It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

MIHOP v. LIHOP - why 3-Mile Island rules out LIHOP

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 06:39 AM
link   
I'm sure this has been discussed in the past, but it's a point that I've argued with people about on other forums and it seems to me that a lot of people just don't get the significance.

Adherents to the LIHOP theory suggest that the government knew the attacks were going to happen but let them go ahead so that they could use them as a pretext for various things.

MIHOP suggests that rather than letting them happen, the US Govt. MADE them happen.

I'd suggest one of the main reasons why LIHOP falls over is because of the existence of the nuclear power station at 3 Mile Island.

Consider this.

The official story tells us that Islamic fundamentalists who hate the US because of its freedoms hijacked 4 planes and crashed 3 of them into buildings with the intent of killing as many Americans as possible.

We are asked to believe that Flight 77 practically flew over the top of 3 Mile Island, but decided not to target it because they thought it MIGHT be defended. So, instead of a target which MIGHT be defended and which, if successfully hit, MIGHT end the war on terror (and the USA) there and then, they instead chose a target that they must have KNOWN was defended - and not lightly at that.

Leaving aside the logical absurdities in this theory, let's examine instead the idea that the government LET the attacks happen.

Assuming for one minute that the government knew something was going to happen on 9/11 and that they had decided in advance to actually help these attacks succeed by acts of omission so that they could later use the outcome to advance their own agenda, how could they have known exactly WHICH targets the "terrorists" were going to attack? The only way they could have known for certain is if they had personal communication with those terrorists. If they didn't have personal communication with the terrorists then they could only guess what the targets were.

Now. If that was the case, how could they trust the terrorists NOT to target really dangerous targets like 3 Mile Island? They couldn't. And if what they have told us about those terrorists is true, the chances are that those terrorists would have chosen the target that would cause the biggest loss of life. If I was a suicide hijacker hellbent on causing as much death and destruction as possible I know which target I would have chosen!

So I'd suggest that the LIHOP theory falls down at this point. There is no way the Govt. could trust some random Islamic terrorists to keep their word and attack only the targets they had previously promised to go for. And remember - the only way the Govt. could have KNOWN what the targets were going to be is if they had prior communication with the atackers or if they set the whole thing up themselves; the two things amount to the same thing anyway, if there was prior communication. So, if the Govt. knew attacks were going to go ahead, and that they were going to use them for their own ends, and also knew they couldn't trust the attackers to keep their word, then why would they let these terrorists carry on with their plans?

Answer: they wouldn't. They COULDN'T. Therefore, they could NOT have LIHOP - for if they had, those pesky Islamics might well have broken their promises and crashed into 3 Mile Island, causing a radioactive leak that could potentially have killed millions.

But, the attacks went ahead anyway. Even GUESSING how heavily defended the Pentagon was likely to be would have put off any real-life hijacker. This fact alone, coupled with Norman Mineta's testimony, proves that LIHOP is a theory strictly for those who are so far unable or unwilling to force themselves to face up to the real awful truth. And the fact that they chose the Pentagon over 3 Mile Island confirms that the real attackers were not Islamic fundamentalists who wanted to kill as many Americans as humanly (or inhumanly) possible - for in reality there is no doubt which target real Islamic fundamentalist suicide hijackers would have chosen...




posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:30 AM
link   
That's an excellent point, and one I hadn't really considered in detail before!



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Your arguement seems pretty sound. But would it really kill millions right away, or would people first get sick and then die horribly over the next 10 years?



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinityoreilly
But would it really kill millions right away, or would people first get sick and then die horribly over the next 10 years?


Does it matter? I'm not sure what the staffing levels at 3 Mile Island are, but there's a chance that as many people would have been killed in an initial crash as were at the Pentagon. Plus, if terror was the motivation, then what worse terror for Americans than that they would (or might - it amounts to the same for the purposes of terror) suffer and die horrible deaths because of the actions of some Islamic terrorists? Remember that nuclear contamination lasts for a hell of a long time; it'll no doubt still be around long after the human race has disappeared from history. A suitably large impact at 3 Mile Island could have made large parts of the northern USA uninhabitable for the rest of humanity's existence.

Now if that isn't REAL terror I don't know what is!

[edit on 17-9-2007 by franzbeckenbauer]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Read this

It doesn't mention much about Three Mile Island, but is a record of evidence that strongly suggests that Western governments, particularly the US, has close ties with Al-Quada and had advanced warning about 9/11.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by Skunky]

[edit on 17-9-2007 by Skunky]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Anyone who really knows anything about 9/11 has read that; excellent book. And the connections between the US government and Al Qaeda are well known and well documented, as are the connections between the Bush and Bin Laden families.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by franzbeckenbauer

I'd suggest one of the main reasons why LIHOP falls over is because of the existence of the nuclear power station at 3 Mile Island.


Unless the intention wasn't to cause maximum no of casualties but to strike iconic US buildings - such as the NY Skyline and the Pentagon?

In which case LIHOP stands as a valid theory.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
Unless the intention wasn't to cause maximum no of casualties but to strike iconic US buildings - such as the NY Skyline and the Pentagon?

In which case LIHOP stands as a valid theory.


I've heard exactly this argument before and it holds no water. We are told that Al Qaeda hates us for our freedoms, blah blah blah and they want to kill us, blah blah blah, even if it means losing their own lives in the process. The point of 9/11, if we are to believe the official story, was to kill as many Americans as possible and strike terror into our hearts so that our whole way of life was shaken; this is, after all, the point of terrorism. This argument is, quite frankly, absurd; we are told these were TERRORISTS; now you would argue that they weren't really trying to kill all those people, they just wanted to make a point?! Please!



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Terrorism isn't necessarily about killing the maximum no of people - as the IRA demonstrated time and time again.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
Terrorism isn't necessarily about killing the maximum no of people - as the IRA demonstrated time and time again.


Mate, are you seriously expecting me to believe that, if offered the choice between potentially killing millions of Americans and making large parts of America uninhabitable, and striking at symbols, terrorists who "hate us for our freedoms" would choose the latter? Could you perhaps explain the terrorist psychology behind that? Are they just playing a game which they hope will go on indefinitely? Or are they fighting the war we are told they are fighting?

The example of the IRA is not relevant here. Al Qaeda were not attacking targets in their homeland and therefore would have had no qualms about killing as many people as possible. The IRA WERE operating in their own country and so had to walk a fine line between achieving their ends and keeping public opinion on their side.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by franzbeckenbauer]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Nemind

[edit on 9/17/2007 by Zaphod58]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 10:53 AM
link   

The example of the IRA is not relevant here. Al Qaeda were not attacking targets in their homeland and therefore would have had no qualms about killing as many people as possible. The IRA WERE operating in their own country and so had to walk a fine line between achieving their ends and keeping public opinion on their side.


No I think he is meaning the IRA's attacks in the UK, in which case that isn't their own country.


Originally posted by franzbeckenbauer

Originally posted by Essan
Terrorism isn't necessarily about killing the maximum no of people - as the IRA demonstrated time and time again.


Mate, are you seriously expecting me to believe that, if offered the choice between potentially killing millions of Americans and making large parts of America uninhabitable, and striking at symbols, terrorists who "hate us for our freedoms" would choose the latter? Could you perhaps explain the terrorist psychology behind that? Are they just playing a game which they hope will go on indefinitely? Or are they fighting the war we are told they are fighting?


Just how much damage do you think flying a plane into a nuclear reactor would do? If it didn't work exactly the right way for their objective, it might shut it down straight away. It would cause fear, but to do that, how exactly is attacking a nations' main defence building not going to cause fear?



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Crashing a jet into TMI would have not damaged the plant to the point of a nuclear release. They are built to withstand that right from the gitgo. We have 2 nuke plants locally and I have visited them both the concrete is thicker than even the Pentagon the most damage would be stopping the output for a month or two but nothing nuclear.

mikell



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by apex
No I think he is meaning the IRA's attacks in the UK, in which case that isn't their own country.


The claim that the IRA didn't try to cause as much death and destruction as they could is purely subjective.


Originally posted by apex
Just how much damage do you think flying a plane into a nuclear reactor would do? If it didn't work exactly the right way for their objective, it might shut it down straight away. It would cause fear, but to do that, how exactly is attacking a nations' main defence building not going to cause fear?


So; once again, the CHANCE of scoring a bullseye and making large chunks of the USA totally inhabitable was passed up for a crack at the Pentagon which would have been totally impossible in the normal run of things; whatever hit it only hit because the defences were stood down, as Norman Mineta testified to to the 9/11 Commission. I mean, in normal times that plane/cruise missile, whatever it was, would have been blasted out of the sky miles before it got near the Pentagon. So; in normal times, any plane full of Islamic hijackers stood zero chance of even getting close to the Pentagon - and they would have known it. But for some reason the chance to fly as close as possible to the Pentagon before being shot out of the sky was somehow preferable to the monkeys flying these planes than the slender (but still far higher!) chance of causing a major radiation leak or worse? It makes no sense at all!



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikellmikell
Crashing a jet into TMI would have not damaged the plant to the point of a nuclear release. They are built to withstand that right from the gitgo. We have 2 nuke plants locally and I have visited them both the concrete is thicker than even the Pentagon the most damage would be stopping the output for a month or two but nothing nuclear.
mikell


Crashing a jet into the Pentagon supposedly caused SOMETHING (the landing gear, whatever we are asked to believe it was) to penetrate 6 reinforced concrete walls, and brought down the roof as well, if we believe the official story. So I wouldn't be TOO confident about the ability of your local nuclear plant to stop a jet crashing into it. Also, the fact that you have visited a nuclear power plant and have seen the walls (have you also seen the Pentagon walls?) is proof of what, exactly?!



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by franzbeckenbauer
But for some reason the chance to fly as close as possible to the Pentagon before being shot out of the sky was somehow preferable to the monkeys flying these planes than the slender (but still far higher!) chance of causing a major radiation leak or worse? It makes no sense at all!


And how exactly would hitting it with a plane necessarily cause a meltdown? It would have to damage it sufficiently that the control rods won't fall into it as they are designed to do to stop the reaction from happening, while keeping the fuel intact enough to have a constant runaway reaction. And even if it had caused just a hole to cause a leak, it's heavily Dependant on wind and other atmospheric conditions to do anything. Not to mention that there are measures in place to reduce radioactive effects on the population, and to cause long lasting contamination is hard.

And how would they know they were going to fly over TML anyway? More to the point, how would they know exactly where to hit the structure?



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   
In response to the question of the walls, it shows that you're talking about 18 inch thick walls, as opposed to 3 foot thick walls. Now which do you think would be more likely to stop a plane?

As to the meltdown question, an impact COULD theoretically cause a meltdown, if it damaged the cooling system. There's a page I read that talks about potential damage and reactions of the reactor to an impact. However it wouldn't cause massive portions of the US being uninhabitable if one reactor was hit.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by apex
And how exactly would hitting it with a plane necessarily cause a meltdown?


Where did I say hitting it with a plane would cause a meltdown? My point is that they had more chance of doing some REAL damage by aiming at TMI than they did by aiming at the Pentagon - where, in the normal run of things, they'd have been shot out of the sky before they even got close.


Originally posted by apex
And how would they know they were going to fly over TML anyway? More to the point, how would they know exactly where to hit the structure?


Do people even THINK before posting replies on this site? It seems not... Let me think for you then. They (supposedly) flew all the way from Ohio to Arlington, VA to aim at the Pentagon. They had no navigational assistance. So they were either very good with maps & compasses, or they'd memorised their route. If they'd memorised their route you don't think they'd have noticed the fact there was a nuclear power station along the way? You don't think they had done some serious reconnaisance? If they were actively sitting in the cockpit with a map and compass (a ridiculous suggestion but anyway...) you don't think they'd have noticed the nuclear power station on the way? Or do you think they made their whole plan up on the fly?!

As to where to hit on the structure. Come on! They supposedly knew where to hit on the Pentagon - the HQ of the US Forces. With a little research you don't think they could have worked out exactly how and where to hit TMI, the details of which I'm quite sure are a hell of a lot easier to get hold of that details and plans of the Pentagon!!



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Would someone PLEASE point out these magnificent defenses at the Pentagon? And if they're there, WHY? Why would you put a MAJOR civilian airport with an approach path that goes damn near right OVER the Pentagon if they're there? That's just BEGGING for an accident. And don't try to say that they use a military code, because civilian transponders don't have military codes in them. And how do they hide them so well? I've never seen ANYTHING in any picture of the Pentagon that shows anything RESEMBLING defenses. They might have Stingers, but Stingers aren't going to stop a large plane at high speed at a long enough range to prevent damage. And if they were going to use fighters, you still have the problem of if it's a plane with a major electrical failure trying to lane at the airport.

[edit on 9/17/2007 by Zaphod58]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by franzbeckenbauer

Originally posted by apex
And how would they know they were going to fly over TML anyway? More to the point, how would they know exactly where to hit the structure?


Do people even THINK before posting replies on this site? It seems not... Let me think for you then. They (supposedly) flew all the way from Ohio to Arlington, VA to aim at the Pentagon. They had no navigational assistance.
The amount of credit you're giving them, I think they'd be able to set the autopilot to take them to an airport in DC, and get a bearing from that.


Or do you think they made their whole plan up on the fly?!

How would they know where exactly they would first get control of the aircraft before hand?


As to where to hit on the structure. Come on! They supposedly knew where to hit on the Pentagon - the HQ of the US Forces. With a little research you don't think they could have worked out exactly how and where to hit TMI, the details of which I'm quite sure are a hell of a lot easier to get hold of that details and plans of the Pentagon!!


Well what was wrong with just aiming for the side of the pentagon?

And as for 3 mile island:


Probably the middle building, but where exactly on it?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join