Wednesday, December 20, 2006


Several years ago, the terms "LIHOP" and "MIHOP" were coined to describe two camps of the 9/11 truth movement.

"LIHOP", for those who don't know, stands for the theory that elements of the U.S. government Let It Happen On Purpose. "It", of course, is 9/11. People who believe in LIHOP stress that the intelligence services had been tracking the alleged hijackers and had ample warning of the attacks in advance, standard air defense procedures would have stopped any hijacked jets from crashing into both the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, the anomolies in the funding of the attacks, the people involved, the interference with investigations and prosecutions which could have stopped the attacks, and the cover-up by the government all point to the conclusion that elements of the U.S. government intentionally allowed the attacks to happen on purpose in order to promote the imperial agenda laid out previously by the Project for a New American Century and elsewhere.

"MIHOP", on the other hand, stands for the theory that the U.S. government Made It Happen On Purpose. People who believe in MIHOP stress physical evidence which tends to contradict the official theory about 9/11, such as the strange "collapses" of the Twin Towers and WTC7, and may stress anomolies in the attack on the Pentagon, the way that Flight 93 crashed (or was shot down?), and perhaps even the impact of the airplanes on the Twin Towers. MIHOPs believe that the physical evidence is the "smoking gun" which is so irrefutable that it will convict the perpetrators. MIHOPs believe that if we ignore the smoking guns, we will pass up our best chance to prove that 9/11 was an inside job, since "letting it happen on purpose" is hard to distinguish from mere negligence and mistake.

It has become clear that, whatever their original usefulness, the labels lihop and mihop now create more confusion and division within the truth movement than clarity. Why? Because mihop advocates think that lihops are "limited hang out" gatekeepers who are intentionally supressing the most damning evidence of complicity in the attacks, as a way to stall the 9/11 truth moementum. And many lihop advocates think that the mihop proponents are stressing crazy or at least non-provable physical evidence theories which distract and waste energy, cloud the waters, and divert attention away from the most solid evidence of government complicity which will be believed by the most people.

Moreover, the lihop/mihop labels divert attention and energy from doing the hard work to persuade people to bring the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice. Instead, countless hours and countless words are spent in the arcane fight between the lihop and mihop camps. Indeed, instead of presenting a unified front, we often look like a bunch of raving lunatics due to all of the insults ("idiot", "disinfo agent", etc.) that the two camps hurl at each other.

Do you think this is a trivial issue, and that I am making a mountain of a molehill? Maybe. But labels and the "framing" of an issue have been proven to be extremely important in determining whether a political effort is successful or not (just ask linguist George Lakoff or any political consultant). Using the wrong labels can destroy a movement before it gets off the ground, and the lihop/mihop labels are doing just that: dividing the 9/11 truth movement to the point where it can't "get off the ground" and get a new investigation, criminal prosecutions or any other real action or justice in relation to 9/11.

So what's the answer?


We have to focus on the fact that the people who carried out 9/11 should be given a judgment of GUILT by a criminal court or war crimes tribunal. That is the end goal.

To help us focus on that goal, let's use the label GUILT.

Thinking out loud, the GUILT acronym can stand for:

Government Unfriendlies Intentionally Launched Terror

Here's what I mean . . .

"Government" stands for people within the U.S. government. Sure, the U.S. might have subcontracted parts of the attack out to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and/or the Israeli Mossad. But, at the very least, elements of the AMERICAN government were involved. This was state-sponsored terrorism, not a lone wolf operation.

"Unfriendlies" is a term sometimes used in the military for people hostile to the U.S. or U.S. soldiers. The people who carried out 9/11, even those that were employees of the United States government, are hostile to the U.S. constitutional form of government and government of, by and for the people. They have a very different agenda from the rest of us and from the founding fathers, so they are unfriendlies.

9/11 was "Intentionally" made or allowed to succeed. Indeed, there were multiple, parallel fail-safe mechanisms that the perpetrators used to ensure that the attacks succeeded: setting up patsies, protecting the patsies by preventing pre-attack investigations and prosecutions, failing to notify the public of warnings, routing money through Pakistan's ISI and elsewhere, training patsies at military bases, conducting multiple war games including plane-into-building exercises and false radar injects, standing down the military, potentially using controlled demolition of the world trade center, etc.

The perpetrators "Launched" the attack. They took active steps, some of which are dicussed above, to make sure the attacks succeeded. Even under the old lihop theory, active steps had to have been taken -- normal national security procedures had to have been actively interfered with in a manner which involved treasonous action rather than mere passive non-action. As Colonel Bob Bowman says "If our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the twin towers would still be standing, and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive." And as the person who created the lihop and mihop labels said, if you really look at lihop, you HAVE to become mihop. So the lihop label is meaningless. The fact that the attacks were intentionally launched is the important thing.

The goal of "Terror" is to make people afraid. The perpetrators of 9/11 intentionally killed U.S. (and foreign) citizens in a terrifying way, such as making or letting the North and South Towers of the World Trade Center collapse in a horrifying manner. 9/11 is a textbook example of false flag terror. It is also the most spectacular terrorist attack in history.

So let's put aside labels that distract us. Let's stop counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Let's stop arguing over pet theories of what did and didn't happen on 9/11.

Let's focus on the GUILT of the perpetrators of 9/11. And let's bring the guilty to justice.

My formulation of the words making up G.U.I.L.T. might not be the best. And maybe we shouldn't be using symplistic acronyms at all. But if we we're going to use any simplistic labels, let's at least focus on guilt and justice as the most important concepts.

My intention is to staunch the huge loss of energy being focused into the lihop versus mihop debate, the huge in-fighting and secterianism those labels have caused, and the drain on the ability of 9/11 truthers to focus our eyes on the prize: bringing the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice, and educating people about the secret history of false flag attacks so that they won't happen again.

Anything else is mental . . . you know what.


Blogger Tahoma Activist said...

Dude, I can't believe more people haven't commented on this. Your acronym is genius.

Unfortunately, the people we're dealing with are pretty clueless. A good acronym, for the people we're trying to reach, should probably just hit right at a gut level. MIHOP and LIHOP do that, whereas GUILT requires some explanation. I think we might need to keep looking for the perfect outreach acronym, but I really like what you've come up with for talking amongst ourselves.

I like the concept of unfriendlies, but it may be just too difficult for newbies to grasp. In my view, we need to be extremely direct. Like when we talk about Bush and Cheney and the other conspirators, we need to call them what they are: Criminals. Saboteurs. Traitors. Murderers. Liars. Deceivers. Despots. Tyrants.

By the way, have you read Kevin Barrett's new book? It's outstanding. I've been emailing back and forth with him about it. He's a pretty cool guy, and seems to be pragmatic like you and I, not worried about all the no-planes and all that junk.

12:57 AM  
Blogger WKNH 9/11 radio Keene NH said...

Obviously a fair bit of time was invested in thinking of and writing "GUILT". In a weird sort of way it might even be a good intro for those new to the subject. The most obvious yet overlooked point is: That MIHOP is impossible. Once it is decided to "allow" it must by default morph into Deliberate action (Once a group of people plan a course of action based on the aftermath of planes hitting the wtc towers, that same group will certainly take steps to MAKE SURE they hit, and no hijacker can be given the chance to screw it up.) Anyway, I do a Friday morning 9/11 radio show from 10-11am eastern time. I just might read George Washington's blog "GUILT" on the air. All are encouraged to send valuable audio links to:, NEVER STOP PUSHING FOR THE TRUTH IN WAYS WE HAVE NEVER THOUGHT OF.

12:12 PM  
Blogger Ningen said...

I think Andrew Lowe Watson is exactly right. You can't convict a criminal until you know the crime. The crime can lead to the criminal, and the criminal cannot be convicted without knowing what the crime is.

It's late and I can't explain much now, but I see your proposal as similar to statements David Kubiak made in his response to Nico Haupt last year.

"we chose quite consciously and early on, that capital punishment for treason was quite sufficient justice for our cause. LIHOP was treason, MIHOP was treason, so we really didn't care if we hung the bastards with a six or twelve foot rope as long as all the relevant feet twitched in the air."

This is some clever wordplay, but what bastards? Who are "all the relevant feet"? And what is your rope? There might be situations when you could get all the right perps under either LIHOP or MIHOP, but probably more where you could not.

I will give you an example. You may think I am emotionally tied to my pet theory, but that is bullshit. I only have two months invested in it, and can walk away anytime someone can prove to me its wrong. Two months was enough, because it is so ridiculously obvious.

This is an example not essential to my argument, which stands independently, but I'm not going to shrink away from it because it's been declared taboo by the "truth" movement.

No planes hit the World Trade Center. Duh.

Where's that lead? Most likely the media, maybe some government psycho-op studios.

It also means that the whole stand-down is a dead end -- and good luck proving how it played out, even if there were planes.

Most of all, it means you are not messing around with a bunch of stories about coke-snorting, Koran-thumping Arab hijackers being funded by Saudi princes and Pakistani generals, dodging the good FBI agents who are thwarted by their superiors, etc.

Another example -- the mechanism by which the towers were annihilated. First, back to the planes -- pretty hard for the NIST story to be true if the fundamental premise of plane impact and fire is gone. Second, what type of weapon was it? Depending on the weapon, it could lead to certain weapon laboratories. Good to know if you want to get the real perps, huh? Won't find them with a LIHOP rope, will you?

This is why Nico Haupt is questioning people's contacts with the weapons or nuclear industry. Maybe he's on to something. That depends on what annihilated the towers, now doesn't it? It seems Mr. Haupt is free associating too much, as Mr. Kubiak pointed out. Maybe he's gone off the deep end. I know I would be after 5 years of dealing with this "truth movement." 2 months and I've about had enough. Personally, I think Mr. Kubiak ought to show a little more respect for someone he recognizes did good work early on in the movement he leads.

I see LIHOP theories as very easy to spin into negligence, or even some double-triple-quadruple-agent sting gone bad, assuming you can even pin it on any particular person. If that's what happened and that's all you got, fine. If you've got more, you're a fool going in with that.

Mr. Kubiak said last year:

"We could prove LIHOP to a fair minded grand jury now. Winning a neocon focused MIHOP indictment with the evidence now at hand is exceedingly dubious."

"If both paths would gain us a capital crime proceeding with full subpoena and discovery powers, why choose the most problematic way in?"

First, because it's the truth, remember that?

Second, because it's a criminal trial, and innocent or less complicit scapegoats might end up hanging.

Third, you could hang people and be left with the same criminal institutions.

Fourth, you could end up with nothing because you started with a theory that was not true and led the investigation to a dead end.

Assuming that an official investigation will suss this all out is naive in the extreme. We've seen what this government considers an investigation, and going in with a mushy case of LIHOP/MIHOP, whatever, means you're likely to come out with nothing but the bare minimum to protect the status quo.

Like Eminem said so well, we you only get one shot, one opportunity.
Blow it and the perps walk, particularly the corporate/agency perps.

I see no reason to speculate about the intent of people that certain explanations of the events of 9/11 are off limits, and that the people talking about these explanations are egotistically obsessing on trivia. The intent is irrelevant, because the effect is so clear.

This is rough and might not look so good in the morning but I'll go ahead and post it.

Mr. GW, I might not be doing justice to what exactly you said but I think the idea is very similar to what Kubiak said.

3:04 AM  
Blogger Ningen said...

Whoops. I left something out

Mr. Kubiak said last year:

"We could prove LIHOP to a fair minded grand jury now. Winning a neocon focused MIHOP indictment with the evidence now at hand is exceedingly dubious."

I think that the opposite is true.

3:40 AM  
Blogger Ningen said...

I just want to clarify that I am neither alleging nor ruling out any intentional effort to divert the investigation, but am simply pointing out my concerns about a policy of saying that LIHOP and MIHOP lead to the same result.

10:32 AM  
Blogger Ningen said... is promoting both this GUILT essay and Peter Lance's book Triple Cross which is about incompetence. This is exactly why I object to this idea that it is OK for a movement dedicated to 9/11 truth and justice to accommodate everyone's idea of "truth."

Negligence is not the "truth," it's as much a lie as the official story. In fact, Lance's book is the official story, except that it points fingers at specific people.

I'm surprised to see so little debate on this subject here.

3:47 PM  
Blogger Arabesque said...

Disinformation and the False LIHOP/MIHOP Dichotomy

By Arabesque

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 (i.e. war games and NORAD stand down).
* Ambiguous for its user. Meaningless if the terms are not specifically qualified, commonly resulting in straw-man arguments.
* Ambiguous for its intended audience. Uniquely perceived by the intended audience when terms are not clearly defined.
* Irrelevant and intellectually lazy. Both labels emphasize insider complicity, encompass many of the same types of evidence, but 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.
* 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 and precisely what the MIHOP and LIHOP labels accomplish with or without the intent of its user. This false dichotomy diverts the 9/11 truth movement away from its unified belief that the 9/11 attacks were not properly prevented, investigated, and explained or that government officials, insiders and unknown guilty parties were never held accountable or reprimanded.

11:39 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home