LIHOP vs. MIHOP vs. Rooty Tooty Fresh 'N Fruity Breakfast at IHOP

Via Jon Utley comes a link to this recent MSNBC/Wash Post story about 9/11 conspiracy theorists, who break down into two basic groups: one that believes the gummint "let it happen on purpose" (LIHOP) and one that believes the gummint "made it happen on purpose" (MIHOP). Which of course made me think of pancake breakfasts.

As the story explains, a recent poll over one-third of Americans believe that the government either "promoted the attacks or intentionally sat on its hands."

Folks associated with schools ranging from Claremont University, University of Minnesota, University of Illinois, Brigham Young University anchor the "academic" wing of the conspiracists. What is perhaps more striking are the former government officials who are pushing the conspiracy line:

Former Reagan aide Barbara Honegger is a senior military affairs journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School in California. She's convinced, based on her freelance research, that a bomb went off about six minutes before an airplane hit the Pentagon -- or didn't hit it, as some believe the case may be. Catherine Austin Fitts served as assistant secretary of housing in the first President Bush's administration and gained a fine reputation as a fraud buster; David Bowman was chief of advanced space programs under presidents Ford and Carter. Fitts and Bowman agree that the "most unbelievable conspiracy" theory is the one retailed by the government.

Then there's Morgan O. Reynolds, appointed by George W. Bush as chief economist at the Labor Department. He left in 2002 and doesn't think much of his former boss; he describes President Bush as a "dysfunctional creep," not to mention a "possible war criminal."

Whole story here.

Full disclosure: A decade ago, back when he was an active economics professor at Texas A&M, Reynolds wrote for Reason (go here for his omnibus review of mid-'90s book on criminal justice).

And go here for his Wikipedia bio and his personal Web site, No More Games.

Reason's own Tim Cavanaugh debated 9/11 conspiracy theorist Ken Jenkins on the RU Sirius radio show here.

And speaking of RU Sirius, he's written a sharp, critical profile of Mike Ruppert, an ex-LAPD narcotics cop who is one of the leading lights (however dim the wattage) of the LIHOP camp. Ruppert, notes Sirius, preaches dubious conspiracy theories to "auditoriums packed with enthusiastic hemp-wearing lefties, paying as much as $25 for the pleasure of having their darkest suspicions confirmed."

Read all about it at the newish site 10 Zen Monkeys, which is packed with interesting stuff.

Comments

[jf]

David Bowman was chief of advanced space programs under presidents Ford and Carter.
Interesting. I thought he disappeared into the monolith about 5 years ago.

[ed]

The so-called "scholars" and conspiracy theorists are nearly as evil as the terrorists themselves. Neurotics of this sort are usually just comical. These guys border on criminal.

[Umbriel]

Nobody has ever been able to tie the Nazis directly to the Reichstag fire, in spite of everything else they confessed to after the war. I don't believe they caused it. They just lept at the chance to exploit the hand history dealt them. Why that's not enough of a cautionary historical metaphor for some people without writing the Illuminati into it I don't know.

[Dan T.]

Remember, the official story is every bit as much a "conspiracy theory" as any other speculation.

[Jim Anderson]

Why does my server snicker when I order the RTF&F by its full name? It's the best deal on the menu, dammit.

[Horatius]

Check out this video about some of the "truthers" at Ground Zero. One of them has a little ditty about LIHOP vs. MIHOP
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4162315283354424113&hl=en

[Dan T.]

One more thought: isn't the out-of-hand dismissial of alternative explanations for major events such as 9/11 as "conspiracy theories" simply a fancy version of the logical fallacy konwn as "appeal to authority"?

Basically, it's saying that the official 9/11 story must be true because an authority figure (the US government) said it was.

[albo]

One more thought: isn't the out-of-hand dismissial of alternative explanations for major events such as 9/11 as "conspiracy theories" simply a fancy version of the logical fallacy konwn as "appeal to authority?

no, the theories are dismissed out of hand because they are not supported by a single shred of facts.

i can tell you that the sun rises in the west because my scientist father told me it does, but that's not necessarily appeal to authority.

[jf]

Dan T.,

I believe the term you are looking for is Occam's Razor.

[Shannon Love]

As the story explains, a recent poll over one-third of Americans believe that the government either "promoted the attacks or intentionally sat on its hands."

When you read something like that it makes it easier to understand how so many people fell for the conspiracy theories advanced by the Nazi and others in the pre-WWII era. America has a long history of paranoid conspiratorial political thought that dates back to the founding. Our saving grace seems to our diversity. The conspiracy theorist for any particular event never all agree on the same conspiracy. They all agree there was a conspiracy they just never agree on the who, why and how.

I think many people gravitate towards conspiracy explanations because such explanations provide a comforting world model. It is more comforting to believe that negative events arise from the machination of a small number of evil people than that they arise from the general chaos of existence. In the former case, fixing problems becomes relatively easy. One must simply identify the cabal and bring them to heal. In the latter case, however, the problem maybe unmitigable by any human agency.

Perhaps conspiracy theories are the modern equivalent of attributing natural events to supernatural personalities. The workings of the world petroleum markets are as inexplicable to many as lighting was to the ancients. Creating a story in which human personalities consciously direct markets makes more sense to them.

[Finkelstein]

Just follow the money on these loons. Selling books, or selling ads.

[Vanya]

It is odd how many former Bush officials have signed up for the conspiracy theories. But to me that says more about the quality of the people Bush has put in patronage positions than it does about the possibility Bush actually let/made 9/11 happen. Bush's cowardly reaction at the school house that day is incontrovertible proof he was taken by surprise, I don't think he is that good an actor.

[Peter K.]

I was about to type pretty much the same thing, Vanya.

[Simon]

Whether the govt was in any way involved in the 9/11 attacks remains to be proved. But, as has been pointed out by many, unarguably the official story is a conspiracy theory.

And while it's easy and fun to call conspiracy theorists all sorts of insulting names or question their motives, none of the proponents of the official theory can quite explain why the three WTC buildings collapsed as they did. The towers were designed to withstand being struck by aircraft. And burning jet fuel isn't near hot enough (by more than 1000?) to melt steel. So why did they fall? And how did another aircraft travel unchallenged into highly restricted Washington airspace? Many people would really appreciate a thoughtful answer (and not a simplistic insult) as a response. I know I would.

[James Kabala]

Dan T.: Certain parts of the conspiracy theories are so intrinsically ludicrous that no "appeal to authority" is needed. If no plane hit the Pentagon, where are the people on the plane (who included the Solicitor General's wife) today? The extreme form of the theory advocated by Reynolds, in which no plane attacked the Trade Center either, is so ludicrous as to be a sign, in my opinion, of serious mental disturbance. Other theorists are relying on "facts" - such as claims that certain hijackers have been reported alive and well in Europe - that have since been disproved. And Bin Laden has been seen boasting of the attacks on video - are these tapes faked? As for the science, I think an "appeal to authority" can be semi-justified. If all reputable scientists agree that the towers' collapse did not require secret explosives, and only a tiny minority of cranks dissent, I need compelling evidence before I believe the cranks.

[tros]

I agree with Umbriel. I don't think that the government did it by itself, and to what extent members of the government looked the other way we may never know. It's mostly the incredibly bold opportunism of the Republican Party, and the public's failure to recognize it as such, that makes people believe these bizarre alternatives.

[James Kabala]

Albo: The sun rises in the east. (I know it was just a typo; I'm not trying to mock you; but I thought I should point it out before a pro-conspiracy theory used it to mock you.)

[SR]

"A decade ago, back when he was an active economics professor at Texas A&M, wrote for Reason (go here for his omnibus review of mid-'90s book on criminal justice)."

Shouldn't there be a name in that sentence (presumably Reynolds)?

[madpad]

Regardless of what anyone believes or doesn't about the conspiracy theories, there are many unanswered questions that surround this very complex issue. They deserve response and not patronizing eye-rolling.

Still, just having a former George W. appointee refer to him as a "dysfuntional creep" has pretty much made my day...if not my whole week.

[Nick Gillespie]

sr,

yes, there should have been a name in that sentence and there is one now. thanks

[SR]

"yes, there should have been a name in that sentence and there is one now. thanks"

No problem; wherever there's a nit to pick, I'll be there!

[Umbriel]

Finkelstein -- Cynical though I am, I still think that the majority of those promoting this hooey are sincerely committed fruitbats themselves, not calculating manipulators. Though what you suggest might be more comforting somehow... 😉

Simon -- There have been a number of systematic debunkings of the major conspiracy theories -- Nova, Popular Mechanics, the book in the current left sidebar -- Without wanting to turn this thread into a detailed conspiracy "Fisking", I'd answer your specifically mentioned concerns by noting: 1) The airplane contemplated by the WTC architects was likely not a commercial airliner, and 9/11 represented the only full-scale test of their effort, 2) The fire didn't have to melt the steel to collapse the towers, only weaken it, and 3) Washington DC isn't exactly ringed by flak batteries and barrage balloons. The few Stinger missiles possibly positioned to defend key buildings like the White House and Capitol require visual target acquisition, which wouldn't have been easy to achieve even if their operators were expecting their targets. Consider 9/11 to be our own, more violent version of that kid who landed his plane in Red Square years ago.

And my own contempt for the 9/11 conspiracy set has very little to do with appeals to authority and very much to do with Occam's Razor, and the fact that most of the things often asserted to "not make sense" don't strike me personally as especially odd.

[albo]

there are many unanswered questions that surround this very complex issue.

and there will be. there are always unanswered questions. but that doesn't exempt the conspiracy theorists from the basic rules of supporting their argument, not ignoring facts, and using the scientific method.

They deserve response and not patronizing eye-rolling.

no, they don't. delve into some of them. they are in full-blown "the earth is flat and sun rises in the west" theories

/btw, "d'oh"

[Dan T.]

James K: I certainly don't mean to imply that many, if not most, of the alternative explanations for 9/11 are not worthy of serious consideration (after all, best case only one of them can be right).

My point is more the instant dismissal of any doubt of the official story, which I think any objective observer would admit doesn't really make intutive sense either.

Or if nothing else, it's unbelieveable that people will say "there's no way the US government could have done this" but have no trouble believing that a bunch of guys in a cave somewhere planned it out and some amatuers who had never even flown large aircraft pulled it off.

[madpad]

Find a cat turd in your rice krispies this morning, albo?

Certainly there will always be questions. But I didn't say or suggest that every single crazy theory needed to be explored or vetted. And I in no way suggested that unsubstantiated or plain unscientific views unsupported by any fact should have prevalence over the best understood explanations.

I'll give you an example.

One of the many "unexplained" aspects of the Kennedy assasination was what was Jack Ruby's motivation for killing Oswald.

It was one of those things that nagged at me for years. Then I did a little research into that specific issue (thanks to Google) and found out that Ruby was one crazy S.O.B. with a misguided sense of duty.

Question was answered - to my satisfaction anyway.

[albo]

but have no trouble believing that a bunch of guys in a cave somewhere planned it out and some amatuers who had never even flown large aircraft pulled it off

This, for example, glibly explaining away the pilot training they took and the fact that these were very smart, very committed, well-funded, and fanatical zealots who were perfectly able to do what it took to plan and pull off 9/11.

[dhex]

"Finkelstein -- Cynical though I am, I still think that the majority of those promoting this hooey are sincerely committed fruitbats themselves, not calculating manipulators."

well, i tend to think it's more of a true believer thing, but a friend of mine is more convinced it's a commerce thing. especially in regards to alex jones, and being distributed by bill hicks' old company, etc.

so in one sense we are all conspiracy theorists.

my main beef with alex jones et al is that it's mostly poisoning the well style argumentation, which i find offputting. i don't necessarily disagree with the whole coming of the superstate thing, but the whole "we'll all be in prison camps with a 24 hour party people panopticon" requires a far greater leap of faith than even bush + the folks who control him planning 9/11.

what i don't understand is why didn't they just dynamite the planes on the tarmac or whatever? you'd get a huge body count, total fear (DEATH ON THE RUNWAY headlines, etc) and plenty of political cachet, especially if this was an inside job; you could slowly release details of the insidious evils planned for 9/11 and use that to accomplish the same goals.

this suggest that perhaps the global elite needs better marketing consultants.

or perhaps i am one of the sheeple. or perhaps both! or neither!

[ed]

There is no "official" story.
There is only reality.
Sane people can view the evidence and determine for themselves what happened.
Insane people or commited Bush-haters will go the other route.

[P Brooks]

I, too, confess to having derived an insidious little chortle from the "dysfunctional creep" characterization.

I have better things to do (translation- "too lazy") than pore over this stuff line by line; not the 9/11 Commission Report, not the Bushians' self-serving propaganda, not the litany of conspiracies. I believe that a small group of people devised an extraordinary plan, well conceived and well executed, which was wildly successful, undoubtedly much more so than they ever expected. That small group of people deserves repect as well as hatred; you cannot effectively combat a force which you do not respect and which, consequently, you do not strive to comprehend.

That extraordinary plan depended in many ways on the openness and trust fundamental, and utterly necessary, to the success of our society; openness and trust which must be preserved, even at the risk of another attack. I believe that our government's response- or, more properly, the response of the specific individuals who formed the government at that time- to a single extraordinary event has been more damaging to this country than the event itself.

[dhex]

what if sane people decide to hate bush? are they therefore insane?

[Mark]

The Loose Change Viewer Guide

[Dan T.]

Dan T.,
I believe the term you are looking for is Occam's Razor.

I?m not a huge fan of Occam?s Razor, which (at least as it?s used today) appears to mean ?everything is as it seems?. That kind of thinking seems to me to be more a matter of faith than anything.

Even so, when contemplating the official 9/11 story, you?ve got a secret society (al Qaeda) under the leadership of a mysterious guru/former US ally named Osama bin Laden (who seems to have the power to convince young men to kill themselves) living in a cave who manages to coordinate 19 amateurs into a conspiracy to hijack and fly airplanes even though none of them had ever flown such planes before, performing complicated maneuvers (esp. in the case of the Pentagon) and inflicting even more damage than what they thought they would. Then, just by luck, the military is engaged in training that day by simulating a situation where planes fly into buildings so they?re mysteriously not able. Then you have such things as the totally unexplained collapse of WTC 7, which the official story doesn?t even bother to note.

So, you know, it?s a pretty far-fetched story no matter how you explain it.

[Simon]

Umbriel:

Thanks for the thoughtful response. But I'm not sure your rebuttals really answer my reservations about the official story (whether the official story = "reality" is yet to be determined).

I saw a clip of the chief designer talking about an airplane hit and I'm pretty sure it was a commercial grade airline he was talking about. The clip is on the scholars for 9-11 site.

I don't understand how weakened steel high up on a structure results in its collapse much further down near the base. The buildings collapsed at or above freefall speed. I don't see how that could have happened without controlled demolition, which is EXACTLY the style in which the towers collapsed -- into their footprints. The steel was obviously not weakened away from the initial blast. Where were all the massive girders which should have been falling into nearby buildings as the floors collapsed into each other?

And while Washington DC assuredly isn't ringed with" flak batteries and barrage balloons", there is Andrews Airforce Base not far away assumedly protecting the Pentagon airspace. Why didn't it?

How convenient for the terrorists that they weren't doing their job that morning.

[Debunker]

Simon, Dan T. et al,

Shouldn't you be having this conversation on a nice shortwave frequency originating from Idaho?

[joe]

'As the story explains, a recent poll over one-third of Americans believe that the government either "promoted the attacks or intentionally sat on its hands."'

I question the phrasing of the question. "Sat on its hands" is a pretty damn good description of the Bush adminstration's reaction to the terror warnings it was getting that summer from the CIA. George Bush received a briefing titled "bin Laden determined to strike in United States," told his CIA briefer "OK, you've covered your ass," then went on vacation for three weeks!

I don't think there's any conspiracy here - just incompetence and a poor understanding of modern national security issues. But that language "intentionally sat on its hands" could be read to refer to either.

[Simon]

Thanks "debunker" for demonstrating exactly what I was speaking to earlier. Most people will understand the quotation marks around your name here. Although I suspect you won't.

[crimethink]

Regarding Dan T's question about the steel, it didn't have to melt for it to be unable to support the building. Burning jet fuel is easily hot enough to decrease steel's compressive strength to the point where it would have been bent or crushed by the weight of the floors above the fire, while remaining in a solid state.

[GILMORE]

Dan T.

Occams Razon is not 'what seems, is'.

"The simplest solution is *most often* the correct one."

i.e. it's about probabilistic predictability. Not some namby pamby thing you take or leave.

Just because something seems implausible to you has nothing to do with it.

The fact is there are plenty of facts - and these facts lead to the simplest conclusion.

People can certainly INVENT simpler solutions, or introduce theoretical replacements, take point unknowns, or magnify outlying details, but they dont turn the existing facts into other things...

Also, as dex points out above - conspiracists rarely test their own replacement theories with 1/2 the rigor they use to go after the staus quo.

meaning, if someone wanted to orchestrate such an event, would they have chosen this manner, and why; and what would they stand to gain/lose?

I think once a person fully understands:

1)just how stupid and disorganized most institutions are, and

2) the fact that individual self-interest overpowers almost everything

...they'll realize that conspiracies dont work for the same reason Bill Clinton couldnt even get away with the occasional a sneaky blowjob. Truth will out.

But then maybe not. The prime driver of conspiracy theories is vanity, so it's much less about whether 'truth' is found or not = it's the near-religious reward of being one of the 'seekers'.

I now regret briefly backing you up on previous thread...

JG

[joe]

there are many unanswered questions that surround this very complex issue.

Sure there are. Just like evolution. And global warming.

"Skeptics" are quite good at coming up with questions.

[Son of a!]

Okay. Suppose for a moment one of the LIHOP/MIHOP arguments is correct.

What do you expect me to do about it?

[Son of a!]

Whoops! I see that GILMORE supplied the answer while I was busy fighting the server squirrels.

[mediageek]

"I saw a clip of the chief designer talking about an airplane hit and I'm pretty sure it was a commercial grade airline he was talking about. The clip is on the scholars for 9-11 site."

The World Trade Center was designed and built in the late 1960's and early 1970's. The Boeing 767 wasn't first flown until 1981.

There was no way for them to have been able to forsee and therefore implement design countermeasures to allow the structure to withstand the impact of a plane that only took it's first test flight years after the construction of the towers had been completed.

[fyodor]

joe,

Anyone interpreting the question as merely not doing enough to deal with the danger posed by Bin Laden out of incompetence or the like would be ignoring the obvious point of using the word "intentionally".

[James Ard]

Judging from the calls today on C-span,the MIHOP supporters are true believers. They sound almost desperate to convince us of the TRUTH. The Bush-haters behind this mass hypnosis are probably not getting much bang for their buck, though. The people dumb enough to buy the story are already Democrats.

[Dan T.]

Dan T.
Occams Razon is not 'what seems, is'.

I know, what I was saying is that often that?s what people appear to mean these days when they invoke it.

"The simplest solution is *most often* the correct one."

That?s not really what Occam?s Razor says, either. And it seems to me that whether a proposed explanation is ?simple? or not is pretty subjective.

The fact is there are plenty of facts - and these facts lead to the simplest conclusion.
People can certainly INVENT simpler solutions, or introduce theoretical replacements, take point unknowns, or magnify outlying details, but they dont turn the existing facts into other things...

Sure there are plenty of facts ? the question is, how do you tell what?s a fact and what?s not, especially when you can?t test the facts directly and must rely on somebody else?s word?

Also, as dex points out above - conspiracists rarely test their own replacement theories with 1/2 the rigor they use to go after the staus quo.

True, but does that not also apply to official story defenders?

meaning, if someone wanted to orchestrate such an event, would they have chosen this manner, and why; and what would they stand to gain/lose?

That?s the easy part ? just look at who benefited and how they benefited.

I think once a person fully understands:
1)just how stupid and disorganized most institutions are

But the secret society we decided to name ?al-Qaeda? somehow is the exception? And remember that you?re relying upon the same stupid and disorganized institution to get to the bottom of what happened.

2) the fact that individual self-interest overpowers almost everything

Didn?t the alleged 9/11 attackers work in direct opposition to individual self-interest? (by committing suicide?)

...they'll realize that conspiracies dont work

Except for the official 9/11 plot by AQ. That one worked, the rest don?t.

for the same reason Bill Clinton couldnt even get away with the occasional a sneaky blowjob.

You?re losing me here ? just because people can?t get away with everything doesn?t mean they can?t get away with anything?

Truth will out.

That?s a matter of faith - it can?t be proven.

But then maybe not. The prime driver of conspiracy theories is vanity, so it's much less about whether 'truth' is found or not = it's the near-religious reward of being one of the 'seekers'.

Ad hom attack ? how do you know that nobody who
doubts the official story has a sincere motive?

I now regret briefly backing you up on previous thread...

Why? Perhaps we agree on some things but not everything.

[carrick]

The World Trade Center was designed and built in the late 1960's and early 1970's. The Boeing 767 wasn't first flown until 1981.

The WTC was designed to withstand the "impact" of a comercial jet (I believe it was a B707) striking the building. The designers neglected to account for the consequences of any fire that would result from the fuel carried by the jet.

But even if the designer's had taken the fire into consideration, it is not clear they could have been able to predict the outcome of an accident caused by a vastly larger aircraft with a full load of fuel.

To be honest, I am tired of the bullshit theories proposed by the likes of Simon and Dan T. There is a difference between skepticism and irrational paranoia.

The bottom line is that an extremely wealthy man with a background in construction and demolition, recruited 19 middle class people (predominately from Saudi Arabia) to exploit a flaw in the security model of the US (where hijackers are presumed to be hostage-takers).

It was a brilliant plan that was executed with marginal competence. I could have been avoided, but it wasn't. It will never happen that way again.

The next tradegy will have a different plan to exploit a different flaw in the current security model. You can decide to live you life in fear, or you can accept the risk and move on.

[D-FENS]

And let's not forget, the towers DID withstand the impact from the aircraft. What was it, 45 minutes between impact and collapse? The burning fuel was key. The continued collapse of the unweakened lower portion of the building occurred because it wasn't designed to take an impact of the upper stack of floors, especially after losing the structural integrity of each floor as it collapsed.

Simon, how could the buildings collapse above freefall speed, even with controlled demolition? JATO packs?

[James Kabala]

I find it odd that Simon and Dan T. keep bringing up the idea that the suicides of the hijackers somehow are a weak point in the generally accepted story. Do they really deny that suicide bombings have frequently occurred in Israel and elsewhere in the Middle East? Who do they think blew up the U.S.S. Cole? If we were to forget everything else we know about Islamic terrorism, then the suicides of the hijackers might seem improbable, but unless Simon and Dan want to claim that all these other suicide bombings were imaginary or fraudulent, then the suicide angle strikes me as not unlikely at all.

[Patrick]

I didn't realize until recently that there are actually people who deny that planes of any type even hit the twin towers. I would have thought that that much was agreed upon by everyone, what with all the witnesses and video, but no. . .

What is amusing in a certain way is that UBL is probably frustrated by the widespread acceptance of the 9-11 alternate theories, that don't involve him or that assume that he is too incompetent and at most is a patsy for some more capable entity. People are saying: "That muja-douche in a cave couldn't pull this off, it had to be the US, or those ultra-capable Israelis," and UBL is like "Damn, ni*** can't no muthaf***** credit!"

[Dan T.]

I find it odd that Simon and Dan T. keep bringing up the idea that the suicides of the hijackers somehow are a weak point in the generally accepted story.

I never said that, I brought up the suicide angle only in response to Gilmore's assertion that "self-interest" overrides any other motivation.

[Deus ex Machina]

The WTC was designed to withstand the "impact" of a comercial jet (I believe it was a B707) striking the building. The designers neglected to account for the consequences of any fire that would result from the fuel carried by the jet.

Not to mention that all scenarios for an impact by an aircraft was based on the assumption that it would be accidental and that the plan would be attempting to land. In other words, the plane would have been carrying a lot less fuel and be flying much slower.

[Deus ex Machina]

For me the biggest argument against both the LIHOP and MIHOP scenarios is that: if the government was in full control of the situation, why the hell didn't they try to pin it on Saddam Hussein?

It wouldn't have been that difficult to recruit some Iraqi ex-patriots and make it appear that funding came from Baghdad. And the administration was willing to put any rationale forward during the buildup to the Iraq War. Yet even Cheney was forced to admit that there was no connection between bin Laden and Hussein. Considering how the Bush administration practically abandoned Afghanistan in the wake of the Iraq War what was the rationale for going after the Taliban? It can't really have been a desire to control the worlds Opium supply or a gas pipeline that hasn't even been build? Maybe the administration is full of closet Buddhists who wanted revenge against the Taliban for blowing up that statue.

Never attribute to malice that which can be ascribed to sheer stupidity.

[Mo]

I'm neither MIHOP or LIHOP, but I've never read a valid explanation of what happened to WTC 7. Can anyone direct me to a good source. The thing that bugs me is WTC 7 is the furthest one in the WTC complex from the Twin Towers.

[MainstreamMan]

WTC 7,
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

and many of the other issues brought up.
http://www.debunking911.com/index.html

I watched the first plane fly over my head into WTC.

No need to doubt that the pilot was not very experinced, it looked like he was having trouble controlling the plane. Consensus among those near me as we talked was that the crash was an accident... until the second plane hit, that is.

[Happy Jack]

Mo - you might try this.

[Hal N.]

"David Bowman was chief of advanced space programs under presidents Ford and Carter."

"Interesting. I thought he disappeared into the monolith about 5 years ago."

I'm sorry, but I could not allow him to do anything that might jeopardize the mission.

[jf]

Thank you Hal. I was hoping someone might acknowledge that.

I've been watching the "911 Cover Up" video on Google Video. I do have to admit that it does play nicely with my original doubts regarding the neat collapse of the twin towers. It tried too hard though to prove its case, when simply asking the questions would have sufficed.

[kevrob]

How I wish LIHOP was the Long Island House of Pancakes, and MIHOP was a similar joint in Michigan.

Kevin

[bill]

NORAD just happened to be conducting an excercise that morning dealing with hijacked planes. Pretty amazing coincidence. Apparently 7 or 8 of the alleged hijackers are still alive. Why haven't the videos from security cameras around the Pentagon been released? There was actually one on the roof directly above the impact site. These are just some of the things keeping conspiracy theories alive.

This is what caused the WTC to collapse. Everything flammable, not just the jet fuel was on fire. The impact knocked the fireproofing off the trusses. The trusses,supporting tons of concrete, sagged. They pulled on the outer skin to which they were attached until the skin fractured. When that happened all structural integrity was lost and the buildings came down.

[Isaac Bartram]

These are just some of the things keeping conspiracy theories alive.

For the most part the things that keep conspiracy theories alive are a combination of untruths, halftruths, coincidences and irrelevent truths. That combined with a general ignorance of how things work in this world make for fertile fields in which to sow the seeds of urban legend. Most people who believe conspiracy theories have a totally distorted and/or erroneous concept of the events they claim to describe.

Apparently 7 or 8 of the alleged hijackers are still alive.

Actually I believe that the fact is that 7 or 8 people with the same names as some of the alleged hijackers were located. It is apparently surprising to conspiracy buffs that more than one person might have what amounts to a very common name.

On such coincidences are many conspiracy theories founded.

carrick, Deus ex Machina, bill, MainstreamMan and Happy Jack have added much clarity to this thread. Thankyou.

Simon, Dan T. et al, pay attention.

[bill]

Not just the same names but also the same faces. Their pictures have been published you know. It's a FACT about the NORAD drills. It's also A FACT the FBI confiscated tapes that have not been released.

[Isaac Bartram]

Not just the same names but also the same faces. Their pictures have been published you know.

Sorry, Without a link or two I'm not buying it.

It's a FACT about the NORAD drills.

A coincidence. I imagine NORAD conducts drills on a regular basis.

This is up there with the FHP "roadblocks" to stop blacks from voting in the 2000 election. FHP sets up "safety" checks in random locations every single day. The fact that polling places are about six miles apart guarantees that one will be near a polling place.

It's also A FACT the FBI confiscated tapes that have not been released.

The FBI is a notoriously secretive agency. And all the more so in this administration. They keep secrets for the most trivial of reasons.

I agree that something like this looks bad, but it proves nothing.

[Petunia Picklehead]

To All those who keep misinterpreting "Occams Razor": It's Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem and can be translated as "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" or "No unnecessary complications" which is a little different than the interpretations I am seeing here.

[bill]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

One hell of a coincidence.

It's not a secret something blew up the Pentagon. Releasing footage of the airplane hitting it would kill all of the conspiracy theories. All of the questions could be put to rest in 15 minutes.