LIHOP v. MIHOP - The most irrelevant question of all time...

[JackRiddler]

Just in case anyone doesn't know:

LIHOP=Letting It Happen On Purpose
Example: 9/11 was started by Arabs in the OBL set as the successor to "Project Bojinka," But the operation was detected, secretly backed and brought to fruition by elements within the U.S. secret govt. apparatus who understood the need for a new enemy and infinite casus belli.

MIHOP=Making It Happen On Purpose
Example: the whole thing was in fact a mil-intel set up from the beginning, a secret government black op

(For a complete graded treatment of variations in 9/11 theories, from Official Story to "New Northwoods," see
http://summeroftruth.org/lihopmihopnohop.html )

In the actual history of 9/11 skepticism, LIHOP was coined on this very message board (DU, that is) by ewing2001 (Nico Haupt), originally as a clever ruse to get people to think "Inside Job."

Nico's slogan was "first prove LIHOP, then SETUP." This was wise of him, though he later strayed from his own advice and became a rather rabid advocate of the bogus "pod" evidence, etc.

Unfortunately, much time is now wasted among 9/11 skeptics in arguing LIHOP v. MIHOP. This is a completely irrelevant debate, an attempt to construct a split where there is none. It misses the point of coining these terms in the first place, which was to convince the majority who still simply believe in the Official Conspiracy Theory.

Nowadays "MIHOP" is raised as a banner by some who wish to appear more radical, more courageous than others whom they claim are too wimpy or too accomodating of official accounts. Many a MIHOPer promptly accuses all other skeptics of being "gatekeepers." It is a rhetorical device for gaining the apparent moral high ground.

Lost in all this is the simple fact that LIHOP already amounts to treason.

What sort of evidence supports LIHOP?

- conscious and specific foreknowledge of the attacks, i.e., not merely "forewarnings," coming from many different sources;

- official surveillance of alleged hijackers well before 9/11, stories that cast doubt on their identities and motivations;

- advance preparation for attack response;

- advance prep of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq;

- inexplicable inaction by the air defense system and chain of command on the day;

- wargames that coincidentally mirrored the 9/11 scenario;

- obstruction of field investigations prior to 9/11;

- after-the-fact: destruction of evidence, silencing of whistleblowers, promotion of people who "failed," lack of accountability, conflicting official stories, obstruction of justice, delaying and limiting investigations, obvious omissions and cover-ups, culminating in the truly farcical conflicts-of-interest and absurd dissemblings of the Kean Commission.

All of the above qualifies as treason.

And all of the above can also be used to argue for the sort of investigations that may ultimately prove MIHOP.

In other words: LIHOP necessarily contains an element of MIHOP.

After all, how the hell can anyone "let" something happen "on purpose"?

If you are consciously obstructing FBI investigations that could uncover the alleged hijacker (or "patsies," if that's your preference) and so blow the plot beforehand, then that is the equivalent of "making it happen" on purpose.

Ditto if you are consciously obstructing air defense response so as to "let" it happen. This is a form of "making the letting."

In either case, LIHOP leads to MIHOP.

All that should really matter to 9/11 skeptics at this late stage are

a) arguments and items that convince more Americans to examine without prejudice the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job (without discrediting the 9/11 truth movment by falling into the "tin-foil" area)

and

b) evidentiary items pointing to particular crimes or violations by specific people who can be investigated, indicted, or otherwise pressured to sing.

Hell, even "criminal negligence" is a great argument if it can be used to open a criminal investigation into specific perpetrators or to convene a grand jury that could then issue subpeonas for the "heavier" evidence that points to inside job.

Prove LIHOP and you will bring down the administration and forever shatter the American peoples' faith in their National Security State and military-industrial complex. This would be a very, very good first step on the way to limiting and finally eliminating the odious, self-perpetuating, secret and tyrannical institutions that have replaced constitutional government in the United States.

Furthermore, the hardest iteration of MIHOP necessarily includes many LIHOP elements.

For example, let's say the Towers were blown up, the planes were flown by remote control, and all hijacker identities were invented by the CIA or some black-op team out of whole cloth. (I think the latter idea is total bullshit, but let it ride.)

Even then, it would still be true that most of the key administration people visible to us would be occupying LIHOP positions - i.e., they would be allowing the attacks to happen, without necessarily knowing exactly what was planned, or where the operative masterminds were headquartered.

Therefore, those who wish to expose 9/11 as MIHOP must first expose the LIHOP evidence pointing at specific visible individuals like Myers, Eberhard, Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Winfield, Frasca, Maltbie et al. before they could get on to the likely inside-operators who did day-to-day orchestration or the ultimate top-level beneficiary-masterminds.

LIHOP v. MIHOP serves to mask the real debate that 9/11 skeptics should engage in... which is much more complex, and which should revolve around questions of how to weight the differing forms of evidence and how to construct the case for 9/11 skepticism.

For the most part, MIHOP has become a shorthand for the "physical evidence" advocates. Most of them think that WTC demolition and "no planes at Pentagon" are absolutely proven.

(Others go all the way to missile pods on the WTC planes, or no planes anywhere, or whatever the exotic "new find" of the month may be.)

Unfortunately, the Pentagon thesis is worse than useless, because it is clearly unproven, and it is likely that a 757-shaped object caused the damage; whereas the demolition evidence is also not a sure thing (but very interesting to pursue, especially from the WTC 7 angle).

The only Pentagon skeptic I can take seriously is this fellow, who has actually set out to obtain the evidence by way of a FOIA request:
http://www.flight77.info/

Demolition "experts" I will take more seriously once one of them finally does the obvious by obtaining dust from Ground Zero, putting it under a spectroscope, and establishing whether the results correlate with the use of any type of explosive.

If they're among those poor souls who think the towers were blown up by mini-nukes, they can devise tests for that thesis as well using the exact same dust.

Those who do not take such steps to actually substantiate their forensic evidence arguments, but instead simply continue trumpeting them as already proven, are actually serving to discredit themselves.

I still think 9/11 is an inside job, i.e., an event orchestrated by elements of the black-op empire working within the Bush administration, a huge crime.

Enough of the "political" evidence points there to merit an immediate criminal investigation by a truly independent body with prosecutorial powers. The only standard necessary for that is PROBABLE CAUSE.

But I see no need of the "exotic" items to advance the case for probable cause, convince Americans, and initiate these investigations.

Once initiated, true investigations can expose what evidence is there. We might finally settle open questions such as "what hit the Pentagon" with the actual evidence, rather than a bunch of irrelevant exchanges on this board about how much ground resistance a 757 generates, or what its mangled landing gear parts should look like after an explosion.

So if you've read this far, please heed my call:

The most important thing you can do RIGHT NOW is to go start your backyard protest in your town; to hold a film showing or find some other way to communicate to your neighbors; to start an investigation that could actually be published in a local paper; to get involved in the actions coming up in DC and New York; etc. etc.

And NOT to waste time arguing with LARED, Boloboffin and the rest of the crew who have curiously appointed themselves to defend the Official Conspiracy Theory by perpetually attacking strawman arguments on Web message boards.

Here's a case for 9/11 that I can endorse, by the way:

www.JUSTICEFOR911.org