Split Thread What does "MIHOP" mean?

[ElMondoHummus]

Ok, I know I'm late to this thread, and others have already said it in during the course of debate, but I think the point needs emphasis: MIHOP was defined from the beginning to mean that it was the US Government who "Made It Happen On Purpose". As Brainster pointed out, that's the way Haupt popularized it, and that's been the implicit meaning the entire time the phrase has been coined.

I do not understand Femr's disingenuousness; saying that the actual acronym MIHOP doesn't include the government is like saying the Arab and other races in the Levant cannot be antisemetic because they themselves are also semetic. It's ignoring that the actual denotation of the term "antisemetic" has always singled out the Jewish from its original inception. Ditto MIHOP: There was never, ever any vagueness as to the US government's inclusion in the term's accusation. The original definition was in regards to the contrasting question of whether the US government merely laid back and allowed 9/11 to happen (LIHOP), or actively took part in planning, directing, and participating in the events. It was always a direct accusation of the government from the very beginning. Femr is distorting the origin of the term, as well as the usage up through today.

This is not in doubt. Pretending that an alternate definition is in fact the one that's always fitted is deliberately lying. Either that, or it's a personal yet honest mistake, but regardless, it is not correct to say that the common, agreed upon usage of the term has been agnostic on goverment involvement. Pretending that's the case ignores its inception and use since then. If this is an honest misunderstanding, then it ends here. If it's an attempt to distort, then it was wrong from the beginning. Regardless, there is no escaping that the originators of the term have been using it as an accusation against the US government from the beginning, and there's no denying that it has been the exclusive meaning of the term since then.

 

[Major_Tom]

Then among LIHOP and MIHOP, where does femr fit in?

You keep accusing him of some attack against a govt, and not just any govt but the US govt.

This is your need to twist femr into something he is not. You basically got your asses whipped concerning measurement and now you fish for an excuse to not see your own poor reasoning abilities.

Basically a witch hunt. Pretty obvious.

 

[NoahFence]

MIHOP. He said so himself, so it's no big mystery.

 

[Major_Tom]

But to twist words like "make" and "purpose' into something involving Nico Whatever?

Really, isn't it scraping the bottom of the barrel?
.........................

I used the word MIHOP but I define my own argument rather than let some cubic minds do it for me.

Are there acronyms for the possibility of simple third party involvement?

That is how I meant it. As the simple logical review of the possibility of third party involvement.

I think it is a bit of a no-brainer.

Do you think after coming up with OSS and ROOSD and HTFCPNST-type behavior, i would allow some dude named Nico to determine my definitions for me?????
......................................................

The unmentionable lists that are not considered conspiracy-worthy gave the best available record of early motion of WTC1 or 2 in combination with the most complete visual record possible.

One would compare the actual visual record to all claims to determine whether any claim has merit. I do not understand how anyone can ignore the information on the unmentionable lists while claiming to know that the collapse initiation mechanisms were natural.

It has already been determined that your knowledge of the collapse initiation movements of WTC1, 2 and 7 are "piss poor".

With such piss poor knowledge of the actual movements during these most crucial times, you have no way of cross-checking any claim other than by clicking your heels together and wishing it true.
......................................

So, rather than admitting these obvious problems with your own reasoning, you drudge femr's posts of the last few years to find some way to claim he is attacking the US government.

Witch....hunt.

 

[NoahFence]

MIHOP has always meant that evil members of the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT were complicit in the events of 9/11. Planning, executing, covering it up.

That's what it means. Just because you and femr want to tapdance instead of admitting you could possibly be mistaken on anything is irrelevant. No amount of whining will change that.

 

[excaza]

Personally, I find the whole argument ridiculous. I've never seen anyone else put so much time into tapdancing around a statement.

 

[GlennB]

Then among LIHOP and MIHOP, where does femr fit in?

How would we know?

He refuses to define his current beliefs on why the buildings came down.

 

[Major_Tom]

My beliefs are based on the most accurate measurements and the most complete visual record possible.

Why ignore measurements while insisting that a person speculate about something they cannot see?

I have been showing the best collective record of early movement available until......the sloppy joe.

You have to see the obvious contradiction in being ignorant of the earliest movement, something you can see with a little effort, while demanding he claim something beyond verification with the visual record?

I hope so.

He is taking the very intelligent road of pushing observables to the limit before speculating. And what do the observables show?



Mama Mia! Dios nos libre!

 

[DGM]

My beleifs are based on the most accurate measurements and the most complete visual record possible.

This is not 100% true. You, yourself said your list included only the "features" you thought were" significant or suspicious". So what is it, "most complete" or what you want to see?

 

[Oystein]

Then among LIHOP and MIHOP, where does femr fit in?
...

Basically, we don't know because he obfuscates and misleads. We have to conclude by now that he made a conscious choice to use the term MIHOP in a misleading fashion. If he hadn't, he would admit now that he used it wrongly back in 2009, 2010. But he doesn't.

When talking to other truthers, he must know that his "I am clearly MIHOP" must mean to them "I am with you asserting that it was the US government". When he talks to us, he pretends like he is an agnostic.

Seeing him act so coy and disingeniously is a huge warning sign for me. It means that I better take everything he writes with a boulder of salt. Or better, ignore him.

Same goes for you.

 

[NoahFence]

I have been showing the best collective record of early movement available until......the sloppy joe.

Not for nothing, but the sloppy joe is already here.

My beliefs are based on the most accurate measurements and the most complete visual record possible.

Those aren't your beliefs, they're your observations. What caused those observations is what we're trying to extract from you. Government baddies or radical terrorists? Either / Or.

And what do the observables show?

19 Radical islamic dooshes flew airplanes into our buildings. This caused massive fire and damage, ultimately resulting in the total collapes of two of them^*, the partial collapse of one and fortunately a big hole in a field in Pennsylvania instead of God knows what.

*The total collapses of the two towers in New York also caused the partial or total collapse of surrounding structures.

Do your observables contradict this?

 

[Oystein]

My beliefs are based on...

Could you state what your beliefs are instead of what they are based on? Do you have any beliefs? Or are you just disingenously pretending you have beliefs when you write "My beliefs are based on..."?

 

[DGM]

Could you state what your beliefs are instead of what they are based on? Do you have any beliefs? Or are you just disingenously pretending you have beliefs when you write "My beliefs are based on..."?

He believes he has lots of followers and respect as a "researcher" as long as he doesn't step on too many toes.

 

[Oystein]

To clarify my last question:

Over at the the911forum, you started a thread more than 2 1/2 years ago with the title "Rational MIHOP".

I quoted from it: You obviously believed then that the US government Made It Happen On Purpose; in other words, you conformed to the standard and correct meaning of the term "MIHOP".

Some months later, you opened another thread there, where "MIHOP" means at least that some other second party - a party that is not AQ? - was involved. We know that at that time, you already knew what MIHOP meant, because you had used and explained it correctly. It never becam clear what your apparently new definition of MIHOP was.

As of May 2011, you are still engaged at the911forum, still debating "Rational MIHOP", but it still isn't clear what you believe this "Rational MIHOP" to be. It seems ypi expect your readers to know already what it means. The problem is, that all readers know what MIHOP really means: The US government dunnit.

So please elaborate: What does "Rational MIHOP" mean - to you? And if it means something to you that it does not to everybody else, and hasn't done for close to 9 years now, do you still insist on using the term incorrectly and thus misleadingly? Why then do you still insist on using the term incorrectly and thus misleadingly?

 

[NoahFence]

How to kill a thread, by NoahFence:

19 Radical islamic dooshes flew airplanes into our buildings. This caused massive fire and damage, ultimately resulting in the total collapes of two of them*, the partial collapse of one and fortunately a big hole in a field in Pennsylvania instead of God knows what.

*The total collapses of the two towers in New York also caused the partial or total collapse of surrounding structures.

Do your observables contradict this?

Ask MT or Femr a direct question.....

 

[Major_Tom]

To clarify my last question:

Over at the the911forum, you started a thread more than 2 1/2 years ago with the title "Rational MIHOP".

I quoted from it: You obviously believed then that the US government Made It Happen On Purpose; in other words, you conformed to the standard and correct meaning of the term "MIHOP".

Some months later, you opened another thread there, where "MIHOP" means at least that some other second party - a party that is not AQ? - was involved. We know that at that time, you already knew what MIHOP meant, because you had used and explained it correctly. It never becam clear what your apparently new definition of MIHOP was.

As of May 2011, you are still engaged at the911forum, still debating "Rational MIHOP", but it still isn't clear what you believe this "Rational MIHOP" to be. It seems ypi expect your readers to know already what it means. The problem is, that all readers know what MIHOP really means: The US government dunnit.

So please elaborate: What does "Rational MIHOP" mean - to you? And if it means something to you that it does not to everybody else, and hasn't done for close to 9 years now, do you still insist on using the term incorrectly and thus misleadingly? Why then do you still insist on using the term incorrectly and thus misleadingly?

Rational MIHOP was an effort to phrase the basic approach to problem-solving a bit differently.

If you are noting a single post from a few years ago, I can see I have a secret fan club.

i must confess it would never occur to me to read your posts from a few years ago, since i don't see much sense in your posts over the last week.
............................

The results of the rational MIHOP thread appear in other threads, or you can see it by reading the first few pages of my website where I spell it all out. From the website:


First, The largest and most complete visual record possible is gathered (and linked to the best sets of video through CTV, Xenomorph and Femr)

Second, The visual record is re-viewed and reconstructed to determine the collapse mode and global mass flow. This is summarized in the WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics.

With the complete visual record and a detailed knowledge and mapping of global mass flow,

Third, An detailed list of observations, expecially of the crucial moments during collapse initiation is compiled for each building.

The approach is simple and straightforward. Consider how each step of the way is essential towards the assembly of an accurate historic record and review.

With the first step a complete library is formed. This is essential to preserve for future generations of inquirers, students and general citizens. The preservation of the visual record should be the highest priority of a research website.

With the second step the first comprehensive visual record and mapping of the collapse progression process of both towers was assembled, called ROOSD or the Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics. This is significant in that it stands similar to a "fossil record" in that the collapse process was effectively reconstructed by rearrangement of photos.

In retrospect, there is no doubt the effort was highly successful in that we all have a pretty solid idea of the global mass flow for the first time.


With the most complete visual library possible and a good knowledge of OOS and perimeter mass flow and layout, forum members had a huge advantage over other study groups in analyzing details of the collapse process. And analyze we did, allowing me to compile the most detailed list of features on each building to date. The third step produced lists of features that proved to be powerful tools toward determining early motion of both buildings.

This third step has yielded an abundant sum of original discoveries and has proved to be one of the most powerful set of research tools available since 9-11-01.

................................................................

Comparing the visual record with all existing official and academic explanations by answering the following 3 questions:


1) Does the visual record match the official explanations of how and why each building collapsed?

2) Does the visual record match any of the known "9/11 truther" explanations of how and why each building collapsed?

And after these questions are answered honestly, the question of possible demolition is addressed:

3) Does the visual record contain evidence of intentional manipulation of structural components behind any of the 3 collapses?


Data and observations on this website conclusively show that many claims and conclusions within the National Institute of Standards and Technology final reports on the collapses are quite inaccurate. Events were witnessed in video differently than how they are narrated in the NIST final reports.


A detailed visual record can be double and triple checked, sometimes from multiple viewpoints. Without an accurate recorded history, it is impossible to verify or disprove any claim made by any agency or individual, no matter how grossly inaccurate.

 

[Brainster]

Are there acronyms for the possibility of simple third party involvement?

Well, there is ZIHOP, short for the Jews did it.

 

[Major_Tom]

Well, there is ZIHOP, short for the Jews did it.

If that is what you want to call your own approach, go for it!

 

[Oystein]

Rational MIHOP was an effort to phrase the basic approach to problem-solving a bit differently.
[snipped longish bla bla bla that totally failed to answer the quoted question]

Major Tom, I did not ask what you did in that thread, what method you use, what data you have, how you like my posts, or what you had for breakfast.

I asked:

Could you state what your beliefs are instead of what they are based on? Do you have any beliefs? Or are you just disingenously pretending you have beliefs when you write "My beliefs are based on..."?

And more specifically:

What does "Rational MIHOP" mean - to you? And if it means something to you that it does not to everybody else, and hasn't done for close to 9 years now, do you still insist on using the term incorrectly and thus misleadingly? Why then do you still insist on using the term incorrectly and thus misleadingly?

Please consider that these questions are on topic within this thread, which is titled What does "MIHOP" mean?

So clearly I am asking for the meaning of the term "MIHOP". We all know it is an acronym, with a specific meaning that has been fixed by consistent usage by many many people debating 9/11.



So please tell us what you mean when you use the term "MIHOP", or "Rational MIHOP".


Do not explain your feature lists.
Do not explain how you like me.
Do not explain the results of any thread.
Do not explain your objectives.
Do not explain what you did first, second and third.
Etc.

Just explain what the term "MIHOP" means. To you. Today.

Thanks.

 

[beachnut]

...
A detailed visual record can be double and triple checked, sometimes from multiple viewpoints. Without an accurate recorded history, it is impossible to verify or disprove any claim made by any agency or individual, no matter how grossly inaccurate.

After triple checking the data, 19 terrorist did 911. Fire destroyed the WTC complex. Darn, that was quick. Is your post on topic? Gee, you mentioned MIHOP, but put in so much BS. MIHOP means some mythical government Satan like group of evil doers did 911 on purpose. What is wrong, why do you avoid Flt 77, and Flt 93. Both those events pretty much make your inside job claims pure nonsense.

What the heck was all that nonsense in your post about? Why does it look like a big pile of BS? What is your massive comprehensive conclusion? Does your work have a goal, what does your work stand for other than massive nonsense?