Split Thread What does "MIHOP" mean?

[DGM]

If I could add my two cents worth of salt. All Femr is doing (I think, I could be wrong) is hilighting the false choice nature of automatically assuming that MIHOP is the US gov't made it happen... He's simply allowing for the possibility that an as yet unidentified group made the attacks happen on purpose. You'll have to deal with the cold logic of his reasoning since it is in the realm of possibility, even if it's not probable.

This isn't meaningless, but it is non-specific. Now I suspect I know why this flips the wigs of many so-called debunkers. One of the most important aspects of 9/11 debunking is to try and pin down the Twoofie to make an accusation. It must be frustrating when the Twoofie refuses to name a perp and instead refocuses the discussion on NIST's poorly constructed collapse explanations without providing a perpetrator or "full theory." It is not the preferable debunker position to argue the flaws in official accounts. It is prefered that the discussion be forced into the more narrow direction of accusation.

So it could also be a term that shows support for the "official story". I'm fairly sure the attacks were on purpose and not an accident.I will assume you would not exclude Al Qaeda.

 

[000063]

It is senseless. You, F2, are arguing against proper grammar. Using English, then being upset by the rules. "It" always refers to the subject matter. The context.

The context can change, yes, but "It" always refers to "it"! (See how that works F2?) Always. Without exception given a competent writer.

Are you a competent writer?

I imagine a real world conversation with you would be very short on this subject, in which you are way over your head and being deceitful to cover for your faux pas.

A real world, short, sweet conversation with you:

Me: So, kiddo, what does MIHOP mean?
F2: Made. It. Happen. On. purpose.
Me. Made what happen on purpose?
F2: Whatever is being discussed silly!
Me: Well, what was being discussed when you said it?
F2: Umm...duuuuur.....incorrect..no, wait, it's literal, oh, I mean...umm...look at my chart!

Please keep going, this is quit amusing. Reminds me of youtube when you were Rizla2012.......

Off to bed now, can't wait to see what bizarre English language iterations you invent by morning!

Thanks champ

It would've been so easy for him to just say "whoops, I misspoke." Except that would mean admitting he was wrong. And in trying to defend his mistake, he has made a series of larger and larger errors, and now we have a lovely thread that's just him getting embarrassed over and over.

 

[kmortis]

Do not personlize this discussion. Keep it civil and on topic.

Pro-tip: The topic is not the other posters.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[000063]

If I could add my two cents worth of salt. All Femr is doing (I think, I could be wrong) is hilighting the false choice nature of automatically assuming that MIHOP is the US gov't made it happen... He's simply allowing for the possibility that an as yet unidentified group made the attacks happen on purpose. You'll have to deal with the cold logic of his reasoning since it is in the realm of possibility, even if it's not probable.

Many 9/11 conspiracy theories are within the realm of probability. They're just so mind-bogglingly unlikely to succeed that no one with half a brain would implement the plan in the first place, and anyone with less than half-a-brain isn't smart enough to pull it off.

This isn't meaningless, but it is non-specific. Now I suspect I know why this flips the wigs of many so-called debunkers. One of the most important aspects of 9/11 debunking is to try and pin down the Twoofie to make an accusation. It must be frustrating when the Twoofie refuses to name a perp and instead refocuses the discussion on NIST's poorly constructed collapse explanations without providing a perpetrator or "full theory." It is not the preferable debunker position to argue the flaws in official accounts. It is prefered that the discussion be forced into the more narrow direction of accusation.

If one is discussing the flaws in the NIST report, one is, by definition, accusing them of being inadequate. However, while several debunkers do agree that the report is flawed, they do not think it affects the reports overall conclusion. Think confusing 2x2 with 2+2 with 2^2. The answer is always 4.

Also, speaking of accusations, I don't think you ever backed up or retracted your accusation that Larry Silverstein "made out like a bandit". Of course, such a subject is not germane to this thread, and you're welcome to start a new one if you would like to discuss the matter. I use it only as an example of the fact that Truthers make accusations all the time, many of which are false.

 

[Carll68]

All Femr is doing (I think, I could be wrong) is hilighting the false choice nature of automatically assuming that MIHOP is the US gov't made it happen...

Made what happen Red?

F2 won't even supply the "It"......even though the "it" is made clear by context.

Think about it. <<<< See how "it" works?

 

[TexasJack]

This is so ridiculous. There are two popular acronyms in regards to 9/11. MIHOP, and its alternative LIHOP. LIHOP means Let It Happen ON Purpose. It means the US govt knew that attacks were coming and allowed them to happen. It doesn't mean Mossad let them happen on purpose, or Peak Oil, or Al Qaeda, etc. It's alternative, MIHOP, means the US govt made it happen on purpose. If a couple people want to use their own definition when it suits their purpose, let them. Everyone else understands what they stand for.

 

[RedIbis]

Also, speaking of accusations, I don't think you ever backed up or retracted your accusation that Larry Silverstein "made out like a bandit". Of course, such a subject is not germane to this thread, and you're welcome to start a new one if you would like to discuss the matter. I use it only as an example of the fact that Truthers make accusations all the time, many of which are false.

I'll get right on that. I don't think there have been enough threads started on the subject.

 

[NoahFence]

I'll get right on that. I don't think there have been enough threads started on the subject.

Perhaps you should then take that to the appropriate thread and actually provide evidence of it.

 

[Carll68]

This is so ridiculous. There are two popular acronyms in regards to 9/11. MIHOP, and its alternative LIHOP. LIHOP means Let It Happen ON Purpose. It means the US govt knew that attacks were coming and allowed them to happen. It doesn't mean Mossad let them happen on purpose, or Peak Oil, or Al Qaeda, etc. It's alternative, MIHOP, means the US govt made it happen on purpose. If a couple people want to use their own definition when it suits their purpose, let them. Everyone else understands what they stand for.

Bingo.

 

[GlennB]

Does anybody know femr2's current state of belief on the events of 9/11?

He has been asked many times, but seems reluctant to answer clearly. His old views - it seems - have evolved into new ones.

Any clues?

 

[Hokulele]

If I could add my two cents worth of salt. All Femr is doing (I think, I could be wrong) is hilighting the false choice nature of automatically assuming that MIHOP is the US gov't made it happen... He's simply allowing for the possibility that an as yet unidentified group made the attacks happen on purpose. You'll have to deal with the cold logic of his reasoning since it is in the realm of possibility, even if it's not probable.

No, it is even worse than that. Femr2 won't even allow a definition of what "It" means, so for all anyone knows, there aren't any "attacks" or "fires" or "collapses" or pretty much anything left in the acronym. This is exactly what I am saying when he/she is broading the term to a point of complete meaninglessness.

This isn't meaningless, but it is non-specific.

Non-specific to the point of there being no point at all.


ETA: And you better not let femr2 catch you calling him/her "femr", he/she doesn't approve of any form of address other than his/her proper screen name.

 

[NoahFence]

Does anybody know femr2's current state of belief on the events of 9/11?

He has been asked many times, but seems reluctant to answer clearly. His old views - it seems - have evolved into new ones.

Any clues?

Terrorist attacks.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

If I could add my two cents worth of salt. All Femr is doing (I think, I could be wrong) is hilighting the false choice nature of automatically assuming that MIHOP is the US gov't made it happen...

Then how do you explain the largest criminal investigation in galactic history (7,000+ FBI agents plus support personnel), the FEMA collapse investigation, the two NIST investigations, the 9/11 Commission report and intelligence recovered by US servicemen and operatives in the field all overwhelmingly pointing to Osama Bin Laden and his minions without implicating the US government?

 

[carlitos]

I saw this in the other semantic nitpicking thread and thought others might find it* interesting. It was a new one to me, and it's a little more well thought out vs. the humpty dumpty quote.

Sorry, Loki's Wager fallacy.

(Best named fallacy ever, btw.)

* and by "it" I obviously mean nothing specific. Just try to guess what I was thinking when when I wrote ... it.

 

[beachnut]

Again, I think ozeco41 summed it up clearly near the beginning of this increasingly ridiculous thread...


Can you understand the difference between meaningless and non-specific ?

It's obvious to me (and others) that literal use simply means that the person using it is not stating a specific "who", not stating a specific "what" and not stating a specific "how". There are plenty of available "who's" (regardless of the whining of some here), plenty of available "what's" and a veritable mountain of available "how's" kicking around.

A point worth reiterating yet again...all of those calling for the acronym to have a specific and singular "who" are also inherently using non-specific "what" and "how", which is rather ironic.

A person of modest intellect will infer that the intent is "not natural collapse" by "someone" in "some way".

A person of modest intellect may also infer use in the form "I am openly MIHOP" to be a statement of stance, a position relative to a line in the sand. Some would say it's a declaration of "truther", but obviously I'd disagree with that, as the word has been bastardised significantly in the years since 2001.

None of the above indicates "meaningless" to me, but certainly non-specific.

How about you ?

You summed up 911 truth, meaningless nonsense using MIHOP to imply the government did 911, posting nonsense labeled "demolition" on the Internet with no goals, no rational conclusions, no purpose, and they MIHOP.

summed it up clearly near the beginning of this increasingly ridiculous thread...

who is leading it, with 108 posts? ... . What is the goal? We know what 911 truth means with MIHOP, why whine about it?

(regardless of the whining of some here),

... due to the failure to find evidence for an inside job, claiming "demolition", and whining about it; need examples? Now what will 911 truth do? Abandon work which failed to bear fruit?

MIHOP means the government did it, somebody did it from the government. This is 911 CT sub-forum, not the goofy definition sub forum to make up stuff about what you want MIHOP to mean, you give too much effort to make 911 truth appear to have credibility. 911 truth studies failed to provide evidence for "demolition" and the elusive inside job.

911 truth is not able to handle but one definition of MIHOP, it means those elusive key elements of the US government did it, to ague differently is proof there are special technobabble branches of 911 truth, and a few appeasing those special "investigators" as if their technobabble research means something. 911 truth can't name who, can't find evidence, can't do much more than quibble about stuff.

 

[GlennB]

ETA: And you better not let femr2 catch you calling him/her "femr", he/she doesn't approve of any form of address other than his/her proper screen name.

Ah.

Cheers Hok Hekloue Hoklulu girl

 

[femr2]

You are claiming that in the context of discussing your research on this forum, you mean it to be non-specific, which is completely meaningless, apparently deliberately so.

Nope. Suggest you loook at "context". How very strange, eh

Suggest you also look at intent.

Suggest you also decide to look at words said before openly jumping on a band wagon. Might make a dick of yourself unless you do.

 

[femr2]

If I could add my two cents worth of salt. All Femr is doing (I think, I could be wrong) is hilighting the false choice nature of automatically assuming that MIHOP is the US gov't made it happen... He's simply allowing for the possibility that an as yet unidentified group made the attacks happen on purpose. You'll have to deal with the cold logic of his reasoning since it is in the realm of possibility, even if it's not probable.

Indeed. Disagreement is fine.

This isn't meaningless, but it is non-specific. Now I suspect I know why this flips the wigs of many so-called debunkers. One of the most important aspects of 9/11 debunking is to try and pin down the Twoofie to make an accusation. It must be frustrating when the Twoofie refuses to name a perp and instead refocuses the discussion on NIST's poorly constructed collapse explanations without providing a perpetrator or "full theory."

As you clearly know, it's not a bizarre point of view.

It is not the preferable debunker position to argue the flaws in official accounts. It is prefered that the discussion be forced into the more narrow direction of accusation.

Forcing direction has never been something that works.

Thanks. It's hard to jump imto this rather bizarre discussion.

 

[femr2]

MIHOP was originally created to describe those who thought the attacks on 9/11 were government orchestrated.

Having a gay day once meant something particular.

If it has since changed meaning to mean whatever, that's irrelevant.

No, it's not.

MODS - Please close this thread. I started it, so I should be able to decide when it ends. It has run its course, clearly.

ROFL. No, you didn;t. It was a mod decision to split from the address the arguer nonsense going on in a separate thread. LOL.

 

[femr2]

This is so ridiculous. There are two popular acronyms in regards to 9/11. MIHOP, and its alternative LIHOP. LIHOP means Let It Happen ON Purpose. It means the US govt knew that attacks were coming and allowed them to happen. It doesn't mean Mossad let them happen on purpose, or Peak Oil, or Al Qaeda, etc. It's alternative, MIHOP, means the US govt made it happen on purpose. If a couple people want to use their own definition when it suits their purpose, let them. Everyone else understands what they stand for.

Scope narrowing isn't useful within this thread