'...it is just not true to claim that the former outlook--that is LIHOP not as a necessary element in 'making it happen', but simply allowing 'evil furriners' to 'make it happen.''

This sentence was meant to conlclude with '...has never been advanced by critics of the 9/11 official story.'

"a false-flag operation (i.e. MIHOP) necessarily includes ingredients of LIHOP."

This was exactly my point. This is why you can't choose between the two. As soon as you admit that elements of the attack had to be allowed to happen (for example the plane strikes, and keeping the patsies out of jail), you are admitting that the so-called "MIHOP" term is inaccurate. Why use inaccurate terms to describe a complex event like 9/11?

Accuracy in language is important. This is not a trivial matter. As soon as you start making false assumptions and generalizations, we are getting away from reality and turning to subjective terms. Language is complex, imprecise, difficult enough to deal with as it is, which is why we should use precise language to describe the complex reality of 9/11.

"Is there truly anyone on this blog who can fail to see the difference between arguing, 'The administration purposely let al Qaeda attack the U.S. on 9/11' to, 'elements in the U.S. government carried out (or helped carry out) the attacks of 9/11 and blamed it on a foreign enemy--'al Qaeda'""

I agree that these are two different points of view. One blames "terrorists" for carrying out the crime, and the other blames insiders. Both find fault with government response.

However, everyone has a different knowledge of the facts of 9/11. This knowledge is what causes different conclusions, or "points of view" like the options you gave above. The challenge of the 9/11 truth movement is to correctly frame the debate. The debate should be over establishing the facts of the event in question, and critical analysis of these facts.

For example, there is a difference between saying: "9/11 was an inside job", and "NORAD gave three different stories about their actions on 9/11".

The first is merely a conclusion. To the uniformed, this conclusion is simply an assertion. If you don't know the facts behind this conclusion, many will be inclined to reject it. Especially when the conclusions is "controversial". The second statement is a fact. To the uninformed, facts are what will ultimately change minds about what really happened on 9/11. This process of education is underplayed by many, but it is of critical importance. We can't change minds about 9/11 until others are made aware of the facts. This should be the real debate, and this is what will lead to success for the 9/11 movement.

I would argue that the 9/11 movement should be about educating the public about the facts of 9/11. Disagreements over conclusions have limited value if they are not also a discussion about the relevant facts. This is important because not everyone has the knowledge to change their view about the events of 9/11, and terms like MIHOP/LIHOP are not going to be helpful when they are substituted in place of actual facts. In fact, I would argue that these terms are "lazy"--since they AVOID talking about the facts. They are shorthand for "we KNOW what happened, but we don't have to talk about it, because we already know it". In this situation, how useful are these terms for the uninformed when it comes to 9/11?

By speaking with accurate language, clear facts, and correctly framing the debate, the 9/11 movement will make progress. Arguing among ourselves over "opinions" and "points of view" without critical analysis is not going to be effective or get us anywhere but following our own tails in circles. By framing the debate about facts instead of conclusions, we will see real progress. I have an opinion that 9/11 was an inside job, but if I can't support this with arguments, I'm not going to convince anyone. This is why we have to be more concerned about our arguments and our facts than our conclusions.
_______________
Arabesque: 911 Truth