Split Thread What does "MIHOP" mean?

femr2 said:
I quite agree. Surely there is no problem for everyone to say...

USG-MIHOP is a common assumption, but yes, many other types of MIHOP exist and have been discussed over the years.

MIHOP means all sorts of different things to all sorts of different people.

It's really not difficult, and meaning clearly varies.
Click to expand...

Incorrect!!
 
femr2 said:
You are showing your intellect I'm afraid. As civily as possible...that's not good.

You are talking utter nonsense.

After I've stated "I've never used MIHOP with ANY specific "who" intended", to try and shoehorn my intention by your inept manipulation of context into my intent being a "USG" who is idiotic beyond belief. Funny though.
Click to expand...

Plausible Deniability

If you didn’t see me, I will deny it.
If you saw me I will deny your lying eyes.
Deny, Deny, Deny Always Deny.
​
 
uke2se said:
femr2, your definition of the word MIHOP makes it meaningless as an indication of stance on 911 issues. This is the whole point of the thread. When you say "I'm MIHOP", according to your definition, you aren't saying anything. You are indicating that you believe someone initiated the events on 911. That's a meaningless statement. Everyone in the whole world thinks that.
Click to expand...
If I'm reading this correctly, it means he thinks someone initiated something, somewhere.

EDIT: Sorry, I didn't realize I was responding to a post from page 5.
 
Last edited:
NoahFence said:
When you click "visit F2's homepage" it takes you there. So it's yours, and represents what you feel.

Unless you want me to start another thread detailing what "your" means?
Click to expand...
ROFL. Feel free. Looks like you might need some help with it.

the911forum is Greg Urich's website.
 
femr2 said:
Really doesn't look that way.
Click to expand...

Why did you not go further back in the posts where you said this?

femr2 said:
Peak Oil MIHOP - 141000 results.
Click to expand...

Looks a bit dishonest on your part. Do you think we can't look back?

Says who ? I'm sure your viewpoint is that NO MIHOP "who" would not involve a "USG" element, however your view is not global.
Click to expand...

I asked how Peak Oil MIHOP could not mean government involvement, so I see you can't answer. Should strike taht one from your list.

Many different people mean many different things when using the acronym MIHOP.
Click to expand...

Not in the 9/11 conspiracy theory forum.

MIHOP does not mean only "USG-MIHOP".
Click to expand...

It does in the 9/11 conspiracy theory forum.
 
I can't find the word mihop in any language (I was hoping for Tagalog), but google translate is kind enough to pronounce it as "mee - hop."
 
Disbelief said:
Why did you not go further back in the posts where you said this?
Click to expand...
How much futher back would you want to go ?

This far ?...
beachnut said:
"Peak Oil MIHOP" - 170
Click to expand...
femr2 said:
And ["Peak oil" MIHOP] brings back 184000 :rolleyes:

More than zero then...
Click to expand...
Disbelief said:
And by clicking the links that are brought up, Peak Oil MIHOP is another way of saying the USG because of problems in the oil reserves. How would this be different than USG MIHOP?
Click to expand...
femr2 said:
Some of the additional "who" options could be viewed as including US government elements, however, certainly not all.

The point being that USG-MIHOP is not the only possible meaning.
Click to expand...
Disbelief said:
I was asking about a particular one that you specifically used as an example.
Click to expand...
It still does not appear that way.

Looks a bit dishonest on your part. Do you think we can't look back?
Click to expand...
Of course you can. By all means highlight what you think appears to you to be dishonest. Do the search yourself if you like.

I asked how Peak Oil MIHOP could not mean government involvement, so I see you can't answer.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. See quoted trail above. Also note that even if you personally think one implies an element of the other that doesn't mean others think the same.

Not in the 9/11 conspiracy theory forum.
Click to expand...
Incorrect, and you now have two "polls" which, regardless of the invalidity and irrelevance of your assertion, suggest otherwise.

It does in the 9/11 conspiracy theory forum.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. See previous comment.
 
femr2 said:
How much futher back would you want to go ?

This far ?...





It still does not appear that way.


Of course you can. By all means highlight what you think appears to you to be dishonest. Do the search yourself if you like.
Click to expand...

Sure, since you were the first to being it up, in this post.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7377877#post7377877

Now, will you finally admit that you brought up Peak Oil MIHOP or will you try and spin this is some silly way?

Incorrect. See quoted trail above. Also note that even if you personally think one implies an element of the other that doesn't mean others think the same.
Click to expand...

How exactly does the quoted trail show how Peak Oil MIHOP is not the same as USG MIHOP? Please provide who would be behind the attacks in a Peak Oil MIHOP scenario if not the USG.

Incorrect, and you now have two "polls" which, regardless of the invalidity and irrelevance of your assertion, suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...

Actually, I have the history of this forum and how it has been used here. Just go back and show where others have used MIHOP here as you claim.

Incorrect. See previous comment.
Click to expand...

Nope, I am still right.
 
Disbelief said:
will you finally admit that you brought up Peak Oil MIHOP or will you try and spin this is some silly way?
Click to expand...
Of course I provided the list of "who", gleaned from a resource posted by W.D.Clinger.

Quite how that relates to your post...
"I was asking about a particular one that you specifically used as an example."
...is beyond me. Perhaps an example of how context doesn't serve to shine a light on what you actually mean eh ;)

How exactly does the quoted trail show how Peak Oil MIHOP is not the same as USG MIHOP?
Click to expand...
Deary me...
femr2 said:
Some of the additional "who" options could be viewed as including US government elements, however, certainly not all.

The point being that USG-MIHOP is not the only possible meaning.
Click to expand...
...my response above is an appropriate answer.

Please provide who would be behind the attacks in a Peak Oil MIHOP scenario if not the USG.
Click to expand...
I'd imagine folk related to the oil industry would be candidates for folk who choose to have that point of view. You'd have to ask folk who use that "flavour" of MIHOP for additional details rather than me.

Nope, I am still right.
Click to expand...
Clearly not. There's currently 10% of members who have responded to the (rather flawed) poll who selected an option other than "The US Government Made 9/11 Happen On Purpose.". I suggest you also read the posts within the poll thread, which highlight variable viewpoints. In the other even sillier "poll" currently 43% of responders have selected an option other than "US gov blew up/dustified bldgs 1,2&7 WTC"

You are incorrect.
 
carlitos said:
If you really want to go nuts, try to get femr2 to fill in the missing words common to his writing style. This whole mess came from a posting on the 911 forum that read IIRC:

See that period after variety? It comes before femr2 states "of __________." He can't say "truther," because he's too coy. I presume that he's of the MIHOP variety of rhododendron. (on edit, or "discusser of peak oil theory" :rolleyes: )Now, if you were on a 911 truther forum discussing things like "cutter charges" and explosive sounds, the context would make it clear. (Which femr2 was, at the time). But here and now, he has to go through 13 pages to remind you that when he uses a word, it means just what he chooses it to mean, neither more nor less. LOL.

Again, when clarity of communication is intentionally avoided, someone has an ulterior motive. Then again, as noted, there ain't much else happening in trutherdom, so have at it.
Click to expand...
The Humpty - Loki Rule

A statement is what it says.

A past statement can mean what its author chooses it to mean now. Over time even past statements that are not revised can in retrospect mean different things, often opposite things because its author chooses it to be so now depending upon context and benefit. After a time a statement may not mean what it says. It may mean what it doesn’t say or may mean the opposite of what it says depending upon context and the author’s intention. The passage of time imparts to past statements an uncertainty, imperceptible at first but exponentially noticeable in proportion to its temporal distance so that the statement, after an indeterminate sufficient time can then reverse spin and now both be and not be at once depending upon the author’s undisclosed intentions. The statement's meaning then is indeterminate and is understood only at that point at which the original author, but not other observers, interprets its position-meaning in the now; which can change upon additional passage of time. Past statements can mean different things depending on what hindsight context presently benefits its author best. By presently, it is understood that once open to reinterpretation no statement is in the now but always is in the process of becoming then and exposed to accruing uncertainty. Work on what a statement means, its author’s intent, its context and string theory is ongoing, though the results to date appear to confirm the unexpected, or not. Now that this rule has achieved clarity and precision, its conclusion is evident and confirmed, viz.

A statement is not what it says.
 
Last edited:
In another thread and with a different purpose, walkyrie posted a link to an article by Swiss historian and trruther Daniel Ganser from 2006:

http://www.danieleganser.ch/assets/files/Inhalte/Publikationen/Zeitungsartikel/agora_eng.pdf

Three mutually exclusive 9/11 theories stand in opposition to one another.
...
The first theory, the so-called “Surprise Theory,” comes from the US government and is supported by the official American investigation, the 9/11 Commission Report...

The second theory, the so-called “Let It Happen On Purpose Theory” (LIHOP), alleges bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network had planned and carried out the attack. Portions of the US government found this out, but despite this deliberately did not avert the attack...

Finally, the third theory, the so-called “Make It Happen On Purpose Theory”
(MIHOP), maintains the attacks were carried out but the Pentagon and/or the US intelligence agencies, the videos of bin Laden are faked. Almost 3000 people were sacrificed in cold blood, and the people in the US and the world were deceived, in order to legitimize a series of wars. Portions of the US government are guilty of the criminal act.
Click to expand...

Just saying ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom