Split Thread What does "MIHOP" mean?

[NoahFence]

It doesn't mean in context discussion about BP MIHOP, which is about whether BP made that ol' leak happen or not, by some means unspecified.

I submit that, without MIHOP being used originally as an indictment of the US Government re: 9/11, that we'd never have a "BP MIHOP" to discuss. The acronym wouldn't exist without someone first using it to describe 9/11.

That 9/11 is a much larger issue than was the Deepwater Horizon disaster makes virtually everybody who uses "MIHOP" continue to use it in reference to 9/11.

 

[uke2se]

Let me just repost a small part of femr2's conversation with a truther on his 911forums:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post9739.html#p9739

do you share my opinion that the impact damage and fires alone story is physically impossible, or not?

To which femr2 responds:

Have I not made my opinion clear enough ? MIHOP.

If femr2 thinks that his post responds to the question in Pavlovian's post, MIHOP must have meant that impact damage and fires alone couldn't have brought the buildings down, indicating explosives, indicating involvement from other parties than Al Qaida, as they could not have rigged the buildings. In fact, this implicates the USG directly for reasons already listed in this thread.

So, here we have an example in the face of which femr2 will either have to accept he has been wrong this whole thread, or admit that he was being dishonest towards Pavlovian Dogcatcher.

Now, which is it?

 

[000063]

It's incorrect/dishonest to do so without qualifying it, then acting like its everyone else's fault for not getting you.

And that's not the question. I asked if your usage was "standard". Is a "minorty" usage the same as a "non-standard" usage?

 

[femr2]

indicating explosives

Not necessarily.

indicating involvement from other parties than Al Qaida

Not necessarily.

as they could not have rigged the buildings

Why not ?

In fact, this implicates the USG directly for reasons already listed in this thread.

Incorrect.

There is nothing about Pavlovian Dogcatcher's statement that suggests "who", "what" or "how".

ETA: I note also that you omitted the rest of my post...

However, IF the fires had burned for a couple of days, or IF there was irreversable CC creep, then it is logical to conclude that natural failure is physically possible.

That's not what I think happened, as there are plenty of other anomylous events to consider, but as the question is loaded, no, it's not physically impossible.

 

[femr2]

Is a "minorty" usage the same as a "non-standard" usage?

Do you really need an answer to that ?

There's a common usage, sure.

 

[uke2se]

Not necessarily.

Yes, necessarily.

Not necessarily.

Yes, necessarily.

Why not ?

For reasons already listed in this thread.

Incorrect.

Not incorrect.

There is nothing about Pavlovian Dogcatcher's statement that suggests "who", "what" or "how".

Yes, there is.

When you keep reading the thread I linked, it shows beyond any doubt that the truther you were talking to misunderstood you, because you used MIHOP without qualifiers in a non-standard way.

 

[000063]

Nope.

There are additional assumptions...

So it's an assumption to assume your usage is talking about anyone, anything, or anyhow at all.

In other words, useless for the purposes of discussion.

The "vague" meaning you attribute to literal use still implies...

someone deliberately destroying the towers on 9/11, somehow or other.

It doesn't mean in context discussion about BP MIHOP, which is about whether BP made that ol' leak happen or not, by some means unspecified.

I...I don't even have a witty remark for this.

We are in the 9/11 conspiracies forum. MIHOP, as under discussion, is being used in the context of 9/11. Any sort of "BP MIHOP" is irrelevant to the discussion, hypothetical or not, since it is in a different context than the one under discussion.

 

[000063]

Do you really need an answer to that ?

There's a common usage, sure.

Yes, I do. You admit that you were using a minority usage. I want to know, in precise terms, if a "minority usage" is the same as "non-standard".
a) Yes.
b) No.
c) Maybe.
d) I don't know.

Choose one.

 

[femr2]

When you keep reading the thread I linked, it shows beyond any doubt that the truther you were talking to misunderstood you, because you used MIHOP without qualifiers in a non-standard way.

ROFL. What you think another user on a different forum thought when I used an acronym in a post really has nothing to do with a discussion about "what does MIHOP mean".

If you are so concerned that he may have interpreted my statement incorrectly, you are free to go and ask him. Speculating about such is utterly pointless.

Interesting as it is to see you all running around attacking me, it really is utterly off topic pointless banter.

MIHOP means many different things, as outlined within this thread (if you can see past all the noise addressing femr2).

 

[uke2se]

ROFL. What you think another user on a different forum thought when I used an acronym in a post really has nothing to do with a discussion about "what does MIHOP mean".

Yes it does, as it pertains to your usage of the term being - at best - non-standard and at worst deceptive.

I don't have to wonder about what the poster thought about your statement as he says it outright:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post9754.html#p9754

If you are so concerned that he may have interpreted my statement incorrectly, you are free to go and ask him. Speculating about such is utterly pointless.

I'm not speculating. He says so himself.

Interesting as it is to see you all running around attacking me, it really is utterly off topic pointless banter.

I'm not attacking you. I'm attacking your deceptive use of a word to avoid committing to a claim.

MIHOP means many different things, as outlined within this thread (if you can see past all the noise addressing femr2).

No, it doesn't. Without qualifiers (that is, in the way you used it), it means just one thing.

 

[femr2]

Without qualifiers (that is, in the way you used it), it means just one thing.

Incorrect. "What it means" is about the intent of the person using it, not how it may be interpreted by others.

You can "assume" an interpretation, but that does not change what was meant.

You can falsely accuse of dishonesty or deception but you'll be wrong. You can disagree, but you'll still be wrong.


What does MIHOP mean ?

The acronym M.I.H.O.P. stands for...

Made It Happen On Purpose.

For the literal meaning...

WHO made WHAT happen on purpose, and HOW

...who, what and how are subjective.


It does not solely refer to USG-MIHOP.

As was said earlier...

Strictly speaking, both acronyms should be prefaced with "TG", for "The Government". Or "The United States Government" (TUSG). However, TUSG[x]IHOP isn't as "punchy" an acronym.

 

[NoahFence]

For example, despite countless requests, we still have no summary of his current belief on what happened on 9/11,

Actually, he let slip by accident.

It was said that femr2 believes planes and fire did not cause the collapse. To this he replied:

incorrect.

Since there is only one other option, that they did cause the collapse, we can safely assume that is what he means.

/offtopic off.

 

[femr2]

It was said that femr2 believes planes and fire did not cause the collapse. To this he replied:

incorrect.

It has already been pointed out TWICE that I was saying that the poster KNEW what I believe is incorrect.

You do not know what I believe.

I will outline the discussion for you if you are getting confused.

Bearing in mind that the point was discussed specifically, you appear to be deliberatey misquoting.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7384618&postcount=157
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7384729&postcount=167

 

[NoahFence]

Grab them tapdancing shoes.....



I am repeating, VERBATIM what you said. You're a truther. Welcome to the club.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Hey Femr2, if Al-Qeada wasn't behind 9/11. And the US Government wasn't behind 9/11.... then how did US forces "find" the Osama Bin Laden video in Afghanistan that featured him talking about how he planned the attacks?

Bueller... Bueller...

 

[femr2]

I am repeating, VERBATIM what you said.

And deliberately ignoring the context...

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.

Incorrect

BasqueArch suggested that you and MT believe that the fire and planes did NOT cause it. To that you replied "incorrect".

I did indeed reply "incorrect", as you do NOT know what my position is, or what "i believe".

Your assumption of what I was stating was "incorrect" is incorrect.

This is a binary choice, FoosM. Either planes and fire did it, or planes and fire did not do it. They said you believed that planes and fire didn't do it, and you said "incorrect", and you said that was incorrect. That leaves either a)you believing the official story, or b)you not having an opinion (IE: lack of belief). Since you referred to your beliefs as if you had some, that leaves a). You believe the official story, by your own claims.

Incorrect. As I said, it is that the user asserted "we now know this much" that I state is incorrect. You (and the group herd) do not "know". You think/believe/assume...

My bolding.

Using the discussion above to claim "femr2 believes planes and fire did not cause the collapse" or "femr2 believes planes and fire did cause the collapse" is a false claim.

You do NOT know what I believe.

 

[NoahFence]

Ignoring context?

Fella, slow down. I'm BACKING you here. Christ. Take a friggin vacation or something.

 

[Kent1]

Femr has already made it clear in previous quotes that MIHOP=assisted collapse.
Its hard to tell what he believes now, or if he's just playing games. Femr do you still believe what you previously stated?
Please explain. Then we can move on.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/reproducibility-of-the-official-story-t347-105.html

You'd be out of here, psik. Your argument comes from nothing. Nowt. Zip. Nada. Misunderstanding. Hand waving. Do you REALLY think that explosives were required ALL the way down ? There I must mention hushabooms. I'm in very little doubt about the deliberate and intentional *bring down*, call it MIHOP, but the ridiculous and naieve (sp?) is just that. Ridiculous. Act together, psik. After many long years of, in all honesty, slight ignorance, and it is slight, I managed to get to grips with the, frankly, flimsy perimeter-floor slab-core connection strength conundrum. It's a right pain, but it matches observables and explains a whole heap of the behaviour. 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.

The QUESTION is that of initiation. Scale of initiation. Condition of initiation.

Have been short on time recently, but it's time. Jeez.



Another quote when asked:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post9754.html#p9754

Pavlovian Dogcatcher wrote:
do you share my opinion that the impact damage and fires alone story is physically impossible, or not?

femr2 wrote:

Have I not made my opinion clear enough ? MIHOP.
However, IF the fires had burned for a couple of days, or IF there was irreversable CC creep, then it is logical to conclude that natural failure is physically possible.
That's not what I think happened, as there are plenty of other anomylous events to consider, but as the question is loaded, no, it's not physically impossible.

Pavlovian Dogcatcher wrote:
That said, a simple and direct "not" would've avoided all confusion.

 

[Gamolon]

What does MIHOP mean ?

There was never any apparent confusion about meaning, and implying their was is a strawman.

All of which is utterly irrelevant and continuing to focus on "femr2" not "what does MIHOP mean".

Here's a quote for you...


That should give you an idea about how the term is applied


Who ?


Me too. Accusing me of dishonesty is pretty despicable behaviour.


You'd be wrong.


Clearly not...


People HERE seems to do so, but they are a very odd bunch and have a desire to "argue with femr2".

The daytime cloudless sky is blue.


ROFL. I'm not being dishonest. Accusing me of such is very uncivil. Stop it.

The problem here is you.

Look at the majority of the posts in this thread or anywhere else in any other forum. You are about the only one arguing that the term MIHOP, when discussed, does NOT refer to the USG being involved in some way, shape, or form.

To sit here and claim that you did not know that the term MIHOP refers to USG involvement is DISHONEST.

I've been involved in 9/11 discussions for quite some time and I've NEVER had someone use MIHOP to mean anything other than USG involvement.

 

[GlennB]

You do not know what I believe.

True.

Nobody knows what you believe. I suspect even you don't.