MIHOP, LIHOP and CD. You gotta decide.

I had a great deal of time on my hands over the past four days, and have come to the following conclusions. I thought I'd share them with this body of truthers for comment or debate. My thesis is this: If you allow Controlled Demolition, you must ascribe to MIHOP, all the way. The basis for this theory is as follows. If you were an "agent of LIHOP", and you knew that on a certain date a certain action was to take place, your actions would most likely be engineered to improve the shock value and/or believability of said action or event. In the case of September 11, as this agent of LIHOP, your intelligence would indicate that several hijacked airliners would be used as weapons against certain important civilian and military establishments. Your mission would be to increase the visbility of, the impact of, or the credibilty of said events. Possibly also the successful execution of said events.

The problem with LIHOP in the case of controlled demolition of the WTC towers is that too much would be left to chance for this to be a believable scenario. I guess I should step back for just a moment and explain where I stand on the whole CD issue. There were far too many laws of physics broken, far too many forensic clues in the evidence, and far too many video, audio, seismic and witness testimonies of the explosions for me to be any where else on this issue. Add to that the avenues for placement of the explosives created by the power downs on the towers, the stonewalling by the Bush administration of the investigations, the unprecedented collapse of three steel frame buildings in one 12 hour period, and the ridiculous 9.11 omission and NIST studies , I just can't be elsewhere on this debate.

So, back to the LIHOP hurdle. If your intelligence lead you to ALL of the planned events for this day, you might have the means to improve the shock value of said event. CD would do that, certainly. Unfortunately, it has problematically decreased the believabilty of this event, by virtue of all of the aforementioned problems with reconciling the "collapse" with the evidence. Now, here is where I really think it makes sense. There are way too many variables in play for LIHOP and CD. You've got multiple hijackers that have to:

Arrive at the airport on time. Check into a flight on time. Make it through screening, carrying weapons. (yes, I know we allowed knives back then, but work with me on this). Make it on to a flight that isn't delayed or cancelled or overbooked or mechanically compromised, or delayed by any other flight that was any of the above. Gain complete control of the flight attendants and passengers whilst murdering one or several of them. Gain access to the cockpit, overpowering pilots that have a mandate to retain control of the aircraft at all costs. Overpowering pilots who were mostly of a military background. Assume control of a highly complex aircraft in mid-flight, and visually ascertain where the flight was, and visually redirect said flights across numerous crowded air corridors, while above cloud level, then visually find and attack the two WTC towers and the Pentagon, while displaying remarkable prowess at doing so and manuevering said aircraft.
Now, it gets really interesting.
Strike said targets without the assitance of any of the normal tools pilots use for guidance. Are you familiar with the term "pattern altitude?". It is the altitude at which a plane must be at when on final approach. The remainder of the approach is consumed with corrections to course, yaw, pitch, rate of airspeed and altitude. Visual markers are present, indicating the course needed to center on the runway. Lights are used at night, long stripes and visual pathways exist during the day. NONE of these exist when striking an unplanned target. Can pilots land without these guides? Sure, if they are IFR, not VFR. Our lads with boxcutters weren't VFR. I know it was a clear day, but we're not talking about driving a car here, but operating a highly complex airframe without proper training.
Now, the hijackers must hit their target. Must not miss, nor change their minds about the importance of this target vs. another they might find, i.e. the Statue of Liberty, etc. Must not be overpowered again by passengers, or the flight crew.

And if ANY of these variables is violated, you and your band of LIHOPpers have three rigged buildings that have no excuse for existing. If one tower is hit and gets CD'd, the other must as well. Subsequent scrutiny would divulge the pre-set charges, and all would be lost.

So, for the record, that is why I largely ignore any discussion of what Condi Rice knew when about the attacks, or who wired Atta how much when, or anything else that smells of LIHOP. LIHOP in this case could be compared to me warning you that I have advance knowledge that I'm about to hit you. No shit.

couldn't have said it better!

Thanks, craniac!

Funny how we get so caught up in our thought process we miss obvious points like the ones you raise. Those planes were precision-guided, not muslim-guided, and whoever planted the explosives in the buildings needed to be absolutely sure they struck or they would have been caught with their pants down and their jig up.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


And my favorite.....

Nearly two hours of flying around while our fighters were on the ground.

everything would have been

everything would have been so much easier if they just said "Al-Qaeda rigged the buildings" a couple of days after the attacks...

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

Actually, Bush tried to . . .


Bush made a gaffe this past August when he spoke about guarding against any more terrorists "placing explosives high up in buildings". I don't know about you, but the only high buildings I can associate with any so-called terrorist attacks are WTC 1 & 2.

I also think that is why the first place Air Force One flew that day was Louisiana, then on to SAC in Nebraska. I think he wanted one foot out the door if the public didn't buy the "attack/collapse" story.

Dear Andrew . . .

Well, I thought I was damn interesting, but that is beside the point.

SO, here's a bit more of my thread if you will. How hard it is to hit a runway or a target in an airplane anyhow? I can think of two examples where it is shown to be quite difficult, even for a fully trained professional or military pilot.

Hitting an aircraft carrier deck:

When an aircraft makes contact with a flight carrier deck, do you know what position the throttle(so) are in?

Wide open. Full throttle. That way, if the aircraft misses the arresting cable, the plane has enough roll speed to get back airborne again. Those are some of the best pilots on the face of the earth. They miss once in a while. They have had extensive training on the airframe they are in command of, as we know. I also know you can't compare the size of an arresting cable with the side of a high rise, but I'd like you to consider the level of training each pilot has had when in the context of the comparison.

The space shuttle on earth approach:

This is a big one too. You see, an aircraft on final approach really isn't on "final" approach. If the pilot runs too far off course, or runs out of viable corrections, he or the tower decides to wave off, and a second approach is attempted. This happens as an ordinary cause of business at airports. It doesn't happen every day, but it is fairly common in the scheme of things. But the space shuttle is a "dead stick" landing. You only get one chance to hit your target. Sound familiar? It's enough of a big deal that only the best pilots in the country get to attempt it.

Both of these "targets" are hit, if you will, by fully trained, highly competent pilots with a complete working knowledge of the entire instrument array, and the cooperation of the control tower, and a well-trained co-captain. In the past, even a 3rd seat navigator was common, though most modern heavies are two seat jobs these days.

So, "what" hit the world trade center towers is not the context I present this bog in today. WHO, or what, was controlling those planes, and what level of complicit behavior was in play on the ground most certainly is. If you still think it was under-trained Muslims flying at a level years beyond their competence level, into the waiting arms of LIHOPS, then we need to talk. As much as I agree with the need to have a forum to discuss any relevant theory of these "attacks", today I want to hold to this topic. I trust my display of the logic of CD in the context of a MIHOP or LIHOP environment will be seen as just that, and I graciously accept all the platitudes it has earned today.

my platitude came yesterday

so here's one for today. great post! and don't forget to chime in on Matt Taibbi's latest Alternet post--he promised us he would cover "the science" after his last hit piece, and he seems to still be studying it because his post is about the media being complicit in the Iraq War (gasp! is it so, Matt??)

Show the gatekeepers what they're up against--confront their resident denier here:



Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


Matt Taibbi gets another hack


Just posted a challenge to Mr. Taibbi as you requested. Thank you for the lead.


No apology needed, Andrew.


I was only mocking my dismay, and I hope you didn't take it as true offense. I am dead on with you re; the remote controlled drones.

And I have been leading somewhere with related threads about this issue, but I was repeatedly shot down as a "no-planer", which I am decidedly not. There is not a shadow of a doubt that two airborne objects hit the towers at a high impact value on 9.11.

I had asked our fellow bloggers to review certain known video and still photos of the pre-impact and impact scenes looking for common anomolies between different video sources, which I can assure any one truly exist. What I was trying to imply was this: It is possible that certain holographic techniques were used to "enhance", if you will, the appearance of said aircraft. When you have unique video sources that share anomolies, this becomes an entirely plausible theory. There are photographs which appear to show remote-piloted CL-327's lurking in the airspace around the towers at the time of the impacts, which could have been bearing holographic projection devices. If you allow my train of thought, you can reconcile not only the video anomolies, but also the varying eye-witness accounts, from "It was definitely a commercial aircraft" to "that wasn't no (sic) boeing" to the "It had a circular logo". Much of one's testimony would have been predicated on their position relative to the holographic projections, if they had indeed been in use.

As I said before on this site, please put me in the "planes that are lying to us" category, a little sub-traunch I invented. And, Andrew, thank you for your comentary and broad vision in this matter.