"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.