Merged The "official story" meme.

[tfk]

Zeuzzz,

And couldn't the fact that people don't like the meme "official story" is that often the official story we are given [by] power and authority is in fact often a load of garbage?

And here is where it is critical to distinguish between the NIST & FEMA Reports on one hand, and the 9/11 report on the other, and government policy / "stories" on the third hand.

The distinction is "who wrote them?" And "for what purpose?"

NIST & FEMA were not written by lawyers or some administration's policy wonks. They were written by a large number of engineers from across the spectrum of government employed (at NIST), academia & industry. And I can tell ya that there are not a more surly, cantankerous & fiercely independent group than engineers. If any pencil neck lawyer or admin drone were to have ever approached any one of the older, established, successful engineers (whose numbers amounted to very nearly "all of them") and announced that "this is what we want you to conclude", he would have been laughed out of the place. And the NYTimess would have heard about it. If the admin had been so dumb as to push the issue, there would have been mass resignations and a huge scandal.

Most government policy is generated by administration lawyers or career politicians or statesmen. All of these reports are examined in fine detail for conformance with the current admin's policies. And frequently gutted, changed or shelved if they don't pass muster.

You can think of the reports on any number of controversial issues (sex education, contraception & abortion, drug decriminalization, global warming, etc) as examples of politically managed (aka "corrupted") science.

The 9/11 Commission Report was written by lawyers & politicians, and I have no doubt that the administration (& others) attempted to get the results "adjusted" to show the individuals in the best possible light. I as very impressed with the extent to which that group resisted those efforts.

What else would you call it then? I can't think of anything else that would really suit any better.

"The engineers' conclusions."

Accurate & descriptive, but not a snowball's chance in hell...

 

[sheeplesnshills]

"The engineers' conclusions."

I like it. math and physics cannot lie, a fact that twoofers often fail to grasp.

 

[uke2se]

I like it. math and physics cannot lie, a fact that twoofers often fail to grasp.

That doesn't stop twoofers from lying about math and physics, though.

 

[The Platypus]

The engineers' conclusions.

I think that would be far more accurate than "official story", but guaranteed they won't like it, it's too honest and it sounds to credible. It doesn't have the same manipulation benefit in implicating that they were told what to say by their flavors of boogiemen...

 

[uke2se]

I think that would be far more accurate than "official story", but guaranteed they won't like it, it's too honest and it sounds to credible. It doesn't have the same manipulation benefit in implicating that they were told what to say by their flavors of boogiemen...

That makes it perfect. Let's ram the phrase down the twoofers' collective throats.

 

[The Platypus]

That makes it perfect. Let's ram the phrase down the twoofers' collective throats.

I've long held the opinion that they should be called out on their dishonest tactics more.

 

[alienentity]

Good points generally. I agree it's a canard, a strawman, since there is no 'official' story from some almighty government source, agency or person, but instead a collection of evidence, narratives and scientific facts which are consistent with each other.

It makes as much sense to declare that the earth is flat, not spheroid, because the governments 'official' story is that it is round, and since the government lies, ergo the opposite is true.
Facts are mostly independent of those who compile them and study them. There is always some bias in a system, but to look at just one example, the identity of the hijackers -there's no evidence that somehow the FBI was not more or less accurate in their investigation. Unless it can be proven otherwise, then we must accept the hijacker facts as they are. That's just a basic, rational approach.

Where so many truthers 'jump the shark' is when they declare that there were no hijackers, for example, or that they're still alive. This just doesn't square with the facts. That's the problem with these irrational beliefs - they're reflexive and poorly researched.

 

[madfoot]

I would assume that the "official story" refers the the 9/11 Commission. There's nothing dishonest about that and it's not a strawman.

 

[twinstead]

I would assume that the "official story" refers the the 9/11 Commission. There's nothing dishonest about that and it's not a strawman.

Except it's used to describe the commonly-held narrative in its entirety by truthers

 

[madfoot]

Isn't that an accurate way to describe it? If calling the common narrative the "official story" is dishonest, then calling them truthers might as well be dishonest too.

 

[twinstead]

Isn't that an accurate way to describe it? If calling the common narrative the "official story" is dishonest, then calling them truthers might as well be dishonest too.

As previous posters have stated, there is an ulterior motive for calling it the "official story". It is called as such to imply that the government told us what to believe, and we are just repeating it.

 

[madfoot]

As previous posters have stated, there is an ulterior motive for calling it the "official story".

So you think the phrase "official story" is itself a "conspiracy theory"? >___>

 

[Zeuzzz]

Isn't that an accurate way to describe it? If calling the common narrative the "official story" is dishonest, then calling them truthers might as well be dishonest too.

The problem with calling 9/11 report the official story is that they did not cover a LOT of material. There are other facts that are not in the report that can still be counted as official.

 

[twinstead]

So you think the phrase "official story" is itself a "conspiracy theory"? >___>

the phrase "official story" is rhetoric designed to poison the well in a debate about 9-11.

 

[NoahFence]

The problem with calling 9/11 report the official story is that they did not cover a LOT of material. There are other facts that are not in the report that can still be counted as official.

Truthers have massive issues coming to grips with the fact that different reports were for different purposes.

They cry that the 9/11 Commision Report doesn't adequately cover WTC 7 as if it's a giant, malicious oversight.

That wasn't even their job.

 

[alienentity]

I would assume that the "official story" refers the the 9/11 Commission. There's nothing dishonest about that and it's not a strawman.

You would assume wrong. The term covers everything which refutes 9/11 conspiracy theories. It's all lumped into the same giant blob of 'official story'.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I would assume that the "official story" refers the the 9/11 Commission. There's nothing dishonest about that and it's not a strawman.

If that were true it would be a reasonable position. However, "the official story" is equally used to describe the FEMA and NIST reports on the WTC collapses, the Purdue University, Cambridge University and Ove Arup studies of the WTC and Pentagon damage, Bazant's papers on the energetics of the collapses, the Naudet brothers' films, Steve Spak's films, newspaper reports, eyewitness accounts, and in fact just about any aspect of the events of 9/11 and the sources from which we can follow those events that truthers choose to deny.

So you think the phrase "official story" is itself a "conspiracy theory"? >___>

Absolutely, and I've said this before. The conspiracy theory is that the government concocts a fictitious account of events for its own purposes and disseminates this through a wide variety of channels, and that the majority of the population believe this account without question. It's no less a conspiracy theory than ghost planes, thermite demolition devices or a missile hitting the Pentagon.

Dave

 

[zeusbheld]

Isn't that an accurate way to describe it? If calling the common narrative the "official story" is dishonest, then calling them truthers might as well be dishonest too.

dishonest how? most of them that i've encountered call *themselves* truthers. if they don't want to be called that i'll happily stand corrected, one case at a time...

on the other hand, if "official story" is supposed to extend beyond the 9/11 Commission (i'm feeling generous i'll even throw in the NIST reports)... then how honest is it to call anything put forth by, say, National Geographic, Popular Mechanics, and some schmoe on the internet (me for example) "official"?

 

[Dave Rogers]

If calling the common narrative the "official story" is dishonest, then calling them truthers might as well be dishonest too.

Apart from the self-appointed title of the 9/11 truth movement, we have organisations dedicated to promoting 9/11 conspiracy theories going by the names Truth Action, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Scientists for 9/11 Truth, Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, Military Officers for 9/11 Truth, Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth, Journalists for 9/11 Truth, Magicians for 9/11 Truth, Artists for 9/11 Truth, and Fire Fighters for 9/11 Truth. There appear to be more organisations of the form "{insert category here} for 9/11 Truth" than there are 9/11 truthers. It's not exactly a label pinned on them by others; the movement has, right from the start, used the word "truth" as its trademark, in an effort to evade the necessity for proving its theories by simply pre-emptively defining them as truth. And, frankly, "truthers" is a far more complimentary name than what most of us would like to call them.

Dave

 

[ProBonoShill]

Isn't that an accurate way to describe it? If calling the common narrative the "official story" is dishonest, then calling them truthers might as well be dishonest too.

They described themselves as truthers before anyone else did, it's not our fault the term is now associated with delusional whacktards.

ETA - Dave beat me to it.