Simple proposition: LIHOP = MIHOP

[Zhade]

Here's why: standard procedures require interception (note: NOT shooting down) of hijacked planes ASAP.

We are all aware of the late scrambling of fighter jets. The only way that SOP would have been ignored would have been if it were so ordered.

Once you cross that line, LIHOP becomes MIHOP, because if SOP were followed on 911, there may have been only one strike at the WTC - or, very possibly, none at all.

To LIHOP by stopping the standard procedure that would prevent the attacks is to MIHOP.

Agree? Disagree?

[MercutioATC]

1. One flaw with that premise...

While a plan did exist on paper, this situation had never been encountered directly. We were not prepared for it.

Bush was negligent, but our lack of preparedness was the reason the planes were not shot down, not any Bush failure. The chain of command is simply too long with issues like this and normal delays to verify facts cause huge delays. LIHOP, I'm comfortable with in that it entails the administration realizing a possible threat and not adequately preparing for it. MIHOP entails engineering the situation or mishandling the response to a major degree. I don't believe the response was intentionally flubbed, I think it was a victim of our lack of preparedness.

[Zhade]

7. Not shot down. Intercepted.

Standard FAA regs require the interception of hijacked planes or planes which are lost on radar (or their transponders turned off). Shooting the planes down is a possible step decided on later.

We were prepared. Remember, there was a story about a drill on this very type of attack scheduled for that very day.

[MercutioATC]

18. I'm an ATC. We were NOT prepared.

I had been an ATC for over 10 years on 9/11 and we had NEVER been drilled on this possibility. Presented with procedure, yes. Drilled, No.

I was on an FAA project at the Tech Center at the time, but had a transponder been lost in my airspace (Eastern PA, where Flight 93 crashed) while I was working, the procedure would have been:

1) Attenpt to contact the pilot (2 minutes or so)

2) notify a supervisor (upon not gaining contact)

3) supervisor contacts the watch desk

4) watch desk contacts somebody.....eventually NORAD, who says "we'll get back to you".

Obviously, the procedure has changed since 9/11, but there is no great mystery as to why things didn't work smoothly...we'd never encountered it before and we'd never trained for it.

[nostamj]

17. "We were not prepared for it." respectfully, NONSENSE

we were prepared for Payne Stewert.

we were prepared for EVERY tther occasion when a plane went OFF COURSE.

on 9/11 FOUR planes went off course..

<crickets>

on 9/11 FOUR planes were determined to be hijacked

<crickets>

SOP were simply not followed.

it was not a failure to respond to hijackings

it was a failure to respond. period.

[MercutioATC]

28. Say what you will, but we really weren't...

Of course, procedures existed, but they'd never been used. The only reason we were "prepared" for Payne Stewart is there happened to be fighters nearby.

The SOP that existed usually wasn't followed because losing communications with an aircraft and/or losing a transponder were not unusual occurrances. Nobody really seriously considered scrambling fighters for every aircraft that stopped talking to us. Of course, the situation is different now, but I am positive tyhat lack of preparedness was one of the reasons that things were handled the way they were.

[fishnfla]

2. This is kinda embarrassing for me

I've been hoping for months to figure out what those abbreviations mean, but i just dont get it. I'm sure its simple but what do they mean?

[gristy]

3. Let (Made) It Happen On Purpose

[Zhade]

4. Hey, no need to be embarassed!

LIHOP = Let It Happen On Purpose

MIHOP = Made It Happen On Purpose

:)

[fishnfla]

Thanks

I would have never figured that out alone.

[WildClarySage]

5. me too

thanks for not making me be first to admit it.

:shrug:

[Philosophy]

15. I think it has something to do with pancakes

;)

[knight_of_the_star]

6. There is a difference

LIHOP indicates they knew it was happening and looked the other way. That is Manslaughter. MIHOP implies that the US Gov't was involved in the prep for the attack and did more than just drop the ball. That would be Murder. While I do not doubt that Bush IS capable of that, the evidence that is currently accesible points more in the direction that he looked the other way and pretended it wasn't happening.

[Zhade]

8. Perhaps a difference in semantics?

Ordering a stand-down of the air force - which is the only rational, if horrific, reason for the lateness of scrambled jets - is tantamount to removing an obstacle to the attacks, thus enabling the attacks to occur. This implies MIHOP (either preplanned or an at-the-spur-of-the-moment decision) to me.

[knight_of_the_star]

13. To me

And in the law that is more along the lines of LIHOP. I think that MIHOP means that the US gov't was actively coordinating the whole attack with Al Queda. LIHOP I think is that they caused certain circumstances to happen that would let it happen. MIHOP seems to more imply that they gave Al Queda the info they needed to pull it off.

[Code_Name_D]

22. I agree, this is semantical.

And such semantics quite frankly is not permitted within the definition of LIHOP and MIHOP. These are not mealy abstract terms, but have been exactly defined in legal terms. (We have From The Wideness .com to thank for this.) This also includes a far less know body of theory grouped as "intelligence failure," or ASATS (ASleep At The Switch.)

ASATS argues that the current system was simply unable to handle the events because of their nature and scope. This is largely the Administrations theory, and has mostly been assembled in order to explain the flaws in the argument, as well as the know facts that oppose it.

LIHOP however is defined as the administration being aware of the attacks in advance, and clearing the way for them to take place.

MIHOP however must show that the Admin actively coordinated with Osma to permit the attacks. Either with the planning or execution.

[maggrwaggr]

9. bottom line: Bush failed on 9/11

He failed to protect the american people and for that reason alone he must go.

[Beam Me Up]

10. Agreed n/t

[gbwarming]

11. What are the procedures over the US (not the ADIZ procedures)

I've never seen them. Can anyone point me to the FAA (and other agency ) procedures that detail what is supposed to happen.

This _isn't_ what I'm looking for:
http://www2.faa.gov/atpubs/aim/Chap5/aim0506.html

[karlschneider]

14. Here is a starting link:

http://www1.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1002.html

Scroll down to the 7610.4 link for more, it has sections detailing how ARTCC notifies NORAD, and so on.

I didn't yet look at the link you put up that _isn't_ what you wanted yet but I will after I post this.

ADIZ doesn't mean what it used to, in any case (you may be a pilot since you used the acronym and so might know this already..)

We don't usually get all that involved in this operating under Part 91 but I do try to keep up with it. The 121 and 135 guys have to worry about it a lot more.
K

Edit: I looked at your link, it's from the AIM and doesn't really address your concerns. You were right to suspect that.

[gbwarming]

21. Thanks Karl.

You're right, I'm 20 years out of date of date even with the part 91 FARs and never learned anything about the other parts. You're one of the few on DU that may be really familiar with how these rules would have been interpreted pre-9/11. From the following snippet it doesn't look like escort aircraft are required to be dispatched (these are the rules for the controller, so perhaps someone up the FAA or NORAD chain is actually required to dispatch an escort)

(from http://www1.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1002.html )
10-2-6
d. If aircraft are dispatched to escort the hijacked aircraft, provide all possible assistance to the escort aircraft to aid in placing them in a position behind the hijacked aircraft.

Please note that I'm not defending the lack of action on 9/11. I'm just tyring to establish wether the FAA/NORAD actually violated their procedures, or if they acted within the procedures (edit: which in retrospect look like) poor discretion in deciding not to intercept quickly.

[leftofthedial]

12. It was either negligence or complicity

Negligence: Bush was told about the threat, even the planes crashing into buildings, but a tax cut for his campaign donors and a vacation at the pig farm were more important than the nation's security.

Complicity: LIHOP/MIHOP. Given the genesis of bin Laden and his organization, I don't see enough difference between these two to really make much of a distinction.

Personally, I believe it was MIHOP--active conspiracy to cause the events of 9-11 to happen.

[bpilgrim]

16. how did wtc7 collapse? check-out this flash mov

http://new.globalfreepress.com/911/wt7/flash_8fps/wtc7.8fps.swf

:shrug:

peace

[ElementaryPenguin]

26. Every time I look at that thing, BP, the DEMOLITION is more clear!!

NO ONE can explain away this one! I've moved from LIHOP to MIHOP - at least in part because of wtc7!!

[bpilgrim]

27. zactly

i'm still not sure about MIHOP since how knows how long those buldings could have been rigged?

maybe it was a secret safety thing after the first attack to MINIMIZE casualties if they thought the buildings might tip over and they wouldn't have enough time to rig it in the wake of another attack :shrug:

but we certainly don't know the whole story that is for sure.

peace

[BeFree]

19. The question is:`

Could it happen again?

What has occured since 9/11 that makes you feel as though something similar could NOT happen again?

Has anyone yet payed the price for the massive screw-up which allowed those 9/11 events to occur? Has one single person in either the FAA, NORAD, or the Air Force, been brought to task for allowing those planes free air space?

Are the same people who were 'On the Job' that day still at the controls?

These are the types of questions which need our attention.

Without reasonable answers or a changing of the guard, something else is bound to happen any day now.

[frank frankly]

20. agreed, Zhade

letting it happen is the same damn thing.

good point.

[DUreader]

23. .

[RBHam]

24. Agree

You don't have to shoot the gun to be the murderer. If you contract it out, or enable it, or simply plan it and get others to carry it out it's still murder.

[DUreader]

25. here?

[dbt]

29. One thing's for Damn Sure:

Either the Regime could not prevent 9/11 from happening or chose not to prevent it.

That leaves us having to choose between incompetents and accessories to murder. Somehow, I don't like either option.

:freak:
dbt