Should I worry about saying LIHOP stuff around coworkers?

[Taverner]

Seriously!

[TZ]

1. IF you worked where I do....

ummm yeah. I've mentioned some of the stuff that I see here on DU and definitely get WTF? looks.....
Of course remember I live in the DC area where people don't tend to look kindly on truthers..especially the ones who have never visited DC that they know better than the eyewitnesses what happened.

[Parche]

8. Turtleandsue!!!

Check out that video post I did in the 9/11 threads,
I am on 'Pilotsfor9/11 truth' forum, you might be surprised

:woohoo: :hi:

[Fire Walk With Me]

2. Anything you bring up will become an ongoing topic.

[applegrove]

3. I don't agree with LIHOP. I imagine some of your coworkers are with me. I would

skip talk of that just because you don't need the aggravation of putting distance between you and x number of co-workers. Many people are not on these boards and are politically uninformed. They will not understand why you say it. I'd just not bother. Wait until Obama gets into power and some of these questions can be answered better than they have been.

[Taverner]

4. I threw it out there, I was riddiculed

You wouldn't ridicule me

[Bucky]

7. I don't ridicule, but I try to blunt & forthright about how unsound & unrealistic the theory is.

[Taverner]

10. Are you talking about Loose Change?

That documentary had a lot of holes in it

Thing is I don't think more than 4-5 people were in on it. Chances are John Ashcroft and perhaps W didn't even know. I nail it down to Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and a few CIA thugs. 93 was shot down. Basically they found intelligence, downplayed it in the administration and sat on it. They knew when and where, so they charged the towers with explosives so it was as controlled as possible.

[TZ]

12. Occam's razor

You do know that theory right? Tell me HOW they managed to wire two skscrapers in the largest city in the US with NOT ONE PERSON knowing it--when its far more likely that having two large planes LOADED with jet fuel (a scenario no engineer EVER thought of) caused unforseen chain reactions leading to collapse.

LIHOP and MIHOP have very poor science behind it, most of what I've read is closer to psuedoscience--I've yet to find anyone with a strong science background who believes any of this tower implosion crap. I'm more willing to believe scientists at NIST (and purdue university btw) on their analysis, than people on the internets with no education but what they've googled.

[Taverner]

14. There were reports of strange cars in the garage with large payloads

Granted, they could be anything.

My problem isn't with the planes bringing down the towers - that makes sense

My problem has always been with two things:

- Both towers collapse neatly, and with no damage to the NYC skyline. Buildings don't usually fall that way. It looked EXACTLY like a controlled demolition.

- If you watch the video of them collapsing, why is it that five floors down there are explosions - the kind that look like a controlled demolition detonation.

So I am very strongly leaning towards it being a controlled demolition. Question is why?

I have talked to many structural engineers who will say it was a controlled detonation.

However who did that is the question. There is no proof it was the US Government. It could have been Al Queda. They've planted bombs before...who's to say they didn't show up the night before?

ON THE OTHER HAND, Al Queda always targetted those buildings EXACTLY BECAUSE they would do the most damage to the NYC skyline. They wanted them to topple over and take out other buildings.

There is not enough evidence to know who - but there is enough evidence to know how.

[BeachBaby]

17. Just as an FYI....

The engineers who drew up the specs for WTC 1 and 2 DID in fact have the scenarios of terrorism and loaded jetliners in mind, and it was also mentioned by the on-site construction manager for the WTC - and they are quoted several times in this book... "City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center".

As for wiring the towers for demolition, there have been MANY "eyewitness accounts" from people who worked in the towers - many of them reporting "suspicious activity" on vacant floors of the towers; maintenance workers reporting unfamiliar faces being granted access to the towers in the middle of the night; bomb-sniffing dogs, which were onsite daily since the 1993 bombing, were suddenly removed from the towers on September 6, 2001 (as reported by Newsday NY). Could the removing of the dogs been purely coincidental? I suppose....but being that Marvin Bush was a principal of the security firm in charge of the WTC, Dulles Airport, and United Airlines, among others, I don't think the concept of "tower implosion crap" should be mocked, imho.

And as an aside, I don't believe the fact that Tower 7 collapsed without the likes of a jetliner slicing into it, should go ignored. Anyone who has a fair understanding of what the CIA represents should know that their job is to perform covert and clandestine operations; and anyone who does a fair amount of research on this topic should also know that a clandestine operation is one which may involve several people, but at the same time the people involved don't know what the actual operation is. End result - a handful of people know what the end result is to be. "Operation Northwoods" is a perfect example of a contemplated clandestine operation by our very own CIA. It should also be noted that the POTUS is not above these operations, nor does he necessarily have any say. It's been stated by many of the intelligence arena that the CIA is in fact ABOVE the POTUS. Having said that, I find it peculiar that people would automatically look at Bush as being the "culprit". Furthermore, it's impossible for me to ignore who inhabited several floors of WTC 7:

Dept of Defense - 25th floor
Central Intelligence Agency - 25th floor
Office of Emergency Management - 23rd floor
Securities and Exchange Commission - 11th through 13th floors, and also housed all documentation regarding the Enron and Worldcom disasters
United States Secret Service - 9th and 10th floors

So while I agree with the concept of Occam's Razor, I also take into account the law of averages, and good old-fashioned common sense. The concepts of coincidence and happenstance can only take me so far before I cry foul.

[applegrove]

9. I could not possibly ridicule you. Cause I am naive and fall for crap all the time.

I bought in to Colin Powell's call for war. How wrong was I there? So I don't ridicule you for LIHOP because I could very well be wrong and you could be right. But the thing is I run up against that theory and the numbers of people who hold it because I'm on the political boards all the time. So it is no shock to me that many people feel that way. Probably was a shock to them & their systems which is why they ridiculed you.

[TZ]

5. Those views are fringe views

And I'm not surprised you got labelled as "crazy"---just like the right wingers who throw out stuff like "spongebob squarepants is making my child gay" are ridiculed. IMHO, there is ALOT of crazy in the 9/11 truth movement. Remember, DU opinion is FAAAAAAR from mainstream America. I have a relative who is a political scientist..Even I even so much as MENTION LIHOP to himI'd be labelled as crazy too and ridiculed. There just isn't a lot of OBJECTIVE proof in this area.

[Bucky]

6. It's an inherently flaky theory that presumes a leak-free Bush White House

Without me addressing the validity of the specifics of conspiracy theory itself, I will say that it does ask the listener to radically suspend disbelief in the normal way that people operate in bureaucratic structures and asks listeners to believe that a large number of populations within the intelligence community are entirely cold-hearted calculating sociopaths--not one of whom ever decided to rat out the others for either noble or selfish reasons.

It's a hell of a leap and presumes almost as much competance on the part of the Bushies as the MIHOP theories do.

If you value your coworkers' estimation of your critical faculties, I advise you not bring up the subject ever or take the time to rethink your conclusions.

[Taverner]

11. I don't think W even knew about it

Just like JFK - only 2 or 3 people really knew what happened that day.

[Mutley]

13. I try not to bring up anything related to politics at work.

Unless they bring it up first. It just seems unprofessional to get into heated political discussions at work, and, depending on the situation, it could harm your working relationship with your coworkers.

[BeachBaby]

15. Taverner....

I've had this discussion with many people - family, friends, acquaintences. And while it seemed to be quite the feat a few years ago, it seems that more people are a little more open-minded to the concept. HOWEVER....

I wouldn't start any conversation with a full-barreled "I'm in the LIHOP camp" statement. If, for whatever reason, I'm involved in a discussion that turns to politics - but more specifically, foreign policy and foreign relations - I will most likely say something like "Well if people really thought about all that's happened since 9/11 - and then did some research about the current administration, and its collective behavior BEFORE 9/11, as well as their individual political agendas before they stole the 2000 election - I would be really upset if they could just turn their noses up to the facts they find."

If I'm asked to elaborate, I quote to them the mantra I stand by in regard to anything regarding political office (which was the mantra of my poli sci professor): "When anyone runs for political office, always question the 'why' and the 'timing'". *Why* do they want to be elected for that particular position of power? What agenda does he/she have? And why at that particular time? What is already set into place for them, that makes that particular election the one to run for?

And if they're still listening at that point (which, to be honest, they usually are), I remind them of the stolen 2000 election - which shows us that they were willing to do ANYTHING to make sure that W would be in the White House in January 2001. And then I ask them if they've ever heard of the PNAC. The answers I get to that question amaze me - if they've heard of it, they don't know what it is; and if they haven't heard of it, they dismiss it before I even get the chance to explain it.

No matter what the outcome, though, I always throw in the fact that the FBI and Cheney himself have admitted that they cannot charge Osama bin Laden with the 9/11 event because they don't have the evidence to back up the charge; and when I get the immediate response of "What!!! Where are you getting this stuff?" I simply say "Uh...the FBI website. If you don't believe me, look for yourself."

What I just explained to you above, along with hundreds of hours of independent research, is what made me a MIHOPper. What is unfortunate, though, is that I get slammed by people for coming to that conclusion. I am very much a "connect the dots" kind of person, and it seems that no matter what angle I start at (regarding how 9/11 happened), I end up on "inside job".

Every. Damned. Time.

Just my 2 cents.

[akwapez]

16. I actually had a coworker bring up the topic to me yesterday

He wasn't familiar with the terms LIHOP or MIHOP, but had definitely done his research. He knew more than I did on many of the evidence against the official story. We had never talked about this kind of thing before. Somehow we were talking about the election and it led to 9/11.
I think we were both surprised to be talking to someone receptive of the idea.
So, while many (OK most) may ridicule, you never know what may come of it.

[dgibby]

18. I wouldn't put anything past Bushco,

As for LIHOP vs MIHOP, I have no clue. Having said that, I do have a question re: the plane that hit the Pentagon. The argument for it being a missle and not a plane leaves me wondering this. If it was a missle, what happened to the plane, crew, and passengers? Barbara Olsen, wife of the Sol. Gen, Ted Olsen, both big time Republican operatives, was a passenger on that plane. Where the hell is she? Where are the rest of them? I've never seen an explanation re: the actual fate of that plane. Anyone else know? It kinda drives me crazy.