LIHOP, MIHOP and Hijacking the Hijackers

Understanding 9/11 paradigms

Incompetence, Blowback, Pearl Harbor or Reichstag Fire?
Hijacking the Hijackers with remote control is the most likely scenario

on this page:

Within the 9/11 truth movement, there is a false dichotomy between whether 9/11 was LIHOP - Let it Happen on Purpose or MIHOP - Made it Happen on Purpose. This LIHOP / MIHOP debate was apparently created by a fringe member of the truth movement who vociferously claims that none of the plane crashes happened. This divisiveness keeps government critics from uniting and obscures the obvious: if there was a deliberate effort to allow the attacks to happen, then efforts would have been made to ensure that they happened as desired while avoiding outcomes that would not be mitigable (if the first planes hit Indian Point nuclear power station north of New York or the National Military Command Center in the Pentagon).
The powers-that-be knew 9/11 was coming for years (a previous effort was stopped in 1995), and had numerous intelligence warnings before the attacks. FBI efforts to investigate the flight schools before 9/11 were thwarted by senior management. It is likely the hijackers were allowed to complete their preparations and hijack the planes but then the "auto land" uninterruptible autopilot was used to "hijack the hijackers" (a double cross?).


Good and Bad evidence:

the truth and lies of 9/11

The idea that 9/11 was the result of government incompetence is easy to believe, but there is not any credible evidence for that conclusion.

9/11 was deliberately allowed to happen, given crucial technical assistance to ensure that it succeeded, and played on US fears of revenge for our wars.

The best sources for 9/11 info:

Paul Thompson, "The Terror Timeline"

Michael Ruppert, "Crossing the Rubicon

The World Trade Center was bombed in 1993 by Egyptian Islamic radicals (an FBI informant in the group warned the FBI it was going to happen).

In 1995, "Jihadists" were caught in the Philippines planning Operation Bojinka, a plot to hijack 12 planes simultaneously, crashing some into buildings.

In 1998, Osama bin Laden issued a "fatwa" (religious edict) urging Muslims everywhere to kill as many Americans as possible.

al-Qaeda is a loose confederation of Islamic radicals in dozens of countries, some of them are veterans of the CIA proxy war against the Soviet Union in the 1980s in Afghanistan.

It is believable that some groups are motivated to attack the US in revenge for US wars in the Middle East and support for Israel, but those groups did not run the "9/11 war games."



George W. Bush read "My Pet Goat" while the towers burned, acting unsurprised and indifferent to the attacks.

Massive stock trades betting that the value of United and American would decline were made the week before 9/11 (the CIA monitors these trades in real time).

Warnings about 9/11 -- what, when, how -- came from at least 15 countries.

Several political, military and corporate leaders were warned not to fly or to get out of the way.

Multiple FBI investigations of the "terrorists" at the flight schools were blocked, according to FBI whistle-blowers.

It is likely that remote control technology was used to fly Flight 77 in a 270 degree spiral around the Pentagon into the nearly empty, recently reconstructed and strengthened sector, which minimized casualties.

The anthrax attacks on the media and the Democratic leadership in the Senate (when Congress was considering the "Patriot Act") came from an Army laboratory, not Islamic terrorists.

Evidence in between "let it happen" and "inside job"

The "failure" of the world's most advanced communication when the towers were hit proves George W. Bush is not the Commander in Chief:

The inadequate response of the Air Force to the hijacked planes.

The war games that paralyzed the Air Force response.

The “hijack the hijackers” theory (remote control technology)

was 9/11 a surprise attack?
9/11 was not a surprise attack!
no US conspiracy
Blowback: response to US foreign policy
Pearl Harbor:
9/11 was allowed to happen
Reichstag Fire:
an inside job

The 9/11 Commission claims there was a wall between FBI and CIA that prevented close coordination, although in reality, they worked well together on counter-terrorism cases.

Fake evidence was planted about the hijackers, including the “magic passport” that supposedly passed through the fireballs to land on the streets of New York.

The 9/11 Commission blamed the FAA for screwing up the response to the hijackings, yet FAA safely landed more than 4,000 planes at airports that were not expecting them immediately after the attacks began. FAA is not responsible for the Air Force’s inaction.

Most liberal / left “alternative” media claim that 9/11 was “blowback” -- retaliation for our violent foreign policy, (Bush said that the reason 9/11 happened is they hate our freedoms).

The “left gatekeepers” who attack writers who have proven 9/11 was allowed to happen include David Corn (The Nation), Alexander Cockburn, Norman Solomon and Chip Berlet.

Michael Moore’s film Fahrenheit 9/11 did not discuss the evidence for Bush administration foreknowledge, or that their “Project for a New American Century” needed a “new Pearl Harbor.”

Professor Ward Churchill, under attack from right wingers for promoting the “blowback” theory and pointing out that some 9/11 victims may have been involved in imperialism, claims that implying 9/11 was an inside job is racist, since it implies Arabs incapable of responding to US foreign policies.



No one seems interested in making hoaxes that suggest the Bush regime knew about 9/11 and merely let it happen. The disinformation suggesting complicity is nearly all at the far edge of the spectrum, pushing faked video clips and other bogus evidence to suggest that the 9/11 operation was an inside job.

Many 9/11 websites that claim to have proof of the conspiracy are promoting claims that are not true -- some of these sites are incompetent, others are deliberately promoting nonsense. Some make sure to include just enough real material to establish their bona fides, and then promote lies.

The REAL evidence that 9/11 was an inside job is hard to find in between the phony evidence used to distract 9/11 skeptics. The growing flood of fake claims for complicity is actually evidence of a sophisticated psychological warfare effort to cover the tracks of the conspiracy.

No Planes on 9/11:

Pentagon -- the most popular hoax, based on faked images and poor understanding of physics -- lots of eyewitnesses and photos of Boeing debris disprove this claim.

North Tower -- the most ridiculous idea is the “webfairy” claim the North Tower was hit with a missile masked by a King Kong sized hologram. Several sites imply the “webfairy” video operation made many of the film clips used by the fake film "9/11: In Plane Site"

pod plane -- Flight 175, which hit South Tower, supposedly had a missile-firing "pod" under it - in reality, the “pod” was just a shaded photo of the normal bulge under the wings

Pennsylvania -- the neo-Nazi "American Free Press" (and "Loose Change" film) claim that there was not a plane crash in Pennsylvania (in reality, Flight 93 was shot down).

False claims regarding demolition of the towers are refuted (errors regarding the collapses, WTC Building 6) at

The claim that the cell phone calls to relatives of plane victims were faked.


Evaluating the Paradigms of 9/11
was 9/11 a surprise attack?
9/11 was not a surprise attack!








Bush bungled the protection of New York and Washington. The intelligence systems were overwhelmed with vague suggestions that something unspecified was about to happen. The different federal agencies were unable to communicate effectively with each other to share collected information that could have prevented the attacks.

The best way to prevent a repeat of 9/11 is to give the military, Homeland Security and intelligence agencies bigger budget and to reduce our civil liberties even further.


We were attacked in retaliation for our violent foreign policy (the CIA calls this kind of revenge “blowback”), not because the terrorists hate our freedoms.

This is the view of most liberal / left "alternative" media (although they still state that Bush is innocent of any actual complicity and did not have foreknowledge). Michael Moore’s film Fahrenheit 9/11 blames Bush for being blind to the schemes of the Saudis, but doesn't accuse his administration of deliberate malice in allowing 9/11, merely incompetence, poor prioritization and similar excuses.

Pearl Harbor

“Bush Knew” and deliberately let it happen on purpose in order to galvanize a divided public to support world war, similar to President Roosevelt's decision not to defend against the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which provided the excuse to enter World War II.

The Project for a New American Century, a “neo-con” group whose members run the Bush regime, stated in September 2000 that a “new Pearl Harbor” would be needed for their geo-political goals. Since Richard Perle was a part of the PNAC group, perhaps 9/11 could be called “Perle Harbor.”

Reichstag Fire

An “inside job” orchestrated by a faction in the government, similar to the burning of the Reichstag (German Parliament building) on February 27, 1933 by the Nazis, used as the excuse to “temporarily” suspend civil liberties.

This paradigm is harder to prove than the Pearl Harbor analogy. It remains unknown who the hijackers really were, and the precise degree of official complicity involved. It is likely that very few US officials would have known the full details of the impending attacks. Compartmentalization ensures secrecy.









This is the "limited hang out" -- fessing up to a small crime to avoid talking about the deeper, actual crimes.

There is no credible evidence that 9/11 was an “intelligence failure.” The real intelligence failure has been the media (both corporate owned and foundation funded "alternative" media), that has not bothered to connect the dots of the evidence.

The Center for Cooperative Research “Complete 9/11 Timeline” (online at has more than 1,000 mass media articles that show that 9/11 was not a “failure.”

The 9/11 Commission which supposedly investigated the attacks failed to ask the most basic questions and ignored nearly all of the evidence. It is deception in the service of bigger budgets for Big Brother, and evisceration of domestic freedoms with the excuse that we need to protect the "Homeland" from terrorists.

This is the fall back position -- the second tier limited hang out.

While the “blowback” thesis is tempting to believe, given the intense anger that US policies have created in the Middle East over many decades, blowback is inadequate to explain the actual events of 9/11. Blowback still assumes that 9/11 was a surprise attack.

A precursor plot to 9/11, Operation Bojinka, was stopped in 1995 when terrorists in the Philippines were caught planning simultaneous hijackings of up to a dozen planes. Bojinka was probably merely blowback -- but whether it was more than this or not, it clearly shows that the US "intelligence community" knew about the threat of a 9/11 type event years before it happened.

Some “left” opponents of the Bush regime claim that Bush “Hijacked Catastrophe” after 9/11, but are unwilling to look at evidence that the regime was complicit.

A detailed review of the available evidence proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the kindest interpretation of the provable facts is that the Bush regime had foreknowledge and let it happen.

A detailed review of the best evidence proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the kindest interpretation of the provable facts is that the Bush regime had foreknowledge and let it happen.

Warnings about 9/11 were received from at least 15 countries, some of them extremely specific.

Massive stock trades betting that the value of United and American would decline were made the week before 9/11 (these trades are monitored in real time by the CIA).

Several political, military and corporate leaders were privately warned not to fly or to get out of the way.

Multiple FBI investigations of the “terrorists” in the months before 9/11 were suppressed -- several whistle-blowers testified that it was obstruction, not incompetence.

Nearly all of this information is “hidden in plain sight” in the mass media, but journalists who dare to connect the dots get attacked by defenders of the surprise attack theory. These defenders include Republican Bush supporters, the Democratic Party leadership and liberal “alternative” media -- The Nation, Alternative Radio, CounterPunch, Noam Chomsky and Democracy Now!

A close examination of the evidence strongly suggests that the Bush regime was complicit in the attacks.

It is extremely unlikely that “terrorists” would fly a plane in a 270 degree spiral around the Pentagon, hit in the nearly empty, recently reconstructed and strengthened sector, which minimized casualties.

The anthrax attacks on the media and the Democratic leadership in the Senate (when Congress was considering the “Patriot Act”) came from an Army laboratory, not Islamic terrorists.




Evidence that is somewhere between the "Pearl Harbor" and Reichstag Fire paradigms

The non-response of the Air Force to the hijacked planes.

The arranging of multiple war games to paralyze the Air Force response.

These were events that could not have been arranged by crazed Arab fundamentalist hijackers -- they involved very senior officials of the Bush regime and top military officials. While is plausible that the paralysis of the Air Force defenses could have been arranged in order to ensure the success of the hijackers (and therefore, the pretext for the Oil Wars and Homeland Security), it is unreasonable to assume that these hijackers would have chosen (or been able) to aim for the nearly empty part of the Pentagon.

A hybrid scenario that fits the known evidence is "hijacking the hijackers."In this view, the hijackers were allowed to finish their preparations, board the planes, hijack the controls but then remote control technology was used to ensure that the planes not only completed their missions but also did not strike targets that would have caused even more damage. Flight 11, the first hijacked plane, flew over Indian Point nuclear power station, just north of New York City (an attack there would have been much, much worse than 9/11). And if Flight 77 had hit any other part of the Pentagon, thousands of people could have been killed. This hybrid scenario is speculative, but remote control flight technology is commercially available. One of the manufacturers of this equipment is System Planning corporation, whose former director, Dov Zakheim, was a signer of the "PNAC" report stating a New Pearl Harbor would enable their global domination goals. Mr Zakheim was Comptroller of the Pentagon from 2001 through early 2004 (in charge of the money).

A secondary way to understand 9/11
We were attacked by al-Qaeda
(Bush was either incompetent OR deliberately allowed it to happen)
9/11 was an "Inside Job" by al-CIA-duh!

Any analysis of whether "al-Qaeda" really was responsible for 9/11 needs to start with the history of "false flag" operations conducted by intelligence agencies (atrocities committed by governments to blame on their enemies).

Would al-Qaeda have been able to assume that the Air Force would fail to respond to the hijacked planes for nearly two hours? Would al-Qaeda have been able to schedule at least five separate military and intelligence agency war games to confuse the response? Why would al-Qaeda, a group supposedly dedicated to causing as much destruction as possible, hit the nearly empty part of the Pentagon, hit the towers before they were full of workers, and use planes that had very few passengers on them?

Two of the best analyses of the intelligence "legend" of al-Qaeda are

The Propaganda Preparation for 9/11

"Peeling the Layers of the Onion"

Hijacking the Hijackers

from Nicholas Levis,

"Staging 9/11 as an inside job is going to work best (in fact, is likely to work only) if there actually exists an active network of anti-American terrorists who are deeply committed to killing Americans in response to U.S. policy. In other words, those who would blame Qaeda need a (relatively) real Qaeda. A partly-real enemy is much better than an entirely fabricated one.

"The most robust way for insider masterminds to stage 9/11 and get away with it is to arrange for their agents to infiltrate among "real foreign terrorists." Let them come up with their own plots (or plant plots among them), choose a plot that will produce the results desired by the masterminds, and see that through to fruition. At some point, the masterminds and their agents will hijack the plot from the would-be hijackers, to make sure it happens. You won't risk the whole game on the ability of amateurs to get away with it, you will help them along or even replace them (with a remote control hijacking, for example). But it's best to have "real terrorists" in play. They leave a more solid trail of evidence internationally. Cops and agents and academics of two dozen countries can honestly confirm the existence of an al-Qaeda network. That way there is less need to initiate outside observers into the plot and you don't have to hope they are all stupid, as they would have to be to fall for a complete fabrication of "Qaeda." (Qaeda at this point is just a term of convenience for the Islamist extremist networks.)

"The best result would be for a whole bunch of Islamist extremists running around believing that their crew pulled off 9/11 all by themselves (how inspiring for them!). The patsies should believe they actually did it. This was the case with the Reichstag Fire and Marinus van der Lubbe: the patsy believed he had done it."

I've long thought that if we assume a decision had been taken to let it happen, then we should expect that measures were be taken to ensure it happened precisely as desired, and spectacularly so. With so much at stake, nothing would be left to the skill and luck of the 19 hijackers. Flight 77's 270 degree turn to hit the ground floor of the virtually unoccupied side of the Pentagon, while supposedly piloted by the grossly incompetent Hani Hanjour, is the most striking example. The recent report that the WTC black boxes were recovered after all, is suggestive of the same: that the data conflicted somehow with the received fiction. Perhaps the hijackers were themselves hijacked.

Friday, July 08, 2005
More on London bombs:
I prefer the hybrid model for all these attacks, by which I mean the involvement of real Islamic terrorists guided by an intelligence agency. The intelligence agency funds much of the operation, chooses the targets and the time, and provides technical assistance. The Islamic terrorists provide most of the manpower. In some cases the terrorists are completely fooled into participating (probably what happened in Madrid, a Spanish police operation with Muslim men tricked into being in the wrong place at the wrong time), and in some cases they go along with the promptings of the intelligence agency as the operation fits into their own agenda.


the false "LIHOP / MIHOP" pseudo debate

January 21, 2007

Currently in so-called progressive discourse about 9/11, there appear to be two perspectives regarding the political, economic, geopolitical, Constitutional, and social significance of the event. The first group believes that 9/11 was used opportunistically by the Bush administration to extend its global domination project and that the administration knew the attacks were coming but allowed them to happen; the second group believes that more than having foreknowledge, the Bush administration, in fact, orchestrated the event. Within these two perspectives, there exist myriad theories regarding the evidence for either allowing the event or orchestrating it.

note: the false debate between "let it happen" and "made it happen" is a distraction. There is a large amount of credible evidence that 9/11 was allowed to happen, and that it was given technical assistance (via wargames and probably remote control) to make sure that it happened as desired -- the "hijacking the hijackers" paradigm matches the evidence as is best understood.


Examining the paradigms of 9/11

The evidence that Bush Knew (about 9/11 in advance and let it happen to galvanize public support for world war) is adequate to get a conviction in virtually any court in the world. This evidence includes the numerous prior warnings that the attacks were coming (including warnings provided to a few corporate, government and military leaders not to fly that day), and the military war games simulating a 9/11 scenario both before and during the attacks. The only question is how much complicity the regime had in the event, not whether they knew in advance or not.The prior knowledge -- and therefore a conscious decision to sacrifice thousands of Americans in order to gain the pretext for the invasion of the Middle East oil fields and the domestic police state -- is proven beyond any reasonable doubt.


Governmental incompetence - the official coincidence theory

The official story about 9/11 is that the US was attacked because muslim fanatics hate us for our freedoms (those that we still have left). However, even the most rudimentary examination of the evidence - both that offered by the government and the media, and the evidence unearthed by the independent investigations - shows that 9-11 was actually perpetrated in order to destroy our freedoms.

Neither the corporate media nor the foundation funded "alternative" media dares to challenge the official orthodoxy of 9/11, but the evidence that it was an inside job is overwhelming. Does anyone REALLY believe that a flight school drop out piloted a plane in a high speed 270 degree spiral into the nearly empty, under reconstruction, strengthened sector of the Pentagon (thus minimizing casualties)? Why were NORAD, the CIA, the NRO and the Air Force running "war games" on 9/11 that simulated 9/11? Who warned CEOs in the towers, military officials, and SF Mayor Willie Brown not to be in the danger zones? Why did the US stop investigations of who placed "put option" on United and American Airlines stocks the week before the "attack?" Does anyone really believe that one of the paper passports of a "hijacker" was found on the streets of lower Manhattan (we all saw the image of the fireballs)?

It's amazing how few people understand history to know that nearly every war uses deception in order to persuade reluctant populations to support ruthless resource grabs. Remember the Maine! The Reichstag Fire. The Gulf of Tonkin. Operation Northwoods (a close parallel for 9/11). See


The official justification for the fascist "USA PATRIOT" and "Homeland Security" Acts (the latter term dates to the Clinton administration) is that the national security agencies (FBI, CIA, NSA, etc) were unable to communicate properly before the 9-11 attacks, and they were too overwhelmed with data that they could not properly process to connect the dots. This is a compelling argument, since the so-called intelligence agencies have warehouses of intercepted data that has never been examined. However, the facts do not conform to the official coincidence theory. The fact that the highest echelons of the federal government had some prior knowledge has been admitted to by the White House and Congressional intelligence committees. This admission is called a "limited hang out" in spy speak - fessing up to a smaller crime to avoid discussion of the deeper, actual crimes.

The Empire claims that 9/11 happened because of "failure to connect the dots" among the various federal police and intelligence agencies. This is the basis for the USAPATRIOT act and Homeland Security. Repealing these police state laws will probably require a public -- and media -- able "to connect the dots" of evidence about the stand down of the air force.

Stopping - and undoing - the Draconian surveillance systems that are being imposed on us under the excuse of keeping us safe from terrorists will require examining the true nature of the "trigger event." When 9/11 is called another "Pearl Harbor," this hints at a different interpretation - there is an enormous library of evidence, books, investigations, etc. that proves that President Roosevelt knew that the Japanese were about to attack, and let it happen in order to galvanize US support for World War.

A closer look at the passage of the misnamed USA "Patriot" act reveals a campaign of state sponsored terrorism to intimidate the Congress. When the Democrats in Congress began to balk at rubber stamping this virtual repeal of much of the Bill of Rights, the top Democrat in Congress was sent an anthrax letter, which disrupted Congress to the point that the Patriot Act could be rushed through without Senators and Representatives being able to read what they were voting on. The best history of this criminal usurpation of democracy is at - "Government by Anthrax." See also for articles that trace the anthrax back to Fort Detrick, Maryland, the Army's main biowarfare development laboratory.

The police state apparatus euphemistically called "Homeland Security" has been in development for a long time. The term "Homeland Security" dates at least to 1999 (ie., the latter days of the Clinton administration), but the martial law plans for the US government are much older than that. Martial law preparations surfaced briefly during the Iran-Contra hearings in 1987, although there was no public investigation of this revelation. During the Vietnam War, programs under the name "Garden Plot" and "Cable Splicer" (among others) planned a military take over of the country. Perhaps the military take over has already happened, albeit in slow motion. See and for further details on the American coup d'etat.



Blowback: 9/11 was a consequence of US foreign policies

A variation on the official theory, promoted by the liberal-left establishment (The Nation, Z magazine, Democracy Now, Mother Jones, Noam Chomsky, etc.) is that 9/11 was "blowback" - the reaction to US imperial policies by people angry about US foreign policies. In this view, 9/11 was an unintended consequence of US foreign policy in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Israel / Palestine.  (The largest foreign CIA operation ever was the arming of the Mujaheddin during the Soviet-Afghan war, while Pakistan developed its nuclear weapons program.) While there is certainly a lot of merit to this argument - that peoples victimized by US terror wars are sometimes motivated to retaliate - it is woefully inadequate to explain what actually happened on 9/11. (see for a guide to the official leftists who seek to muzzle public discussion about how the covert government actually functions)

The "standdown" of the US Air Force that morning makes blowback an inadequate explanation, since "blowback" does not explain why fighter planes were not sent up to intercept the hijacked airplanes until it was too late. Blowback also doesn't explain how the US military allowed thousands of Taliban fighters to escape to Pakistan during the US invasion of Afghanistan.

Some anti-war efforts ( is a good example), and most of the Democrats who voted against Bush's war resolution (October 2002) protested that the seizure of Iraq would be a distraction from the "war on terrorism." But this is merely a distraction from a closer examination of the 9/11 attacks. Any authentic investigation would look at the failure of the Air Force to follow long standing procedures to deal with off course jets, the countless warnings that the attacks were about to happen, the warnings discretely given to political, corporate and military officials, the Bush administration's orders to back off from investigating bin Laden's networks, and much more.


Pearl Harbor: they saw it coming and let it happen to galvanize public support for world war

There is overwhelming evidence that the Cheney-Bush regime knew in advance what, when and how the attacks would occur -- and that they were allowed to happen in order to further long standing goals of the military industrial complex for global empire and a domestic police state. It is even probable that the attacks received considerable assistance from elements in the US military-industrial complex to ensure their success. Giving more money and powers to the unelected secret government agencies will not make us safer. Indeed, we will be paying for our repression and the destruction of what is left of our liberties.

Most people who don't believe the official stories probably think that 9/11 was like Pearl Harbor - the government saw the attacks coming but chose not to intercept them, in order to reap political benefit (the domestic police state and the excuse for blatant global empire). It is true that the normal air defenses were muted (at best), not following the normal policies for these types of events (the "stand down" - the military's lack of reaction to the attacks - is detailed at

General Ralph Eberhart, who was in charge of air defense on 9/11, was the first commandant of the new "Northern Command," the domestic unified military command established in October 2002. If the domestic use of the U.S. military escalates into full-scale martial law, the Northern Command would manage it. If 9/11 had been an "intelligence failure," General Eberhart would have been court-martialed instead of promoted.

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."
- "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives," by Zbigniew Brzezinski (1997), Council on Foreign Relations, National Security Advisor to President Carter This book recommended that the US control the whole planet, via interventions in the former Soviet central Asian nations.

"The process of [military] transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."
- Rebuilding America’s Defenses, September 2000, published by the Project for a New American Century, a neo-fascist think tank recommending US empire, especially in the oil-rich Middle East. Most of its members are senior officials of the Cheney-Bush regime, including "Prince of Darkness" Richard Perle, who was recently forced to resign as Chair of the Defense Policy Board (but still on the board as a major contributor to current military strategy). Therefore, 9-11 could be called a "Perle Harbor."


The American Reichstag Fire:
The Pentagon attack - evidence that 9/11 was an inside job

The real issue is not whether "Bush Knew" and let it happen, but that the Air Defense system "stood down" to ensure that the attacks succeeded. Bush is one person. NORAD is a bureaucracy with specific protocols, chains of command, etc. - and its commander was PROMOTED after 9/11 to run the new "Northern Command" (domestic use of the US military). If and when we go to full strength martial law, General Eberhart (who was in charge of Air Defense on 911/2001) would be in charge of that.

The idea that they let it happen on purpose (to galvanize public support for war - like with Pearl Harbor, which was known in advance by FDR) and actual complicity (assistance with or orchestration of the attacks) are politically about the same. Either scenario involves a conscious, political decision to sacrifice thousands of citizens to create the pretext for global war -- which is a treasonous offense.

The "Pearl Harbor" analogy is not adequate to explain the evidence. Any plausible explanation needs to discuss why the plane that hit the Pentagon flew a 270 degree turn around the building and lined up with the nearly empty, recently reconstructed and strengthened sector. This is why 125 people were killed on the ground, instead of thousands.

Mr. Hanjour, the alleged pilot who supposedly flew with amazing accuracy into the Pentagon, was refused permission to rent a small plane a month before the attacks at Freeway Airport in Bowie, Maryland (he was said to have lacked any piloting skills). It is as if someone was learning to ride a bicycle and couldn't go around the block without training wheels - and the next week they claim to have won the Tour de France. The story that a muslim flight school drop out piloted a plane in a high speed, fighter pilot style 270 degree turn to spiral into the mostly empty, under reconstruction part of the Pentagon is analogous to the "magic bullet" that supposedly shot JFK and made numerous changes of direction (the only way the official story could support one gunman - which violates the known laws of physics).
.... That side of the Pentagon was virtually empty and had been for some time because the building had been under reconstruction quite visibly on that side for 5-6 years and part of that was to reinforce the building from external attack. In fact some photos show the difference in damage on either side of that reinforcement work and it is striking. That plane went 270 degrees out of its way at high speed, a very sophisticated maneuver with no possible military advantage, to hit the empty side of the Pentagon. There, as in New York, I would argue that they minimized the number of deaths by timing and method of attack. ....
- John Judge

I suggest you ask any pilot that has flown one what it takes to bank into a building at 550 miles an hour, or to dive in a 270 degree turn from 5000 feet to fly so low that streetlamps are clipped off, into a building. There are two options: Military or experienced civilian pilots (many are military anyway) piloted these planes. The planes were flown on remote control.
- John Judge

It is possible to believe that there could be a military pilot from Egypt, Saudi Arabia or another Islamic country with a sophisticated Air Force could have actually been the pilot of the Pentagon crash. But the fact that the building was struck in the part that was "under construction" makes this possibility even less likely that Oswald's alleged "magic bullet." An Egyptian or Saudi military pilot would merely have nose dived the Pentagon, and would not have come in low, hugging the ground in order to strike the side at the one part of the building that had been reinforced. Perhaps Lee Harvey Osama was at the controls of the plane ...

Evidence that the Pentagon attack (and therefore, all of the hijackings) was conducted by a remote control computerized system placed into the planes is listed at


In 1933, after Hitler came to power, the Nazis burned down the Reichstag (Parliament) building and blamed it on the Communists to justify abolition of civil liberties and the imposition of dictatorship. The Pentagon crash - the plane hit the mostly empty part of the building (maximum political impact / minimum casualties) - means that 9/11 was the American Reichstag Fire.



Tying the threads together: blowback, let it happen on purpose and complicity

The most effective propaganda contains elements of truth. Digging deeper into the 9-11 story reveals a blend of blowback, letting it happen and government complicity - all three elements are part of the mix.

In other words, the US government probably hijacked the hijackers, controlling and focusing the attacks to maximize political impact (and minimize casualties - as the Pentagon attacks showed). They appropriated the plot for their own purposes -- to shock the American public into supporting their global imperial war and to enable the domestic police state.

by Nicholas Levis
April 1, 2004

Of the attempts to categorize 9/11 theories I've seen, some beg questions or unfairly characterize what people think. Most are simply vague in their terms. I tried to do better with the following list of nine graduated options, which I believe fairly describe the differing opinions people actually have (short of those who believe in divine or extraterrestrial intervention). This remains a mental exercise, but I hope it helps sharpen our logic.

19 hijackers planned 9/11 and carried it out using knives and mace to hijack the flights, without requiring any help from outside the bin Laden/Qaeda cell networks. Despite the indirect warnings and predictions from investigators and terror experts, the U.S. government did not acquire or synthesize sufficient intelligence prior to Sept. 11 to prevent the attacks. In fact, it makes sense that the attacks were not prevented, since they took advantage of our free society and weaknesses in the system prior to Sept. 11. In other words, the opposition should stop trying to use 9/11 against Bush or anyone else. 9/11 skeptics merely discredit themselves.

Accepting the official story, this option adds the likelihood that the failures to prevent or defend against 9/11 were due to incompetence or criminal negligence on the part of the White House, FBI, CIA, NSA and/or other intelligence agencies. While malicious intent or foreknowledge on the part of U.S. government operatives is unthinkable, 9/11 is worth investigating to clear up where the failures lie. This is the now-open line of the Kean Commission, although they have signalled that these failures will be found only at middle and lower levels. It is more or less what Wesley Clark & a few other politicians are pushing, although they presume high-level failures leading back to Bush. It is usually coupled with emphatic promotion for the "War on Terror" and stricter "Homeland Security.

As in choice 1, the U.S. was blindsided. But the active involvement of fundamentalist Saudis in high places, at least in financing al-Qaeda, was far greater than so far revealed. The Bushies don't want that to get out, because it will make them look bad. That is why they obstructed the 9/11 inquiries. Bush & Co. called off terror investigations by the FBI before Sept. 11 as a favor to their Saudi clients. This recklessly facilitated the attacks, but the Bushies would have stopped the attacks, had they been smart enough to figure them out in advance. This is more or less what Greg Palast says and what Michael Moore presents in Fahrenheit 9/11.

Related Variant: Focuses on the Taliban.
In early 2001, Bush & Co. looked away from the possibility of an attack and lowered the intensity of Bin Laden investigations so as to facilitate the ongoing pipeline negotiations with the Taliban. This is the line of Dasquie and Brisard's "The Forbidden Truth."

4 WISHING FOR PEARL HARBOR ("Letting It Happen")
Bush & Co. intentionally looked the other way in early 2001, expecting and hoping an attack would happen so that they could push through their PNAC/Christian Nation/Plunder Program wholesale - including the already-planned invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. They knew vaguely what was coming, may have provoked it and saw to it that it would not be prevented. But they did not directly facilitate the attacks, or incriminate themselves. They may have even been surprised at how horrible the actual attacks were.
This position is popular at "Democratic Underground," as a default for those who suspect LIHOP but think the evidence is too thin.

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.
Full disclosure: I think the likeliest hypothesis is of an inside job that exploited a "genuine" terrorist plot. Sometime between the Bojinka Plot of 1995 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 = Making It Happen On Purpose

There were no hijackers. The whole thing was planned long before 2001 and finally executed as an inside job by elements within the U.S. intel apparatus and the Bush mob, including the creation of the false-flag excuses, using patsies or a completely fake lists of perpetrators. The planes were flown by remote control or were replaced by drones. Wargames mimicking the actual attacks were held on Sept. 11 so as to confuse the majority of the military and provide a back-up cover story. The whole thing might as well have been Made in Hollywood.

Same as Northwoods 2001, but the master plotters are not just "elements within the U.S." but the global ruling elite - a hardcore faction of which decided, as a group, to orchestrate an incident allowing them to gain greater control of the world Zeitgeist. 9/11 allows their proxies to seize key resources, reshape the world, drop the democratic facades and transition to open corporate feudalism; depopulation is one of the likely goals. The Bush mob are lower-order handmaidens, who may not have been privy to details in advance. The real players steered the propaganda before and after 9/11 to make it work. This is the Chaim Kupferberg/Michel Chossudovsky/Don Paul approach.

Bush & Co. themselves were blindsided by super right-wing elements within the U.S. mil/intel complex, who effectively attempted or even succeeded in staging a coup. This is how I interpret the views of LaRouche, Thierry Miessan, and others.

Various theories, usually pushed by lone crusaders, have mixed and matched to lay the primary blame on Iraq, Israel, Pakistan, China, Russia or German Nazis, sometimes a combination. (If you still think the primary locus of the plot was within the U.S. intel apparatus, go to choices 5 to 7. For Saudi Arabia or Taliban, go to Choice 3.)

Some have rushed to describe complete scenarios of given events that seem to incorporate all facts but could still be wrong. We lack the power to subpeona records or bring up witnesses who could answer given questions. We have been flooded with misinformation from many sources: agencies of the U.S. and other countries, officials looking to cover themselves or score points, the media, opportunist authors, fake whistleblowers and putative witnesses. The worst impulse is to declare the case closed for one's favorite scenario. We must keep probing and correcting. We need to establish genuine peer review and a common data base, and kill off some of the more persistent errors that still crop up. (Minor examples: The Magic Passport allegedly belonged to Satam Suqami, not Mohamed Atta. Tom Kenney's FEMA team, firefighters from Massachussetts, were sent to New York on Tuesday, not "Monday" (Sept. 10) as he misspoke on CBS.) And we must, obviously, keep fighting for genuine independent investigation and disclosure - even as we work on larger political strategies to deal with the reality that the U.S. government will never disclose the full truth of 9/11, until the people force it.