenges, and psychological adjustments. For example, I have spent the last couple years asking questions about 9/11. I have learned a lot more about our history, I have looked at a great deal of evidence, I have become familiar with most of the major theories, I have faced great challenges attempting to share my skepticism with others, and I have faced a great personal challenge accepting that many of my long held assumptions have been wrong. For some time these explorations and challenges helped guide me toward a healthy skepticism regarding the 'official' story, and ultimately lead to my recognition of 'probable cause'.

This was the point of departure. When I decided that the case had been adequately made that we should strongly question the actions, motives, and assumptions of our leaders regarding the attack, and that no further 'smoking gun' was needed to demand a public inquiry, I realized that it was time to challenge myself to take action. For a time I was mired in the physical evidence with those who would distract us from the concept of 'probable cause'. Scared to take action, I prefered to believe that we were looking for proof that might justify action. Its was easier to feel that I need not take action until the case was made. However, I soon realized that this search for the 'ultimate proof' might never end, and only served to draw me away from my duty to educate others.

So now I've moved forward. Drawn my line in the sand. Crossed the Rubicon. And I'm ready to act. As you suggest, the internal debate regarding the level of complicity is hardly functional in this second phase or our inquiry. While I will not diminish the importance of these debates taking place within the movement, an outward focus requires that we decide on a unified front designed to welcome others into their own exploration of the facts. And to do this we only really need to present unresolved anomalies that require official response, or to create cognitive dissonance that inspires others to explore the evidence for themselves. The cover-up is certainly the most compelling evidence for the uninitiated.

So now that I'm in this second phase I require both the opportunity to educate others, and also a forum of those who have made this transition with whom I can plan and progress. Thankfully there are a number of people here at DU who are making this transition as well.

Thanks for the inspiring post. I hope that it helps some of us to focus our attention on what's most important. - R.C.

[Make7]

18. Less Filling vs. Tastes Great (n/t)

[JackRiddler]

19. kick for the newbies from GD

[stickdog]

20. Nice thread, filled with good advice.

To me personally, only Flight 93 and WTC7 are particularly compelling in terms of "physical evidence" arguments in that the widely disseminated, published and generally undisputed official descriptions of both events are quite simply beyond belief and wholly lacking any analogous historical precedents.

In any case, MIHOP vs. LIHOP is an idiotic argument akin to two people kidnapped by the mob and stuffed into the trunk of car arguing about whether the hit men or the mafia bosses who hired them are more to blame for their impending deaths.

[Bismillah]

21. SLAIOP (Acronyms Unlimited)

Excellent post. This "LIHOPers"/MIHOPers" business makes me cringe, frankly. It's the kind of creepy "insider" acronym that deters many people who might otherwise be open to persuasion. It looks "cultish". Indeed, it's reminiscent of Scientology. Both acronyms are almost unpronouncable, and they certainly cannot be spoken aloud without a sheepish grin and a long-winded explanation of the distinction they purport to denote. The last two letters of both acronyms are completely redundant (because how else are you going to let something happen, or make it happen, if not on purpose?) Hence, it's superfluous. And, as Jack Riddler has eloquently pointed out, the distinction is in any case barely worth making. It obscures more than it will ever illuminate.

So Let's Abandon It - On Purpose (SLAIOP).

[JackRiddler]

22. and a night-time kick