The 9/11 Truth Movement
Georgewashington's blog once again brings us a cogent, timely analysis. Newcomers to 9/11 truth information may wonder how in the world defining each other as "lihop vs. mihop" became enough of an issue to warrant even a brief article--those of us long involved in the real work required to take 9/11 investigation to its goal of 9/11 justice, however, will recognize the value of this piece. George admonishes us to consider how we frame this issue, and presents an alternative to what has become mere fodder for these wearisome and divisive attacks. We are faced with far too much important work, needed immediately, to remain entangled in energy-draining semantic debates and movement infighting...
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 "I ntentionally" 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. But if 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 just mental distraction.
add a comment on this article
add a comment on this article
discussion from this article