Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Being a Little Bit MIHOP Is Like Being a Little Bit Pregnant

Terrific point made by JREFer Horatius:

I'd suggest that there's one important difference between LIHOP and MIHOP: You can be just "a little LIHOP", but you can't be "just a little MIHOP".

LIHOP is based mostly on believing that some people in positions of power are more interested in their own gain than in their responsibilities. As such, it doesn't require much in the way of woo thinking, except when the question comes up of how many people would be needed to "let it happen" without others catching on.

MIHOP, however, requires a qualitative difference: you must have people taking an active role: Planting explosives, or whatever. And once you postulate an active role, there really is no limit to what you must start claiming.

I'll explain.

You suggest there was something untoward about WTC7. Let's assume you mean it was a CD, made to look like a result of fire and impact damage.

Well, then, you need to make sure that there was some fire and impact damage, right? Where does that come from? From the collapse of WTC1&2. So we'd better make sure they collapse. Since we can't just assume the planes alone will do the job, we'll have to help them along.


Superb point, well-illustrated. Read the whole post!

Labels: , ,

42 Comments:

At 20 March, 2007 14:36, Blogger FX9 said...

"Let's assume you mean it was a CD, made to look like a result of fire and impact damage."

Haha. So, the collapse of WTC7 looks like a result of fire and impact damage to you?
Yea, great point.
Any references to other such collapses (on which you base this )?

 
At 20 March, 2007 15:30, Blogger Richard said...

Honestly, I don't care what you think anything looks like. If your not an expert in a relevant field then you really have no base knowledge for you to determine what something looks like. The point of the post was to state that the WTC collapse as viewed by experts looks like the result of fire and impact damage not a CD. Firefighters, who obviously know about fire and impact damages on buildings, found nothing unusual or suspicious about the collapse of WTC 7.

 
At 20 March, 2007 16:03, Blogger thinkingcap said...

Richard: The problem is that the experts don't all agree, and did not initially say that the collapse of WTC 7 looked like it was caused by damage and fire. For instance, on first blush Van Romero thought explosives were used, and further a CD expert in Holland named Jowenko insisted that WTC 7 was imploded professionally when he first saw the video tape, and still insists that it was imploded.

Here's the real point. A case for US complicity has been built in the back channels, but it is a case based on circumstantial and incomplete evidence. Circumstantial evidence can be and often is enough to convict, but because of the political power of the accused the struggle now is to push for a legitimate investigation and raise consciousness about the evidence.

US Foreknowlege and inaction are incontrovertible. Evidence of active participation in the form of suppressing normal safety procedures is compelling but not complete. The evidence both for and against the planting of the explosives in WTC 7 is based on contradictory expert testimony without all the evidence being released to the scientific community.

 
At 20 March, 2007 16:07, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

Notice conspiracy theorist have this BIG blind spot when it comes to WTC7, The fact it was hit by WTC1 when WTC1 fell. and in fact size for size WTC7 received far worst damage then the twin towers received from the airplanes. A 7 hour fire could have done it on it's own but the damage made it a sure thing.

And as for the point of the post not only do you have to insure the twin towers fall BUT that it falls in such a way to damage WTC7. what if WTC1 had falled away from WTC7 and no damage was done to 7 and no fires had started.

Now you have a building rigged with explosive (if you are fool enough to believe truthers) and you can't implode it. Now you have to not only removed the evidence you had hopped to destroy with the CD of 7 but also the explosives!

But thinking is not the truthers strong suit.

 
At 20 March, 2007 16:17, Blogger Stevew said...

Why do these toofers constantinually try and pass off this same BS as the truth.
There was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 20 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors, it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down. There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
He forgets to mention that the fuel was stored on the lower levels in the middle of the building right under the main truss assy that supports the building, no wonder the colapse started in the middle. I wonder how hot the girders would get with a fire from 40000 gals of fuel underneith them for 6-7hrs.

 
At 20 March, 2007 16:22, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

"on first blush Van Romero thought explosives were used, and further a CD expert in Holland named Jowenko insisted that WTC 7 was imploded professionally "

Yes, but now that he knows of the damage and fire in WTC7 Van Romero realizes it was NOT CD.

And Jowenko has even a harder row to hoe, because he says the twin towers were NOT CD. and stands by that. He was under the mistaken idea that WTC7 was imploded several days AFTER 911, when it would have been possible to do a controlled demolition, even he know it could not have been done that day but he had been duped by some truthers into saying it was CD on the viewing of only one little low res video.

Now he will look stupid no matter what he does. I am thinking he hopes the entire thing goes away.

 
At 20 March, 2007 16:38, Blogger texasjack said...

"A case for US complicity has been built in the back channels, but it is a case based on circumstantial and incomplete evidence."

What the heck is incomplete evidence?

 
At 20 March, 2007 17:03, Blogger Pat said...

FX9, you got any examples of 47-story office buildings being hit with debris from a collapsing and burning 110-story office building? Because that's the only comp that matters.

 
At 20 March, 2007 17:59, Blogger thinkingcap said...

A conviction can be obtained without complete evidence. For instance, one may be able to find eyewitnesses to a shooting, establish motive, and establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt without finding the gun that was used. Not all the evidence is available, but enough is available to obtain a conviction.

In the case of US complicity in 911 there is a strong case for at least willful criminal negligence even without access to the physical and documentary evidence which a real investigation would bring forward.

 
At 20 March, 2007 18:05, Blogger thinkingcap said...

"Yes, but now that he knows of the damage and fire in WTC7 Van Romero realizes it was NOT CD."

What is being argued is whether or not the MIHOP position would require planting explosives in the towers in such a way to create the impression that WTC 7 came down from fire and damage. Since that was not how experts intially interpreted the collapse WTC 7 obviously that level of subterfuge would not be required. All that would be required for CD theories to be true would be the falsification of studies after the fact.

But one need not believe in CD theories to take a MIHOP position. If it is true that FBI investigations into Al Qaeda were blocked, that warnings were ignored, that war games were orchestrated, and that Cheney failed to give shoot down orders the MIHOP is established. That is we can see that US agents actively participated in the 911 terrorist attacks.

 
At 20 March, 2007 18:15, Blogger thinkingcap said...

"He had been duped by some truthers..."

This is a total mischaracterization of the documentary filmmakers who interviewed Jowenko. They were very even handed. In fact, if the filmmakers had been crass they might have called their film "Screw Loose Change," because the vast majority of their film discredited that movie.

 
At 20 March, 2007 18:18, Blogger Richard said...

But one need not believe in CD theories to take a MIHOP position. If it is true that FBI investigations into Al Qaeda were blocked, that warnings were ignored, that war games were orchestrated, and that Cheney failed to give shoot down orders the MIHOP is established. That is we can see that US agents actively participated in the 911 terrorist attacks.

Actually no it's not MIHOP. If your stating that you agree that Al-Qaeda is a real organization of terrorists that carried out a plan to attack the US then anything our government did to allow it to happen would be LIHOP.

 
At 20 March, 2007 18:28, Blogger shawn said...

This is a total mischaracterization of the documentary filmmakers who interviewed Jowenko.

Except they didn't tell him what condition the building as in and showed the collapse from the angle that doesn't show any structural damage.

 
At 20 March, 2007 18:29, Blogger CHF said...

thinkingcap,

Van Romero doesn't buy the twoofer bullshit and Jowenko ithinks the WTC towers were NOT demolitions.

Those are your ONLY demolition experts.

Stop and think about that for a second.

 
At 20 March, 2007 18:47, Blogger thinkingcap said...

MIHOP means Made It Happen On Purpose. It does not the history of the Muhajadeen is phony along with every other known fact about 9/11. If the US acted to allow terrorist attacks to occure rather than passively doing nothing then they Made It Happen on Purpose.

 
At 20 March, 2007 18:50, Blogger thinkingcap said...

Richard, please read what I wrote again. We are not arguing about whether or not explosives were used in any of the buildings, but rather we're talking about the subject of this thread, namely what would be required IF explosives were planted in the buildings.

Here's what I wrote again.

"What is being argued is whether or not the MIHOP position would require planting explosives in the towers in such a way to create the impression that WTC 7 came down from fire and damage. Since that was not how experts intially interpreted the collapse WTC 7 obviously that level of subterfuge would not be required. All that would be required for CD theories to be true would be the falsification of studies after the fact."

 
At 20 March, 2007 18:57, Blogger texasjack said...

"A conviction can be obtained without complete evidence. For instance, one may be able to find eyewitnesses to a shooting, establish motive, and establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt without finding the gun that was used. Not all the evidence is available, but enough is available to obtain a conviction."

Oh, so that's incomplete evidence. Gotcha. "Your honor, I would like to introduce to you an incomplete evidence case."
Could you provide some of your incomplete evidence as it pertains to 911?

 
At 20 March, 2007 19:00, Blogger Alex said...

the history of the Muhajadeen is phony

lol. yes. so is the moon landing, right? :)

 
At 20 March, 2007 19:04, Blogger thinkingcap said...

alex

I wasn't claim that the history of the Muhajadeen was phony, but asserted that one need not believe that this history was phony in order to take a MIHOP position.

Please read carefully.

 
At 20 March, 2007 19:16, Blogger thinkingcap said...

"Could you provide some of your incomplete evidence as it pertains to 911?"

Sure.

Go to Google and type in:

Tenet Meeting with Rice 2001
"you've covered your ass now"
August 6th Memo
Foreign Intelligence warnings

You'll find a slew of mainstream media reports of foreknowlege. Then try:

NORAD lied to 9/11 commission

Then, if you'd like to dig, go to

cooperativeresearch.org

 
At 20 March, 2007 19:39, Blogger Richard said...

If the US acted to allow terrorist attacks to occure rather than passively doing nothing then they Made It Happen on Purpose.

No it isn't. Maybe your confused as to what the two definitions mean. If you are agreeing that a foreign body, with a plan to attack the US, was allowed to carry out their plan by either the willful action or inaction of elements of the US government then they Let It Happen on Purpose.

If there was no planned terrorist attack on the United States by a foreign body, and the US government orchestrated the plan and carried it to fruition then they Made It Happen on Purpose.


I will agree that there are theories out there that don't involve CD and are categorized as MIHOP. But any theory that states that explosives were planted by the government is clearly a MIHOP theory.

 
At 20 March, 2007 19:44, Blogger texasjack said...

Sorry there thinkcap, typed in your keywords, and didn't find one credible piece of evidence of foreknowledge that anyone knew the attacks would happen on 9/11. I guess that is incomplete evidence at its finest.

 
At 20 March, 2007 19:50, Blogger Richard said...

All that would be required for CD theories to be true would be the falsification of studies after the fact.

No, the falsification of studies would give the appearance of CD theories being correct. In reality, for a CD theory to actually be correct, explosives would have to be planted.

 
At 20 March, 2007 20:09, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

show me one instance where someone in the USG was warned of an attack occuring on september 11th 2001 involving planes crashing into buildings.

The USG was getting multiple "alleged Terrorist plots" coming in from intelligence sources on a DAILY Basis. Almost all of them were vague in terms of method, time, and location.

TAM:)

 
At 20 March, 2007 20:17, Blogger Alex said...

I wasn't claim that the history of the Muhajadeen was phony, but asserted that one need not believe that this history was phony in order to take a MIHOP position.

That's not what you wrote.

Please read carefully.

Please write carefully.

 
At 20 March, 2007 20:21, Blogger thinkingcap said...

Richard, could you please explain how infilitrating and acting in league with Al Qaeda doesn't equate making it happen?

texasjack, your problem with the evidence of foreknowlege is not that it's incomplete, but rather that it's circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal courts to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning.

from wikipedia:
The distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence is important because, with the obvious exceptions (the immature, incompetent, or mentally ill), nearly all criminals are careful to not generate direct evidence, and try to avoid demonstrating criminal intent.

In the case of foreknowlege and complicity what is required is that you consider the abundant information that is available about foreign intelligence warnings, NSA interceptions of phone calls from KSM to bin Laden, hijackers who were reported to be living with FBI informants, FBI agents who were stymied in there efforts to investigate the terrorists by superiors, in light of the massive amount of lying on the subject of foreknowlege by the Bush administration to show, the stated desire of a few neocons inside the administration to use an catastrophic event to bring on a revolutionary change in US foreign policy, and the utter failure of the US government to respond to the threat of an attack to reach a reasonable conclusion of complicity.

 
At 20 March, 2007 20:23, Blogger thinkingcap said...

The intelligence warnings varied in intensity and specifity. Many pinpointed the attack within weeks. Many reported that planes would be used. Bush's response to the August 6th memo was, reportedly, "Okay, you've covered your ass now." (Bob Woodward is the source on that one.)

 
At 20 March, 2007 20:28, Blogger thinkingcap said...

Alex, I wrote this:

"MIHOP means Made It Happen On Purpose. It does not the history of the Muhajadeen is phony along with every other known fact about 9/11."

I dropped the word "mean" there. Sorry. In any case I meant to say that MIHOP doesn't necessitate that one abandons the history of the Muhadjadeen.

 
At 20 March, 2007 20:31, Blogger thinkingcap said...

richard:

You wrote, "No, the falsification of studies would give the appearance of CD theories being correct. In reality, for a CD theory to actually be correct, explosives would have to be planted."

I agree with your tautology. However, since what were discussing was what the perps would have to fabricate in order to create what we saw on 9/11 I don't see the point of your correction. The original contention was that we have to assume a infinite progressing amount of falsification in order to believe WTC 7 was brought down by CD, but that isn't true as we've demonstrated in our exchange.

 
At 20 March, 2007 21:39, Blogger texasjack said...

Incomplete evidence is your term, thinkcap, so it's your problem, not mine. I'm well-versed on the definition of circumstantial evidence, but thanks for definition anyways.
What you lack is any specific evidence that the US govt. knew the attacks were going to occur on 9/11. You're making bold accusations, but you are not supporting it with any specific evidence. Why? Because you have none, nada. Instead you make the common troother mistakes--speculation, misinterpretation, and so on. Try again. Please provide credible evidence, credible sources, and be specific.If you can't, then whatever statements you make doesn't mean squat.

Intelligence warnings happen every day, which one specifically states that the attacks would happen on 911? Source please. Who specifically stymied what agents? Source please. What was said on this NSA interception of phone calls? Source please. These informants, what did they know? Source please. Etc. etc.
You want to bring a prima facie case to court, you have to come prepared, or the judge will laugh you out of there. Opening statements by themselves isn't going to cut it. So please, go back and do your homework, and come prepared next time.

 
At 20 March, 2007 22:04, Blogger Alex said...

and the utter failure of the US government to respond to the threat of an attack to reach a reasonable conclusion of complicity

So you think Clinton was behind 9/11? That's a new one...

 
At 21 March, 2007 00:36, Blogger thinkingcap said...

texas:

There was no one memo that reported an attack would occur precisely on 9/11. There were many that indicated an attack by air would occur in late August or early September. Please go to cooperativeresearch.org to see all the sources for yourself.

As to the FBI agents who were stymied the Sydney Morning Herald reported the following:

"Agent Coleen Rowley, the chief lawyer in the Minneapolis field office, alleges that intelligence on Moussaoui provided by the French Government, which included information on his "activities connected with Osama bin Laden", was more than enough to obtain a warrant to search his laptop computer in the weeks before the terrorist attacks.

But requests for a warrant were thwarted by FBI supervisors in Washington, who seemed so intent on ignoring the threat Moussaoui posed that some field agents speculated that key officials at FBI headquarters "had to be spies or moles ... working for Osama bin Laden."

Also worth looking into is the Able Danger program. If I were calling witnesses I'd bring forward Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer and his superior officer Major General Rod Isler.

On the NSA Knight Ridder reported the following on June 7, 2002:

"A secretive U.S. eavesdropping agency monitored telephone conversations before Sept. 11 between the suspected commander of the terror attacks and the alleged chief hijacker, but did not share the information with other intelligence agencies, U.S. officials said Thursday.

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the conversations between Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Mohammed Atta were intercepted by the National Security Agency, or NSA, an intelligence agency that monitors and decodes foreign communications.

The NSA failed to share the intercepts with the CIA or other U.S. intelligence agencies, the officials told Knight Ridder. It also failed to promptly translate some intercepted Arabic-language conversations, a senior intelligence official said."

There are some of my sources, I could provide more information, more evidence of foreknowlege, if you require it. What I'm wondering is how do you account for all the lying from the Bush administration on this subject?

 
At 21 March, 2007 00:38, Blogger thinkingcap said...

Alex: Given the fact that I was specifically talking about the intelligence warnings the Bush administration received over the summer of 2001 your response about Bill Clinton appears as a non sequitur.

 
At 21 March, 2007 02:22, Blogger Alex said...

Alex: Given the fact that I was specifically talking about the intelligence warnings the Bush administration received over the summer of 2001 your response about Bill Clinton appears as a non sequitur.

Is that how logic works in your world? Interesting. Here's how it works in the rest of the world:

Your main evidence of government involvement in 9/11 seems to be that George Bush "ignored warning" and did nothing about a terrorist threat. It's a matter of record that Clinton also ignored warnings, and on several occasions made judgement calls which resulted in the escape of Osama bin Laden. Ergo, you must logically conclude that the Clinton government was likewise involved in the 9/11 plot, or similar acts. Otherwise you're using the logical fallacy known as "special pleading".

 
At 21 March, 2007 06:29, Blogger texasjack said...

"There was no one memo that reported an attack would occur precisely on 9/11"

So you can't charge any one in the Bush Adm.
Ok, you still did not cite your sources, but I will stipulate that there were major flaws in sharing intelligence, but that was not a crime. Who specifically are you charging in your criminal case, a FBI supervisor? What's his name? What was specifically retrieved by the NSA that led to foreknowledge? What was said between conversations between Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Mohammed Atta? Please cite your sources.

 
At 21 March, 2007 06:36, Blogger Stevew said...

WOW TC is sure a master at how to say nothing in 5000 words, he is mildly amuseing LOL

 
At 21 March, 2007 08:00, Blogger Richard said...

Richard, could you please explain how infilitrating and acting in league with Al Qaeda doesn't equate making it happen?

So is that your stance on what happened or are you just positing another theory as to what happened? Seeing as how I gave the definitions of both LIHOP and MIHOP an intelligent individual such as yourself should have no problem categorizing that theory. I'm not going to waste my time further classifying theories that you come up with if you don't have the logical faculties to do it yourself based on the information I gave you.

 
At 21 March, 2007 08:03, Blogger thinkingcap said...

texas: Please explain why a memo that specifically mentioned the date of 911 is required.

 
At 21 March, 2007 08:20, Blogger thinkingcap said...

Alex: As far as I'm aware Bill Clinton was never given warnings of an imminent terrorist attack on the US which he failed to stop, but instead facilitated. He did make the same mistake Bush is widely known to have made (even outside of conspiracy circles) which was to turn down offers of extradition and information because such offers interfered with his plans to use military force.

Clinton's bombing campaigns in Afghanistan and the Sudan were criminal, acts of State Terrorism, but they weren't aimed at US cities. Clinton is responsible for allowing bin Laden to continue to be free, but that he didn't directly facilitate the attacks on America.

 
At 21 March, 2007 08:53, Blogger thinkingcap said...

richard: The theory that a group within the US government knew what was coming, and acted to facilitate the attacks by blocking normal procedures is different from LIHOP in that it supposes that US government agencies acted to facilitate the attacks. Your terms are using words in an extraordinary or technical way. You say Made it Happen but mean planted bombs in the buildings and were the sole actors.

These are not my theories, but rather are the common theories in circulation. Your theory of MIHOP, namely that the US was solely responsible, while not your theory alone one that is held by a tiny minority.

 
At 21 March, 2007 13:02, Blogger shawn said...

I can't take anyone seriously who thinks those strikes were "state terrorism". Try not to buy into everything Chomsky feeds you, ok champ?

 
At 21 March, 2007 13:57, Blogger Alex said...

As far as I'm aware Bill Clinton was never given warnings of an imminent terrorist attack on the US which he failed to stop, but instead facilitated.

The intelligence agencies receive, and pass on, warnings of "imminent attacks" on a regular basis. If you knew the first thing about the int community, you'd realize that. You remember those "warning levels" that were on TV all the time after 9/11, until people started bitching about them? Yeah, those have existed for decades, are use for internal government procedures, and are based on different threat assessments. Any time they get bumped to an intermediate level, you can bet your ass that the president is receiving warnings. Any time they peak, it's because there's a credible, imminent threat. Fortunately most of them turn out to be wrong, or are foiled before they occur. And the president rarely gets involved.

Long story short, Clinton received plenty of warnings, he KNEW of the danger that Al-Qaeda posed, yet he did nothing. Obviously by your logic he must have been involved in the plot. Certainly he had much more time to deal with the threat which Al Qaeda posed. Or are you suggesting that the entire 9/11 plot was hatched, developed, and executed, all within the 8 months during which Bush was in officer?

Clinton's bombing campaigns in Afghanistan and the Sudan were criminal, acts of State Terrorism, but they weren't aimed at US cities.

As Shawn points out, this is laughable.

Clinton is responsible for allowing bin Laden to continue to be free, but that he didn't directly facilitate the attacks on America.

Really. And what do you base this analysis on? So far you're just pulling opinions out of your ass. Following all of the assertions that you have made, we would HAVE to conclude that either Clinton was also part of the plot, or that Bush wasn't. Otherwise you're just drawing arbitrary lines and placing guilt based on your personal feelings rather than any quantifiable facts, and you're doing so without any internal consistency.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home