Split Thread What does "MIHOP" mean?

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by BasqueArch At least we now know this much, both Major Tom and femr2 believe that fire and planes impact did not cause the collapse of the Towers.

Femr2 believes that fire and plane impacts did NOT cause the collapse.

Originally Posted by femr2
Incorrect

He immediately corrects basqueArch, by saying "incorrect"

Therefore

He believes they DID cause the collapse. It is the ONLY OTHER CHOICE


I believe the topic of his beliefs are both off topic to this thread, yet answered so we no longer need to discuss it.

 

[femr2]

The problem here is you.

Incorrect. The problem is that other posters continnually choose to make off-topic posts aimed at my usage of the acronym rather than discuss "what mihop means" in a civil manner.

That discussion was pretty much over long ago.

MIHOP can mean all manner of different things as highlighted within this thread, by folk other than me, going back years ago.

You are about the only one arguing that the term MIHOP, when discussed, does NOT refer to the USG being involved in some way, shape, or form.

Incorrect. I am saying that the acronym does not exclusively refer to USG-MIHOP.

To sit here and claim that you did not know that the term MIHOP refers to USG involvement is DISHONEST.

I have claimed no such thing.

I've been involved in 9/11 discussions for quite some time and I've NEVER had someone use MIHOP to mean anything other than USG involvement.

Irrelevant.

See...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7377441&postcount=92
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7377877&postcount=101

Once the thread reached...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7379188&postcount=126

Regardless of who (x), it , or how (z): If there's a perpetrator x who did the deed y by purposefully employing method z, then x's perpetration of y via z counts as MIHOP.

...there should have been very little activity in the thread.

As it is, there has been rather a lot, most of it focussed on the off topic "how femr2 uses the term" or "what femr2 believes".

 

[femr2]

Femr2 believes

You do not know what I believe.

You are deliberately misinterpreting.

I have already provided you with clear context...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7387789&postcount=306

 

[NoahFence]

You are deliberately misinterpreting.

I am quoting you VERBATIM.

You need to take a vacation from this, femr. Honestly. You're so paranoid that everybody is against you, you can't even see when someone is supporting you.

 

[femr2]

I am quoting you VERBATIM.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7387789&postcount=306

 

[NoahFence]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7387789&postcount=306

So...

uh....


Your idea of correcting this statement:

"I was quoting you verbatim"

Is to link to the post that proves it?

 

[000063]

Still hasn't answered whether his usage of the term is standard or non-standard.

If I said "Edward is a dog of the military", one would normally assume he was a Military Working Dog unit named Edward. That would be the standard usage. If I referred to him in a less prosaic, more poetic sense, and was in fact referring to a man named Edward in a subservient position in the military, that would be non-standard usage, and requires clarification.

 

[Gamolon]

Incorrect. The problem is that other posters continnually choose to make off-topic posts aimed at my usage of the acronym rather than discuss "what mihop means" in a civil manner.

Bingo!

See bolded/enlarged text.

YOUR USAGE is not the norm. 99% of the people that use the term MIHOP know that it refers to the USG being involved in some capacity to have made the events of 9/11 happen. Whether it be NWO, Muslim hijackers, a rogue group, etc. The common denominator is that the USG was involved in ALL scenarios when MIHOP is discussed.

 

[Gamolon]

Cool. My use of the acronym MIHOP has no bearing at all upon *who*. You can argue about that for as long as you like, but you'll be "WRONG". My use of the acronym MIHOP has no bearing at all upon *who*.

Proof that you are the problem here as I stated. Your definition/understanding of the term MIHOP is glaringly different than everyone else's.

 

[femr2]

YOUR USAGE

My usage is not the topic of this thread.

As a reminder in case you have not read this thread in full...

Tarpley’s conception of a far-flung, supragovernmental alliance of intelligence agencies (he reserves a key spot for Britain’s MI6) and military forces is only one of many MIHOPs floating around 9/11 Truth circles. Popular are various configurations of a Cheney-Bush MIHOP, with most asserting that the vice-president, who appeared to be in charge on 9/11, was the main actor in the plot. Also ambient is the ecodoomsday Peak Oil MIHOP, the idea that the “peaking” of petroleum reserves required a false provocation to start an “oil war” in the Middle East.

More controversial is Mossad MIHOP: the conjecture that Israeli intelligence (and kowtowing by the U.S. to the “Israel lobby”) played a crucial role, attempting to draw the U.S. into a prolonged struggle with Israel’s enemies. Notable in this is the “white van” story: Five men observed filming the attacks from Liberty State Park were later pulled over by cops near Giants Stadium. One man was found to have $4,700 in his sock. “We are Israelis,” the men reportedly told the cops. “We are not your problem.” The men were quickly deported to Israel, after which the Forward claimed that the company that owned the van, Urban Moving Systems, was a Mossad front.

Mossad MIHOP dovetails with the baseless rumor, widely believed in Arab countries, that 4,000 Jewish World Trade Center workers were told to stay home that day, showing that conspiracy theory can be tricky terrain. Mossad MIHOP easily morphs into Zionist MIHOP or Jewish MIHOP, leading to the charges of anti-Semitism that have dogged the 9/11 Truth movement. “Do I believe Israel has undue influence over U.S. foreign policy?” asks one activist. “Absolutely. But there are people in this movement who are *********** Nazis. You have to draw the line at Holocaust denial.”

Deeper into late-night-talk-radio, Da Vinci Code territory are numerous incarnations of the New World Order MIHOP, defined by Nick Levis as the work of “a global ruling elite seeking greater control of the world Zeitgeist.” Ever elastic, NWO MIHOPs often date back to secret societies like the Knights Templar, founded in 1118 during the First Crusade.

• Cheney-Bush MIHOP
• Peak Oil MIHOP
• Mossad MIHOP
• Zionist MIHOP
• Jewish MIHOP
• New World Order MIHOP
• Rogue Network MIHOP

And no doubt many more.

There is nothing wrong with disagreement, but distorted straw-man arguments with misleading and inaccurate language and labels are not real disagreement. The misleading and false MIHOP/LIHOP dichotomy is effectively used in straw-man debates in which 9/11 activists are attacked with ridiculously misleading and inaccurate labels. Instead, accurate language should be used to critique and advance understanding of the 9/11 attacks. If misinformation is defined as “misleading information", then the MIHOP and LIHOP labels closely follow this definition, but if they are used with deliberate intent to confuse and mislead, they clearly function as disinformation. This is because they can mean almost anything depending on what the user wants them to mean when left unqualified, and they can just as easily be misunderstood by the intended audience when this happens. Without clarification, the terms are like empty, unfilled glasses; containers without meaningful content. When these labels are followed by specific explanations and analysis they are somewhat more useful, but without clarification they are dangerously open-ended:

• Who made it happen?
• What happened?
• How did it happen?
• Why did it happen?
• Why is the official story wrong?
• Which parts of the official story are wrong?
• What parts are true?
• And most importantly, how can you prove it?

These are all questions that MIHOP and LIHOP do not answer when they are not followed with explanation or precise definition; on their own these terms are virtually meaningless. They avoid the complex nature of reality by avoiding subtlety and nuance.

The acronym does not have a specific meaning other than the literal meaning of the words...

(somebody) made it (whatever it is) happen on purpose (by any means).

Whether you assert...

"space aliens" made "the vaporisation of the entire building complex" happen on purpose "with their nuk-o-beams"

...or...

"mice" made "WTC7 fall down" on purpose "by chewing on the support columns"


They both Made It Happen On Purpose.

There is a common usage USG-MIHOP, however that is not the only and singular meaning.

The acronym M.I.H.O.P. does not denote the "who", "what" or "how".

Regardless of who (x), it , or how (z): If there's a perpetrator x who did the deed y by purposefully employing method z, then x's perpetration of y via z counts as MIHOP.​

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Hey Femr2, if Al-Qeada wasn't behind 9/11. And the US Government wasn't behind 9/11.... then how did US forces "find" the Osama Bin Laden video in Afghanistan that featured him talking about how he planned the attacks?

Does Femr2 have me in ignore or something?

 

[Gamolon]

The acronym M.I.H.O.P. does not denote the "who", "what" or "how".

It is implied that SOMEBODY + THE USG GOVERNMENT Made It Happen On Purpose.

You can split hairs all you want on what the actual acronym stands for.

Just like when someone types BRB, it is implied that the person typing BRB is the one that will Be Right Back even though the acronym does not state who.

 

[femr2]

You can split hairs all you want on what the actual acronym stands for.

That is the topic of this thread.

"What does MIHOP mean"

If that's not what you wish to discuss, I suggest doing it somewhere else.

I have already shown you that many different MIHOPs exist, including many without a USG-MIHOP element.

Whether you think it is possible for a specific type of MIHOP to be accomplished without you personally believing a USG-MIHOP influence is not the topic of this thread. That is your own personal applied implication.

The acronym M.I.H.O.P. does not denote the "who", "what" or "how".

 

[000063]

And you have not answered, once again, whether the manner you use the term is standard or non-standard.

It's non-standard, and you should have clarified what you meant.

 

[DGM]

I think we need a new thread to discuss what USG means.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Sorry to beat a dead parrot...

The acronym M.I.H.O.P. does not denote the "who", "what" or "how".

Regardless of who (x), it , or how (z): If there's a perpetrator x who did the deed y by purposefully employing method z, then x's perpetration of y via z counts as MIHOP.​

So long as femr2's quoting my paraphrase of his definition as though it were definitive, we might as well look at some of the other lessons in semantics and communications he's trying to teach us.

My personal use of the acronym has nothing to do with what the acronym does or does not mean.

Agreed: No one has ever accused femr2 of using "MIHOP" with any regard for its meaning.

Incorrect. "What it means" is about the intent of the person using it, not how it may be interpreted by others.

That may well be true when femr2 writes of MIHOP---we'll just have to take his word for it---but writers who genuinely wish to communicate generally put some effort into selecting words that will not mislead their audience.

It has already been pointed out TWICE that I was saying that the poster KNEW what I believe is incorrect.

Okay, folks, listen up: femr2 was saying the poster knew femr2's beliefs are incorrect.

No one's arguing with that, but what does it mean? Does it mean femr2's beliefs are incorrect in the sense of being not correct? Or does it mean femr2's beliefs are incorrect in the sense of being possibly correct but unknown to...well, it can't be the poster, because the poster knew...unknown to the parrot, maybe?

Can anyone here explain to me what femr2 meant by saying his beliefs are known to be incorrect?

You do not know what I believe.

You are deliberately misinterpreting.

In particular, we don't know whether femr2 believes we don't know what he believes.

We also don't know whether femr2 believes we are deliberately misinterpreting. After all, what femr2 means by "deliberately" or "misinterpreting" is entirely a matter of his intent, not a matter of how those words may be interpreted by others.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Hey Femr2, if Al-Qeada wasn't behind 9/11. And the US Government wasn't behind 9/11.... then how did US forces "find" the Osama Bin Laden video in Afghanistan that featured him talking about how he planned the attacks?

Does Femr2 have me in ignore or something?

Just in case he does.

 

[femr2]

Okay, folks, listen up: femr2 was saying the poster knew femr2's beliefs are incorrect.

How very droll. I made the scope clear here...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7387789&postcount=306

You are deliberately misinterpreting.

I'll trim out the words that seem to be getting you all confused...

we now know this much

Incorrect

As I said repeatedly, it is that the user asserted "we now know this much" that I state is incorrect. You (and the group herd) do not "know" what I believe. You think/believe/assume...

I imagine you are making some kind of point, however, deliberately misinterpreting quotes is more than underhand.

Tsk.

 

[NoahFence]

quote mining.....

 

[Kent1]

Femr has already made it clear in previous quotes that MIHOP=assisted collapse.
Its hard to tell what he believes now, or if he's just playing games. Femr do you still believe what you previously stated?
Please explain. Then we can move on.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/reproducibility-of-the-official-story-t347-105.html

You'd be out of here, psik. Your argument comes from nothing. Nowt. Zip. Nada. Misunderstanding. Hand waving. Do you REALLY think that explosives were required ALL the way down ? There I must mention hushabooms. I'm in very little doubt about the deliberate and intentional *bring down*, call it MIHOP, but the ridiculous and naieve (sp?) is just that. Ridiculous. Act together, psik. After many long years of, in all honesty, slight ignorance, and it is slight, I managed to get to grips with the, frankly, flimsy perimeter-floor slab-core connection strength conundrum. It's a right pain, but it matches observables and explains a whole heap of the behaviour. If you choose, as I do, to retain a MIHOP perspective, then not realising that you MUST be fully aware of the actual environment within which you are proclaiming knowledge of, you MUST be aware of the realities. Even if it took 20 floors of deliberate destruction to *get it going*, ......... once started, it was going to ground. End of story. Vertically, and semi-symmetrical.

The QUESTION is that of initiation. Scale of initiation. Condition of initiation.

Have been short on time recently, but it's time. Jeez.



Another quote when asked:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post9754.html#p9754

Pavlovian Dogcatcher wrote:
do you share my opinion that the impact damage and fires alone story is physically impossible, or not?

femr2 wrote:

Have I not made my opinion clear enough ? MIHOP.
However, IF the fires had burned for a couple of days, or IF there was irreversable CC creep, then it is logical to conclude that natural failure is physically possible.
That's not what I think happened, as there are plenty of other anomylous events to consider, but as the question is loaded, no, it's not physically impossible.

Pavlovian Dogcatcher wrote:
That said, a simple and direct "not" would've avoided all confusion.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=212866&page=2
Femr2:
Oh, btw, ever seen my viewpoint on the definition of the extents of MIHOP ? I'll give you a clue...it allows for simply knowing enough about the buildings to KNOW that destruction to ground will ensue following impact. ie On Purpose, not just an unforseen consequence.

End quote.

Has anyone else used the term so loosely? Why now at JREF did the meaning change? Why not be honest? It would save you and us A LOT of wasted time. This thread wouldn't exist if you were more UPFRONT and HONEST with everyone here.
Learn something rather than trying to one up everyone.