Merged The "official story" meme.

[The Platypus]

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

That about says what i was going to say...

 

[The Platypus]

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

Your tactics reek of desperation, instead of trying to find a way to protect the cult at all costs by making up what isn't being said, you should pay attention to what is being said.

 

[madfoot]

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.

Aren't most of these sources you're naming corroborating the same story? If not, I think this helps the claims of "da troofers" rather than hurting them. >_>

 

[beachnut]

Aren't most of these sources you're naming corroborating the same story? If not, I think this helps the claims of "da troofers" rather than hurting them. >_>

911 truth claims are delusional. 911 truth can use anything about anything to corroborate their delusions; they are good at it.

What is the same story?

 

[Zeuzzz]

911 truth claims are delusional. 911 truth can use anything about anything to corroborate their delusions; they are good at it.

What is the same story?

Are you female or male beachnut?

I think I might love you

 

[madfoot]

9/11 truthers aren't on trial here. The disagreement is whether or not calling the official story "the official story" is dishonest. I don't think that's the case.

 

[Pantaz]

Aren't most of these sources you're naming corroborating the same story? ...

You seem to believe there is something akin to a book published by the government, laying out the events of the day, and all of the "official" reports and films must adhere to its outline. There isn't.

And, before you or anyone else says, "the 9/11 Commission Report":
1) Check the publication date and compare it to when each of the afore mentioned sources originally appeared.
2) Learn about the actual contents of each of those sources, not what somebody told you they contain.
3) Spend some time with the 9/11 Commission Report -- I'll bet it's not at all what you think it is.

 

[The Platypus]

Aren't most of these sources you're naming corroborating the same story? If not, I think this helps the claims of "da troofers" rather than hurting them. >_>

What he's naming are different independent groups and individuals whose investigations or contributions to them, all lead to the same conclusion, which shows that there isn't some "official story" just being dictated by a single "official" source for self interest.

Of course in the mind of any 911 CTer everything helps the claims of their cult brethren, even when it totally doesn't...

 

[The Platypus]

9/11 truthers aren't on trial here. The disagreement is whether or not calling the official story "the official story" is dishonest. I don't think that's the case.

Oh but they are relevant to all this, for they are the ones that created and obsessively use this dishonest caricature of what is simply reality.

Why am i not surprised that you don't think this is the case... gee, i wonder...

Since you don't think it's the case, and see nothing dishonest about it, then maybe you can answer some simple questions about it. Such as for openers, define what is mean't by official story, who wrote this official story, where can i find a copy of it, what or who makes it official, how did whoever wrote it get the vastly different groups and people, experts, witnesses, etc, to go agree to go along this official story, why are people in 911 cults so obsessed with using the term constantly, if not to dishonestly manipulate?

 

[ozeco41]

9/11 truthers aren't on trial here....

Whatever that means....

...The disagreement is whether or not calling the official story "the official story" is dishonest....

The dishonesty in that claim is the one you commit. There is no "official story" singular, one entity. That is a creation of truthers for dishonest motives. You are presuming that the truther claim that there is an "official story" is true. It isn't and anyone who, knowing that there is no such thing as an "official story", claims that there is is telling a deliberate untruth. There is a word for that practice - it is "lying".

You commit the same dishonesty by referring to "the official story" (singular) as if such an entity exists.

Let's test your honesty. What is this "official story" you refer to?

Is it documented in a single authoritative source? The structure of your claims implies that there is an "official story". Please tell is where it is and where we can access it. Or admit that you are being untruthful and stop telling untruths.

Your call.

... I don't think that's the case.

...what you think is not a relevant issue.

 

[Justin39640]

Official story: High speed jetliner impacts and giant fires weakens steel structures to the point of collapse.

Truthers don't really care about the numbers involved in coming to that conclusion. They lump anyone who agrees with that into the same category. Even if different theories have different numbers.

 

[madfoot]

What he's naming are different independent groups and individuals whose investigations or contributions to them, all lead to the same conclusion

Aka, an official story. This isn't complicated. >_>

 

[Robrob]

Aka, an official story. This isn't complicated. >_>

Rather than using the weasel words "official story" with its implication there is some sort of guidance in the telling. Why not simply call it what it is, what really happened on 9/11 - as opposed to the fantasy of what happened on 9/11?

 

[ozeco41]

What he's naming are different independent groups and individuals whose investigations or contributions to them, all lead to the same conclusion,

Aka, an official story. This isn't complicated. >_>

Interesting shift of goalposts madfoot.

BUT the way you are heading many of us would probably agree with.

...great to see you leaving the trutherisms behind.

Tho' it is a stretch of the English language to call a "consensus of views" an "official story".

Don't fall off as you change horses...

 

[Foolmewunz]

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

Only if you let it. We let them co-opt the term "truth", so that word now has a ridiculously hollow ring to it.

There's no single document out there that is "The Official Story of What Happened on 9/11/2001 and the Events That Led Up to It". There are, however, the 911 Commission and the NIST report. And couple that with some of the research on intelligence gathering and failures thereof, and I think we have a pretty good narrative.

19 dedicated fundie Islamist terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into (or attempted to fly them into in the one case) symbols of American power and hegemony, as they viewed them. That's what happened. That's what caused the buildings to collapse (plus those damaged collaterally by the debris from the towers).

All the nitpicking and what if and obfuscation of the TM cannot change that. If they want to try to make it into an "Official Story" then let them cite the document that lays out that Official Story. It doesn't exist. Just as The Offical Story of World War II also does not exist.

 

[sylvan8798]

Aren't most of these sources you're naming corroborating the same story? If not, I think this helps the claims of "da troofers" rather than hurting them. >_>

Contrary to popular truther opinion everyone does not get to have their own unique version of the events of the day. One set of events transpired.

 

[WildCat]

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

How about "the accepted course of events"? As opposed to the Looney Toons truther version.

 

[WildCat]

Are you female or male beachnut?

I think I might love you

That's him in his avatar...

 

[The Platypus]

Aka, an official story. This isn't complicated. >_>

If it's not that complicated then why did you ignore all questions asked, and instead continue use the cult brainwashing technics of offering nothing but repeating your cult mantra over and over?

Aka an official story, by who? Dishonest CT cult people that's who. Meanwhile everyone outside the cult simply calls it what happened...

The dishonest intention is clear and obvious, and you are showing me how dishonest it is even moreso, with more of the standard tired old dishonest tactics of handwaves, dodging questions and simply chanting the cult mantra over and over.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Aren't most of these sources you're naming corroborating the same story? If not, I think this helps the claims of "da troofers" rather than hurting them. >_>

These sources all corroborate the narrative that has the attacks planned and executed by al-Qaeda, and the various building collapses happening as a result of those attacks. However, the dishonest part is referring to this narrative as "official", in the sense that it implies that this narrative was originated by officialdom. It was not; rather, it was originated by being what actually happened. It was not concocted, but discovered, by official government bodies among others. And, as a result, what we would expect is what actually occurred: every rigorous analysis of any part of the attacks carried out in a responsible fashion supports the same underlying narrative.

And the point you raise is another pernicious result of characterising it as "the official story": the truther heads-I-win, tails-you-lose proof. If everyone agrees with the official story, then it proves that the government has rigidly enforced its own interpretation of events, and if not everyone agrees with it then the interpretation is disproven. In other words, any possible set of circumstances is interpreted as evidence for the conspiracy.

Dave