Split Thread What does "MIHOP" mean?

[femr2]

Everyone can see you didn't answer the question.
If :

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

then the USG lied in their official documented account that Al Qaeda did it and the USG + any of the above MIHOP. If you believe Any Other than Al Qaeda MIHOP then the USG MIHOP. QED.

1) Where did "the USG" place their official documented account ?

2) Why would "the USG" have to lie ? Why could they not be "wrong" ?

3) Why would you not include "Al Qaeda" on the list ? I suggets it is added. Your personal incredulity relating to elements of "what" and "how" do not affect "What MIHOP means". Whilst you may limit your scope of application of the term based upon your own opinion about what could and couldn't happen with/without detection via investigation...that does not affect "what MIHOP can mean". Might change what it means to you but doesn't change the scope of applicability of the acronym.

QED ? No, and rather illustrates the point that every individual has a slightly different interpretation of the acronym, yourself included.

Being more specific with Carll68's claim...I am implicating NO-ONE. No amount of argument will change that fact. Regardless of "who", "what" and "how". Did I state a specific "who" ? No. Did I state a specific "what" ? No. Did I state a specific "how" ? No.

The argument for trying to force MIHOP to mean "inside job only" or "USG-MIHOP only" was lost a long time ago. The fact that there are multiple variants of "Inside job MIHOP" and "USG MIHOP" rather closes that book.

 

[BasqueArch]

1) Where did "the USG" place their official documented account ?

USG paid for the FBI's PENTTBOM, 9/11 Commission Report, FEMA's WTC Building Performance Study, NIST's reports. I prefer the term "commonly accepted narrative" because four different groups agree that Al Qaeda did it and that fire and planes damage cased the collapse of the three Towers.

2) Why would "the USG" have to lie ? Why could they not be "wrong" ?

I agree, but that's not what MT believes. Have you strongly argued this fine point with him? That the USG, NIST and Bazant could just be wrong and not lied? No. You have been careful not to show your cards, so you can plausibly deny, MT not so. If you believe the USG is wrong and not lying then say so and tell MT.

3) Why would you not include "Al Qaeda" on the list ?I suggets it is added.

That's what I wonder when you revealingly repeatedly leave out the most obvious real MIHOP, Al Qaeda MIHOP.

Your personal incredulity relating to elements of "what" and "how" do not affect "What MIHOP means". Whilst you may limit your scope of application of the term based upon your own opinion about what could and couldn't happen with/without detection via investigation...that does not affect "what MIHOP can mean". Might change what it means to you but doesn't change the scope of applicability of the acronym.

You're an admitted MIHOPer but claim to not use the original accepted definition. It's your problem, not the definition's. Use another term and define it.

QED ? No.

Do you believe that something other than Al Qaeda MIHOP and that the USG lied? Then the USG MIHOP. If you don't believe the US government lied instead of being wrong then say so. Just remember this at your Final Post.

Being more specific with Carll68's claim...I am implicating NO-ONE. No amount of argument will change that fact. Regardless of "who", "what" and "how".

Plausible deniability.

 

[femr2]

USG paid for the FBI's PENTTBOM, 9/11 Commission Report, FEMA's WTC Building Performance Study, NIST's reports. I prefer the term "commonly accepted narrative" because four different groups agree that Al Qaeda did it and that fire and planes damage cased the collapse of the three Towers.

So funding route determines the end result to be an official USG documented account of "who", "what" and "how" in your opinion ? Interesting. I'll search the reports for instances of "Al Qaeda".

You believe the "Official USG Theory" is documented. Interesting.

I agree

Good. That negates your argument about requiring inclusion of USG for the acronym M.I.H.O.P.

but that's not what MT believes. Have you strongly argued this fine point with him? That the USG, NIST and Bazant could just be wrong and not lied? No. You have been careful not to show your cards, so you can plausibly deny, MT not so. If you believe the USG is wrong and not lying then say so and tell MT.

Irrelevant to this topic. If you want to discuss something with Major_Tom, do so in the appropriate thread.

That's what I wonder when you revealingly repeatedly leave out the most obvious real MIHOP, Al Qaeda MIHOP.

I cut&pasted the list. I've mentioned it a number of times. Want a list of references ?

You're an admitted MIHOPer

I've performed dialogue from that side of the fence, sure.

but claim to not use the original accepted definition

Incorrect. Accepted by who ? The acronym is inherently ambiguous, as aptly illustrated by the fact that any assumed USG-MIHOP scenario does not define "what" or "how" and also that numerous variants of USG-MIHOP exist. Again, the acronym M.I.H.O.P. does not specify the "who", "what", or "how".

It's your problem, not the definition's.

Incorrect. Interpretation is always reader specific. I have no problem stating the extents I intend if I use the term.

For example, if you state only USG-MIHOP is "accepted", then I shall assume that you mean "what" is total destruction of the entire WTC complex, and "how" is "space alien beams". You are therefore advocating using ONLY a Judy Wood Type MIHOP scenario. Yikes.

Use another term and define it.

No.

Do you believe that something other than Al Qaeda MIHOP and that the USG lied? Then the USG MIHOP. If you don't believe the US government lied instead of being wrong then say so.

Irrelevant to the topic of this thread. Stay on topic.

 

[DGM]

Nope. Many "who"'s are possible pefixes, not just "USG", as has been made repeatedly clear.

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

.

Is MIHOP actually related in some way to 9/11?

 

[femr2]

Is MIHOP actually related in some way to 9/11?

Many uses of the acronym relate to 9/11 events, of course, but you'll also find that the term has long since entered into broader usage with application to other events such as the BP Oil Disaster.

A quick investigoogle with "BP MIHOP" will allow you to see.

I suggest you also have an investigoogle with other prefixes.

 

[DGM]

Many uses of the acronym relate to 9/11 events, of course, but you'll also find that the term has long since entered into broader usage with application to other events such as the BP Oil Disaster.

A quick investigoogle with "BP MIHOP" will allow you to see.

I suggest you also have an investigoogle with other prefixes.

Was there use in these context before 9/11? Every example I find is very recent and the meaning is topic defined. Such as with your BP example.

 

[femr2]

Was there use in these context before 9/11? Every example I find is very recent and the meaning is topic defined. Such as with your BP example.

Who knows. Who cares.

It is clear that what the acronym "means" has almost unlimited scope and usage for numerous years.

It is also clear that the acronym has long since entered general "language" with a literal meaning of simply "Made it happen on purpose", with "who", "what" and "how" being undefined.

 

[NoahFence]

Is "pro choice" a stance for or against abortion?

 

[femr2]

Is "pro choice" a stance for or against abortion?

Abortion is not the topic of this thread. Stay on topic.

 

[NoahFence]

Abortion is not the topic of this thread. Stay on topic.

I'm very much on topic. Can't you just answer the question?

(this is what's known as a "discussion")

 

[DGM]

Who knows. Who cares.

It is clear that what the acronym "means" has almost unlimited scope and usage for numerous years.

It is also clear that the acronym has long since entered general "language" with a literal meaning of simply "Made it happen on purpose", with "who", "what" and "how" being undefined.

femr2:
The reason I ask is, when people are comunicating with a common topic or interst the meaning of a word or phrase is normally universally used. I use to race dragsters (built and drove) and when we said it would "blowover" we all knew it was a bad thing. You seem to imply that the meaning of words or phrases can be differant within a common topic depending on who uses it. How does one know what the others talking about?

 

[femr2]

How does one know what the others talking about?

You don't, without asking. Assumption is the mother of all...

As I've said, even if you assume a USG-MIHOP scenario, you are still discussing entirely undefined "what" and "how" scope.

Of those folk who you assume are assuming a USG-MIHOP scenario, they are likely to have wildly differing opinions on the exact "what" and "how".

I've already told you many times...

My previous usage has had the general context of (Anyone) made it (whatever it is) happen on purpose (by any means).

The acronym M.I.H.O.P. stands for simply Made It Happen On Purpose.

Many differently scoped M.I.H.O.P.s have been discussed over the years, including, but not limited to...

• Cheney-Bush MIHOP
• Peak Oil MIHOP
• Mossad MIHOP
• Zionist MIHOP
• Jewish MIHOP
• New World Order MIHOP
• Rogue Network MIHOP
• Space Aliens MIHOP
• Al Qaeda MIHOP
• BP MIHOP

Note the repeated usage of a "who" prefix to the acronym.

Assuming a USG prefix only slightly narrows the scope of the acronym.

There is nothing about the acronym MIHOP which defines the "who", "what" or "how".

There are many who assume a USG prefixed usage, USG-MIHOP, however 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 some means).

USG-MIHOP is not the only and singular usage or meaning, regardless of any assumptions you may make.

As discussed a few years ago on an external site...

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.


There is nothing about the acronym M.I.H.O.P. which defines the "who", "what" or "how".

If you want a list of different "what" and "how" modifiers, no worries...but bear in mind there's a "what" and "how" for each and every single "truther" theory out there...

 

[DGM]

You don't, without asking. Assumption is the mother of all...
.

Thanks for the clarification.

Frying eggs.

 

[Carll68]

Amended for clarity and civility

Again, for comprehension F2:

con·text   [kon-tekst]
noun
1.
the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.
2.
the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.

Either you are ignorant of the above, or are simply lying in a vain attempt at narcissism. Either way, you desperately need the following:

per·spec·tive   [per-spek-tiv] noun
5.
the state of one's ideas, the facts known to one, etc., in having a meaningful interrelationship

So, again, allow me to supply it champ.

What does P.C. mean? Personal computer? Primary care? Politically Correct? Pro choice? All of those? None of those? What?

F2, it means all of them...DEPENDING ON CONTEXT.

Point.
Blank.
End.

If one is talking about computers, and use the acronym PC...it means 'Personal Computer'. Each and every time. Without fail. If it doesn't, one is not talking about computers. Thus, in a conversation about computers, PC means personal computer.

If one is talking about Political left thinking ideals regarding language and behavior, P.C. means Political Correctness/Politically Correct. Each and every time. Without fail. If it doesn't, one is not talking about left thinking ideals regarding language and behavior. Thus, in a conversation about left thinking ideals regarding language and behavior PC means Political Correctness/Politically Correct.

Shall I go on? I think I don't need to.

So, F2, when you say "MIHOP"....it CAN mean many things.....but that all depends on CONTEXT.

con·text   [kon-tekst]
noun
1.
the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.
2.
the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.

So, the fact stands..when you used, or anyone uses, MIHOP, when talking about the events of 9/11, on a conspiracy theory forum, in a 9/11 conspiracy theory sub forum..they are saying elements within the USG (scope undefined) MIHOP! They are taking a stance against the official narrative, which has been funded and overseen by the USG. The "what" and "who" are defined by default by the context.
And, By USG..I didn't mean University System of Georgia, or United Stated Gypsum.

Of course, everyone know this..because of the....CONTEXT.

Even more damning is the use of "it" in the English language. "It" always, every-time, without fail, refers to the subject being discussed. That is why "Pull IT" was so absurd...because the subject was never building 7, and always the rescue and fire fighting attempt's around it.

So, to re-cap: "It" = the subject matter. This is perhaps where your argument fails most dynamically and dramatically. When you say MIHOP...the "It" is made clear by the subject. Read that again. The "It" is made clear by the subject. The context. So, therefor, when talking about 911..the "It", by definition, by default, is the events of 9/11. More specifically, when talking about the collapse of the WTC's, the "It" is just that...the collapse of the WTC's.

So, when you told a fellow (as in like yourself) truther, when discussing the collapse of the WTC's, at the 911 forum that you where, quote "MIHOP"..it is abundantly and crystal clear what your meant.

The Who. The What. All made perfectly clear by context. If that (USG M WTC collapse OP) is not what you meant, then it is you who has the problem communicating your thoughts, and should thus admit so.

That, F2, is the bottom line.

No If's.
No And's.
No But's.

 

[femr2]

Again, for comprehension F2

My original response was more than clear.

My ID is femr2, not F2. Do not misstate my ID. You have been told many times now.

So, again, allow me to supply it champ.

I very much doubt it. My ID is femr2, not "champ".

What does P.C. mean?

Irrelevant.

F2

My ID is femr2, not F2.

If one is talking about computers, and use the acronym PC...it means 'Personal Computer'.

With such primitive allegory, you are not going to succeed in your attempt force a singular meaning of the acronym M.I.H.O.P.

See my previous post for details.

Shall I go on?

No.

As per my previous post, a list of differing "who" has already been provided.

A few "what" or "it"...

• Destruction of WTC 1 & 2
• Destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7
• Destruction of WTC 7
• Destruction of a segment of the Pentagon
• Destruction of Flight 93

Anyone using the acronym may be talking about any of the above, singularly or in combination.

The list of "how" is rather longer, and contains each and every "theory" about how any of the various "who" and "what" would be accomplished.

 

[Disbelief]

So, after a couple of weeks off, femr2 is back trying to redefine MIHOP in the 9/11 conspiracy theory forum. He is taking no-claiming to new heights.

 

[Animal]

Again, for comprehension F2:

......................
No If's.
No And's.
No But's.

What you are seeing is the relatively new troofer tactic of "keeping the topic alive" by any means necessary available.

The troofer movement religion is dieing dead.....except for a few disciples. Almost ten years and they have not produced one shred of evidence. Every claim has been shot down by a multitude of facts. All they have left is arguing what the meaning of "is" is.

 

[NoahFence]

So, after a couple of weeks off, femr2 is back trying to redefine MIHOP in the 9/11 conspiracy theory forum. He is taking no-claiming to new heights.

I don't know why he steadfastly refuses to make a statement here, that he's already made elsewhere.

He refers to 9/11 as terrorist attacks, therefore he's in line with the so-called "official report".

As for this MIHOP mumbo-jumbo, I'm fairly certain that he's just arguing for argument's sake. This is why he won't comment on his idea of what "pro choice" means. It'll kill his non-argument.

This really should go in the bin next to the Dusty thread, IMO.


ETA - Can't I, as the OP, request that?

 

[Carll68]

F2..How does your reply, in any way, address the post you were responding too?

Thanks kiddo

 

[femr2]

What does "MIHOP" mean ?

M.I.H.O.P. is an acronym for:

Made It Happen On Purpose

As discussed a few years ago on an external site...


[MIHOP/LIHOP] 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.


The "who", "what" and "how" are subjective and undefined unless stated.

Many differently scoped M.I.H.O.P. "who"'s have been discussed over the years, including, but not limited to...

• Cheney-Bush MIHOP
• Peak Oil MIHOP
• Mossad MIHOP
• Zionist MIHOP
• Jewish MIHOP
• New World Order MIHOP
• Rogue Network MIHOP
• Space Aliens MIHOP
• Al Qaeda MIHOP
• BP MIHOP

Note the repeated usage of a "who" prefix to the acronym.

Similarly, there are a number of differing "what"'s including, but not limited to...

• Destruction of WTC 1 & 2
• Destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7
• Destruction of WTC 7
• Destruction of a segment of the Pentagon
• Destruction of Flight 93

Anyone using the acronym may be talking about any of the above, singularly or in combination.

The "how" list is rather longer, comprising each and every "theory" about how any of the various "who" and "what" would be accomplished.


Many using the acronym assume a USG (US Government) prefix as the "who", however, as can be seen from the list above, that is far from the only discussed "who".

It should also be highlighted that even those assuming a particular "who" are still using the term with undefined "what" and "how".

Context can assist in narrowing the scope a little, but many assumptions are almost guaranteed.
After all, assumption is the mother of all ...

Ozeco41 provided a clear viewpoint near the beginning of this thread...

Except it isn't the truthers running the argument.

It is the "debunker side" which is arguing that MIHOP cannot be used with its literal meaning of Made It Happen On Purpose. They are claiming that femr2 (and I ) are wrong if we use it in its literal meaning. Even when it is absolutely clear in context to a person of modest intellect that the literal meaning is intended. That is not good enough they claim that it can only be legitimately used to mean that the US Govt. was the subject of "Made". That means some of the protagonists will also have to change how they use the phrase and acronym - a point which seems to be overlooked so far.

So, if they win this fabricated controversy, will the new definition apply to other Internet forums?

And do I have to go back and edit every use I have made of MIHOP on this and other forums and put in some disclaimers?

I have historically presumed a level of intelligent comprehension on the part of my readers. I expected them to understand in context as to whether I did or did not mean the US Government. Have I been expecting too high a level of comprehension? If so why has none of my target audience been confused? Femr's audience claims to be confused - does that mean that my audience is more discerning?

Keep it in perspective. This whole discussion arose because one member posted "What femr2 believes" - present tense - with a series of quotemines which showed femr2 modifying his stance as he continued research. It doesn't even make logical sense to represent a past tense historic and changing viewpoint as what "someone believes" - present tense. "Believed" maybe! "Believes" apart from being untrue is in self conflict because the quotes showed mutually conflicting positions as part of the progress. That's where it started. It's gone sillier since.

I suggest that if anyone is confused about what is intended by use of the acronym, that they assume the literal meaning...

Made It Happen On Purpose aka MIHOP

...regardless of who, what and how.

If you choose to assume a USG prefix, that's fine. Just don't assume everyone else is.

If you're not using the acronym with a literal meaning, then I suggest the need to qualify the "who", "what" and "how" increases.