• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread What does "MIHOP" mean?

It does not matter whether one or two individuals choose to try to shift the definition of a word simply for argumentative or personal reasons. The fact remains: MIHOP has been used by truthers themselves as a direct accusation of the government. Two dissents does not change the majority use of the term, and it's common usage that dictates what the definition is.

This is not even in debate. What MT and femr are doing is exactly what antisemetic apologists try to do when they attempt to obfuscate the meaning of the term "antisemetic". The definition was set not by literal parsing of the term's components, but in the use of the term when it was coined. MIHOP was coined as a direct accusation on the US government. Period. That is why MIHOP theories included elements like "NORAD stood down" and the like.

If Femr and MT choose to try to shift the definition, that is their right. Language evolves, and if it achieves majority accpetance, then well and good, MIHOP at that point would no longer point a finger at the US government. But until then, the usage to date is clear, and it cannot be argued. MIHOP accuses the US government. That's the way it's been used so far, and that cannot be retroactively undone. It's established historical use of the term already. People wanting to change the definition of the phrase had better concentrate on changing future attitudes, not try to argue that the present or past ones are incorrect. I made reference to the term "antisemetic" for a reason, and that's because the word games played with that one are the exact same ones being played here. The definition is set. It's better to try to make change for the future instead of argue that the present way of defining it is in error.
 
Last edited:
ElMondoHummus said:
It does not matter whether one or two individuals choose to try to shift the definition of a word simply for argumentative or personal reasons. ...
Click to expand...

It does matter insofar as those two individuals are participating in one of the few remaining areas of development in this subforum. We are interested in what they have to say: Both their data and analysis, and where is eventually leads them. That's why we need to figure out what the terms they use mean, when they use them. If the suspicion is valid that they use the term consciously in misleading or inconsistent ways, that is a significant point of concern that may or may not influence how we evaluate their entire work.
 
Oystein said:
It does matter insofar as those two individuals are participating in one of the few remaining areas of development in this subforum. We are interested in what they have to say: Both their data and analysis, and where is eventually leads them. That's why we need to figure out what the terms they use mean, when they use them. If the suspicion is valid that they use the term consciously in misleading or inconsistent ways, that is a significant point of concern that may or may not influence how we evaluate their entire work.
Click to expand...

That's my point too; they both are using them in misleading ways. I believe that's been established already. MIHOP being US government agnostic might have indeed been a valid interpretation of the term if the intent behind the coining weren't already made eminently clear. Effectively, both Femr and MT are trying to argue that the alternative definition is the correct one, which is in contradiction to how everyone in the past has used it.

I wouldn't even have a problem with things if they said their interpretation is the way the term should be used, but with femr2, at least, that's not where he's going. As evidenced by earlier posts.

I do differ slightly with you in one regard: I feel it's irrelevent whether they're consciously being misleading or not. Even if this is an honest misapprehension, they are both claiming a definition contrary to established use, so this thread functions as an effective correction to the mistake they've been making the entire time. But, on the other hand, I do see the point of feeling out whether it's honest error or deliberate obsfucation; while I personally feel it's the latter in femr's case (who knows what it is in Tom's) it's not proven, therefore exploring it does indeed help evaluate other claims.

At any rate, please understand that my purpose isn't to stifle discussion. Rather, it's to very boldly and firmly underline the fact that whether intentional or not, femr2 and Major Tom are treading the exact ground that other woo peddlers do when they try to play with the meaning of "antisemitic" in order to distract from the core issues behind the hatred of Jewish people. And that's not ground they should be traveling if they're truly interested in establishing what historical truth is. If they both made an honest mistake of interpretation, then they should own up and move on. If they feel that the term should evolve beyond it's current definition, then that's fine too, as long as they don't try to argue that it never meant US Gov't involvement to begin with (the rest of us understand that it had). But if they try to argue that we got it wrong, even in the face of evidence establishing what established usage is, then the things I'm pointing out are the responses they will continue to get until they themselves get it right. Regardless, neither of them should continue along the path they've been going, because the definition has been clear for years now, and it's never been the one they've been arguing for.
 
Oystein said:
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:



And more specifically:


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.
Click to expand...

If it is not part of my argument or my website, I don't care what it means.

If it is someone elses argument or someone elses definition, it isn't my problem.

I have showed you my argument many times.


It is important to you. I don't give a %#@^ what Nico thinks.

It is your shoe box, your mental restriction. I never joined one of the typical groups, including yours.
 
Last edited:
So he refuses to use the common definitions of words, and then when called on it, its everyone else's fault, except its not really fault because he's not wrong.

Have I got that right, MT?
 
Major_Tom said:
If it is not part of my argument or my website, I don't care what it means.

If it is someone elses argument or someone elses definition, it isn't my problem.

I have showed you my argument many times.


It is important to you. I don't give a %#@^ what Nico thinks.

It is your shoe box, your mental restriction. I never joined one of the typical groups, including yours.
Click to expand...

You use a term that you know has a specific meaning to your audience in the titles of two threads, and you don't give a damn what it means???

Are you at least aware now that your titles are misleading?


Oh and no, I do NOT know what your beliefs are viz. MIHOP, LIHOP or OTC. That's why I am asking. Do you have any beliefs?
 
Oystein said:
You use a term that you know has a specific meaning to your audience in the titles of two threads, and you don't give a damn what it means???

Are you at least aware now that your titles are misleading?


Oh and no, I do NOT know what your beliefs are viz. MIHOP, LIHOP or OTC. That's why I am asking. Do you have any beliefs?
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting to hear what MT and Femr's beliefs are. They seem to shy away from actually presenting an alternative theory.
 
Dave Rogers said:
There's a good reason to restrict the meaning of MIHOP to "someone other than al-Qaeda made it happen on purpose" that hasn't been pointed out yet:

Absolutely everyone who has any opinion whatsoever on 9/11 believes that someone carried out the attacks. Nobody has ever offered a credible theory in which the attacks were not carried out by someone; nobody has argued that all four airliners crashed entirely by accident. The disagreement is over who carried out the attacks, not whether they were carried out deliberately. There is therefore no need for a word that describes the subset of people who believe that someone carried out the attacks, because that is the universal set. The only possible useful meaning of the acronym, therefore, is to describe those who think that someone other than al-Qaeda carried out the attacks.

Dave
Click to expand...
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

Tarpley’s conception of a far-flung, supragovernmental alliance of intelligence agencies (he reserves a key spot for Britain’s MI6) and military forces is only one of many MIHOPs floating around 9/11 Truth circles. Popular are various configurations of a Cheney-Bush MIHOP, with most asserting that the vice-president, who appeared to be in charge on 9/11, was the main actor in the plot. Also ambient is the ecodoomsday Peak Oil MIHOP, the idea that the “peaking” of petroleum reserves required a false provocation to start an “oil war” in the Middle East.

More controversial is Mossad MIHOP: the conjecture that Israeli intelligence (and kowtowing by the U.S. to the “Israel lobby”) played a crucial role, attempting to draw the U.S. into a prolonged struggle with Israel’s enemies. Notable in this is the “white van” story: Five men observed filming the attacks from Liberty State Park were later pulled over by cops near Giants Stadium. One man was found to have $4,700 in his sock. “We are Israelis,” the men reportedly told the cops. “We are not your problem.” The men were quickly deported to Israel, after which the Forward claimed that the company that owned the van, Urban Moving Systems, was a Mossad front.

Mossad MIHOP dovetails with the baseless rumor, widely believed in Arab countries, that 4,000 Jewish World Trade Center workers were told to stay home that day, showing that conspiracy theory can be tricky terrain. Mossad MIHOP easily morphs into Zionist MIHOP or Jewish MIHOP, leading to the charges of anti-Semitism that have dogged the 9/11 Truth movement. “Do I believe Israel has undue influence over U.S. foreign policy?” asks one activist. “Absolutely. But there are people in this movement who are *********** Nazis. You have to draw the line at Holocaust denial.”

Deeper into late-night-talk-radio, Da Vinci Code territory are numerous incarnations of the New World Order MIHOP, defined by Nick Levis as the work of “a global ruling elite seeking greater control of the world Zeitgeist.” Ever elastic, NWO MIHOPs often date back to secret societies like the Knights Templar, founded in 1118 during the First Crusade.
Click to expand...

Quite a few MIHOPS going on there :)

A stundie-worthy quote from one of W.D.Clingers posts...
This book argues the rogue network MIHOP position
Click to expand...
Anyone spot the "who" prefix ? Rogue Network.

The rest of the quote W.D.Clinger was seemingly using to make a point...
That is to say, it represents the analytical point of view which sees the events of September 11, 2001 as a deliberate provocation manufactured by an outlaw network of high officials infesting the military and security apparatus of the United States and Great Britain, a network ultimately dominated by Wall Street and City of London financiers.
Click to expand...
(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 :roll:

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...
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.
Click to expand...

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 ? :)
 
Last edited:
You use the word "could" quite a bit.
When it comes to the term MIHOP, you're the only one who does.

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

It's not an attitude it's a fact.
 
Of course, the attitude that the acronym has one singular fixed interpretation and *meaning* is utter nonsense.
Click to expand...
Except it's not. You're BSing furiously to avoid admitting you're wrong.

As far as the Truth movement is concerned, "MIHOP"=gov't did it. Any minority alternate definition is precisely that; a minority, and thus wrong. That's how language works.
 
NoahFence said:
When it comes to the term MIHOP, you're the only one who does.
Click to expand...
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.

It's not an attitude it's a fact.
Click to expand...
Incorrect.
 
femr2 said:
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
Click to expand...
femr2 is suggesting that MIHOP is rather ambiguous.

femr2 said:
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
Click to expand...
Once again, femr2 is telling us that his use of the MIHOP has been rather ambiguous. He is also pointing out that MIHOP means different things "to different demographics".

Could its ambiguity and audience-dependent meaning be the reasons femr2 has been using that acronym?

femr2 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I quoted arabesque, a known truther, precisely because arabesque said the ambiguity of MIHOP has led to its misuse by "lesser researchers and rank and file activists". femr2 then accuses me of ignoring the ambiguity of MIHOP that I have accused femr2 of exploiting.

Since femr2 missed my point so completely, I will state it once again: femr2's been pretending the "MIHOP" acronym he's been using is perfectly clear ("It means what it says on the tin") when it looks as though he's been using that acronym because his Truther audience will assume it's "shorthand for the view that elements within the U.S. government itself planned the September 11, 2001 attacks" without requiring femr2 himself to support that view.

Here's a question for all three or four of those people who think femr2's definition of MIHOP has been straightforward and unambiguous:
Does the conspiracy described by The 9/11 Commission Report qualify as MIHOP under femr2's definition of MIHOP?
​
If femr2 and friends can't give us a straight answer to that question, then femr2's definition of MIHOP can't be so clear and straightforward as he and his friends would like for us to believe.

On the other hand, any straight answer to that question would limit femr2's equivocation.

Could that be the reason femr2 has gone to so much trouble to avoid answering such simple and obvious questions?
 
I propose from now on, any use of MIHOP is preceded by "Terrorists" or "US Govt".

That would eliminate any guessing on anybody's part. And clearly we're not afraid of a few extra keystrokes here, IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom