Question for LIHOP'ers

What do you believe happened on 9/11 to make it an inside job, but for the gov't to not assist in the orchestration of it? Do you really believe that BushCo knew about the attacks coming and just sat back and let it happen on purpose to benefit from it afterwards???

I can not fathom the gov't being complicit with 9/11 without assisting in the attacks in at least the most minimal way.

Please help me understand your position and theories as how the gov't was involved without being involved.

I never thought that they might not even exist!

LIHTI

Let It Happen Thru Incompetance

Are you saying that U.S. incompetance led to 9/11 happening and it was no inside job?

what i am saying. that it was NOT an inside job. now i also think that they have covered up the details and how it could have been stopped if it wasnt for this incompetance.

Sure. LIHOP lets you suppose the Bushites knew the hijackings were
going to happen but didn't know they were suicide hijackings. So maybe
they planned on planes sitting on runways for days and days,
Entebbe-style raids, and were willing to risk the very few passengers
in those low-occupancy planes.

Then they find out they're kamikaze hijackers. Ooops.

LIHOP explains why the hijackers were not detected before 9/11, and has
the same motivational scheme (increased military budgets, invasions,
USAPatriot) as MIHOP.

But it goes down a lot easier.

LIHOP'ers really believe those Cessna flunky hijackers pilots woke up on 9/11 as flying aces and had no "help" from remote control?

You guys really believe there were no bombs in any of the WTC's, especially the 7?

Most people find even the idea of LIHOP so monstrous they don't want
to consider it. And few people bother to inform themselves about the
facts. The 9/11 Commission Report is the kind of fat book that people
will buy, meaning to read, and not quite get around to finishing--once
they've gotten through the part about the hijackings and the FAA
"incompetence" and the crashes, and skimmed the part about al Qaeda
they probably set it down. "The answers are all there," they'll tell
their friends. The book thumps reassuringly. "If it just had an
index I could look stuff up." But it doesn't have an index, and most
of its footnotes are to sources that are not available to the public.

"Incompetence" explains to the poorly informed why the pre-9/11
warnings were ignored, why the dots were not connected, and why there
was no air defense, and even the coverups--because they're covering up
incompetence. The easy explanations like "it would require a massive
conspiracy" serve to shut down discussions even of LIHOP for those
reluctant to investigate the extensive pre-9/11 warnings for
themselves.

You're assuming that people arrive at their positions after being
throughly informed. The beliefs are a progression. Few people have
ever bothered to learn of the Pentagon-strike maneuvers. Few people
have given enough thought to the CD hypothesis to know that bombing
the towers would not necessarily require thousands of charges and
miles of det cord, or to recognize that if random structural and fire
damage to WTC7 could make it collapse straight down, then perhaps a
few random charges could do the same thing.

They clearly knew it was going to happen and a lot of details about what was planned. It had been planned and discussed and practiced for by the Gov't over a long period.

http://www.flcv.com/warnings.html

I'm happy that people at least believe LIHOP, because it doesn't matter what everybody thinks really happened on 9/11 so much as to believe it was an inside job. If our govt's the slightest bit complicit with 9/11, than they are complicit with 9/11. We all share that belief.

I wish we could all move away from the false dichotomy of MIHOP/LIHOP. These catchphrases were invented here on this very message board in 2002, and nowadays represent an artificial split.

"LIHOP" logically is MIHOP, there is no necessary contradiction. Both of these pet theories say the attacks were the deliberate work of people within the regime and their associated covert operators. They denote at most differences in the HOW, not the ultimate result or the why.

But "LIHOP" nowardays is mainly used as an attack-phrase by people who pretend to be more radical-than-thou (often to discredit others who have drawn more attention).

There are real disagreements within the movement, but they do not center on these abstract slogans.

Examples of real disagreements:

1) Whether or not one "sees" the demolitions, and if so
1a) how one wants to present that evidence in public

2) Whether or not one sees "real" hijackers or terrorists, who may or may not have invented the idea of 9/11 in the first place, and who in the end were themselves exploited for the overall goal of staging such an attack on American soil.

3) The degree to which one is willing to accommodate the "soft" (actually indispensable imho) circumstantial and logical evidence of motives, benefits, money trails and advance knowledge, all of which will ultimately lead us to the politics and interests actually responsible for 9/11

4) How one wants to interact with non-movement people who think something stinks, but aren't always ready to go all the way -- especially the families and other direct victims of 9/11, but also people who "wouldn't put it past them" but are not yet "there."

5, 6 etc.) What one thinks happened at the Pentagon, whether one sees pods or not, etc.

No matter what one's answer to these questions:

My continued belief is to put a very high value on allies among the families and direct victims of Sept. 11, and try to treat people who are not "there" gently and respectfully, not to call them out as idiots and traitors.

Many within the movement who hoist the false term "MIHOP" unfortunately do that.

Which is not to say that some of the "MIHOP" people do not take an intelligent & constructive approach to the families & doubters. (I especially know such people live on the ground in NYC).

I think the most relevant question is:

"How do we make the 9/11 T movement victorious and irrelevant, by making it obvious to all doubters that 9/11 was an inside job, thus ending the need for a 9/11 T movement."

Once I wrote out a list of 10 common scenarios, from official story to total fabrication with no real terrorists involved, here:
http://summeroftruth.org/lihopmihopnohop.html

This is the one I most prefer, though I would no longer use the confusing term "LIHOP":

5 FULL LIHOP/LIHOP PLUS
LIHOP = Letting It Happen On Purpose

As in the official story, hijackers were dispatched by "al-Qaeda" (the Bin Laden-inspired cell networks) to carry out the 9/11 plan. However, Bush & Co. and/or other elements in the U.S. government, secret services or establishment knew about the attacks in advance and worked to ensure they would happen, with the intent of exploiting a New Pearl Harbor. This insider help included obstruction of FBI investigations, the Air Force standdown, and possible construction of other excuses for inaction, such as "we were only holding a wargame and it was subverted by evildoers."

5a. In LIHOP PLUS, the insiders took steps to guarantee that the 9/11 plot would succeed (why leave something so important in the hands of amateurs?), infiltrating and helping the hijackers, possibly even replacing them or steering the planes (or drones) by remote control, or doing whatever else was thought necessary.

Note: Scenarios 5a to 9 may or may not include a WTC demolition.

I think the likeliest hypothesis is of an inside job that exploited a "genuine" terrorist plot. Sometime between the Bojinka Plot of 1996 and 9/11 itself, the original Islamist extremist dream of crashbombing planes into American targets was subverted and then steered to fruition by masterminds within the U.S. power elite. This is the logical way to leave a robust trail of evidence pointing to the patsies. The perfect plot would produce a patsy who sincerely believed he had done it himself and was proud of it - like Marinus van der Lubbe, the man executed for burning the Reichstag.

MIHOP'ers get a lot of heat from LIHOP'ers when we push the envelope in trying to find out what really happened on 9/11. They call some of our theories "kooky" and that twe are "hurting" the truth movement by making 9/11 skeptics look like "loons".

LIHOP theory may be the "easier pill to swallow," but LIHOP theory is more hard to believe than the average MIHOP theory when you really look at it! LIHOP'ers scoff at "no plane" and "hologram" theories, but they believe in "magic hijacker pilot" and "magic fire collapsing" theories!

Who's theory is more "out there"?

I don't believe in the magic hijacker pilot - certainly not at the Pentagon - or in magic fire collapsing - certainly not in the case of WTC 7 and therefore also not the towers.

I also don't believe in the bogus LIHOP/MIHOP dichotomy.

Inside job at least says something.

And sorry, holograms is crazy.

I just have a problem when LIHOP'ers bash MIHOP'ers when LIHOP theory is crazier than some of the extreme MIHOP theories.