Supporters of 911-Official Story: Explain your method of rationalizing those things that are ignored

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


There is a story that we were told by officials.

What would you rather we call that story told by officials?

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Well as the steelwork at the other side of the building was less damaged that could have provide just enough resistance to stop the topple also if you look at some of the videos of the start of the collapse that whole section drops.

Link to a video from about 2:00 in you see a close up of the collapse
upper part drops rotates slightly then area below impact starts to give way due to the load the upper part drops almost straight.

Its just too bad all the firechiefs there were not worried about the upper section collapsing unless it burned for several hours, WHICH IT DIDN'T.

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

There is a story that we were told by officials.

What would you rather we call that story told by officials?

I don't think that's why it's called the "official story". The use is adjectival, connoting authority, mainly governmental. It's also designed to suggest that there is one single, unchanging story. A brief look through the different conclusions and emphases of some of the agencies shows that to be untrue.

Richard Gage is an official in AE911. That doesn't mean his narrative forms part of the OS does it?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

There is a story that we were told by officials.

What would you rather we call that story told by officials?

I don't think that's why it's called the "official story". The use is adjectival, connoting authority, mainly governmental.

That is what you think. Thanks anyway.

It's also designed to suggest that there is one single, unchanging story. A brief look through the different conclusions and emphases of some of the agencies shows that to be untrue.

Just because the story is made up of different little stories does not mean what you are trying to say. How many different official reports claim to explain what initiated the collapse? How many official reports claim to explain what lead up to and allowed this to happen? How many official reports claim who the perps were and what they did? Do we have many different versions of these things?

No, we have one version of each of these events. Each of these versions can be traced back to some official in the government that told this particular version.

You are confused. There is ONE UNCHANGING STORY made up of little unchanging stories about different aspects of what happened.

How many terrorists do you think there were? Who were they? What was there purpose? How did they pull it off? Please answer these for me and I think you will see why you are wrong.

Richard Gage is an official in AE911. That doesn't mean his narrative forms part of the OS does it?

Nope. Asking that means you have a comprehension problem.

reply to post by Lillydale


But I can point you to examples of where one official (by which I mean governmental) body disagrees (usually over matters of detail and emphasis) with another. They're clearly not all singing from the same hymn sheet. It just suits you to make the assumption that they are so you can construct a vast straw man to tilt at. Furthermore, you (all of you) like the connotations of "official" because you think it means that every aspect of the narrative must be "proved" as concrete fact. Again, this is nonsense.

And do try not to be continuously offensive.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by Lillydale

 

But I can point you to examples of where one official (by which I mean governmental) body disagrees (usually over matters of detail and emphasis) with another. They're clearly not all singing from the same hymn sheet.

So you know for a fact that parts of the "Official Story" contradict each other and you still believe it? How do you know which part to believe out of the contradictory statements?

it just suits you to make the assumption that they are so you can construct a vast straw man to tilt at. Furthermore, you (all of you) like the connotations of "official" because you think it means that every aspect of the narrative must be "proved" as concrete fact. Again, this is nonsense.

Why is it wrong to want proof?

And do try not to be continuously offensive.

Can you try to be smarter?

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
How could I believe something that I don't think exists?

The Kean Commission Report doesn't exist? FEMA report doesn't exist? NIST report doesn't exist?

Or are you denying that these are all official federal government-sponsored reports?


Or are you just infinitely antagonistic?


I can predict that even though you totally understand these reports both exist and are all "official" due to their official sponsoring by the federal government, you will still deny an "official story" exists because yes, you ARE infinitely antagonistic, will never concede a point so long as you can help it without losing that last shred of credibility that keeps us arguing with you in the first place, and in extreme denial. When you won't even acknowledge your beliefs are simply extrapolations of the government's story, that is pretty sad.

[edit on 12-2-2010 by bsbray11]

The reason I get most from people who support the official story is:

"I do not believe our government is competent enough to do something like this and hide it so well"


They believe the government is not competent enough to pull this kind of operation off.....it's hard to argue with them on that point...then they just go on about your whole idea of a "conspiracy" as offensive.

Originally posted by Nick_X
The reason I get most from people who support the official story is:

"I do not believe our government is competent enough to do something like this and hide it so well"

They believe the government is not competent enough to pull this kind of operation off.....it's hard to argue with them on that point...then they just go on about your whole idea of a "conspiracy" as offensive.

Funny thing this is exactly what I hear from people too. At first glance it seems logical, but then you gotta remind them of Kennedy. That is not always going to get people thinking so remind them of other countries like say Hitler-Germany and the Reichstag. Most people will have no idea what you are talking about, so at last you have to reference the plethora of military personnel, scientists, pilots, foreign countries, and 9/11 victims that don't by the official BS. If that doesn't work, nothing will.

reply to post by Nick_X


The entire government may not seem competent with things like social security, but small elite military units, and groups of wealthy and powerful individuals like the Bilderbergs, sure as hell are competent and can get things done.

Originally posted by bsbray11

The Kean Commission Report doesn't exist? FEMA report doesn't exist? NIST report doesn't exist?

They exist.

Can you show me where they are collected in something called the "OS", apart from in your fevered imaginings?

Or are you denying that these are all official federal government-sponsored reports?

No. But you don't want it that way. You want the media involved as well. Except not when they don't conform to your notion of the "OS". And foreign governments. And the FBI. Except when they all drift off message as well.

In other words the "OS" is a construct of your own, a shorthand at best, and at worst a wilfully simplistic straw man that can be used to create non-existent "inconsistencies".

Point to me where someone official has used the term Official Story. Until then it's suspect currency.

I can predict that even though you totally understand these reports both exist and are all "official" due to their official sponsoring by the federal government, you will still deny an "official story" exists because yes, you ARE infinitely antagonistic, will never concede a point so long as you can help it without losing that last shred of credibility that keeps us arguing with you in the first place, and in extreme denial. When you won't even acknowledge your beliefs are simply extrapolations of the government's story, that is pretty sad.

[edit on 12-2-2010 by bsbray11]

Wow. Psych 101 is, like, totally mind blowing dude.

Government incompetence is what they want us to think,obviously.Do you know what the most perfect example of a sphere is?It is a Quartz ball made to form the basis for the gyroscope to be sent off into space.It is as perfectly round as any actual object.Made by a NASA contractor.Incompetent?Naah.Only when they want to appear so.Oldest trick of the shade actually.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by trueforger]

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
They exist.

Can you show me where they are collected in something called the "OS", apart from in your fevered imaginings?

Yeah. They are all federal government reports. As in, commissioned, funded, etc. by the federal government. When I say "official" I mean officially endorsed by the federal government. I mean government reports. How much more dense are you going to make yourself to keep this "argument" going?

Or are you denying that these are all official federal government-sponsored reports?

No. But you don't want it that way. You want the media involved as well.

The media parrots what they are told by "credible" sources, ie government officials. Every single day they take what some politician says for granted. Enough said.

Point to me where someone official has used the term Official Story. Until then it's suspect currency.

So unless a government official says something then it's suspicious. I already figured your intelligence level was about there but thanks for at least confirming it explicitly.

Originally posted by trueforger
Incompetent?Naah.Only when they want to appear so.Oldest trick of the shade actually.

Actually you're absolutely right. Feigning incompetence is the oldest trick in the book. Even petty criminals feign ignorance and incompetence when faced with their crimes.

From Sun Tzu's ancient classic on warfare, the Art of War:

18. All warfare is based on deception.

19. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable;
when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we
are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away;
when far away, we must make him believe we are near.

www.chinapage.com...

reply to post by Zerbst

my friend, the very first line of your post betrays a fundamental flaw that I've noticed before in those who believe that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by anyone other than Islamic terrorists. You say "I firmly believe that to accept something to be true you must explain all aspects of it." This is absolutely bogus, in pretty much any area of life, and when applied to 9/11 conspiracy theories, it's ironic that neither yourself, nor anyone else, can actually explain anyany of the details of whatever theory you happen to adhere to. Who exactly planned the supposed false flag attacks? When? How many people are involved? Why did they come up with a plan so absurd, so complex, so transparent (to the extent that the only people who haven't discovered the plot must have been living under a rock), leaving themselves open to so much risk? Why not plant some WMD's somewhere in the Iraqui desert, instead of coming up with this ludicrous & insane plan.

You say you have problems about building 7's collapse. The problem I have is why bother bringing it down by demolition at all? What's the point? Why take the extra risk? Anyone who would respond that there was some kind of control/command center in Building 7 isn't living in the real world. How deranged would the conspirators have to be to locate this vital hub, without which the whole plot falls apart, in such close proximity to where the actual attacks are taking place. Of all the places in the USA you would position your control center, the one place you avoid at all costs is some building so close to where two de facto missiles are smashing into the Towers. How could they know in advance how severe the damage will be to Building 7? What if it's worse than expected? What if fires cause them to abandon the building? What happens to the plot then? Regardless of all this, the main point here is that there is absolutely no need to bring this building down & thus massively increase the chances of the plot being exposed.

I apologise for that digression. To answer your main question, regarding belief in the "official story". There is an ocean of evidence in the years leading up to 9/11 & on the day itself, that this was an attack by Islamic terrorists on the United States. Compare this evidence with, for example, the evidence that a missile hit the Penatagon. There is literally nothing supporting the latter view. Nobody saw a missile, so anyone who holds this theory, by definition has to believe that the witnesses who did see the missile were all either killed or intimidated/paid off etc, and the many people who saw the plane hit the Pentagon are all liars. We now enter this highly dubious territory of secret teams of assassins/soldiers/God knows who, roaming around the US killing people at the behest of....who? Who are the conspirators? You can't answer this. There is no evidence for any of the claims of 9/11 conspiracy theorists. It's all speculation, and interesting though this may be, it's not reality.

An event as vast as the 9/11 attacks is bound to throw up all kinds of anomalies, inconsistencies, uncertainties. An analogy could be made with an IRA bombing from the 1970's or 80's. If you analysed it as exhaustively as 9/11 has been, you'd soon find seemingly bizarre occurrences, anomalies, - you'd be asking, why did this happen instead of that? The bomb should have caused X damage instead of Y. Life is full of completely inexplicable happenings. As for Building 7, you have your opinions, but with respect, I don't believe you're an expert in the field.

Your remark that "I consider the refusal to answer something as an admisssion of guilt" to be quite extraordinary & about as undemocratic as it gets. In the spirit of democracy, and in response to your wondering why believers in the official story don't post here, I will do so in the future,
- all the best