LIHOP

Chomsky Confronted on 9/11: Admits LIHOP is "Conceivable"

http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20091105_chomsky_confronted.htm

Chomsky Confronted on 9/11; Admits LIHOP is "conceivable"

James Corbett
The Corbett Report
5 November, 2009

A 9/11 activist recently confronted Noam Chomsky on his previous, well-publicized disparaging remarks about 9/11 truth. After spending several minutes repeating his tired arguments about the impossibility of 9/11 as an inside job, Chomsky then concedes that the notion that the Bush Administration knew of an impending attack and let it happen on purpose is "conceivable." Watch footage of the confrontation in the video player below:

David Ray Griffin: LIHOP/MIHOP are NOT divisive (maybe they were once, but certainly not anymore)

Fairly recently, Dr. David Ray Griffin was interviewed by Kevin Barrett on No Lies Radio, and was asked about the nature of the Lihop versus Mihop labels as they pertain to the seeking of truth.

http://noliesradio.org/archives/300

At 36:41 into the show we have this exchange:

KB:...and since I got a question from Jon Gold, another uh, long time hard working 9/11 activist, about divisive wedge issues like you know LIHOP vs MIHOP and, you know, we talked about possible Israeli Involvement or not and things like that. What..what's your thought about uh, the issue of possible Israeli involvement uh in gen...in...as, uh, that particular issue and the question of these wedge issues and how do we deal with them in the movement?

Bush Admin's Katrina LIHOP - Knew For Hours that levees had Broken, Didn't Tell

From GregPalast.com,

Expert Fired
Who Warned Levees Would Burst
Hurricane George, Four Years Later

On the night of August 29, 2005, van Heerden was shut in at the state emergency center in Baton Rouge, providing technical advice to the rescue effort. As Hurricane Katrina came ashore, van Heerden and the State Police there were high-fiving it: Katrina missed the city of New Orleans, turning east.

What they did not know was that the levees had cracked. For crucial hours, the White House knew, but withheld the information that the levees of New Orleans had broken and that the city was about to drown. Bush's boys did not notify the State of the flood to come which would have allowed police to launch an emergency hunt for the thousands that remained stranded.

"Fifteen hundred people drowned. That's the bottom line," said van Heerden.

To add insult to injury,

Interesting article, is it disinformation?

From TBR News October 22, 2007

http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a2774.htm

Never sure what to make of this. It may be disinformation, limited hangout, what have you. Part of the problem is, we really have limited ability to assess the credibility of the sources. Here is an excerpt:

"Reports to Department of Justice (FBI) and CIA to White House in re coming attacks: The President notified.

As it appeared that there would be such attacks for a certainty., our Embassy first of all contacted both the American Justice Department and the Central Intelligence Agency and appraised them of the seriousness of the situation. Eventually, the office of the Ambassador made contact with top aides of the Vice President Cheney.

Downsizer promotes LIHOP, dismisses false flag operation

We are still being dissed as wild conspiracy theorists.

Blog Home | Blog Archives | RSS Feed

Downsize DC Blog
Our Position on 9-11 Truth

Home » blogs » Perry Willis's blog
Our Position on 9-11 Truth

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/2007/jun/11/our_position_on_9-11_truth
Today's Downsizer Dispatch . . .

Please share with concerned friends . . .

Quotes of the Day:

With great power comes great responsibility.

-- Spider-man (Stan Lee)

Big claims require big evidence.

-- a fundamental principle of critical thinking

Subject: Our Position on 9-11 Truth

Given the subject of our latest campaign it seems incumbent upon us to state where we stand on the subject of 9-11 Truth.

We feel there is sufficient evidence to assert that the federal government had all the powers and resources it needed to prevent the 9-11 attacks.

* It knew that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack the United States.
* It knew that Al Queda agents were operating in the country.
* It knew that suicide attacks with airplanes were a real possibility.

Who Decides What Is LIHOP And What Is MIHOP?

I'm sitting here reading the blogs, and I'm seeing an awful lot of information being shunned by the ever popular "LIHOP" label. I've said this before, and I'll say it again. If the hijackings were everything we were led to believe, and the only thing elements of this Government did was make a conscious decision to "let" the attacks occur, then they MADE IT HAPPEN. Of course, evidence exists that says not everything about that day is as we were led to believe. And of course, there is evidence to suggest elements within this Government did A LOT more than nothing to insure the attacks' success.

I firmly believe that the LIHOP and MIHOP labels are divisive. Why couldn't we just look at it from the perspective of "this person thinks differently than I do" or, "this person thinks different information is important?" If the information that is being peddled is misinformation or disinformation, then it should be questioned. However, if it is legitimate information, then that person should have a right to promote
it. Without being attacked or labeled.

What Is Your HOP Level? Scenarios of What May Have Happened on 9/11

I hope readers will find that this old piece of mine remains relevant as a guide today.

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

Peter Lance - The King of LIHOP??

I have been watching this guy on C-Span Book TV for the past 30 minutes.

Talk about a man who's working for the government to do his best to allow them to weasel out from under the complicity of 9/11.

He is discussing his new book "Triple Cross" A book which is written around
the involvement of Ali Mohammed in Al-CIAda and terrorism directed towards the
United States.

Here is a review of this book:
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/66/23932

This LIHOP Democrat article needs some encouragement, and some MIHOP comments

Google Blogs Alert for: 9/11 inside job

SABOTAGE IN THE WHITE HOUSE:.
CONGRESS, CLEAN OUT THE COCKROACHES. By Bgilmore

These are the people who strong-armed Congress NOT to investigate 9/11,
who used every ruse to stop an investigation and to avoid testifying before the 9/11
commission. Why? Because, they said....
http://www.democrats.com/node/12099

(Video) - "BushTrek: The Voyages of Starship Enron's Prize"

For anyone who hasn’t seen it, this is hilarious and basically a great LIHOP statement. Although I don't personally agree completely with some of points made like "Petroleum - the final reserves" (Peak Oil etc). From TooStupidToBePresident.com, made in 2002.

Email Exchange with Noam Chomsky

I wrote:
Dear Noam,

Recently I stumbled upon a transcript of something
you'd written on a Znet forum and I thought I'd ask
for clarification. You wrote:

"The concept of a 'false flag operation' is not a very
serious one, in my opinion."

I wonder why you would sa that. For instance, are you
suggesting that the Gleiwitz incident didn't happen or
that it wasn't important?

I should divulge that I find the evidence for US
complicity in 9/11 compellng. Specifically it seems
to me that the current administration had foreknowlege
of the September 11th attacks and were criminally
negligent at best and may have facilitated the attack.
You were discussing this issue when you claimed that
the very concept of a false flag attack wasn't
serious, but I'm not asking you about that subject
now. I'm just curious about your more general view
that 'false flag opearations' don't happen or aren't
serious.

More From JoAnne from Counterpunch

Joanne wrote:

I didn't respond to the Piazza Fontana example because I am not familiar with it. Agents provocateurs working for US intelligence and planted in left organizations in the 60s proposed and possibly executed bombings then too. That doesn't prove your point that the US government planned and executed attacks designed to destroy perhaps the most iconic symbols of capital, the Twin Towers, plunge NY's economy and the financial sector into crisis, kill thousands of people, bankrupt the airlines, etc. etc. That's just New York. It also doesn't prove that thousands of people involved in the crime have for five years maintained an iron silence.

Yes, I know about Clarke and also know how Condi Rice responded to that in testimony. I'm not sure of the veracity or context of the Bush quote, but having a report saying Bin Laden wants to attack the US also doesn't contradict my point of incompetence, indifference, hubris and perhaps opportunism akin to that of FDR, who had warnings of a Japanese attack but didn't figure on the destruction of the US Pacific fleet.

This is my fundamental political problem with the "nutters" (your word, not mine): by suggesting some special monstrosity in the Bush administration they deflect from the average-old monstrosity of US foreign policy, decade in decade out, regardless of the party in power. There is essentially no antiwar movement, essentially no element organized powerfully to press for a reverse in foreign policy, in economic policy, no organization on the left worth a damn. In the void there are conspiracy theorists. Your point is, Why not encourage them? I think they have encouragement enough and certainly shouldn't be beyond critique because of grieving families.

Why Didn’t the US Warn Us about the 9/11 Terrorists?

I have tried for years to get Antiwar.com to cover 9/11 Truth - to no avail.

In fact, one of their regular contributors - Paul Craig Roberts - is regularly censored on the topic. It appears they will only publish his editorials if they are non-9/11 related.

But, with the recent revelations from Bob Woodward's new book, it appears that Antiwar. com is beginning to nibble at the edges of LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose).

This blog (reproduced on Antiwar.com's front page) is somewhat promising.

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2006/10/22/sensitive-intelligence/

We should all take the time to drop a few emails to Antiwar.com encouraging them to continue to cover this topic. But, please, try to keep your emails polite and non-accusatory. Simply thank them - and ask them if they could kindly explore this topic further.

Buzzflash goes LIHOP?

Did anybody catch this Buzzflash editorial?

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/node/381/print

It looks like they are close to the tipping point. Not many comments posted, but it looks like the momentum is in our favor.