That's what I was wondering. Thanks.

KPFA & Pacifica Radio will air Friday's hearing from 9:00AM - 1:00PM EDT streamed live at pacifica.org and kpfa.org and on the air at KPFA (Berkeley), KPFK (Los Angeles), KPFT (Houston), and others TBD.

http://www.kpfa.org/index.php?showpage=1

This Friday, the House Judiciary Committee will take the first step to investigate what Rep. John Conyers calls "numerous credible allegations of serious misconduct." Pacifica Radio will broadcast the hearing live, starting at 9 a.m. Friday July 25, anchored by KPFA's Larry Bensky.
Expected speakers include Congress members, including Dennis Kucinich; Elizabeth Holtzman; John Dean; Bob Barr; Ralph Nader and others.
http://www.kpft.org/

Or Sibel Edmonds, William Rodriguez, and others, etc.

"yes, I know we need a new investigation ... but still, it's a start......"

Fixed that for you. Btw, the expiration date on the divisive term "LIHOP" is long past.

_______________________________________
9/18 was an inside job! So maybe 9/11 was too...

The terms LIHOP and MIHOP are fabricated inventions. A false dichotomy

Wargames? Made to happen. Plane strikes? Allowed to happen without response.

So how is 9/11 one or the other of these two choices? It was BOTH made and allowed to happen. The attacks would not have been possible without this coordination. Even assuming that the attacks were completely "allowed" to happen without any assistance, this would mean a systematic and system wide deliberate stand-down. This would be therefore intentional and "made" to happen. See how unhelpful these terms really are when they are framed like this?

Describing a complex event like 9/11 into LIHOP/MIHOP paradigm is turning reality into simplistic and even cartoon versions of what happened. It is not an either or choice. These terms are meaningless Orwell-speak.

Here is my deconstruction of these terms and how they are used to manipulate the 9/11 truth movement:
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopm...

"The inaccurate LIHOP term is a misnomer; even if you believed the attacks were fully “allowed” to happen, this involved “making it happen” coordination—even the clumsy term admits it was “on purpose”. 9/11 Family member Mindy Kleinberg, in an opening address to the 9/11 Commission hints at this issue:

If all of these “failures” happened simultaneously as we are told, was it “luck” or was it “made” to happen? If these simultaneous failures were intentionally coordinated (i.e. “made” to happen), how can the inaccurately named LIHOP theory even exist? The LIHOP label absurdly implies that a massively coordinated “failure” was not MADE to happen, while the MIHOP label has been used to indiscriminately imply that parts of the attack were not ALLOWED to happen. It is impossible to choose between the two unless by inaccurate generalization. Both happened, and yet both “theories” pretend that only one or the other happened, which is demonstrably misleading. "
_______________
Arabesque: 911 Truth

false flag operation = MIHOP

A false-flag operation necessarily includes interfering with the normal course of national security and law enforcement procedures, and the planting of evidence and creation of a storyline pointing to patsies. In other words, a false-flag operation (i.e. MIHOP) necessarily includes ingredients of LIHOP.

I believe this is your understanding of LIHOP; one that is consistent with, and a necessary component of, a false-flag operation.

What you and others alleging that the MIHOP/LIHOP distinction is trivial at best and divisive at worst fail to appreciate is that this is NOT how these elements of the plot have necessarily been treated. To put it plainly, some at various stages of 9/11 truth activism or awareness (Note: I used to be one of them!!) have viewed and spoken of the attacks in terms of the Bush adminstration deliberately allowing a plan autonomously conceived and carried out by foreign enemies ('al Qaeda') to proceed without interference.

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 think Arabesque has the second view; but 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.'

Rule of thumb: if a critique of the 9/11 official story essentially leaves the al Qaeda bogeyman untouched as the entirely autonomous oerpetrators of the attack--with all the pshychological effects such a bogeman continues to exert over the public mind, and with the 'casus belli' ('going after those who attacked us') essentially intact--THAT's the kind of LIHOP to be concerned about.

'...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

'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.'

Yes--and what gave rise to the term 'MIHOP,' as a deliberate contrast to 'LIHOP', was a framing of the debate by some critics of the official story which effectively conceded essential points to that account; as in treating al Qaeda's ultimate responsibility for the crime as a given, and in considering the greates possible extent of U.S. government culpability in the attacks to have consisted in some comparatively passive facilitation of a plot which was actually organized and carried out by outsiders .