Are you a "Debunker" that denies the existence of an Official Story? Here's your sign

page: 1
54
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+37 more 
posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   
I was recently surprised to learn that out of desperation, "debunkers" have begun claiming that an official government story about what happened on 9/11, doesn't even exist!

If an official story doesn't exist, of course, they'd never have the burden to prove any of it, and there would be nothing to refute. So when we ask what evidence supports the official story, instead of actually supporting their own opinions which they consider as fact, their confused response instead has become that there is no official story. Easy cop-out. And completely stupid.

On the other hand, if an official story does exist, then of course there is a burden of proof on the authorities responsibility for it, or for anyone defending it, and it would be possible to refute it. This is not acceptable for our "debunkers."

These recent "debunkers" have apparently chosen they would rather have nothing to do with any burden of proof on behalf of the government, so they either lie or unintentionally delude themselves in order to keep believing that their opinions are sufficiently justified.


Well I'd like to invite all of those people to comment on what the dictionary has to say about the words "official story." I already posed this to one resident "debunker" and haven't received a response... Kind of don't expect to.


Definition of the word "official":



official [əˈfɪʃəl]
adj
1. of or relating to an office, its administration, or its duration
2. sanctioned by, recognized by, or derived from authority an official statement
3. appointed by authority, esp for some special duty


www.thefreedictionary.com...



Definition of the word "story":


sto·ry 1 (stôr, str)
n. pl. sto·ries
1. An account or recital of an event or a series of events, either true or fictitious


www.thefreedictionary.com...



Put them together and what do you get??

"An account or recital of an event or a series of events, either true or fictitious," "sanctioned by, recognized by, or derived from authority".


By the literal definitions of the words "official" and "story," and thus "official story," the following must necessarily be associated with the "official US government story of 9/11":

The NIST Reports. -- Federal reports of Twin Towers and WTC7 commissioned by Congress after FEMA report.

The FEMA Report. -- Federal assumption of ASCE preliminary investigation on Twin Towers and WTC7.

The Kean Commission Report. -- Novel-like report talking about the politics of 9/11 resulting from Congressional committee. Several members of this commission would go on to say it was compromised by conflicts of interest and political stonewalling; that it was not an honest report. What a shock.


Those are the predominant three "research" ventures of the government, and the entire "scientific" basis of the theory that 19 hijackers flew 4 planes into 3 buildings, one of which collapsed partially (Pentagon) while 3 other buildings (WTC1, 2, 7) were completely raized by the planes and fires alone. No one else had access to the same technical data and physical evidence as these agencies, as they didn't release all of calculations and simulation data for public scrutiny or peer review.


Next time someone denies that an official story exists, show them the definition of those words, or redirect them to this thread.

I don't suspect the "debunkers" are going to be very motivated to argue with a dictionary, but it's not like I haven't been baffled by their obtuseness before.


Again,

"An account or recital of an event or a series of events, either true or fictitious," "sanctioned by, recognized by, or derived from authority".


This certainly exists.




posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


What a sheer act of desperation .

Contrary to your opinion , you are the one who is confused . You and yours are accusing the government of lies and cover-ups and crimes . As I have already told one of your bedfellows , it is YOU and YOURS that are bringing the case against the government , therefore , the burden of proof is YOUR responsibility .

And , I notice that you still refuse to address my last post to you in the other thread . What's wrong , you just can't argue with facts and choose to ignore it instead ?

This is pathetic .


+35 more 
posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


I couldn't have asked for a more perfect example of the "logic" being used by these falsers.



See what I mean, people??


okbmd, whose burden was it to write the NIST report? (The Feds)

Whose burden was it to write the FEMA report? (The Feds)

Whose burden was it to write the Kean Commission report? (The Feds)


WHOSE BURDEN WAS IT TO PROVE SOMETHING IN THESE REPORTS??


Drum roll............

The Feds.


If the burden of investigating 9/11 was EVER on the general public, why were these reports done by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT instead???


And I don't know what post you are referring to but it probably didn't even warrant a response. I was debating even replying to this post of yours. Why? Because I could easily just let it stand on its own and I don't really think anyone in their right mind would have a problem seeing the total ignorance of it.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


Is it the fact that you really just don't get it or are you pretending to not understand ???

NIST issued their report . You disagree with it and call it a conspiracy and/or cover-up .

FEMA issued their report . You disagree with it and call it a conspiracy and/or cover-up .

The Kean Commission issued their report . You disagree with it and call it a conspiracy and/or cover-up .

WHOSE burden is it to PROVE these reports are a conspiracy and/or cover-up ???

SEE WHAT I MEAN PEOPLE ???

And the post I mentioned , that you have so conveniently ignored for days now , proves you are wrong in one of your assumptions/theories . Please note that I said PROVES you are wrong .

" ...I don't really think anyone in their right mind would have a problem seeing the total ignorance of " you not realizing that the burden of proof is on the accuser , not the accused .

The accused does not have to prove his innocence .

The ACCUSER has to PROVE his guilt .

FACT .


+14 more 
posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 



Before anyone can refute these reports, they have to read and understand the "evidence" presented in them first. And I want you to know I'm laughing my ass off as I have to explain the obvious to you step-by-painful-step.


So if you have read and understand these reports, show me the "evidence" these reports provide, and I will happily refute it!!!!


Will be waiting here, falser!!



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


So , what is it you are saying ? You're not refuting the validity of these reports or you just don't understand them ?

Now , we're getting somewhere .


+4 more 
posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


I'm asking what evidence from any of these reports you would like to see refuted, particularly in regards to the buildings collapsing from planes and fire alone.


If you want me to refute the reports, you have to know what evidence they present first!


I don't see you going any damned where. I asked you to show me what to refute, and you're asking questions instead. I guess I stumped you already huh? I never said "Ask me a million rhetorical questions like a fish flapping around out of water." If I had, then maybe you would be "going somewhere."



And now the thread will degrade into rant after rant... proving that the official story didn't have any evidence to speak of to begin with.

You "debunkers" are so predictable.


I'm going to go ahead and call your defeat since you were unable to produce anything to be refuted from the reports in the first place.

And yes, that means the official story has no evidence to support it.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


Wait a minute , let me see if I have this right .

YOU disagree with the "OS" and yet you want ME to help you refute it ?


Like I said earlier , desperation .



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Where's my sign.
I don't get it.


+3 more 
posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


You already helped me to prove there is no evidence to speak of, by being unable to speak of any.

Keep crying about it.



Any other takers? okmd has already proved his failure to establish what "evidence" I'm supposed to be refuting in the first place. There is none. I'm done with him now, lest this thread reach 40 pages of useless bickering.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


I thought we were talking about the reports ? You say they are false , it is up to you to prove they are false . It is not my job to help you do yours .


+1 more 
posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by cluckerspud
Where's my sign.
I don't get it.


You wouldn't, I guess.




Don't tell me everyone is now in agreement that there is indeed an official story. I know you "debunkers" aren't that quick to reason. You're bound to keep denying it for years.


No one wants to argue why NIST, FEMA & Kean aren't "official stories" by literal definition? Really?



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
I thought we were talking about the reports ? You say they are false , it is up to you to prove they are false .



I just did.

I said there is no evidence in them to begin with that the buildings fell from planes and fires alone, and you agreed with me. Remember? The whole thing about you not being able to find any, and just asked a bunch of stupid questions instead? Yeah, that was your proof. And there's your sign in the post above.

I already said I was done responding to this nonsense. This time I'm serious.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

Originally posted by cluckerspud
Where's my sign.
I don't get it.


You wouldn't, I guess.




Don't tell me everyone is now in agreement that there is indeed an official story. I know you "debunkers" aren't that quick to reason. You're bound to keep denying it for years.


No one wants to argue why NIST, FEMA & Kean aren't "official stories" by literal definition? Really?


I still don't get it. Who's the guy with the sign? Is that is his sign? Or am I to
assume he is giving me the sign? Is it possible he was involved with the
events of 9/11?! Is that why you brought him here?!



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


You proved they were false ? Wow , I must have missed that , which post was that proof in ?

And , I agreed with you ?


Desperation ...



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by cluckerspud
I still don't get it. Who's the guy with the sign?


Bill Engvall.

Do you have any comment relevant to the OP at all? Besides that you "don't get it"?

If you honestly can't understand what the words in it mean, you're going to have to find someone else to help you. Sorry.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


Thanks for bringing common sense to this thread.

Being a Minarchist Libertarian, I would say that there are VERY few people who mistrust the government as much as I do. I think that the government fails at so many things (schooling, social security, market regulation, Medicare and Medicaid, the postal service, etc, etc, etc), it's not even funny. However, what the American government sucks at the most is covering things up.

As evidence, take a look at the failed "cover ups" of Watergate, the Iran Contra Affair, NSA warrantless surveillance, the Whitewater Scandal, just to name a few. Heck, Clinton couldn't even get a blowjob in the Oval Office without everyone finding out, and you're going to tell me the Bush Administration (quite possibly the worst administration in the last sixty years) can cover up a it's involvement in September 11?

This whole "truther" thing has run its course, and the followers are starting to notice. Maybe that's why so many of them are starting to pull at strings in the hopes that they can grab a hold of something.

I don't know, maybe I should just stay away from these 9/11 threads. I'm relatively new to this board, and I saw a truther actually challenge an individual who claimed that a close friend (or family member, I can't remember) died in the attacks to show him or her proof. I mean, come on. This is just getting sad... And offensive... But mostly sad.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Judge_Holden
 


Thanks for stopping by. But rants are a dime a dozen. I've posted some good ones myself.

Your conception of other political scandals is skewed and you have no possible way of knowing what has taken place that has still not seen the light of day. Hitler said himself that it's the big lies that people never question, out of sheer inability to imagine them to have been lies, not the small ones that are more agreeable and comprehensible to question. What Hitler did, coincidentally, was totally incomprehensible and unprecedented. And he kept the Holocaust from the majority of his own public until US generals arrived and made the Germans scoop out their own dead and bury them. Similarly the truth of 9/11 won't stay concealed forever. And if you happen to think everything is already case closed, then I refer you to the same questions I was asking okmbd.

And if the movement was dying, we wouldn't have more professionals signing their names to re-investigation petitions than ever. And we wouldn't have polls showing 1/3 of the American population believes the government covered up what really happened on 9/11, a number that is obviously much greater than it would have been in 2001.

All in all I know it's another 2 cent rant, but I would love you address the OP or something relevant about the reports mentioned in it instead. Subjects of actual substance to the ongoing debate.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


This is not fair, a low blow. Can't you see the falsers need to cling to their failed stories?

This makes them feel safe. You can count on them to turn in anyone and everyone when the shtf. They are counting on their stance to stay alive, knowing that their allegiance to lunacy is their ticket out.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


It seems as though you are referring to the series of reports pertaining to the attacks of 9/11 that were written by different entities with some official status or backing. Further there are those promulgated by the conspiratorial MSM; controlled, of course by the Government.
This means that there is not only one official story but at least several and possibly many, as the topics, objectives, and authors of these reports and news stories differ. You should state what official story you are referring to in your posts, such as the "NIST Official Story" when talking about the WTC collapses.
Maybe a comprehensive list of Official Stories is in order with a nice OS scorecard for keeping track. As you are the expert, why don't you take on this daunting task, sniffing out and listing any 911 story that smacks of officialdom. A spreadsheet highlighting main conclusions and similarities and differences would be helpful.





top topics
 
54
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join