LIHOP and MIHOP are completely compatible


Pearl Harbor would be a good example of LIHOP, if indeed the Roosevelt administration had foreknowledge and did nothing to stop it.

The Japs attacked us. Nobody disputes that.

But if Roosevelt let it happen on purpose, it would still be a crime of treasonous proportions, just as damning as if the Jap planes were remotely controlled by secret black ops.

Now supposing FDR did not trust the Japs to get the job done properly. So let's say--for argument sake--he secretly arranged for explosives to be set inside a number of the ships at Pearl Harbor. That would be MIHOP. It doesnt negate LIHOP. In fact, it could be completely compatible with LIHOP.


If some despot were tempted to engineer a false flag operation on his own people, reports of an attack by a known enemy would be the PERFECT cover. Then it would become so EASY for the despot to simply point the finger at the enemy, and say, "Look what they did to us. We know they did it. We have the evidence to prove it."

I would argue that the "perfect storm" for a false flag operation would be a situation in which a known enemy with a REAL track record of terrorism is found in advance to be planning an attack on NYC. The planners of the false flag then begin to put together a bigger plan, one that incorporates the enemy's plan, and actually guarantees its success. It's LIHOP and MIHOP working in perfect syncopation.


Whereas tension naturally exists between those who believe the government is mostly lying about 9/11 and those who believe the government is hiding the fact that they allowed 9/11 to happen, those of us seeking truth and justice need to realize something. We are fast approaching a time where the evidence itself is leading us to a conclusion that incorporates both views. We need to accept ALL the facts of 9/11 and all the testimony. It does us no good to suppress the fact that al-Qaeda terrorists were training in hijacking skills at Salman Pak under Saddam's tutelage. We don't need to suppress the fact that two Iraqi defectors revealed to the CIA prior to 9/11 that there was coordination between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi intelligence agency, Mukhabarat, at Salman Pak. We don't need to suppress the fact that Boston Logan Airport air traffic controllers heard evidence of Flight 11 being hijacked by Middle Easterners. But by the same token, we don't need to suppress the mounting evidence and proofs of WTC demolitions.

It is one thing to have truth, but a far greater step forward to have the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

9/11 was a LIHOP/MIHOP operation. The sooner we come to that realization, the sooner we can present a case to the American people that will receive overwhelming acceptance.

just my 2 cents, but

just my 2 cents, but presenting LIHOP when you know its MIHOP is deception.

 The ends DO NOT justify the means. 

I think you missed my point

If LIHOP actually occurred, then why is that deception for me to point that out? What you need to realize is that SOME of the evidence points to LIHOP just as SOME of the evidence points to MIHOP.

The evidence in BOTH these instances is not conflicting. It is indeed compatible.

So, please, put ALL the pieces together.

Nimmo puts it well

Second, the wording of the poll is, to say the least, insufficient. It is not specified what Bush and crew are “hiding” exactly. Are they hiding their participation in LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) or MIHOP (Made It Happen On Purpose)? If the former, the September criminals may be chalked up as merely incompetent buffoons, incapable of stopping Osama and his dour cave-dwelling Muslims with boxcutters. In effect, this posits and strengthens the absurd official version of events, that nineteen hijackers were not only able to take over the planes, but make NORAD stand down and, as well, change the laws of physics. If the second, people should be outraged enough to demand impeachment, criminal proceedings, and execution of the September criminals in the same manner as Nazi war criminals were tried, convicted, and sent to the gallows.

These terms are a false dichotomy - complete distractions

This is a bizarre post for at least two reasons, but first, to stick only to the LIHOP/MIHOP business, where we largely agree:

If you did something "on purpose" then it cannot be attributed to negligence, incompetence, accident or any other excuse. It's therefore puzzling that so many people confuse the ugly term "LIHOP" (coined by Nico Haupt) with the idea that the Bush administration slept through the warnings, etc. The latter would not be "on purpose."

In reality, these terms do not define a useful difference. They merely outline, poorly, two variant versions of how 9/11 might have been orchestrated by a covert operation within the US government. The versions are in no way exclusive. Even as one group "makes it happen" (for example, those who are subverting the wargames, or facilitating ease of travel and protecting the patsies from exposure), another knowingly "lets it happen" (for example, those in the administration who are making sure the plot won't be revealed before 9/11, or doing nothing on the day).

Since we are talking about state involvement in 9/11, LIHOP and MIHOP bear no moral difference whatsoever. A government exists solely in order to protect the people. If a government instead of enforcing the law intentionally facilitates a crime - even a crime by a third party - in order to use that crime as a pretext for dictatorship, then that government has morally committed that crime, to the exact same extent as if that government had planned the crime from the beginning. This is not merely a failure to be a good Samaritan, because we are talking about the government.

So it's completely bizarro that there is a whole sub-industry within 9/11 truth of people who think the true enemy is "LIHOP" (which usually they define however they like).

Otherwise, I don't know why you want to spread the almost certain disinformation about Salman Pak from Yussef Bodiansky and Judy Miller, or the usual bizarro view of Pearl Harbor as some kind of US crime.

Yes, the evidence says FDR knew about the coming Pearl Harbor attack in advance and indeed let it happen, after taking steps to provoke Japan in the hope that they would start a war. But did he invent Japan? Did the US act to foster Japanese fascism, or even create it, as it later did with Islamic fundamentalism?

Now play this scenario out in your head: You are FDR and you don't want to let the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor.

Do you hit their fleet while it's still a hundred miles away from Hawaii?

Congratulations! You've just gone down in history as the aggressor nation against Japan, whose fleet you attacked by surprise while it was innocently cruising around the Pacific, with absurd claims that they were planning to attack you first.

divide et impera

Red/Blue, LIHOP/MIHOP, ProLife/ProChoice, ProGay/AntiGay, the more you can make people spend their energies on petty divisions, the less they will have for meaningful action.

I recently heard something very wise: "There is more diversity
within human groups than between them"

Have you read Stinnet's book on Pearl Harbor?

"Day of Deceit?"

Sure - it's been a while though

Here is what I wrote again.

"Yes, the evidence says FDR knew about the coming Pearl Harbor attack in advance and indeed let it happen, after taking steps to provoke Japan in the hope that they would start a war."

Is this not an accurate rendering of Stinnett's thesis and interpretation of the McCollum memo?

(As I remember, Stinnett was fairly sympathetic to FDR, in that he understood that Japan and Germany had to be dealt with in some way. For once in US history - and I believe since 1787 it was ONLY that once - the "grave external threat" was genuine and compelling.)

Does this change my other conclusion? Once the (real and fascist) Japanese government dispatches a fleet to attack Pearl Harbor, what options do you feel you would have had, if you were FDR? What would you have done?

I think a preemptive attack on the Japanese fleet in advance of its attack on Hawaii would have been viewed by the world as an act of aggression, possibly handicapping the US in the further prosecution of the war. Given the cost of the world war, the far lower price of allowing Pearl Harbor and entering indisputably as the attacked party (which the US genuinely was, after all) makes sense.

In NO way can this be compared to 9/11, no matter what interpretation you wish to apply to 9/11. Even in the official story - the "enemy" is a network of at most a few hundred criminal motherfuckers. There is no justification for destroying the Constitution or waging war on literally billions of people.

And of course this "enemy" was created by the CIA and anyway 9/11 was orchestrated from within.

How about HIHOP?

Help It Happen On Purpose (and make sure it's a huge, successful attack).

A Few Comments

The purpose of the analogy to Pearl Harbor wasn't so much to compare Japan to Islamic fundamentalism, but to show the compatibility of LIHOP and MIHOP.

In the case of Pearl Harbor, LIHOP would involve 1) egging on the Japanese by raising tensions, 2) ignoring early intelligence reports 3) failing to prepare for an imminent attack. MIHOP would involve 1) standing down the air defenses on the day of the attack and 2) possibly aiding the attack by setting up stealth explosives on board ships.

To what extent the FDR administration was involved in Pearl Harbor, I do not know. But my point was simply to show that LIHOP and MIHOP could be coordinated together at either Pearl Harbor or on 9/11. Therefore to suggest (as many have) that MIHOP evidence disproves LIHOP evidence is ludicrous. It would equally be ludicrous to suggest that LIHOP evidence disproves MIHOP evidence.

Many in the 9/11 truth movement are playing down the threat of Islamic terrorism to such an extent that any evidence pointing to independent Muslim involvement on 9/11 is labeled as disinformation. It is inconceivable to many in this movement that al-Qaeda may have acted independently or with the sponsorship of Saddam's regime, to carry out the attack.

To this day, around 40% of Americans still believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11. The satellite pictures of Salman Pak, the evidence of Atta's meetings with Iraqi agents in Prague, the testimony of Iraqi defectors, the track record of Saddam's support for suicide bombers attacking Israel, the fact that an Iraqi agent was found to have masterminded the 1993 bombing at the WTC all point towards a very real enemy acting on its own volition and independent of western influence.

Sure, there is evidence of early western funding and intelligence support for both al Qaeda and Saddam's regime. But what is clear to many Americans is the fact that these groups have splintered away from western influence because these groups despise American support for Israel, and they despise the fact that our country meddles in the politics of their region. They wanted to attack us on 9/11, and they want now to defeat us in the war in Iraq.

Even though more people are now more willing to accept the MIHOP evidence, they appear to struggle with making it fit into the bigger picture, the known evidence of terrorism. There is a general confusion over all this. Because it SEEMS incompatible that enemies would coordinate their strategies. Iraqi and al Qaeda intelligence would never coordinate with American or Israeli intelligence to pull off a 9/11. This is where the whole disbelief of "conspiracy theories" still holds sway over so many people.

But no coordination is needed. The enemy attacks on its own volition. The opposing side lets it happen, helps it to happen and then adds a few new elements to the attack, therefore making it happen.

What would be the reason for adding new elements to the attack, other than to ensure success of the enemy's attack? There are several logical answers. 1) The destruction of the towers and the damage done to the Pentagon destroyed evidence of insider corruption. 2) The grander the scale of the attack, the more support for the war effort 3) The towers were going to need to be demolitioned at some point anyway.

There was no guarantee that a Muslim strike on 9/11 would have been successful. The bombing of the WTC in 1993 was largely unsuccessful. The MIHOP planners must have known their help was needed.

So yes, HIHOP is a good way of puttting it.

Hey, it's not inconceivable to me...

that members of the former "Afghan Arab" network associated with Bin Ladin might pick up a few reasons to want to commit mayhem in America, much as I abhor this.There really are Arab/Muslim fundamentalist terrorists out there who would love to pull off a 9/11-style attack. How could there not be, given what the US has done to their countries? This doesn't explain US air defense or the rest of the 9/11 anomalies, of course. My best guess based on what we know is indeed that the plot germinated as a "real attack" during the "Bojinka" phase, but that this was discovered, infiltrated and incorporated into an inside job plot.

Where we part ways is with the idea that Saddam was shacked up with them before 9/11. Osama's famous break with the West came because he insisted the Saudis could take on the Iraqi threat in 1990, without letting US soldiers into the Arabian peninsula. These were enemies.

No doubt...

No doubt there have been long term hostilities between Saddam's regime and the Muslim extremists, especially from the late 70s to late 80s, for several reasons: 1) Saddam is not a devout Muslim 2) Saddam betrayed his allegiance with Ayatollah Khomeini (which is what triggered the Iran/Iraq war in the 80s).

But after the Gulf War of 1990/91, and with the oppressive sanctions imposed on Iraq, Saddam was forced to develop alliances with the Muslim fundamentalists to the north, now that they were no longer under the thumb of the Soviet Union. Saddam took many steps to appease the fundamentalists during the 90's, including adding the phrase "Allah is Great" to the Iraqi flag.

Part of what drew them together was their common hatred for Israel and America. Saddam was still steaming over the attack on June 7, 1981 when Israeli warplanes struck the Osirak nuclear facility near Baghdad. By early 1990, Saddam was threatening to burn half of Israel, and during the Gulf War, if you remember, he shot scud missiles at both Israel and Saudi Arabia. These actions would have also moved him closer to an allegiance with the Muslim extremists to the north.

Nicholas, I think the evidence speaks for itself in terms of Salman Pak and other Iraqi terrorist connections. In fact, if you look at the nature of the current war in Iraq, there appears to be a level of coordination between al-Qaeda and the pro-Saddam Sunni insurgents.

My effort is to suggest we not suppress ANY 9/11 evidence, whether it points to LIHOP or MIHOP, but rather gather ALL evidence and build a case for how the whole crime of 9/11 fits together.

But I agree with your comment that based on the evidence there was a plot that germinated as a "real attack", but was then "discovered, infiltrated and incorporated into an inside job."

Now if we can just convince everyone else in the truth movement to buy into that line of reasoning, I think we'd have a stronger case to present to the American public, and to some newspaper editors around the country.

None of that makes sense

First of all, Iraq was NOT threatening Saudi Arabia, as is obvious from the US need to falsify the satellite photos that showed Iraq "amassing troops on Saudi Arabia's border"

There is no hard evidence of any hijackers having been on any planes that day, just a bunch of audio recordings purporting to show what was happening, half of which we KNOW to be false (see United 93)

forget the various IHOP iterations.

SOMEONE DID IT (obviously) ON PURPOSE (obviously).

WHO did it?

Who let the twin towers and building 7 be laced with explosives? Who allowed the Pentagon to be hit by something? Whoever it was DID IT ON PURPOSE and should be tried and sentenced.

Who are the obvious suspects? Larry Silverstein, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Dancing Israelis.

Give up trying to link this somehow to some Muslim nation like Pakistan. The ISI may well have helped create the illusion of hijackers and hijackings. But this was not their op. Look to the neocon cabal that helped W steal the election in 2000 and the man who profited the most personally and whose property was clearly destroyed with explosives.

Arrest Silverstein and we will have the truth in a week, guaranteed. This is NOT COMPLICATED.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


you are easily my favorite

you are easily my favorite newish poster here.

aw thanks...

In fact I'm part of a vast newish conspiracy intent on taking over this blog!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


"Arrest Silverstein and we

"Arrest Silverstein and we will have the truth in a week, guaranteed. This is NOT COMPLICATED"

One must be able to show , in a preliminary hearing that there is enough evidence to proceed with the specific charges that have been leveled at an accused.

So, what charges? On what evidence?
Do try to be specific since that is how the legal system works in the USA.

Unless of course you actually prefer the way that GWB wants things to go, no habeus corpus, no innocent until proven guilty, no due process.

Do you really think you do the cause any good at all making such a demand??

Your list of suspects also neglects to include the idea that there was an Islamic Terrorist organization that hijacked aircraft and flew them into the buildings.

Such a plot would indeed be a MIHOP in fact.

"Your list of suspects also

"Your list of suspects also neglects to include the idea that there was an Islamic Terrorist organization that hijacked aircraft and flew them into the buildings."

So, on what evidence? Why no indictments? No trial?

I stand by my list of suspects. If your apartment building is demolished with explosives and you lie about it, then you can be charged with arson on that evidence alone. Silverstein would seem to be above the law, though, since the taxpayers are in fact funding an absurd search for some alternative explanation to the obvious one. One that has been going on for 5 years now with no end in sight.

But I'm not a professional investigator or litigator. I am a responsible and informed citizen wondering why the real investigators and litigators have not done their job. I am disgusted by the destruction of evidence from the crime scene. I could not believe when Silverstein moreover sued in court to collect twice on his insurance.

You can continue to preach your anti-muslim fairy tales as fewer and fewer people listen to them or believe them. You can continue to stand by Silverstein as if his credibility was being unjustly impugned. It will not help you or him, though.

What you are doing is abhorrent.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


I feel that what you are

I feel that what you are asking for is as abhorrent as GWB's new law that basically removes the writ of Habeus Corpus and due process.

You state that "If your apartment building is demolished with explosives and you lie about it, then you can be charged with arson on that evidence alone", but exactly what evidence is there that explosives were used in the WTC complex? I mean, of course, evidence that could be used in court. "looks like" doesn't cut it in court, you would require actual physical evidence both that explosives were in the building and caused the collapse AND that Silverstein was responsible for them being there.

That is how the law works, or at least is supposed to work. GWB has signed into law a bill that allows no evidence be shown to a person's defence counsel, does not require the person to even have defense council and can have that person detained indefinitly. What's more that person can be interrogated without counsel in any fashion that the President deems warrented. GWB would not say what techniques would and would not be used. (for instance when asked if 'waterboarding was an approved interrogation technique, Bush refused to say yes or no, just that he would not speak about techniques) Perhaps that is how you want Silverstein treated? If so then what makes you any better than the neo-cons? After all they say that they do what they do in the name of the good of the people of the USA, which is what I might assume you are seeking as well.

Don't put words into my mouth either. I do not stand behind Silverstein, I stand behind the rule of law. Silverstein's attempt to have each building designated as separate attacks disgusts me. However I do note that what he will eventually get will, in fact, not cover the costs of rebuilding, will only be released as building goes forth and he will therefore not be getting rich off the insurance claim.

My, "anti-Muslim fairy tales"?? Seems to me that Muslim organizations have carried out suicide bombings for decades now, that Muslim organizations have hijacked aircraft many times over the last few decades as well. In fact in the 70's co-ordinated hijackings occured as well. Therefore it is not out of the ordinary to suggest that these types of operation were combined. However I see on so many websites that it would not be possible for "cave dwelling" Arabs to carry out such attacks. Why, are Arabs too stupid or backward for such sophistication? Right!!!!!!!!! Who's being racist?

excellent--stick to your talking poiints!

Yep, it's racist to think Muslims aren't capable of murdering thousands.

Well I guess it ISN'T racist then to suggest that Israel is certainly capable of it, and moreover has a long history of deceitful and murderous behavior. Far be it from anyone to suggest that Israelis were not capable warmongers!

It really is sad to see people like you make things ever so worse for people by continuing to prevent all the truth from coming out.

This is a pattern I'm seeing repeated way too often for it not to be part of a PR damage scontrol campaign.

1) at all costs preserve the evil Arab Muslim fairy tale that serves us so well.

2) at all costs leave Silverstein out of all of this--he was a VICTIM of the attacks

3) at all costs continue to cultivate the appearance of wanting the truth and blaming Bush so that when the Democrats are in power we can continue to appear to be on the correct side.

It is SICKENING, what you are doing. And it won't work.

People KNOW. The more you lie, the more you pretend to be a friend, the WORSE you look.

Keep it up, beebop, if you must. Just don't be surprised when you fail.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


1) It is possible that

1) It is possible that Israel co-opted a known Muslim organization to carry out the attacks. BUt there is no evidence to support such a fantastic tale. Instead there is ample evidence that a Muslim organization hates the USA enough to kill Americans. You accuse me of trying to preserve an evil Arab Musilm fairy tale but as I have said there is a history that supports my view. I could characterize your view as trying to preserve the ancient evil Jew fairy tale just as easily but at least I can show a pattern of similar attacks for which the Muslim organizations involved actually claimed credit for the acts, including 9/11!

2) I asked for the evidence of Silverstein's guilt in anything he is to be charged with and what the charges would be. I have yet to receive an answer.

I have pointed out that he in fact will not get rich on the insurance coverage on the WTC complex. If you have evidence to the contrary then present it.

3) By all means I do want the truth. I am not dogmatic in my views. If you have anything at all that can prove any allegation raised here then let's have it. I am Canadian, what Americans do affects me and my country more than any other outside of the US borders. I hate GW Bush. I did not like his daddy but GH looks great in comparison. (for that matter so does Reagan or even bloody Nixon)

"It is SICKENING, what you are doing. And it won't work."

What do accuse me of doing? Please be specific.

"People KNOW. The more you lie, the more you pretend to be a friend, the WORSE you look."

Point out any lie I stated above.

"Keep it up, beebop, if you must. Just don't be surprised when you fail."

Again you assume I have an agenda. What would be your definition of my failing?

What makes me sick is people who allow their political views to drive their intellect. It seems that one calling for the arrest of anyone without charges or evidence and alluding to torturing a confession out of him is just such an application.

I'll say it again then :
What charges?
What evidence?
Advocating torture or the not-quite-torture that GWB is extolling?

Hmm, no further response. I

Hmm, no further response.

I will have to assume that Real truther simply would like to avail himself of GWB's new laws and have Silverstein arrested without charge , held without habeus corpus, or any due process and tortured to confession. After all I have asked twice and not received an answer.

"sleeping through it" would

"sleeping through it" would not be LIHOP. It would be letting it happen through incompetance.

LIHOP is knowing it is about to happen and standing aside to allow it to go through,

MIHOP is creating the event.

MIHOP is NOT compatible with LIHOP. The whole purpose of L is to allow you to blame others and show yourself completely blameless. To 'enhance' L with explosives removes that entirely and adds little to garner the ends one wants to create. Hijacking 4 airliners and crashing them into buildings would in itself have garnered the war in Afgahnistan. Loading all manner of weaponry into the WTC buildings, substituting a missile for the plane going to the Pentagon and such simply gives no justifiable return for the added complexity and risk of discovery.

Nothing about 9/11 even suggests that it was designed to get a war with Iraq. No Iraqi was blamed, (despite Saddam's name being brought up),none were among to hijackers

Same goes for FDR. Planting bombs in a few American battleships would be completely unneccessary. BUT had FDR known of the attacks in advance he could easily have ordered air cover drills for the day and thereby had fighters in the air, OR ordered an alert as soon as the Jap subs were spotted well before the Zeros attacked, OR when the newly installed radar detected the attack formation.

I see many references to 'cave dwelling' Arabs and inferences that they could not pull off 9/11. The same was the belief about the Japanese, that they were terrible fighters and navigators, their armed forces inferior. Both are racist viewpoints and both are wrong.

Racist Language Doesn't Help

Racist language doesn't help make one's point. I'm giving the poster the benefit of the doubt and assuming he/she is not racist. Then why use cheap slurs such as "Jap"? Why not "Raghead" for Arabs? Though your text bears reading, the word "Jap" leaves a bad aftertaste and detracts from an otherwise thoughtful piece. And worst of all, it makes the 9/11 truth community look racist.

Rice Farmer

So was my last paragraph lost to you somehow. "Jap" was in widespread usage at the time of the PH attacks and I was commenting on what FDR could have done at that time. In my last paragraph I use "Japanese" and decry such racist commentary.

I'm guessing RF was referring more to the initial post

where the word seems to be used gratuitously. And in any event, I'm sure you are aware that the word "negro" and a related term were commonly used in the past. Would you use them when discussing a historical event?