PDA

View Full Version : Disinformation and the Misleading and False LIHOP/MIHOP Dichotomy



Arabesque
11-13-2007, 11:31 PM
Disinformation and the Misleading and False LIHOP/MIHOP Dichotomy (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html)

By Arabesque (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/)

November 2007 – for the Visibility9-11 Newsletter (http://www.visibility911.com/newsletter/)

Accuracy in language is important. Reality is often far more complex than can usually be understood with simplistic terminology. By definition, labels and phrases like “9/11 was an inside job”, “MIHOP”, “LIHOP”, “conspiracy theories”, and “War on Terror” are frequently used to simplify reality into small and easily comprehensible packages. While often helpful, translating reality into black and white labels is often misleading and inaccurate. This can even be purposeful and deliberate as frequently seen in politics and the mainstream media. The events of 9/11 are controversial and misunderstood by many and one significant culprit for this situation is the misleading and inaccurate usage of language to describe what happened. Understanding the role of disinformation and misinformation is essential to form a complete and accurate understanding of the 9/11 attacks.[1] (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html#_edn1) What is disinformation? Jim Fetzer explains that “while ‘misinformation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misinformation)’ can be simply defined as false, mistaken, or misleading information, ‘disinformation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation)’ entails the distribution, assertion, or dissemination of false, mistaken, or misleading information in an intentional, deliberate, or purposeful effort to mislead, deceive, or confuse.”[2] (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html#_edn2)

[...]

The Misleading and False MIHOP/LIHOP Dichotomy

[...]

The MIHOP and LIHOP labels were purportedly coined by Nico Haupt in 2002: “I invented the acronym ‘LIHOP’ (http://www.911blogger.com/node/3262#comment-74775) at the same time [we] created [the] ‘9/11 Science and Justice Alliance’.”[5] (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html#_edn5) Consequently, these terms were widely adopted and “MIHOP” was popularized in the book 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA by Webster Tarpley:

“This book argues the rogue network MIHOP position. [...]”[6] (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html#_edn6)

[...] In fact, it is not even necessary to use the word “MIHOP” to forward this thesis. The labels LIHOP and MIHOP are like an empty drinking glass ready to be filled with clarification and context—left unfilled, they specify almost nothing. As such, the terms MIHOP and LIHOP themselves are also easily misused when employed without clarification leaving them vague, misleading, and open-ended. Discussing his book in an interview with Alex Jones, Tarpley explained that:

“This is the only book that gives strong MIHOP… [...] Then there is LIHOP, Let it happen on purpose, [...] Like Ruppert's Crossing the Rubicon.”[7] (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html#_edn7)

In the preface to the second edition of Synthetic Terror, Tarpley repeats the charge that “[the] LIHOP view of things has been vociferously and voluminously defended by Mike Ruppert, whose book features the constant refrain borrowed from Delmart ‘Mike’ Vreeland, 'Let one happen. Stop the rest!’”[8] (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html#_edn8) In the above passages, Tarpley makes a comparison between LIHOP and MIHOP by referencing Crossing the Rubicon by Michael Ruppert.[9] (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html#_edn9) However, the largely undefined terms MIHOP and LIHOP are inaccurate and clumsy when taken out of context, often lending themselves very well to straw-man assertions.[10] (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html#_edn10) Is Ruppert’s book “LIHOP”? From page 1 of Crossing the Rubicon:

“[...] In the end the only ‘suspects’ found to meet all of these criteria will not be al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. They will instead be a group of people operating within certain government agencies, including the White House, for the benefit of major financial interests within the United States and in other countries.”[11] (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html#_edn11)

Ruppert’s thesis is almost identical to the one given in Tarpley’s book. Since this is the case, how can Tarpley make the charge that Ruppert is arguing “LIHOP”? As 9/11 researcher Jim Hoffman observes, Ruppert “has done a great deal of work on documenting the role of government agencies, such as the CIA, in the September 11th attack.”[12] (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html#_edn12)

[...]

Clearly, Ruppert implies that the planes were flown by remote control, the hijackers were patsies, and the attacks were a “well-planned government operation”—almost exactly what Tarpley argues in his book. If Ruppert’s suspects included members of the White House and the CIA but excluded the alleged terrorists—how could his book “vociferously” argue “LIHOP” as Tarpley suggests? Not surprisingly, if Tarpley can make a stunning mischaracterization of Ruppert’s thesis, lesser researchers and rank and file activists are even more prone to misuse these labels.

[...]

On their own, they specify nothing while pretending that the intended audience understands their meaning. LIHOP has also been used to mean any and all of these claims:



Government or insider foreknowledge of the attacks[14] (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html#_edn14)
Government or insider responsibility/negligence/complicity for the attacks[15] (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html#_edn15)
Government or insider cover-up of incriminating insider responsibility for the attacks[16] (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html#_edn16)
Government or insider benefit, and motive for the attacks to happen[17] (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html#_edn17)
Government or insider participation to help facilitate (allow) the attack to be successful
Hijacker responsibility for the attacks
Noteworthy is that the first five points are also common to MIHOP.

The inaccurate LIHOP term is a misnomer; even if you believed the attacks were fully “allowed” to happen, this involved “making it happen” coordination—even the clumsy term admits it was “on purpose”. 9/11 Family member Mindy Kleinberg, in an opening address to the 9/11 Commission hints at this issue:

“It has been said that the intelligence agencies have to be right 100% of the time. And the terrorists only have to get lucky once. This explanation for the devastating attacks of September 11th, simple on its face, is wrong in its value, because the 9-11 terrorists were not just lucky once. They were lucky over and over again. When you have this repeated pattern of broken protocols, broken laws, broken communication, one cannot still call it luck. If at some point, we don’t look to hold the individuals accountable for not doing their jobs, properly, then how can we ever expect for terrorists to not get lucky again?”[18] (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html#_edn18)

The official 9/11 conspiracy theory depends on omission and ignorance of the coordinated and simultaneous “failures”. David Ray Griffin gives a particularly hilarious example:

“Another reason for skepticism… is that the incompetence of the FAA on that day… is too extreme to be believed. The task that the FAA allegedly failed to perform repeatedly that day—notifying the military when an airplane shows any of the standard signs of being in trouble—is one that the FAA had long been carrying out regularly, over 100 times a year. Can we really believe that virtually everyone—from the flight controllers to their managers to the personnel in Herndon and FAA headquarters—suddenly became ridiculously incompetent to perform this task? This allegation becomes even more unbelievable when we reflect on the fact that the FAA successfully carried out an unprecedented operation that day: grounding all the aircraft in the country. The Commission itself says that the FAA “[executed] that unprecedented order flawlessly.”[19] (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html#_edn19) Is it plausible that FAA personnel, on the same day that they carried out an unprecedented task so flawlessly, would have failed so miserably with a task that they, decade after decade, had been performing routinely?”[20] (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html#_edn20)

If all of these “failures” happened simultaneously as we are told, was it “luck” or was it “made” to happen? If these simultaneous failures were intentionally coordinated (i.e. “made” to happen), how can the inaccurately named LIHOP theory even exist? The LIHOP label absurdly implies that a massively coordinated “failure” was not MADE to happen, while the MIHOP label has been used to indiscriminately imply that parts of the attack were not ALLOWED to happen. It is impossible to choose between the two unless by inaccurate generalization. Both happened, and yet both “theories” pretend that only one or the other happened, which is demonstrably misleading. For these reasons, MIHOP/LIHOP is a misleading and false dichotomy, inherently ambiguous, and easily results in straw-man arguments. Paradoxically, they are misleading because they are so simple—their meaning shifts depending on the context in which they are used easily resulting in misinformation. Because the false MIHOP/LIHOP dichotomy emphasizes many of the same things, a false choice occurs when it is framed in this way:

“The 9/11 attacks were “MIHOP”. Any evidence, area of research, or unanswered questions that appear to be “LIHOP” are therefore disinformation, false, or not worthy of consideration.”

This is a straw-man argument as explained above since the 9/11 attackswould have been impossible without the simultaneous planning and enabling the event—the attacks were both intentionally and simultaneously made (MIHOP) and allowed (LIHOP) to happen—not one or the other.

Accuracy in language is important. Consider this reductio ad absurdum illustration to progressively demonstrate why these terms are inaccurate, misleading, and even absurd when used in an inappropriate context. One of the most significant 9/11 anomalies observed was that the aircraft were seemingly "allowed" to hit their targets without interception by NORAD—ignoring standard and routine intercept procedure.[21] (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html#_edn21) This clearly shows that some aspects of the attack involved “letting it happen” even as others were “made to happen”. However, the aircraft could also have been “made” to fly by remote control, but a successful attack still would have been impossible without a “let happen” stand-down. But even this would be too simple a characterization. Was the stand-down actually LIHOP or was it “MIHOP” under the smokescreen of simultaneous pre-“made” war-game scenarios “coincidentally MIHOP” to involve simulated hijacked aircraft?[22] (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html#_edn22) What about the alleged hijackers—were they incredulously “LIHOP” to attend flight training schools at US military bases or was this a “MAKE it Happen no matter how ridiculous it looks (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a091501militarytraining)” deal?[23] (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html#_edn23) This also assumes that plane-as-missile MIHOP intent would LIHOP the alleged patsies to MIHOP—they couldn’t even MIHOP their Cessnas properly! After failed lessons, some of the MIHOP-wannabe hijackers were not even LIHOPED to fly anymore.[24] (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html#_edn24) And then we are told that this LIHOPPITY Hanni Hanjour managed to “allegedly” “MIHOP” his LIHOP plane into the ground floor of the Pentagon (oops—that’s LIHOP)![25] (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html#_edn25) Some of them were so MIHOP incompetent they apparently couldn’t even MIHOP their own deaths.[26] (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html#_edn26) On the other hand, it’s impossible to MIHOP a “LIHOP” back-story without patsies MIHOPED to blame with supporting “MIHOP-believe” planted and fabricated evidence (discreetly disguised as ‘LIHOP’ of course).[27] (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html#_edn27) For example, in the pre-9/11 LIHOP Able Danger program that was (MIHOP) running, the LIHOP terrorists were LIHOPED to stay in the US while under MIHOP observation and surveillance. Don’t be confused! The LIHOPS were obviously manipulated as part of an imaginary LIHOP cover story (this evil set-up was pure MIHOP, of course). These LIHOPPERS wouldn’t even know their MIHOPDALIHOP[28] (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html#_edn28)fate.The only trick was that we had to fool [MIHOP, of course] the LIHOPPERS to HOP on their LIHOP planes so that it would give the (MIHOP) appearance of LIHOP. This phony cover storywould then be soldas LIHOP to the naively MIHOP-Uninformed public with MIHOP assistance from the Media.[29] (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html#_edn29) Who's to blame for this MIHOP situation? What about those suspicious promotions of those MIHOPPISH LIHOPPERS who LIHOPPED on 9/11?[30] (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html#_edn30) Those who were given promotions for LIHOP serve to actually secretly divert the blame away from the real MIHOPPERS—and I’m not talking about the Bush/Cheney MIHOPPLINGS. You’re not dumb enough to fall for that LIHOPPISHY nonsense are you?[31] (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html#_edn31) But was this purely a MIHOP affair, or did others dabble in LIHOP while MIHOPPING? Did some of the MIHOPS assign others to LIHOP? Like the LIHOPPISHING young man who asked Dick ‘MADE 9/11 HAPPEN on PURPOSE’ Cheney “do the LIHOP orders still stand?” (http://www.911truthmovement.org/video/hamilton_win.wmv)[32] (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html#_edn32) MIHOPPING MAD Cheney replied “of course the LIHOP orders still stand, did you hear any LIHOPPING or MIHOPPING orders to the contrary!??” (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050724164122860)As with the LIHOPPER planes at the World Trade Center, the MIHOP order to LIHOP from Dick ‘Mr. MIHOP’ Cheney predictably resulted in another preventable 9/11 LIHOP event. Of course, what I really want to know is how the heck they managed to MIHOP those fire/plane-crash surviving LIHOP passports?[33] (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html#_edn33) In the end, who cares that insiders are HOP responsible regardless for the deaths of 3000 people?—we need another investigation just to sort out this more important MIHOP/LIHOP stuff!

As you can see, in this context the terms are rendered useless and ridiculous. These misleading labels are often not used to understand 9/11; frequently, their function serves to distort and obfuscate. When this happens, it is tempting to say that these labels function as part of the 9/11 cover-up as misinformation or disinformation when they are used to falsely dismiss and attack certain types of incriminating evidence as “not complicit enough”; framing legitimate understandings of complicity into imaginary and destructively illegitimate labels. This process is Orwellian:

“You can shirk it by simply throwing your mind open and letting the ready-made phrases come crowding in. They will construct your sentences for you—even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent—and at need they will perform the important service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself. It is at this point that the special connection between politics and the debasement of language becomes clear.”[34] (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html#_edn34)

The frequently inaccurate and misleading LIHOP/MIHOP dichotomy is the embodiment of the debasement of language; a subversive attack against subtlety, critical thought, and reason. These terms effectively think our thoughts for us: “LIHOP is bad! MIHOP is good!” They are framed as if they were opposites while inaccurately concealing their precise meaning from us.More accurately, these terms are different shades of the same thing—not opposites. When these terms are inappropriately employed in misleading contexts and false paradigms they function as disinformation and misinformation—possibly as a deliberate part of the 9/11 cover-up. As an example of evidence dismissed as “LIHOP”, an article entitled ‘The LIHOP/MIHOP Distraction Continued’, by writer ‘Angie’ implies that we should dismiss the testimony of Sibel Edmonds because she is “limited hangout” or “LIHOP”:[35] (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html#_edn35)

“ still wondering, who is still Lihop nowadays? [Taking] a look at 911truth.org (http://911truth.org/index.php), a site which places a premium on mainstream political correctness… is STILL LIHOP (including their mission statement)… From 911truth.org’s (http://911truth.org/index.php) ‘breaking news and ongoing stories of special import’ link is Sibel Edmonds’ May 14th article. And to the right of that, a ton of Sibel links… [she] is not even LIHOP for 9/11, guys. Her hints consist of pointing fingers at unnamed corrupt gov't officials… REINFORCES the official story.”[36] (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html#_edn36)

On the other hand, Webster Tarpley’s book includes a section on Sibel Edmonds as part of the “MIHOP” thesis—completely contradicting the “LIHOP” point of view as put forward by ‘Angie’ and others:

“Sibel Edmonds… worked as a translator for the FBI’s Washington field office… Edmonds’ letter provides another rare glimpse at how moles operate inside intelligence agencies to sabotage law enforcement and make sure that patsies are not rounded up or effective warnings given until it is too late… Edmonds also revealed a specific pre-9/11 warning on patsy activities which was simply ignored by the FBI, and then ignored again by the 9/11 commission… Edmonds goes on to mock the clichés about connecting the dots and sharing intelligence which are the stock in trade of the controlled corporate media. She points out that the Phoenix memo, the Minneapolis alarms, and the Sarshar material all converged in the J. Edgar Hoover Building in Washington DC. The FBI had all that it needed to know that a large operation was afoot, which it could have disrupted by rolling up parts of the patsy network. But the FBI did nothing, and the 9/11 commission dropped the ball here as well.”[37] (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html#_edn37)

Whereas Sibel Edmonds is dismissed as “LIHOP” by the writer ‘Angie’ and other 9/11 activists, Webster Tarpley embraces her as part of his “rogue network MIHOP” thesis. For these and many other reasons, not only are the LIHOP and MIHOP terms inaccurate, equivalent, and interchangeable while discussing many of the same types of evidence, they can be effectively used as misinformation and disinformation to falsely distort, devalue, and illegitimately discredit incriminating evidence, legitimate research, and valid areas of inquiry into the 9/11 attacks.

This Orwellian debasement of language misrepresents the events of 9/11 into a ridiculous and overly-simplistic distortion of reality. Clearly, the 9/11 attacks were both ‘made’ and ‘allowed’ to happen in a carefully planned, complex, psychological operation—they would have been impossible without the use of both of these components. The misleading and false LIHOP/ MIHOP paradigm avoids the obvious and meaningful subtleties of reality. As Blogger Jeff Wells comments, “Binary thinking is a mind cancer that retards insight, and unfortunately flourishes in conspiracy culture. ‘The beginning of wisdom,’ said Terrence McKenna, ‘is our ability to accept an inherent messiness in our explanation of what's going on.’”[38] (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html#_edn38)

As such, many aspects of the attack involved both “allowing/letting it happen” and “making it happen” complicity:

[...]

Conclusions

Accuracy in language is important. While descriptive terms are often helpful, they can be misleading, inaccurate, and unhelpful when used in the wrong context. A clear component of the 9/11 cover-up is the use of disinformation to cloud the case for a clear inside job by muddying the waters and promulgating misinformation; inaccurate labels are very effective for this purpose. LIHOP and MIHOP are frequently vague, inaccurate, and misleading terms that continuously damage and impede analysis and understanding within the 9/11 truth movement. It is my thesis that the terms should be rejected and abandoned. They create a false and misleading dichotomy by ignoring that the 9/11 attacks involved elements of both “making it happen” and “letting it happen”. While the label MIHOP is inaccurate when it fails to account for aspects of the attacks that were allowed to occur (i.e. apparent NORAD stand-down), LIHOP is inaccurate when it fails to account for the things that were made to occur (i.e. NORAD war game exercises involving simulated hijackings).

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. While the phrases “inside job” and “insider complicity” are far more accurate and encompassing, as with the MIHOP and LIHOP labels they will not effectively bring new members into the 9/11 truth movement if they are not supported with convincing analysis to support them.

My thesis is that the LIHOP/MIHOP dichotomy is:



Distorted and misleading since "let" and "made" are hopelessly vague if not clearly defined.
A false dichotomy. The 9/11 attacks involved both "allow" and "made" coordination; intentional “failures”, intentional planning to allow the attacks to be successful, and deliberate participation in the attacks. The LIHOP theory incorrectly implies that a massively coordinated “failure” was not MADE to happen, while the MIHOP label is often absurdly used to imply that parts of the attack were not ALLOWED to happen.
Ambiguous for its [i]user. Meaningless if the terms are not specifically qualified, commonly resulting in straw-man arguments. They are often ineffectively employed as empty rhetoric; assertions frequently framed without supporting explanation or argument. By themselves, they are empty containers; conclusions without analysis or even clarification.
Ambiguous for its intended audience. Uniquely perceived by the intended audience when terms are not clearly defined.
Virtually identical. Both emphasize insider complicity, while encompassing many of the same types of evidence.
Divisive. Used to falsely frame the 9/11 truth movement as being divided
The false LIHOP/MIHOP dichotomy should be rejected for all of the above reasons. A historical component of FBI COINTELPRO included the purpose of weakening and dividing activist groups through provoking unnecessary internal debate and division; effectively what the MIHOP and LIHOP labels accomplish with or without the intent of its user. When these terms are not used to clearly understand, analyze, or advance understanding of the attack, this false and misleading dichotomy diverts the truth movement away from its unified belief that 9/11 was not properly prevented, investigated, and explained or that government officials, insiders and unknown guilty parties were never held accountable or reprimanded.

Gold9472
11-13-2007, 11:47 PM
Thanks for signing up.

Arabesque
11-13-2007, 11:54 PM
No prob. I'm glad to be here!

simuvac
11-14-2007, 12:02 AM
Welcome aboard, Arabesque.

Well stated. The accusations of LIHOP usually have the same general effect: They put the accused in a defensive position, made defensive because the accusation suggests that the speaker is too passive in his diagnosis. How is one passive in his diagnostic of 9/11? By not making claims that are exaggerated enough. By sticking to the known facts. Tarpley can dress his work in the robust garb of MIHOP because he includes speculations that aren't supported by the known facts. This is where I might disagree with you: Ruppert and Tarpley may have similar theses, but Tarpley includes chapters on "what hit the Pentagon?" and "Shanksville," two notoriously contentious issues.

But back to my point: I think the effect LIHOP/MIHOP is supposed to achieve, or does achieve, is to encourage skeptics to make outrageous claims. It's like a schoolyard taunt. You want to be a Truther with balls, don't you?

Arabesque
11-14-2007, 02:08 AM
"Well stated. The accusations of LIHOP usually have the same general effect: They put the accused in a defensive position, made defensive because the accusation suggests that the speaker is too passive in his diagnosis."

Thanks for the welcome!

I agree, the words are usually used to deride and attack activists. It is amusing to see myself accused of this because I believe for example, the Pentagon was hit by a 757. The interesting thing is that I think the words are used to psychologically manipulate opinion in this way which I find very fascinating. I dealt with the bogus "LIHOP" argument in regards to Sibel Edmonds, but that's just one example among many.

If people can figure out how these terms are misused, it's just one better way to figure out the truth about evidence, and have real arguments instead of "that's LIHOP"! That's what bothers me most of all... when people use "LIHOP" as an "argument" to counter valid areas of 9/11 research.

Actually, Mr. Ruppert says in his book that he thinks that flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, but admits he does not argue or claim to prove this because he can not make a physical evidence case, as he wishes to avoid physical evidence at all in his book. Later on, I think he changed his opinion on the Pentagon issue, but in the book he also claims no 757 hit the Pentagon.

I'd like to do a review of some of the weaker claims in Tarpley's book, including the "angel is next" theme, and some of his other arguments. But it did bother me how he derides Ruppert's book as "LIHOP". If there is a standard on which book provides a better documented case for insider complicity, it's Ruppert's by a longshot. Not that his book is perfect.

psikeyhackr
11-18-2007, 01:44 PM
If it is physically impossible for an airliner to bring down any skyscraper 1000 feet tall or more then the "Let It Happen" scenario can't make sense.

Every level of a skyscraper must support the combined weights of all of the levels above it. The designers must figure out how much steel and how much concrete to put on every level. The more they put higher up the stronger it has to be lower down to support that weight and driving up cost.

So why aren't Truthers demanding to know the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level of the building? This is important for the south tower since the 80th floor had to hold the weight of 30 floors. How much steel would that take? What tempetures and energy are needed to weaken THAT MUCH STEEL in 56 minutes?

Is there a conspiracy regarding the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level of the towers? So why haven't we heard that in SIX YEARS? How can you analyze the physics of the impact without the distribution of steel and concrete thru the building? How many tons of steel can you heat to 1100 deg F in 56 minutes? Didn't the designers have to figure out what ot put on each level in the 1960s?

How much steel was on the 80th floor of the south tower?

Windsor Tower 131 ft x 82 ft x 348 ft tall
30 flrs of WTC 205 ft x 205 ft x 360 ft tall

There had to be enough steel on the 80th floor of the south WTC to hold FOUR Windsor Towers. But we haven't heard how much steel was on every level of the buildings in SIX YEARS.

The Windsor Tower didn't collapse in 18 hours of fire so how did all that steel weaken in 56 minutes? Don't steel the TRUTH!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

psik