Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative*?

[Jango]

* = Official narrative being the 9/11 Commission Report, the 2002 Joint Congressional Investigation Report, the F.B.I.'s investigation, NIST's reports, etc etc other government sponsored reports and/or investigations as well the statements of government workers and the leadership.

So, in your opinion, is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative?


1. Yes
2. No
3. Undecided

 

[beachnut]

* = Official narrative being the 9/11 Commission Report, the 2002 Joint Congressional Investigation Report, the F.B.I.'s investigation, NIST's reports, etc etc other government sponsored reports and/or investigations as well the statements of government workers and the leadership.

So, in your opinion, is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative?


1. Yes
2. No
3. Undecided

What official narrative; please post the official narrative in total. Source it.

Oh, you are not going to vote?

Guess 911 CTs have not faded away. Were you a big 911 truth follower.

Which narrative?

19 terrorists took four planes and hit 75 percent of their targets; Flight 93 passengers too action after figuring out 911 in minutes; something which 911 truth has failed to do for 13 years.

There is nothing wrong with questioning anything; what is your question?

Is this like your painting of a UFO that was not a UFO, and you will not comment or participate; like a post and run...

 

[Jango]

What official narrative; please post the official narrative in total. Source it.

From the OP --

* = Official narrative being the 9/11 Commission Report, the 2002 Joint Congressional Investigation Report, the F.B.I.'s investigation, NIST's reports, etc etc other government sponsored reports and/or investigations as well the statements of government workers and the leadership.

That's what I've defined as the Official Narrative -- the words and reports and investigations that have been initiated by government leadership.

Oh, you are not going to vote?

Why are my voting habits of any concern to you? Or do you oppose the freedom of voting too?

Guess 911 CTs have not faded away. Were you a big 911 truth follower.

Actually, no I was not. By the time something caught my attention with 9/11, the movement was already dead and the so-called leaders of said movement were snake oil salesmen, shills, extreme ideological dissenters, propagandists and the mentally ill -- in other words, the legitimate aspects of the conspiracy were co-opted by less favorable elements to, as I've said before, poison the well. Tactics like that are employed against protesters too -- ways to infiltrate the protesters ranks, introduce unsavory folks into the mix, etc etc.

Anyway, it was September 11th, 2011 when I first questioned anything about 9/11. I was a sophomore in high school when 9/11 happened. I was in my psychology class and had asked to turn the radio on, which is when the class and I got to hear that, "America is under attack." I watched with everyone else who were just as mortified and shell shocked as I was when the buildings fell. I didn't look at any of it again until 9/11/11, not even when corporals, sergeants and staff sergeants I knew talked about suspicious things, because it was extremely depressing and was kind of like a PTSD thing, I suppose. I am humbled by the empathy and sympathy I have for the victims of the attacks. When I visited the WTC memorial during my honeymoon, and donated money (and got the white bracelet with NC blue text which I still wear today -- almost 2 years) I stood on unsteady legs -- it'd be like visiting Auschwitz IMO, just an emotionally humbling experience.

Unfortunately, my eyes are open. I've seen the dirt under the rug and now it's all that I see, again, unfortunately. I'd much rather it not be this way, but, I don't always get what I want, you know, none of us do. We've got what we've got, and that's that.

Which narrative?

The one I defined in the OP.

19 terrorists took four planes and hit 75 percent of their targets; Flight 93 passengers too action after figuring out 911 in minutes; something which 911 truth has failed to do for 13 years.

Agreed, the 9/11 Truth Movement has failed. They have. Absolutely.

There is nothing wrong with questioning anything; what is your question?

Questions. Plural. More than one. And I disagree with your statement that "there is nothing wrong with questioning anything". The disagreement comes into play that there is an abundance of opposition to people asking probing questions about the governments of the world, the U.N., or multinational corporations or wealthy individuals. If people ask candid questions about Israel, they're called anti-Semitic and the conversation/debate is derailed and therefore lost. The same goes about a non-black person asking candid questions about the so-called "black community". And besides, you saying what you said ignores the reality of what you've done for years and 20,000+ posts: be nothing but piss and vinegar, see the below quote as an example of that:

Is this like your painting of a UFO that was not a UFO, and you will not comment or participate; like a post and run...

 

[SezMe]

... in other words, the legitimate aspects of the conspiracy ....

Which are?

 

[Mudcat]

There isn't, because there aren't any legitimate questions left unanswered.

 

[Oystein]

I clicked "undecided".

Almost everything the truth movement claims today is false, much of it is vile. Their calls for "new investigations" are bogus and unfounded. You know, all the technical claims.

There is an obvious arena of uncertainty concerning the secret services and political decisions.
The aftermath of 9/11 has most certainly led to terrible political decisions, and those decisions and actions are in part criminal - I am convinced of that. But that is not meant here.
There seem to be open questions about who sponsored, supported and protected Al Qaeda before 9/11, and whether such terror support was covered up; on whose orders and why.
I find it very disturbing indeed that so many people, particularly Americans, and even smart and usually skeptic people on this subforum, are okay with the "national security" state, accepting that some secret branches of government are so outside the law and jurisdiction. When patriotism is invoked - when folks club others with the question "what are you doing for your country" - I get cautious; bad arguments and advice often follow.

Having said that, I don't believe that there is a conspiracy left to be uncovered within the US government and her services whereby duty-sworn offficers decided to let terror and harm descend on citizens and abuse this for political gains. I don't see that there is actual prima facie evidence for that - only conjecture. I would NOT support another investigation given the evidence that's available now, but I DO support declassification of much more information; and depending on what's then revealed, I might change my stance.

Hence "undecided".

 

[beachnut]

... Hence "undecided".

Sounds like my order at a restaurant. A valid one, and things change.

Happy new year.

etc etc other government sponsored reports and/or investigations as well the statements of government workers and the leadership.

Did the OP leave out the hundreds of other work and studies which comprise the "official narrative"; unless the "or investigations" include schools, engineering proprietary reports, and more; which are no government sponsored.

Kind of broad. I can't find anything 911 truth questions to be valid.

Most of the BS quibbling borders on the lines of Monday morning quarter backing BS.

Wonder what Jango's questions are?

Wonder what Jango's legitimate reasons are; ... it may remain a mystery.

 

[threadworm]

By all means ask questions, but if you've decided in advance what the answer is there's no point. Asking questions means you need to be prepared to accept the answer, whether or not it meets your assumptions. You have asked a question in the OP having already decided what you want the answer to be, and having already decided that you won't like the answer you think you'll get from this forum.

On the other hand if asking questions means questioning the evidence of your eyes and the laws of physics, then all you're entitled to is to be ignored.

 

[Jango]

By all means ask questions, but if you've decided in advance what the answer is there's no point.

Then it wouldn't be a question then, eh?

Asking questions means you need to be prepared to accept the answer,

Accept a response, you mean. Just because someone responds to a question does not mean that they have actually answered the question.

whether or not it meets your assumptions.

I know how Q-an-A works, bubba.

You have asked a question in the OP having already decided what you want the answer to be,

I want it to be No, and a Solid No at that, but I already know that it isn't a Solid No. But that's beside the point, do you know what Polls are for?

and having already decided that you won't like the answer you think you'll get from this forum.

Then why would I ask questions or create Polls if I won't like the responses I get? Again, what are Polls for?

On the other hand if asking questions means questioning the evidence of your eyes and the laws of physics, then all you're entitled to is to be ignored.

An example or two being?

 

[threadworm]

Then it wouldn't be a question then, eh?



Accept a response, you mean. Just because someone responds to a question does not mean that they have actually answered the question.

You asked for an answer. I gave you mine You're already disputing it. Seems you're making my point.

I know how Q-an-A works, bubba.

From your first answer, it doesn't seem so.

I want it to be No, and a Solid No at that, but I already know that it isn't a Solid No. But that's beside the point, do you know what Polls are for?

I know a lot more than you do about polls.

Then why would I ask questions or create Polls if I won't like the responses I get? Again, what are Polls for?

To ask for opinions. You're already disputing opinions. Clearly you don't know what a poll is for. What you want is a stick to beat someone with.

An example or two being?

I think you know exactly what I mean and what those examples might be. Nowhere did I suggest you subscribe to them.

I have seen countless conspiracy theorists make the same old boring "Just asking questions" routine and it is quite obvious that they are not 'just asking questions', they are trying to hide a (blunt) knife under a cloak. They also tend to follow a doctrine of "If you question something, then it is suspicious". Questioning something does not automatically make it wrong. It is a tired old routine and dishonest.

You have already made your opinions on the so-called 'official version' (ie the one that outlines the known facts of 9/11 rather than the made up fictions of the conspiracy crowd) well known, so I question your need to have a poll about it other than to query the motives of people who disagree with you.

 

[Spindrift]

It is legitimate to question anything. It's not legitimate to ignore the answers when you don't like them.

 

[Oystein]

Sounds like my order at a restaurant. A valid one, and things change.

Happy new year.

Happy new year to you, too.

Did the OP leave out the hundreds of other work and studies which comprise the "official narrative"; unless the "or investigations" include schools, engineering proprietary reports, and more; which are no government sponsored.
...

Jango already made it quite clear that he agrees with the technical aspects of the commonly accepted narrative - AQ hijackers, planes crashed, fires cause collapses. So yeah, those engineering, NTSB and what have you reports belong to the body of reports that make up the commonly accepted narrative, but as Jango has no problem with these (and perhaps expects that neither do we), we can as well ignore them for the purpose of this poll.
If you were a nutbag truther, Gage- or Wood-style, you'd have cause to rant about the OP leaving those reports out. Are you?

 

[Dave Rogers]

As usual, the question leaves a lot of leeway for misinterpretation of the meanings of the responses. Yes, there is a perfectly legitimate reason to question anything, which is simply that rational scepticism requires us to consider all conclusions provisional and to re-examine them in the light of the evidence available. At the same time, no, there is no evidence which has arisen in the last 13+ years that would prompt such a re-examination, given that a reasonable and open-minded examination of the existing evidence can only lead to the conclusion that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by a group of people funded by, and owing allegiance to, al-Qaeda, with no evidence of even passive complicity from anybody within the US Government. This is the actual position held, I think, by most reasonable people, and does not correspond to "yes," "no" or "undecided".

Of course, those of us who've been here a while are also somewhat cynical as to the motives of anyone posing such a question. Our suspicion is that a vote of "no" will be taken as a denial of the basic principles of scepticism, whereas a vote of either "undecided" or "yes" is to be trumpeted as a finding that even the hardcore supporters of the Official Conspiracy Theory have trouble believing it.

So I decline to play against loaded dice. To paraphrase Sky Masterson, I'm not getting cider in my ear.

Dave

 

[chrismohr]

I'm mostly satisfied with the technical claims of the mechanics of the collapses. Because the specifics of which column collapsed when were hidden behind the perimeter walls, there is of course room for speculation that the mechanisms may be somewhat different in the details. JSanderO, Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat and others who have much more technical savvy than me have challenged some of these specifics without denying the overarching government narrative, which they support: planes crash, explode, start fires, weaken structures, global collapse, starting unfought fires in several other buildings, causing extensive damage or bringing them down partially or totally as well. That basic government narrative has also been supported by several university studies, etc.
I greatly doubt that the higher-ups Let It Happen on Purpose, but can only 98% rule that out. I am confident that incompetence and lack of coordination among our defense infrastructure gave the terrorists the openings they needed.

 

[jaydeehess]

* = Official narrative being the 9/11 Commission Report, the 2002 Joint Congressional Investigation Report, the F.B.I.'s investigation, NIST's reports, etc etc other government sponsored reports and/or investigations as well the statements of government workers and the leadership.

So, in your opinion, is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative?


1. Yes
2. No
3. Undecided

The question is a bit loaded imo.

Did 4 a/c get hijacked and 3 deliberately crashed into buildings?
Yes!
Did three buildings collapse directly or indirectly from this?
Yes!

Are there questions that could possibly be asked/answered?
Yes, to whit:
Would further research pin down the initial failure mechanism in WTC 7 such as whether expansion phase or contraction phase is more likely to fail girder 44?
Was there any malfeasance in allowing the PANYNJ a different fire code than NYC, and did the different code play any significant part in loss of structures or life?


But are these of great significance? Maybe!

Are they of any significance in the minds of 9/11 conspiracists? Probably not by a long shot.

 

[Loss Leader]

There is absolutely no evidence that an alternate theory might even be possible, and a great deal of evidence that actually contradicts alternate theories.

- Of course, if continued study of the engineering helps to make buildings safer, I've no problem with that.

 

[JayUtah]

Poorly worded question is poorly worded.

 

[Meed]

* = Official narrative being the 9/11 Commission Report, the 2002 Joint Congressional Investigation Report, the F.B.I.'s investigation, NIST's reports, etc etc other government sponsored reports and/or investigations as well the statements of government workers and the leadership.

So, in your opinion, is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative?

The details of and scope of the Commission Report, in particular, are worth questioning. Details of the "official narrative" are also worth questioning. I don't think there is any reason to question that 19 hijackers flew commercial airliners into the twin towers and the pentagon. Nor do I think there is any reason to question the fact that there was no controlled demolitions at the world trade center buildings.

Are you really that complacent?

Do you think going to Viet Nam was more patriotic than opposing a wrong-headed engagement in a pointless war to support a corrupt regime?

Your straw man's on fire.

Not just a corrupt regime, but a dictatorship, which the majority of the Vietnamese people clearly did not want.

 

[jaydeehess]

Poorly worded question is poorly worded.

Poorly worded, worded (loaded) such as to invoke a specific interpretation, or insufficiently worded to avoid a specific interpretation.

Most here seem to have assumed the specific interpretation, that which would have the 'legitimate reason' conform to any of the myriad conspiracy theories illustrated in forums such as this one.

 

[beachnut]

Happy new year to you, too.

Jango already made it quite clear that he agrees with the technical aspects of the commonly accepted narrative - ... ?

Not exactly.

The first official narrative, in so many regards, was torn to shreds by later revelations.

I am interested, but there will be no facts, only recycled 911 truth nonsense; like -

9/11 is just one of those rare conspiracies that has a voluminous assortment of official and credible information that runs directly counter to what has been said by people in key leadership positions in the government post-9/11.

Yet, nothing specific - no sources, nothing but talk.

And right out of 911 truth's BS guide...

NIST tells us the Answer For X Is Three but won't show us their math, and the investigation of the buildings' collapse was compromised firstly by the necessary searches for life but then the investigation was rendered untenable by the clean-up crews working urgently to get the debris shipped outta dodge.

"outta dodge" shipping is 8 months plus - not urgently but reality. What a load of BS.
Instead of making specific claims against any reports which fit into "legitimate", Jango has taken the BS that was said about 911 and made up "questions" he can't define or explain.
NIST, and math is the best one. As an engineer, I have no problems modeling the collapse on my own with my own research; there is no legitimate reason to make up the silly statement about not showing; even the "question" of math is fuzzy, direct from the 911 truth BS bag of woo.

I am looking for that "first official narrative" - where is it? In the 911 truth playbook?

Poorly worded question is poorly worded.

Truth