I have wondered about the phrase "official story" and think the phrase itself is a statement that in fact it is another story which, for various
reasons, can not be told. I think there are lots of different reasons for this behavior, and depending on what has happened there is the possibility
that the so-called conspiracy theories are born.
But the other part is this phrase "official story" a way to "create" conspiracy theories, and ensuring that the exact release as much information
as necessary to keep the "conspiracy story" alive.
There are lots of examples and every time I hear the phrase "official story" in connection with the reporting of different events, I get the feeling
that it is the same so to say, "the false story" or "Truth is the secret".
I'm not saying this is the case every time the phrase is used, but it can also be used initially before you really know what happened. But however I
think the phrase is so fit it into some context other than the cover-up of a sequence of events as authorities for various reasons do not want the
public to know. I think that phrase is an acknowledgment that there is a different story than that told me about this phrase is not supplemented by
more information as time goes on in connection with the reporting of the incident.
So what do you think the phrase "official story" really tell you? think about it...
I cant stop thinking that the frase is a statement that their infact is another story to tell besides the official one. The whole sentence sounds
untruthfull? why not just say: the story is? I mean it is an understatment in there that dont belong I think.
Yes, they use that phrase, because they are part of 911 truth they believe the official stance on those events is a story , so by using the phrase,
they are implying that it is not the facts.. but im sure that some one who was officially making a statement on behalf of the government or such would
use the term official report or official statement
words are every thing.. its like a phrase seen here in Australia, "roads to recovery" when they are fixing the roads they put up that sign a lot, to
me its a fnord, do roads really lead to recovery?, or or they part of the problem?
it depends on your point of view.
Possibly, though from my point of view it seems more likely to imply 'we don't know' rather than 'we know but we're not going to tell you'.
Interesting how when one looks at historical events in most cases when there is a decent amount of conspiracy theories or skepticism regarding said
event there is a general usage of the word 'official' by established sources, possibly to give credence to that which is not credible, who knows?
I understand what you mean but it is precisely this that makes me think about the sentence meaning. There are other alternative phrases that could be
used that would not leave room for speculation. But maybe that is the point that the media want to create an interest in maintaining the public's
interest? Why do you create room for suspicion if there is no reason for it? I find this interesting for several reasons. It is remarkable that the
authorities and the media chooses phrases such as this. It seems very well thought out and I wonder why?
yes I have thought about the same thing BUT why not just simply say: just that? it´s like som strange need of coplicate the most simple facts? I
learned there are some ways to minimize the risk of the truth. Talking about an event or being unable to answer questions can easily be avoided by
"refer to the official" story. The detail is often poor and seems to be produced for that no questions can be difficult to answer? I mean if they dont
know why not simply say: we dont moore than this?
edit on 24-4-2011 by stavis because: edit for credit
yeh, dont get me wrong, do i belive there is something fishy about the events on 911. yes i do.
and yes they most likly use the phrase to subconsciously make people doubt the explanations given by official channels.
if i tell you its a story. well part of you automatically thinks hey its just a story. its not really the truth..
but yes the choice of words is something i watch alot on tv and other media.. it helps show the length they will go to.
I agree with you that 911 is a cover-up. I apologize if I was unclear but I believe that the phrase no matter what context it is used in the sign of
the truth being withheld for various reasons. It is precisely this type of report that shows that what happened to the public is well thought out to
avoid difficult situations when questions are asked about whats happend.
If they admit they don't know they lose the illusion of a benevolent entity. Governments the way they are today only survive because they have
everyone convinced that they are generally omnipotent when it comes to their security. Everytime something happens they can't explain, instead of
simply admitting it and losing that illusion they need to find a way to ensure their status as the 'sustainer' of order can be justified.
All hell would break loose if people weren't afraid to challenge their government.
I agree with even if the sentence has a broader function than simply tell the story of an event. One difference is when a country has a government
statement to make to other countries on a military event. Then I find the phrase very appropriate and easy to interpret ;This is what we decides to
tell you and the rest is no need for you to know.
edit on 24-4-2011 by stavis because: (no reason given)
seen this crap before. If they look really close to what the WTC detonators going off they'll see it. Aside from the slow realizing of what brought
down those trade centers, who pulled the trigger is none other than the Globalists or the US government. These terrorists are just a bunch of US
agents on a suicide mission to crash the economic situation even faster in the US.
The phrase itself is no more meaningful than the word "truther" or the phrase "truth movement."
It's just a convenient way to label things.
The "official story" as far as I know consists of:
-- The Kean Commission Report (whose own members later said was stonewalled and not an accurate picture)
-- The FEMA WTC Report (which was a "preliminary" report on the WTC destruction)
-- The NIST WTC Report (the "final" federal government report on the WTC commissioned by Congress)
Between those three things, yes, it is a very incomplete picture. One example is all I need to prove the incompleteness: ignoring scores of witness
testimonies of explosions. Despite these testimonies existing from a variety of sources, from live 9/11 footage to FDNY transcripts obtained by the
New York Times, none of those three reports mention anything about them.
So in that sense yes, there was obviously a cover-up. There was never an investigation into the explosions and they were basically dismissed
out-of-hand and ignored from the start.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.