Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Lauren Johnson]

Under you LIHOP vs. MIHOP view, who made the decision to let it happen on purpose?

[Jeffrey Orling]

Under you LIHOP vs. MIHOP view, who made the decision to let it happen on purpose?

I don't think one person made a single over arching decision which was then handed down and implemented by managers. A guess of course. My conception is that all those who are in top positions inside the NSS, intel and MIC subscribe to the same world view and they don't need to be told precisely what to do.

If you ask random senior military person you might encounter they will all share a similar conception of who the enemy is at any given time and how to fight and so forth. My suspicison is that the LIHOP means that there was intel that an attack was in the making... and this was seen as the oppportiunity to respond with overwhelming force and define the new enemy as a tangible real threat to the people of the US.

If a plot was thwarted the people would think...oh yea right... BS you guys made it up and are looking for a promotion or some such... so in order to ramp it up and get the next round of procurements going and a hot war and grab some oil a pretext was needed that would make this fly. No enemy no MIC and no procurement and downsizing and so forth... so those on the inside have a vested interest in seeing that there are enemies and credible ones... bombing a war ship in Yemen is hardly going to impact of the domestic population of the US.

The terrorists understood that they US loses all counter insurgencies and drains them... which is precisely what happened post 9/11. Once the empire tries to use their armies it always ends in a terrific loss to the empire and a waste of their treasure and eventually the people lose interest in supporting the adventurism. So they then resort to these little false flags to make sure people don't forget. But the empire is not growing it's bleeding not.

Who makes the decision to bomb civilians? or wedding parties? These sadists believe the are taking out the enemy and could care less... they are hired killers not paid to think or quesiton orders and policies. Once you get all these bots in place they do what bots do... what they are programmed to do. No thinking allowed.

[Lauren Johnson]

My suspicison is that the LIHOP means that there was intel that an attack was in the making... and this was seen as the oppportiunity to respond with overwhelming force and define the new enemy as a tangible real threat to the people of the US.

That's not LIHOP. You seem to be backing away from that position as well in your use of the passive voice. "There was intel" -- that's all? Either someone with command authority like the SecDef says don't do anything or you don't have LIHOP.

And this is why I think you are doing the rope-a-dope on this. To say some authorities decided to Let It Happen On Purpose, is to say it was something akin to an inside job. So you back off and make things vague.

So do you adopt a LIHOP position or have come up with another position?

[Jeffrey Orling]

[quote=Lauren Johnson][QUOTE]
That's not LIHOP. You seem to be backing away from that position as well in your use of the passive voice. "There was intel" -- that's all? Either someone with command authority like the SecDef says don't do anything or you don't have LIHOP.

And this is why I think you are doing the rope-a-dope on this. To say some authorities decided to Let It Happen On Purpose, is to say it was something akin to an inside job. So you back off and make things vague.

So do you adopt a LIHOP position or have come up with another position?[/QUOTE]

The secdef is not in on all the workings / operations of the thousands of people lower down in the chain of command. One would think that some things need to be sent up to the top... but it's also conceivable that someone blocked the info flow because of their own agenda. And this is also how plausible deniability works... They DON'T want to be connected to the decisions in many cases and the people lower down simply act as expected in many cases. Or in some take advanstage of their position to do or not do something.

Neocons were in lots of key positions inside the defense establishment and they seemed to be pushing their own agenda... and I assume would abuse their power and positions if the opportunity presented. If Rowley and Edmonds etc. are to believed intel was working with and knew more about what was going down than they are letting on. The 8/6 PDB indicates that there was some sort of awareness that something was up.. insider plot or terrorist... the gov did essentially nothing and perhaps agents assumed at the time that the information was being sent along and measures were being taken. Who knows?

I don't know... I can only guess and it seems more likely to be a LIHOP with lots of bungling and so forth which needed to be covered up... not to mention the surprize when the impenetrable towers fell down.

[Lauren Johnson]

I can only guess and it seems more likely to be a LIHOP with lots of bungling and so forth which needed to be covered up

Rope-a-dope. You are adopting the essential cover story of the Bush administration. How can you trust government. Everybody knows it is incompetent and worthless.

I don't think one person made a single over arching decision which was then handed down and implemented by managers. A guess of course. My conception is that all those who are in top positions inside the NSS, intel and MIC subscribe to the same world view and they don't need to be told precisely what to do.

And I should comment on this one as well. You are saying that our government is like the Borg, a hive mind. Nobody gives or receives order because they already know what to do? This is a whole new theory of bureaucracy.

[Phil Dragoo]

I recall the emotions of the weekend in November in 1963; the demonization of this "Lee Harvey Oswald" Communist defector was virtually complete.

Come September in the New Millenium and out of the perfect sky come the nineteen, a number recurring in Farakan's rantings, epically evil.

In the case of NIST data and CIA files on Joannides the truth is barred from the American public thus defeating the premise cited by the founders of an informed citizenry.

The information provided by Tony Szamboti is a destruction in detail of the official scenario, the steel didn't attain the heat required to weaken it, just as The Girl on the Stairs demonstrates the designated patsy was not where he was said to be.

Here are three parallels listed by Mr. Szamboti:

Both situations were massive crimes used to change national policies, which would not have been changed otherwise.

Both were blamed on patsies who could not have accomplished the observations.

Both were covered up by powerful people who are/were very likely a part of the same group, with the same type of motivations now, as they were in 1963.

NSAM 273 was signed by LBJ (written by Dulles minion Bundy) Tuesday the 26th and the party was on, over JFK's dead body.

The invasion of Iraq had already been planned by the Rumsfeldian interests, and of course, Afghanistan, the heroin (90% of the world), gots t'go.

The role of cognitive dissonance remains key to prolonging the death grip of this cabal. Scorn, ridicule, counterpoint as far as the eye can see.

John O'Neill saw it coming and was sabotaged and marginalized and crushed within the collapse.

Colleen Rowley advised her superiors of Middle Eastern men taking flying lessons sans take-off and landing and was ignored and was slapped down by Mueller who was so useful.

The test for explosives wasn't done on a pretext delivered mockingly--why look for what isn't there.

Why look in a government commission for a truth which isn't there--it would be a negative template: how it was not done.

We know the Confusatory was a Byrd house and Zapruder was part of the club and of course Ted Dealey--and that little Dulles had been the shyster for ze bigs for decades, Ruling the World with his wacky brother, while Lemnitzer's Northwoods and Angleton's Three-File-Monte were more than roadside attractions.

And as Mr. Szamboti indicates with the 1978 City Bank dead-of-night elevator shaft retro a clandestine rigging orders above the Letelier boom box was entirely within the realm.

Peter, you posted the Ryan study which I found explosive:

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...Kevin-Ryan

Molten steel indicated in the work of Mr. Szamboti though the official misleader Gross insists it must have been Disney fairy dust and gypsum.

We are dealing with a security state which has a stealth blimp which films the sky above to project on its lower surface visible from below.

It has been done to us again and again. No passive allowance in this, no mishap, hip hop, I-Hop, hopscotch--

The towers did not collapse due to the theory presented nor due to the nineteen with boxcutters diverting limited mass and accelerant at redundant structures

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5020[/ATTACH]
How'd they do it?

[Jeffrey Orling]

Sorry,

I am not convinced of the conspiracy you see and I see no evidence for CD. Tony's claims have been amply refuted. If you want to ignore this and believe Tony... be my guest. I linked to the discussion where his theories have been demolished. You decide.

military intelligence is a contradiction. The clowns at the top couldn't shoot straight... you give them way way more credit for intelligence and vision than they deserve or have.

[Albert Rossi]

If I might intrude on this thread... I certainly do not pretend to be versed in the Twin Towers / Pentagon attack of 2001 as I am in the assassinations of the 60s, but I was wondering if I might ask a question. If someone prefers to answer this question by pointing me to another discussion, that would be OK. I just haven't the time right now to go digging through past DPF posts. But it is something that has made me wonder.

Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the towers were rigged to come down after the planes hit. Why would this have to be done? To hide something concerning the planes or the hijackers? To create even greater terror/spectacle? Or were there other targets of opportunity in the Twin Towers?

I know my questions demonstrate that I'm not quite up to speed in this area, but a quick summary here for my benefit would be great. Thank you,

Al

[Lauren Johnson]

If I might intrude on this thread... I certainly do not pretend to be versed in the Twin Towers / Pentagon attack of 2001 as I am in the assassinations of the 60s, but I was wondering if I might ask a question. If someone prefers to answer this question by pointing me to another discussion, that would be OK. I just haven't the time right now to go digging through past DPF posts. But it is something that has made me wonder.

Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the towers were rigged to come down after the planes hit. Why would this have to be done? To hide something concerning the planes or the hijackers? To create even greater terror/spectacle? Or were there other targets of opportunity in the Twin Towers?

I know my questions demonstrate that I'm not quite up to speed in this area, but a quick summary here for my benefit would be great. Thank you,

Al

I have posted on this on another thread but can't find it. First, I think 9/11 was a made-for-television spectacle to prepare the world for the writing of history a la Hegel. Think of the first days after 9/11, we saw a mediocre President rise to the occasion and become a Great Leader. We saw the beginning of the USA going to a war of revenge and prevention. And so on.

Next imagine that the towers were left as smoldering husks. The narrative would have been driven by the buildings? Are they safe? Will they need to be torn down? There would be investigators pouring all over them. In my view, it would have sucked the air out of the war narrative. Sure, we would have gone to war, but the transformative energies would have been quite different. The creators of history would have had a lot harder time. The blood sacrifice had to be complete to create the new enemy for the new world order.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Al

......I think 9/11 was a made-for-television spectacle to prepare the world for the writing of history a la Hegel.....

Excellent imagination and projection! But there was no reason to drop 7... the twins would have served the purpose you envision. 7 came down because of a chain reaction related to the plane strikes and the entire wtc exposed the inadequacy of the designs, the fire protection, the egress and the emergency management response, the failure to prevent an attack... 4 hijackings on US soil and to foil it with our expensive spy apparatus.

So GWB who ran like a lost sheep was told to use 9/11 to go for the oil and flex America's muscle so the world knows who'se boss.

Sure everything we see on TV is... made for TV... before 9/11 the were producing fake news ... and the gulf war had the incubator baby actress before congress.

There is no evidence of explosives found. No steel showing signs of being blown apart by explosives and not a single person who has leaked a bit of the plot even in a death bed confession.

There were also sorts of weird engineering decisions which the WTC represented and made them come apart like a house of cards. None of the bizarre engineering issues were investigated BECAUSE they needed to turn lemons into lemonade and get on with the plans of empire that were waiting for a reason to attack. Notice how they are trying to do thos with Iran and even North Korea... in north Africa they created the Arab spring and bombed Libya another non threat to the empire and supported terrorists there.

Post 9/11 we were then trained repeatedly to fear terrorism... You don't want another 9/11? take off your shows and empty your pockets. Sheeple don't need much coaxin'