How come when someone wants to talk about MIHOP, he is

[KlatooBNikto]

immediately branded a Conspiracy nut because "our leaders" would do no such thing, but when Saddam Hussein shouts from the rooftops he does not have any WMD's and the UN confirms it, our newsmen laugh at it?

[Huckebein the Raven]

1. For the same reasons that

PNAC is glossed over and that Oswald acted "alone". They are outside the "approved" reality of the status quo.

[BeFree]

9. Even here, on DU

The discussions about MIHOP are relegated to the dungeon.

B*sh has made 9/11 his centerpiece of the election yet most all discussions about it are hidden away where most people never see or hear about the concerns raised.

It has become a defacto release of responsibility.

[Slit Skirt]

2. they all really know what is in the plan

for america.....they are a part of it....that's the only way they can fight us...by calling us crazy

[illuminaughty]

3. I call it the "not my daddy" syndrome

When someone complains that their Dad is a go good abusive alcoholic. But when you go to agree with them watch out! Because it's OK for them to say it, when they get defensive when someone else does it.

Most of us are aware our govt. reeks with corruption. But denial comes quick when the actions are the unthinkable.

Sorry, but we would do it. We have done it. And the way our govt. has viewed humanity as collateral damage over the past 50 year should be proof that this is not a stretch at all. Anything to accomplish an agenda.

I find it insulting that people here throw around the tin foil hat remark especially when the official story is downright ridiculous.

[MercutioATC]

4. I just haven't seen a plausible MIHOP scenario.

I'm talking about specifics, here. The idea isn't that bizarre to me but I've seen no credible conspiracy theories about 9/11.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

5. IMHO, your comment flies in the face of all of the available evidence....

...to include the fact that our normal safeguards were relaxed by the NeoCons prior to 911.

There is more than enough information out there to produce a wide range of highly plausible scenarios for both LIHOP and MIHOP.

Let me ask you a series of questions:

1. Do you believe that the alleged hijackers were connected to Al Qaeda and/or Osama? If so, state your evidence based on the available facts.

2. Do you believe that all, some, or none of the alleged hijackers were of Afghan and/or Iraqi nationalities? If so, who were they?

3. How do you account for the delayed response in sending up interceptors on 911 by the FAA and NORAD? Why were they released from bases so far removed from the known locations of the hijacked planes?

4. Why did the NeoCon Junta try to delay the formation of the 911 Commission for as long as they did?

5. Why is the NeoCon Junta suppressing the release of a multi-page 911 Commission report on the events leading up to 911?

[MercutioATC]

6. I do have answers for your questions...

...but I'm reluctant to hijack a GD thread when the discussion really belongs in the 9/11 Forum (where I've addressed most of these issues before).

On the whole, though, your questions have less to do with making a claim than questioning the government's actions. Yes, I believe things were handled poorly, but that's a far cry from a detailed MIHOP scenario.

[el_gato]

7. in other words you have nothing

[MercutioATC]

8. Believe what you will. The 9/11 Forum has my posts, though.

...and I stand by what I said about the lack of a credible MIHOP theory. Simply pointing out that mistakes were made and inferring a conspiracy does not make a strong case, IMHO.

Regardless, I'm not posting on this subject in this thread again. I'll be happy to discuss it in the 9/11 Forum.

[Minstrel Boy]

10. The 9/11 forum

is full of pods, flashes of light and phantom missiles. Since you spend so much time there, it's no wonder you haven't seen a credible theory. Discrediting, distracting and disinformation.

Simply follow the 9/11 drug and money trail - I'm talking about stuff like Mahmood Ahmed, insider trading, the Florida flight school and Sibel Edmonds - and you find MIHOP.

[H2O Man]

11. I do not think people are "wrong" to question EVERYTHING ....

...especially everything that this administration says and does. In fact, I am convinced that at any TIME a person suspends that questioning spirit, and accepts on face value any THING that this administration CLAIMS to be true, that person has let down more than their guard and more than themselves: they have failed to live up to their patriotic duty.

I think that an intelligent person can look at the 9-11 information and sincerely believe in MIHOP. I think another intelligent person can look at it and sincerely believe otherwise. There are entire realms of possiblity, none of which mean the in the 9-11 Commission or the White House.

Perhaps one of the reasons that the MIHOP threads are not popular is that some of the participants have an aggressive tone when discussing it with people who do not fully agree with them. Many of the "well how about a,b,c,d,and e?" are followed by the "oh, so you have nothing!" comments, which don't really rate as open-minded discussion.

Because a person does not subscribe to MIHOP does not equate with silly charges such as "oh, then you must believe the Warren Commission!" Such statements represent at very best a short-cut to logical thought. I would be interested in discussing theories with anyone who ha read both of Michael Shever's books. One does not have to agree completely with them -- I certainly don't -- but I find that people who take an open-minded and well-informed approach to any subject are more fun to talk with. And closed minds, like closed rooms, are usually stuffy.

[GliderGuider]

12. On the original question

It's because we have a very easy time seeing non-democratic leaders of culturally-dissimilar nations as evil, but have a very hard time seeing our own, nominally democratic leaders as evil - especially on such a grand scale.

On the question of MIHOP (and I happen to subscribe), for me the insistence that MIHOP adherents present a complete, coherent and unassailable scenario is disingenuous in the extreme. Very few complex situations in human life yield up such satisfying tapestries. Even simple things like capital criminal cases are decided in the absence of full and complete accounts of events and motivations.

For me the crucial question is, "Which set of assumptions fit most of the observed facts?". And when considering the "facts" we must remember to include such facts as observed official behaviour and statements, as well as the physical evidence. Any individual piece of physical evidence can be, and often is, assailed on various grounds. But when the whole pattern is considered, for me and many others, the addition of official complicity suddenly makes the pieces of the puzzle snap into place. How was the sleight-of-hand accomplished? I have not the vaguest idea. All I know is that of the three competing positions - the "official legend", LIHOP and MIHOP, the one that makes the pieces fit best for me is MIHOP.

And that's a whole lot scarier than the idea that Saddam might have had a nuclear program.