9/11 and the Smoking Gun (new Asia Times article discussing LIHOP!)

I posted this in the general forum, but it died, so I'm reposting it here. Now it's a couple days old.


Looks like the LIHOP theory (Bush let 9/11 happen on purpose) is breaking into the mainstream. One reporter at the Asia Times at least appears to be into it. The Asia Times is an online newspaper, but well respected, kind of an Asian version of Salon.

Here's two articles that are good summaries of a lot of evidence, and just came out yesterday:

9-11 AND THE SMOKING GUN
Part 1: 'Independent' commission
By Pepe Escobar

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FD07Aa01.html

Part 2: A real smoking gun
By Pepe Escobar

Part 1: 'Independent' commission

If the 9-11 Commission is really looking for a smoking gun, it should look no further than at Lieutenant-General Mahmoud Ahmad, the director of the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) at the time.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FD08Aa01.html

---

Note that the second article talks about the ISI and Mahmood Ahmed, something I've been pushing for a long time, for instance with this essay:

http://cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essaysaeed.html

I'm glad to see some reporters are starting to pick up on those facts.

Pepe Escabar is a good reporter who has been around for a while and knows a lot of scuttlebut in Asia. For instance, he wrote this about bin Laden just before 9/11:

http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/CH30Df01.html

How could the 9-11 events happen without ACTIVE decisions being made and certain ACTIONS taken, in order to facilitate what happened?

There's really no such thing as LIHOP, is there? I know it sounds more politically acceptable to talk in those terms, but it's really misleading.

but I am still hung up on the planes still being around and the messy credentials of the original pilots.
The way I see it, the pilots and the planes could barely have made it to their original destinations without mishap in the first place.
Take Flight 77 for example, both pilot and copilot has restrictions on their ATP certificates due to their poor vision.

Copilot David Charlebois whose First Class Medical Certification had expired in May 2001, had additional restrictions, namely
757 CIR APPCH VMC ONLY
767 CIR APPCH VMC ONLY

This to me, and I am sure I will be corrected if I am mistaken, means that when it came to landing, he was to take a circular approach in visual metrological conditions ONLY.

This has something to do with an optical illusion which affects some people more than others, but everyone in general. It is rather like the blind spot when you are driving a car except that it makes people land the plane BEFORE they actually get to the start of the runway.
http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/182402-1.html

Anyhow, Charlebois was limited and tail-hook pilot Charles Burlingame had to wear corrective lenses in order to be permitted to fly in the first place. And all this time I thought that them thar tail-hooks had to be 20/20.

Now Flight 77 was heading to Los Angeles airport which is just about the single WORST airport for someone with the CIR APPCH VMC ONLY restriction.
Just makes you wonder whether the guys who scheduled those two pilots onto that flight ever intended them to make it back alive.
Oh, sorry, I forgot, he never did get around to scheduling that flight now did he? And since the flight was never scheduled, then how were the tickets sold?

Sorry, I was thinking aloud there for a minute.....

BAD al qaeda.
BAD Osama.
BAD Saddam.
BAD BAD BAD.

Good Sammy Sosa.

I interpret LIHOP loosely. For instance, blocking an investigation that would have uncovered the 9/11 plot would still be LIHOP in my book. MIHOP I define as the US gvm actually taking part in the plot, and not just managing or blocking information about it.

Other definitions might differ, but that's mine.

My personal LIHOP/MIHOP definition goes like that:

LIHOP: 9/11 happened as we are told: 19 suicide hijackers.

MIHOP: It was a big deceit. No suicide hijackers.

I definitely prefer version B, but that doesn't mean I think the US-government was behind the attacks. Ashcroft obviously really thought he was in danger when he changed his flying habits. He was in fear of real hijackings, so he was definitely not one of the masterminds of the attacks.

My guess is that 9/11 was planned by some right-wing US military. They hired some arabic guys like Atta, spoke with their pakistani friends, and made sure that in every agency (CIA, FBI, FAA, Airlines, US government) there were (very) few persons who knew about the plan and helped out.

"Ashcroft obviously really thought he was in danger when he changed his flying habits."

There's really no way (right now, anyhow) to know what was in his mind.
Ashcroft could have simply been following a pre-set script.

Repeatedly after 9/11 and agin at the Tues night Press Conf. Bush, Codi, and others keep repeating 'If we had known they would use planes a missiles we would have done something to stop it' To me this is an admission that the Administration KNEW that they (OBL and co.) were gonna hijack planes, but they never said anything about crashing the planes. The analogy is this... If your friend says he/she wants to borrow your car and then after drinking a half gallon of vodka crashes into a bus full of Nuns and orphans killing them all. Now had you known that your friend was going to drink and drive you never would have given them the keys, this sounds like the same logic being used by the White House