Split Thread What does "MIHOP" mean?

[zorro99]

 

[ozeco41]

Oh good lord.

MIHOP means the US government did it.

This is just childish anal retentive semantic hair-splitting. next thing you know, the twoofers will be arguing the meaning of the words "in" and "on" as if that somehow makes...

What...?

Oh @#$%!

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.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

special pleading re MIHOP

femr2 has treated us to an unusually transparent example of special pleading.

My view of the acronym is simply of the literal meaning of the words in the acronym itself, shorthand for...

Made It Happen On Purpose

Regardless of who, it or how.

And so, according to femr2:

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.​

The 9/11 Commission Report describes a conspiracy in which a group of hijackers (the x) brought down WTC 1 and 2 (the y) by purposefully flying large airliners into them (the z). And so...

By that definition, The 9/11 Commission Report describes a MIHOP conspiracy.

I disagree. You are applying your own interpretation without qualifying what "it" is, or "how". As I suggested earlier "it" is also subjective. If you deem "it" to be complete destruction of WTC7 "on purpose", then your assertion is clearly incorrect.

The 9/11 Commission Report describes a conspiracy that damaged and ultimately destroyed WTC 1 and 2. By femr2's definition of MIHOP quoted above, that means the report describes a MIHOP conspiracy.

That inference stands regardless of any conspiracies the report does not describe. As femr2 said, the report does not describe any conspiracy aimed at WTC 7. Similarly, the report does not describe a Communist plot to fluoridate children's ice cream. We could enumerate other conspiracies the report does not describe, but such enumerations cannot change the fact that the commission's report does describe a conspiracy in which a particular x made a particular y happen on purpose (by a particular means z).

Recalling femr2's defense of Major_Tom's illogic, I wonder whether femr2's special pleading comes from yet another failure of logic.

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

To rephrase femr2's definition of MIHOP in first order logic, we'll need the following predicates:

Perpetrated(x,y,z) means x perpetrated y by purposefully employing method z.
MIHOP(x,y) means x made y happen on purpose.​

Then femr2's definition of MIHOP becomes

(∀x)(∀y)(∀z) (Perpetrated(x,y,z) ➞ MIHOP(x,y))​

and femr2's denial becomes a denial of the inference rule known as universal elimination.

To summarize:

• femr2 has chosen to use the word MIHOP.
• femr2 denies that MIHOP has any clear meaning.
• femr2 insists that MIHOP has the clear meaning implied by its constituent words ("what it says on the tin").
• femr2 says the meaning implied by MIHOP's constituent words can be applied to "space aliens" who made "the vaporisation of the entire building complex" happen on purpose "with their nuk-o-beams".
• femr2 denies the meaning implied by MIHOP's constituent words can be applied to the conspiracy described by The 9/11 Commission Report.

To top it off, femr2 feels put upon when someone calls attention to the evasions, special pleading, and illogic of his arguments.

Then why even use the phrase. Without the definitions, it is absolutely meaningless, which implies the research is pointless playing with numbers. Again, a comparison to "Intelligent Design" is appropriate. If you are accommodating *all* definitions of "intelligent" and "design", simply counting the number of gaps in the fossil record can be considered research.

Even though it is a completely pointless waste of time.

 

[femr2]

a point which seems to be overlooked so far.

I suggest the "made" is covered by the "by any means" element of...

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

Perhaps clearer to move that qualifier...

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

There's probably scope for the full prefixing I suggested earlier (though with OP combined)...

prefix-M prefix-I prefix-H prefix-OP

Femr's audience claims to be confused

The audience to the vast majority of instances of my using the acronym was on an external site up to two years ago, and did not highlight any confusion as to the intent. It is, as you say, only a consequence of the prior quote-mining that this "topic" is being discussed.

As a reminder to other posters...

If you raise a thread to discuss "What MIHOP Means", then do so. The ambiguous nature (or wide scope of applicability) of the acronym without specific qualifiers has been made clear. Those who have asserted that there is one singular and fixed meaning clearly need to re-read the thread. Further, continued discussion of "femr2's usage" is clearly unnecessary.

 

[femr2]

And so, according to femr2

Incorrect. Not "according to femr2" at all. According to the inherent ambiguity of the acronym, regardless of "femr2".

Recalling femr2's defense of Major_Tom's illogic

I suggest you re-read here.

[*]femr2 denies that MIHOP has any clear meaning.

Incorrect. It does not have one specific context independant interpretation. Its specific contextual meaning can be defined with qualifiers.

[*]femr2 insists that MIHOP has the clear meaning implied by its constituent words ("what it says on the tin").

The acronym, absolutely. (someone) Made (by any means) It (whatever it is) Happen On Purpose. Quite clear imo.

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.

 

[femr2]

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.​

Looks okay to me, though I'd query "regardless". I suggest there are extents or limiting constraints (though each is probably a personal set of limitations), but otherwise, sure.

I suggest other posters asserting one singular meaning take note and reassess their view of "What does "MIHOP" mean ?".

End of thread I suggest.

 

[dafydd]

Looks okay to me, though I'd query "regardless". I suggest there are extents or limiting constraints (though each is probably a personal set of limitations), but otherwise, sure.

I suggest other posters asserting one singular meaning take note and reassess their view of "What does "MIHOP" mean ?".

End of thread I suggest.

It means 'The government did it''.

 

[femr2]

It means 'The government did it''.

That is one of many possible viewpoints, with several assumptions/omissions in scope...

• Which Government ?
• What is "it" ?
• How was "it" accomplished ?

 

[uke2se]

Good to know that MIHOP is now a meaningless word describing any conspiracy that brought down the towers, including the one in the 911 commission report. Guess that makes me MIHOP then.

 

[femr2]

Good to know that MIHOP is now a meaningless word

Incorrect. The acronym has many interpretations dependant upon context and qualifiers for the inherently ambiguous terms. If the "who", "what" and "how" are stated the interpretation has specific meaning.

describing any conspiracy that brought down the towers, including the one in the 911 commission report. Guess that makes me MIHOP then.

You seem to be making the following assumptions when making such a statement...

• "brought down the towers" was a deliberate action, not an unforseen consequence.
  
• Destruction of WTC7 was a deliberate action, not an unforseen consequence.

I don't think you've thought it through.

 

[uke2se]

I don't think you've thought it through.

I'd say about as much as you have.

Wonder if there's any person on earth who doesn't believe in MIHOP with femr2's loose definition.

 

[NoahFence]

Can we make it so NASA denotes any nation's space program? It doesn't specifically state that it's OUR nation......

truthers are now known as people who believe 19 arab hijackers + 4 aircraft = 9/11.

 

[dafydd]

That is one of many possible viewpoints, with several assumptions/omissions in scope...

• Which Government ?
• What is "it" ?
• How was "it" accomplished ?

It is of no consequence,what happened was that some terrorists hi-jacked planes and flew them into the buildings. Your fantasy,whatever it is,has no bearing on the matter.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

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.

Ozeco, I hope you're not defending this nonsense. I've seen your posts here, I know you're smarter than that.

If you wish to discuss a hypothetical office tower complex on an uninhabited earth-like planet with earth-like gravity, local geological and atmospheric conditions similar to the US eastern seaboard and you want to discuss what it might take to knock those buildings over, then you can play in that sandbox to your hearts content.

But if you want to discuss the terrorist attacks that occurred in September 11th, 2001 AD in New York City, Washington DC and Shanksville Pennsylvania and resulted in the loss of 2,977 casualties from the United States and 89 other countries, then any "MIHOP" scenario automatically and necessarily requires the knowledge and involvement of the Government of The United States of America.

Here is Mark "Gravy" Roberts partial, incomplete list of the agencies and personnel who had direct access to the attack sites, physical evidence and scientific data and criminal evidence from the attacks of September 11th, 2001:

1,500 people who worked the flight 93 crash scene
40,000 people who worked the piles at Ground Zero
55 FBI Evidence Response Teams at Fresh Kills in New York
7,000+ FBI Agents
8,000+ people who worked the scene at the Pentagon
ACE Bermuda Insurance
AEMC Construction
AIG Insurance
Air Traffic Control System Command Center in Washington
Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue
Allianz Global Risks
American Airlines
American Concrete Institute
American Institute of Steel Construction
American Red Cross
Applied Biosystems Inc.
Applied Research Associates
Arlington County Emergency Medical Services
Arlington County Fire Department
Arlington County Sheriff's Department
Arlington VA Police Department
Armed Forces Institute of Pathology
Armed Forces Institute of Technology Federal Advisory Committee
ARUP USA
Atlantic Heydt Inc.
Bechtel
Berlin Fire Department
Big Apple Wrecking
Blanford & Co.
Bode Technology Group
Bovis Inc.
Building and Construction Trades Council
Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms
C-130H crew in D.C. & Shanksville
Cal Berkeley Engineering Dept.
California Incident Management Team
Carter Burgess Engineering
Celera Genomics
Centers for Disease Control
Central City Fire Department
Central Intelligence Agency
Cleveland Airport control tower
Columbia University Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics
Congressional Joint Intelligence Committee
Consolidated Edison Company
Construction Technologies Laboratory
Controlled Demolitions Inc.
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat
Counterterrorism and Security Group
CTL Engineering
D.H. Griffin Wrecking Co. Inc.
DeSimone Consulting Engineers
Dewhurst MacFarlane &Partners
DiSalvo Ericson Engineering
District of Columbia Fire & Rescue
DOD Honor Guard, Pentagon
D'Onofrio Construction
E-4B National Airborne Operations Center crews
Edwards and Kelcey Engineering
Engineering Systems, Inc.
Environmental protection Agency
Exponent Failure Analysis Associates
EYP Mission CriticalFacilities
Fairfax County Fire & Rescue
Falcon 20 crew in PA
Family members who received calls from victims on the planes
FBI Evidence Recovery Teams
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Federal Insurance Co.
FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams: Arizona Task Force 1, California Task Force 1, California Task Force 3, California Task Force 7, Colorado Task Force 1, Fairfax Task Force 1, Florida Task Force 1, Florida Task Force 2, Maryland Task Force 1, Massachusetts Task Force 1, Metro Dade/Miami, Nebraska Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, New York Task Force 1, Pennsylvania Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Texas Task Force 1, Utah Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, Washington Task Force 1
FEMA Disaster Field Office
FEMA Emergency Response Team
FEMA Urban Search and Rescue Incident Support Team-Advanced 3
Fire Department of New York
Fort Myer Fire Department
French Urban Search & Rescue Task Force
Friedens Volunteer Fire Department
Gateway Demolition
Gene Code Forensics
Georgia Tech Engineering Dept.
Gilsanz Murray Steficek LLP
GMAC Financing
Goldstein Associates Consulting Engineers
Guy Nordenson Associates
HAKS Engineers
Hampton-Clarke Inc.
HHS National Medical Response Team
HLW International Engineering
Hooversville Rescue Squad.
Hooversville Volunteer Fire Department
Hoy Structural Services
Hughes Associates, Inc
Hugo Neu Schnitzer East
hundreds of ironworkers, some of whom built the WTC
Hundreds of New York City Police Department Detectives
Industrial Risk Insurers
Institute for Civil Infrastructure Systems
International Association of Fire Chiefs
International Union of Operating Engineers Locals 14 & 15
J.R. Harris & Company
Johnstown-Cambria County Airport Authority
Karl Koch Steel Consulting Inc.
KCE Structural Engineers
Koch Skanska
Koutsoubis, Alonso Associates
Laboratory Corp. of America
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Leslie E. Robertson Associates
LIRo Engineering
Listie Volunteer Fire Company
Lockwood Consulting
M.G. McLaren Engineering
Masonry Society
Mazzocchi Wrecking Inc.
Metal Management Northeast
Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit
Miami-Dade Urban Search & Rescue
Military District of Washington Search & Rescue Team
Montgomery County Fire & Rescue
Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers
Murray Engineering
Myriad Genetic Laboratories Inc.
National Center for Biotechnology Informatics
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
National Disaster Medical System
National Emergency Numbering Association
National Fire Protection Association
National Guard in D.C., New York, and Pennsylvania
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
National Institutes of Health Human Genome Research Institute
National Law Enforcement and Security Institute
National Military Command Center
National Reconnaissance Office
National Response Center
National Science Foundation Division of Civil and Mechanical Systems
National Security Agency
National Transportation Safety Board
National Wrecking
Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center
New Jersey State Police
New York City Department of Buildings WTC Task Force
New York City Department of Design and Construction
New York City Department of Environmental Protection
New York City Office of Emergency Management
New York City Office of the Chief Medical Examiner
New York City Police Department Aviation Unit
New York City Police Department Emergency Services Unit
New York Daily News
New York Flight Control Center
New York Newsday
New York Port Authority Construction Board
New York Port Authority Police
New York State Emergency Management Office
New York State Police Forensic Services
New York Times
North American Aerospace Defense Command
Northeast Air Defense Sector Commanders and crew
Numerous bomb-sniffing dogs
Numerous Forensic Anthropologists
Numerous Forensic Dentists
Numerous Forensic Pathologists
Numerous Forensic Radiologists
NuStats
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Office of Emergency Preparedness
Office of Strategic Services
Orchid Cellmark
Parsons Brinckerhoff Engineering
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Pennsylvania Department of Health and Human Services
Pennsylvania Region 13 Metropolitan Medical Response Group
Pennsylvania State Funeral Directors Association
Pennsylvania State Police
Pentagon Defense Protective Service
Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team
Pentagon Medical Staff
Pentagon Renovation Team
Phillips & Jordan, Inc.
Port of New York and New Jersey Authority
Pro-Safety Services
Protec
Public Entity Risk Institute
Purdue University Engineering Dept.
Robert Silman Associates Structural Engineers
Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc
Rosenwasser/Grossman Consulting Engineers
Royal SunAlliance/Royal Indemnity
SACE Prime Power Assessment Teams
SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams
Salvation Army Disaster Services
several EPA Hazmat Teams
several FBI Hazmat Teams
several Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams
several Federal Disaster Mortuary (DMORT) Teams
Severud Associates Consulting Engineers
Shanksville Volunteer Fire Company
Silverstein Properties
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Engineers
Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP
Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire
Society of Fire Protection Engineers
Somerset Ambulance Association
Somerset County Coroner's Office
Somerset County Emergency Management Agency
Somerset Volunteer Fire Department
St. Paul/Travelers Insurance
State of Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency
Stoystown Volunteer Fire Company
Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE)
Structural Engineers Association of New York
Superstructures Engineering
Swiss Re America Insurance
Telephone operators who took calls from passengers in the hijacked planes
Teng & Associates
Thornton-Tomasetti Group, Inc.
TIG Insurance
Tokio Marine & Fire
Transportation Safety Administration
Tully Construction
Twin City Fire Insurance
Tylk Gustafson Reckers Wilson Andrews Engineering
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Underwriters Laboratories
Union Wrecking
United Airlines
United States Air National Guard
United States Fire Administration
United States Secret Service
United Steelworkers of America
University of Sheffield Fire Engineering Research
US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County
US Army’s Communications-Electronics Command
US Department of Defense
US Department of Justice
US Department of State
Virginia Beach Fire Department
Virginia Department of Emergency Management
Virginia State Police
Vollmer Associates Engineers
Washington Post
Weeks Marine
Weidlinger Associates
Weiskopf & Pickworth Engineering
Westmoreland County Emergency Management Agency
Whitney Contracting
Willis Group Holdings
WJE Structural Engineers
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
World Trade Center security staff
XL Insurance
Yonkers Contracting
York International
Zurich Financial
Zurich Re Risk Engineering​

Half this list is US government agencies or organizations. By the numbers of people involved, this list is upwards of 75% US government employees, military and federal law enforcement personnel.

"MIHOP" always means US government involvement. "MIHOP" only means US government involvement (plus whatever foreign actors required by the racist ideologies of the twoofer making the claim).

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.

The complex web of personal interactions in an event that affected the lives of millions of people makes any "MIHOP" scenario that does not involve the US government physically impossible.

 

[ozeco41]

Ozeco, I hope you're not defending this nonsense. I've seen your posts here, I know you're smarter than that...

I don't ever intentionally defend nonsense. When it is off topic diversionary nonsense I usually don't respond - it only extends and sort of gives legitimacy to the evasions and derails.

There are only two issues of interest to me here:
1) MIHOP, like many acronym, has a literal meaning. That literal meaning cannot be universally excluded from use. The reasons should be self evident. So even when a specific inferred meaning is the most common usage it does not totally exclude the literal meaning from use by some people. That is really my first statement rephrased and the same reasoning applies to show why it must be true. Personally I have used MIHOP many times over the years and most often in its literal meaning. I am not aware of anyone being confused by that usage. The most common construct I recall using in recent months being something along the line of "....CD or, to be more general 'human assistance' or 'MIHOP' in any form..." That usage makes it clear that the "It" referred to is the collapse. And it says nothing about the "who dunnit". I am now aware that some folks claim to believe that "It" is always the US Government. I will take those claims with a pinch of salt but may be more explicit in future.
2) The motivation behind this discussion fools no-one. It is "get femr2" with the meaning of MIHOP only serving as the excuse. I rarely get involved in personal attacks from either side. The exceptions being those occasions when I see dishonesty and debating trickery deployed and I may make one or at most two posts with comments.

That said I have been following the "nonsense" debate and realised at least one interesting point which I don't think has been raised.

I started from the presumption that "MIHOP" and "LIHOP" were analogous. Not so. At least not so in usage. Here's why. It hinges on what is the "It" that was made to happen or let happen:

With MIHOP more often than not the "It" is collapse of the buildings with MIHOP being inferred to mean some form of 'human assistance' such as demolition.

Not so for LIHOP where the "It" usually refers to the whole 9/11 conspiracy - in the sense that the US Govt. or its agencies knew the attacks were planned and let them happen by doing nothing to stop them. Clearly that construction does not apply to collapse. How can you "let collapse happen" has a very narrow target of logical applicability.

.... I know you're smarter than that...

Thanks. The safest way of interpreting my input in threads such as this is to notice the lack of input. As I have said I rarely join in. If the thread is a nonsense one and I only put in one or two posts you can usually take it to mean that I am not supporting nonsense. And the one or two posts will usually be targeted at what I see as the silliest bit of nonsense/dishonesty/debating trickery.

 

[uke2se]

I don't ever intentionally defend nonsense. When it is off topic diversionary nonsense I usually don't respond - it only extends and sort of gives legitimacy to the evasions and derails.

There are only two issues of interest to me here:
1) MIHOP, like many acronym, has a literal meaning. That literal meaning cannot be universally excluded from use. The reasons should be self evident. So even when a specific inferred meaning is the most common usage it does not totally exclude the literal meaning from use by some people. That is really my first statement rephrased and the same reasoning applies to show why it must be true. Personally I have used MIHOP many times over the years and most often in its literal meaning. I am not aware of anyone being confused by that usage. The most common construct I recall using in recent months being something along the line of "....CD or, to be more general 'human assistance' or 'MIHOP' in any form..." That usage makes it clear that the "It" referred to is the collapse. And it says nothing about the "who dunnit". I am now aware that some folks claim to believe that "It" is always the US Government. I will take those claims with a pinch of salt but may be more explicit in future.
2) The motivation behind this discussion fools no-one. It is "get femr2" with the meaning of MIHOP only serving as the excuse. I rarely get involved in personal attacks from either side. The exceptions being those occasions when I see dishonesty and debating trickery deployed and I may make one or at most two posts with comments.

That said I have been following the "nonsense" debate and realised at least one interesting point which I don't think has been raised.

I started from the presumption that "MIHOP" and "LIHOP" were analogous. Not so. At least not so in usage. Here's why. It hinges on what is the "It" that was made to happen or let happen:

With MIHOP more often than not the "It" is collapse of the buildings with MIHOP being inferred to mean some form of 'human assistance' such as demolition.

Not so for LIHOP where the "It" usually refers to the whole 9/11 conspiracy - in the sense that the US Govt. or its agencies knew the attacks were planned and let them happen by doing nothing to stop them. Clearly that construction does not apply to collapse. How can you "let collapse happen" has a very narrow target of logical applicability.

Thanks. The safest way of interpreting my input in threads such as this is to notice the lack of input. As I have said I rarely join in. If the thread is a nonsense one and I only put in one or two posts you can usually take it to mean that I am not supporting nonsense. And the one or two posts will usually be targeted at what I see as the silliest bit of nonsense/dishonesty/debating trickery.

Ozeco, "it" can refer to anything you like if you are to take a word away from the meaning the (vast) majority of people ascribe to it. Made It Happened On Purpose has been the acronym for the belief that the US government made the 911 events happen on purpose. That's the original meaning for the acronym, no matter what you or femr2 want it to mean.

This loose definition of the term that femr2 is pushing makes the acronym completely meaningless, as it describes virtually any possible or impossible scenario in which a culprit or culprits initiated the events with a purpose, including the scenario printed in the 911 commission report. The only scenarios to which this new definition of MIHOP doesn't apply to is any scenarios were the whole event was an accident - and we know that ain't so.

There's a reason we are pushing femr2 for this. His behavior is dishonest, and he has been misusing this acronym for a long time. It's not a personal attack to call a liar on a lie, even if it's a lie by omission.

 

[ozeco41]

Ozeco, "it" can refer to anything you like if you are to take a word away from the meaning the (vast) majority of people ascribe to it....

Read what I said please. I am usually pedantically accurate. There is one point of emphasis in my post that you can legitimately disagree with. So there is no need for the strawman arguments.

 

[uke2se]

Read what I said please. I am usually pedantically accurate. There is one point of emphasis in my post that you can legitimately disagree with. So there is no need for the strawman arguments.

I was not arguing a straw man. What you say in your post is not how languages work. If it were, the zany examples of this thread would be true. For instance, NASA could legitimately describe any nation's space agency. That is not so, there is only one NASA, just as there is only one use for MIHOP. Pedantry is working against you in this case.

However, I take it you agree that by femr2's definition of MIHOP, the acronym can be used to describe the conspiracy outlined in the 911 Commission Report, thus rendering it's use as a word describing your stance on these issues completely meaningless.

 

[BasqueArch]

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

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.

This is a perfect illustration of why I highlighted that the "IT" in the acronym is also subjective.

Dave assign IT to mean "the attacks".

I suggest "IT" could be understood by certain individuals as:

a) M the collapses HOP
b) M the explosive demolition HOP
c) M the collapse of WTC7 HOP

(c) adds the subset of folk who think WTC1 & 2 collapsed, but WTC7 was blown up.

Whilst here...Happen On Purpose...

...could be used by different demographics to mean...

a) floor by floor demolition
b) explosive initiation
c) deliberate initiation by non-explosive means
d) via knowledge of the effect of impacts, pre-impact deliberate intent to bring the buildings to ground in full

aka not an unforseen consequence of.

None of those are "the attacks" in Dave Rogers' context, which is the impacts.

http://nymag.com/news/features/16464/index1.html

Quite a few MIHOPS going on there
A stundie-worthy quote from one of W.D.Clingers posts...
Anyone spot the "who" prefix ? Rogue Network.

The rest of the quote W.D.Clinger was seemingly using to make a point...
(My emphasis)

Which further clarifies the use of a prefixed "who" to the acronym MIHOP. And does so in a 2005 publication.

I quite agree that there is a commonly held implication when using the term (which is by no means fixed), but for folk to be telling me I believe in "inside job" because I've used the phrase MIHOP (without a who prefix) is laughable. Especially when I've already said I don't

Ironically, the link posted by W.D.Clinger...
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html
...is quite in-depth about the inherent ambiguity of the acronym MIHOP. A very small chunk...

Strange that W.D.Clinger would not highlight sections of his source material such as this, which clearly makes the point that the *who* inferred is subjective.

Of course, the attitude that the acronym has one singular fixed interpretation and *meaning* is utter nonsense.

prefix- M prefix-I prefix-H prefix-O prefix-P

Is there a shorthand for prefix ?

You clearly didn't read the quoted sections in my post above, from the reference W.D.Clinger used.

I'll repeat a chunk in-line for you...

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.

Written by someone other than me. Clearly your bolded, italicised and underlined statement is incorrect, and will remain so no matter how long you choose to argue the point.

Incorrect.

I don't ever intentionally defend nonsense. When it is off topic diversionary nonsense I usually don't respond - it only extends and sort of gives legitimacy to the evasions and derails.

There are only two issues of interest to me here:
1) MIHOP, like many acronym, has a literal meaning. That literal meaning cannot be universally excluded from use. The reasons should be self evident. So even when a specific inferred meaning is the most common usage it does not totally exclude the literal meaning from use by some people. That is really my first statement rephrased and the same reasoning applies to show why it must be true. Personally I have used MIHOP many times over the years and most often in its literal meaning. I am not aware of anyone being confused by that usage. The most common construct I recall using in recent months being something along the line of "....CD or, to be more general 'human assistance' or 'MIHOP' in any form..." That usage makes it clear that the "It" referred to is the collapse. And it says nothing about the "who dunnit". I am now aware that some folks claim to believe that "It" is always the US Government. I will take those claims with a pinch of salt but may be more explicit in future.
2) The motivation behind this discussion fools no-one. It is "get femr2" with the meaning of MIHOP only serving as the excuse. I rarely get involved in personal attacks from either side. The exceptions being those occasions when I see dishonesty and debating trickery deployed and I may make one or at most two posts with comments.

That said I have been following the "nonsense" debate and realised at least one interesting point which I don't think has been raised.

I started from the presumption that "MIHOP" and "LIHOP" were analogous. Not so. At least not so in usage. Here's why. It hinges on what is the "It" that was made to happen or let happen:

With MIHOP more often than not the "It" is collapse of the buildings with MIHOP being inferred to mean some form of 'human assistance' such as demolition.

Not so for LIHOP where the "It" usually refers to the whole 9/11 conspiracy - in the sense that the US Govt. or its agencies knew the attacks were planned and let them happen by doing nothing to stop them. Clearly that construction does not apply to collapse. How can you "let collapse happen" has a very narrow target of logical applicability.

Thanks. The safest way of interpreting my input in threads such as this is to notice the lack of input. As I have said I rarely join in. If the thread is a nonsense one and I only put in one or two posts you can usually take it to mean that I am not supporting nonsense. And the one or two posts will usually be targeted at what I see as the silliest bit of nonsense/dishonesty/debating trickery.

femr2 - 4/26/2010 I’m MIHOP.

Quote:
….. No, it wasn't. Am openly MIHOP, but these observational errors need to cease. Savvy ? http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post9854.html#p9854

5/5/2010
Quote:
…… I've already made it clear to you that I'm of the MIHOP variety. http://the911forum.freeforums.org/ post10303.html#p10303
4/19/2010 Explosives Not Required All The Way Down. MIHOP = Deliberate And Intentional *Bring Down*
Quote:

..... I'm in very little doubt about the deliberate and intentional *bring down*, call it MIHOP,..... 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.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post9718.html#p9718

Lost in their - MIHOP doesn't mean the government dit it - squiddy red herring black escape ink:

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. They had coyly and with sophistry attempted to conceal this fact, but can no longer. Tom with explosives or something not loud.

Regarding who did it, MT believes Satanic European societies are murdering people to steal their resources, instead of more cheaply buying them in the open markets. Femr2, don't know, I believe he's going to pull the - remote airplanes into the engineered predesigned Towers weak points gambit... They could of course quickly end all speculation by simply stating what they believe, but they won't, it's not in their game plan. Their goal is to pretend to have been brought by the force of reason to an inescapably vile conclusion.

secret message...>

I bet you dollars to donuts that MT or Ozeco or femr2 , not having reason on their side, red herring accuse me of quote mining, misleading/dishonest posts etc. instead of answering the post – what do you really believe. Because they have nothing, don't realize it, and are not embarrassed about it. But you see, like all true Believers, they see nothing wrong with hypocritical deception because they mean well, and for a good end.

 

[uke2se]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for civility.