"It" is the "what".
Are you following this 'discussion' at all ?
Your "argument" is getting dizzy!
Focus!
"It" is the "what".
Are you following this 'discussion' at all ?
I understand, but disagree with you. Do you get that ?fI am repeating this because you don't seem to get it.
As I have said on multiple occasions within this thread, I would suggest that each variable term has limits and scope.If you include all possible culprits in the "who" (which is necessary to give the phrase any meaning at all), it becomes meaningless.
I disagree. As I said recently somewhere else...Everyone's MIHOP. You, me, my mother, President Obama, the King of god-damned Siam!
There are a number of "who"'s already listed, which include...
- Cheney-Bush MIHOP + The US Government
- Peak Oil MIHOP + The US Government
- Mossad MIHOP + The US Government
- Zionist MIHOP + The US Government
- Jewish MIHOP + The US Government
- New World Order MIHOP + The US Government
- Rogue Network MIHOP + The US Government
What he believes is not on topic, remember?Care to answer your own question?
No thought not.
No, though it had little to do with the meaning of the acronym M.I.H.O.P., contained overtly long and unnecessary quoted portions from a link you had already enclosed, and I have already responded to that post.Did you miss the list I posted earlier?
Disagreeing with your viewpoint does not require courage.If you don't have the courage to acknowledge the inevitable consequences of the scenario you propose, then you're just a coward.
Who are you referring to as "twoofer" ? Me ?I will concede that a twoofer could say with a straight face that he isn't implying that the US government is involved. However, despite the fact that twoofers are pathological liars, racists and morons on a good day, any twoofer actually saying such a thing would have to be even less honest, less cognizant of reality or both than we are normally used to seeing from the idiot brigade.
I understand, but disagree with you. Do you get that ?
As I have said on multiple occasions within this thread, I would suggest that each variable term has limits and scope.
There are a number of "who"'s already listed, which include...
- Cheney-Bush MIHOP
- Peak Oil MIHOP
- Mossad MIHOP
- Zionist MIHOP
- Jewish MIHOP
- New World Order MIHOP
- Rogue Network MIHOP
The other terms also have practical limits, in my opinion.
I disagree. As I said recently somewhere else...
IF signs of MIHOP emerge from analyses THEN who could be looked at.
Unless "something" can be found which confirms "someone" MADE it (destruction of the buildings) happen on purpose..."who" is redundant.
I'm not going to point fingers at anyone, saying "you did it" before stating what "it" is and that "it" did in fact occur.
No. I said...You seem to have forgotten several other options that have been suggested
...in the post you are responding to.There are a number of "who"'s already listed, which include...
You are incorrect. At the most abstract level, there are a finite number of people.I think the list is endless
No. I said...
...in the post you are responding to.
You are incorrect. At the most abstract level, there are a finite number of people.
However, I'm sure there have been MANY flavours of MIHOP discussed, and many more "who"s to add to the list if you were inclined to do so.
Endless ? I disagree, as suggested in the post you responded to. Quite a few, sure.That's your list for discussion with SOT, but if we're to include every speculation that's ever been made about who could have 'carried out' 9/11, there are endless number.
No, you can add as many as you like if you feel inclined to.Or do we have to limit it to only the choices that you tell could be real? Like the NWO?
Endless ? I disagree, as suggested in the post you responded to. Quite a few, sure.
No, you can add as many as you like if you feel inclined to.
Similarly for the "what" and "how".
"It" is the "what".
Are you following this 'discussion' at all ?
You should start all your posts with that, Disbelief.I still can't believe that
Clearly not.always included USG involvement
You should start all your posts with that, Disbelief.
Clearly not.
However, I'm sure there have been MANY flavours of MIHOP discussed,
OK, there you're wrong.
OK, there you're wrong.
For 10 years now, a major question about 9/11 has remained unresolved. It was, as 9/11-commission chairmen Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton recalled, “Had the hijackers received any support from foreign governments?”
...
Three years later, the commission would consider whether any of three foreign countries in particular might have had a role in the attacks. Two were avowed foes of the United States: Iraq and Iran. The third had long been billed as a close friend: Saudi Arabia.
Incorrect. A number of alternate "who"s have been listed a number of times in this thread, from an article written years ago.