Tuesday, May 8, 2007

LIHOP vs. MIHOP {and MIHOP masterlist}

LIHOP vs. MIHOP: to the uninitiated, it looks like a discussion about where to eat pancakes, but is really one of the long-running debates among those who reject the official story of 9/11 – did they Let it Happen on Purpose or Make It Happen on Purpose? Originally I saw that the military’s defenses failed with curious precision and let the attack happen. Bolstered by the immediate and brazen capitalization on the tragedy, this was my first and most lasting impression. But later I came to see the merits of a MIHOP explanation, the basic idea of which is if you want it done right, do it yourself. The former I came to call the "New Day of Deceit" construct, the latter became "Shadow 9/11."

Quickly enough I decided both were more likely than the official story, both meant we were in deep trouble and people needed to be alerted, and both share the common thread "On Purpose." So I set to defining and exposing that purpose but found the sheer volume of possible ulterior motives made such a cataloguing a daunting task. It’a also redundant; everyone has seen from minute one how this was America’s New Pearl Harbor, our own finest hour emerging from the darkest, and clearly Bush’s defining moment, his only claim to mass public loyalty.

So seeing that purpose was clearly established, I returned to the method: Allowed or Orchestrated? The name of this page may indicate a LIHOP leaning, and that is indeed where the evidence herein points. But in fact I’m a LIHOP/MIHOP fence-sitter; and it must be noted that their Letting It Happen doesn’t necessarily exclude the possibility of their also Making It Happen. LIHOP in fact is a necessary sub-set of a mechanically engineered inside job; it would do no good to make it happen if you then let normal defense protocols stop the plot in mid-flight. So either way, unless I’m wrong and it was just an unprovoked surprise attack that accidentally benefited them so, they had to have purposefully Let It Happen. If you don’t believe me, read at least three posts from this site and then reconsider.

It’s nigh impossible to prove that defenses were scuttled on purpose. So far as I know there is not even one charge from anyone in the defense system claiming an outright military stand-down.But to strongly indicate a purposefully thrown defense is not too hard at all. In many cases, all one need do is read a few lines of the 9/11 Commission’s Final Report and make the connections they were unwilling to. Others take deeper research, and a little imagination run by factual and common sense checks goes a long way.

The reason people have so gravitated to MIHOP theories is the possibility of finding hard proof of such. Slow fighter scrambles and inadequate deployments don’t necessarily prove anything, but if we could verify that a missile hit the Pentagon, or that the WTC attack planes were drones fitted with missile-firing pods, we’re clearly looking at someone closer to home than foreign terrorists. But the main problem with such evidence is it either doesn’t exist or is impossible to verify in the sea of fakes, which I regularly take on over at The Frustrating Fraud.

So, for evidence of a LIHOP scenario, either stand-alone or as a subset of a MIHOP operation, read anything on the site. As for the good arguments for a MIHOP explanation – which almost by definition are unprovable – there are some I felt worth covering on this and my other pages.

On the Mechanics of Shadow 9/11:
- A Plane IS a missile: On Raytheon’s August 2001 perfection of a new remote piloting system for airliners.

- Vialls, Von Buelow, Home Run: A Questionable, self-referrential tag-team bring us an intriguing but unprovable charge: a secret airliner remote control system in place since the 1970s.

- Flight 93 and the audio record: the prime stumbling block of the no-hijacker remote-control theory.

- A remote control airliner as a tool in an inside job worked its way into a pre-9/11 TV program – flown into the WTC BY the Pentagon, no less.Scenario 12-D: Another X-File

- Getting the drones in the air? The War Games of 9/11 {masterlist}

- Northwoods 2001?: The curious revelation of Northwoods decades later and just months before 9/11 and the Acting JCS Chairman caught in the thick of conspiracy theory crossfire.

Questioning the Official Perps:
- The Hijackers {masterlist}: a partial compilation of the problems with the official perpetrators, lending weight to the possibility that they were not as reported and possibly not even on the planes.

- A Fabricated threat? Bojinka {masterlist]: The 9/11 tactic was the telltale sign, leading back to Operation Bojinka, a plot found in an ‘al Qaeda’ brain in the Philippines in the first days of 1995. Just a few days earlier the same threat was written up by a Pentagon adviser and then deleted until after 9/11. Is this the cover story to mask Shadow 9/11 and direct blame to the Arabs?

- Threats of war and other such provocations in Afghanistan in the months before 9/11. Did this play any role in the long-planned attack? If so does this transform LIHOP to MIHOP?

2 comments:

Arabesque said...

Disinformation and the False LIHOP/MIHOP Dichotomy

By Arabesque

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. 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? 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” deal? 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. 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)! Some of them were so MIHOP/LIHOP incompetent they apparently couldn’t even MIHOP their own deaths. On the other hand, it’s impossible to MIHOP a “LIHOP” back-story without LIHOP hijackers MIHOPED to blame with supporting “MIHOP-believe” planted fabricated evidence (discreetly disguised as ‘LIHOP’ of course). For example, in the pre-9/11 LIHOP Able Danger program that was operating (MIHOP), 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 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 story would be sold as LIHOP to the naively MIHOP-Uninformed public with MIHOP assistance from the Media. Who's to blame for this MIHOP situation? What about those suspicious promotions of those MIHOPPISH LIHOPPERS who LIHOPPED on 9/11? 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? 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?” MIHOPPING MAD Cheney replied “of course the LIHOP orders still stand, did you hear any LIHOPPING or MIHOPPING orders to the contrary!??” 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? 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!

Anonymous said...

Um, no. Part of Making it happen, is letting certain things happen. Example, I can MAKE YOU drink piss, by secretly putting it in your beer. You drank it "by yourself" which I watched, and "let happen." So, as a result. I "made you" drink piss. So, take your bullshit, and piss off.