Merged The "official story" meme.

[The Platypus]

What's up with that?

What official story? Nobody ever told me any "official story", and harping on the word "official" doesn't make me go all paranoid.

 

[A W Smith]

What's up with that?

What official story? Nobody ever told me any "official story", and harping on the word "official" doesn't make me go all paranoid.

its an effort by 911 trolls to equivocate using a semantic shift to put any conspiracy theory on par with the general accepted events or timeline of the day. Ergo, CT (conspiracy theory) with OCT (official conspiracy theory)

 

[The Platypus]

its an effort by 911 trolls to equivocate using a semantic shift to put any conspiracy theory on par with the general accepted events or timeline of the day. Ergo, CT (conspiracy theory) with OCT (official conspiracy theory)

Similar to the theist that claims atheism is a belief, or is faith based to demean it down to the same level as their faith based belief. But isn't this almost an admission that such a faith based belief, or in this case, conspiracy theories, is alot of nonsense?

I often find many tactics and parallels between 911 CTs and religious cults, that's why i see them as a religious type cult.

Why don't they realize that employing such a tactic, especially as much as they do, isn't fooling anyone, and actually hurts their credibility far more than it helps?

 

[ozeco41]

Similar to the theist that claims atheism is a belief, or is faith based to demean it down to the same level as their faith based belief. But isn't this almost an admission that such a faith based belief, or in this case, conspiracy theories, is alot of nonsense?

I often find many tactics and parallels between 911 CTs and religious cults, that's why i see them as a religious type cult.

Why don't they realize that employing such a tactic, especially as much as they do, isn't fooling anyone, and actually hurts their credibility far more than it helps?

Most of those posting here are (IMO) wrongly classified as truthers and are actually trolls. As such their credibility is of no concern to them. Provided whatever they post gets people biting and responding their goal is satisfied.

If there are any remaining "genuine truthers" the area where their genuine concerns could lie is in the domain of socio political management of 9/11. There is probably reasonable grounds for concern that there were aspects of incompetence or cover up which in toto could amount to LIHOP. Note I say "in toto". The very nature of governance processes says there was no one in overall control of a malicious agenda.

Now for those "genuine truthers" (if there still are any) the thing which makes me doubt their credibility and their political savvy is that they insist on tying technical false claims like CD at WTC onto what could be a genuine concern about political LIHOP. Why do it when the technical claims have all been shown to be false. Without foundation. All they do is destroy any credibility they could have and would need to support a political move on LIHOP.

Not very bright people.

...if their political claims are honestly intended

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

its an effort by 911 trolls to equivocate using a semantic shift to put any conspiracy theory on par with the general accepted events or timeline of the day. Ergo, CT (conspiracy theory) with OCT (official conspiracy theory)

It's probably also an attempt to make dismissing the generally accepted account easier by attributing the entire narrative to a "single" source that very few people have much faith in: the government.

 

[sylvan8798]

The villain in the truther narrative is always some manifestation of "the government". Bush and Cheney, the NWO, the Illuminati, Israel, The Powers That Be, etc. So part of the conspiracy itself is providing the public with a false story (a Big Lie).

All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true within itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

—Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X[1]

If the generally accepted version is seen to come from the thousands of people who lived through the day and its aftermath, it is more difficult to be convinced that all of these people are telling "small lies" independently of one another. Since there WERE thousands of direct and indirect witnesses, they must be seen as paid shills, brainwashed automatons, actual participants, etc. who are spouting what they have been ordered to by TPTB. "The Government" as the perpetrator of 9/11 is the only one with the power to cause or force all the relevant participants to carry out the lie as well as the power to threaten or kill off any would be whistleblowers.

 

[Horatius]

Similar to the theist that claims atheism is a belief, or is faith based to demean it down to the same level as their faith based belief. But isn't this almost an admission that such a faith based belief, or in this case, conspiracy theories, is alot of nonsense?

I often find many tactics and parallels between 911 CTs and religious cults, that's why i see them as a religious type cult.

Why don't they realize that employing such a tactic, especially as much as they do, isn't fooling anyone, and actually hurts their credibility far more than it helps?

Because they really do think they're being clever. You realize that what they're doing is "an admission that such a faith based belief, or in this case, conspiracy theories, is alot of nonsense", but they think you'll have to conclude, "Gee, my beliefs aren't nonsense, so theirs must not be nonsense either!"

That such a conclusion is itself nonsense simply escapes them.

 

[twinstead]

The whole "official story" nonsense is just one of the many dishonest ways truthers debate.

 

[Nursedan]

The only story that "officially" came from any semblance of a government position would probably be the 9/11 Commission Report or I guess the FEMA and NIST reports.

But that's not even relevant anyway because truthers simply say "official story" when they want to set up a strawman. Like in Loose Change when Dylan says, "according to the official story the aircraft skimmed the ground leaving a mark on the Pentagon lawn", then says that there is clearly no mark on the lawn so it must have been an inside job. Well, Dylan may have heard someone say this, but of course he never says the actual person - it just remains the omnipresent "they". It's more likely, I think, that LC just lied and needed something to counter.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

What's up with that?

What official story? Nobody ever told me any "official story", and harping on the word "official" doesn't make me go all paranoid.

I think this is yet another demonstration of sloppy thought and argumentation. Often, when truthers attack "The Official Story", they're actually referring to the majority accepted historical narrative of that day. The problem is, they tip their hand strongly by trying to attach the word "Official' onto it. They attempt to make the strawman that everything "we" know is from the government, the insinuation being that what we know could have been slanted or outright manufactured from the government. That betrays a serious and fundamental misunderstanding of all the sources of information regarding the event.

Yes, there are indeed "Official" reports. The NIST report is one. The 9/11 Commision Report is another, although I'd note that much of what was in that work was simply taken from already available sources, so it's much more an aggregation of existent knowledge rather than a generation of such. Regardless, it was assembled by a congressional body, so it's as official as it gets. But that doesn't make the entire narrative single-sourced; even the "Official" reports here aren't single sourced, but rely on a large foundation of other group's individual efforts (look at the citations in either work for validation of this).

But the narrative of 9/11 is built on much more than that. It goes back to pre-2001 reports of radical Islamic terrorism, and extends laterally out from just government sources. Original information producers, such as NEADS in NORAD, and the information distributer (in this case, Vanity Fair) is one example. Eyewitnesses who were quoted for news stories is yet another. The recipients of passenger calls from the hijacked airliners is a third (and BTW, this is what I mean by "official" reports not being single sourced. The government via FBI interviews did indeed report what the victims relatives said, but they didn't originate it. That's an important distinction). And so on, and so forth, from historians who've covered Bin Laden in the 90's, to first responders who talked to reporters, across groups like RJ Lee and the UC Davis Delta group who did independent research, to groups like Worcester Polytechnic's bunch who were contracted by NIST to study a specific issue that arose from the rubble piles (the sulfidation eroded steel). And more.

The tendrils that make up a historical narrative are far more numerous and complex than what the conspiracy narrators like to portray it as. It may be convenient for them to cast their claims as contradicting a monolithic, composed and controlled narrative, but the reality is that the real history is anything but.

 

[Zeuzzz]

The whole "official story" nonsense is just one of the many dishonest ways truthers debate.

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

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

 

[Zeuzzz]

All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true within itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

—Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X[1]

Uh oh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

Well, most of us would call it "what actually happened on 9/11" . But it doesn't make it valid calling it "the official story" that you just can't think of anything better to call it. I don't know of a name for the back of my knee joint, but that doesn't mean it's valid to call it my elbow.

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

Maybe so, but conversely that's precisely the reason truthers use it. People don't trust the government, so if it can be misrepresented that the government is the source of the commonly agreed understanding of 9/11 (rather than the combined testimony of the people there at the time, the video and audio records, the investigations by the press other independent bodies, etc. etc.), then the hope is that people won't then trust the commonly agreed understanding of 9/11. And that's the whole point here; "Official story" is fundamentally a propaganda term, designed to give negative associations to a body of knowledge in order to prompt people to reject that knowledge for spurious reasons. It's not the people who contest its use who are being dishonest.

Dave

 

[NoahFence]

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

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

We call it "what actually happened".

...beat me to it Dave!

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Or, if you want, the "generally accepted account".

 

[twinstead]

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

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

I call it the "commonly-held narrative of 9-11"

 

[uke2se]

I'd call it the truth, but that word appears to have been coopted and now seemingly means the opposite of what it used to mean.

 

[twinstead]

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

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

That's exactly the reason why truthers call it that. It's already been addressed succinctly, but it's done in order to cast doubt as if the "Government" told everybody, including experts from around the world, what to think. This of course couldn't be any more false.

 

[djlunacee]

I just call it the facts.

 

[The Platypus]

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

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

Talk about loads of garbage.

911 CTers are obviously dishonestly trying to manipulate with the term "official story", and this guy tries to turn it around on those that notice this by implying yet another dishonest CTer meme.

Which makes me think,

Now if i should never trust anything "official" because as he said, they often spew loads of garbage, then why should I trust 911 CTers, when they spew a non-stop stream lies and loads of garbage, attempting manipulate me and everyone else into their cult, with every encounter so that they can have "power and authority" over me?