The NYPD lied.

Originally posted by septic

What is the official story, can anyone say?

It's a concept that Truthers have invented. In reality there is a shifting but generally consistent narrative supplied by dozens of sources.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
It's a concept that Truthers have invented. In reality there is a shifting but generally consistent narrative supplied by dozens of sources.

Are you familiar with the Jersey Widows?

"Dozens" of sources...

Classic.

Originally posted by snowcrash911


Are you familiar with the Jersey Widows?

"Dozens" of sources...

Classic.

Yes, I have. Beyond that I have absolutely no idea what your post means. Are you saying that there are not dozens of sources making up what Truthers call the "OS"? They conflate them in order to make it look more readily like a conspiracy. Simple as that.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Yes, I have.

You have familiar with the Jersey Widows? Mmmkay...

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Beyond that I have absolutely no idea what your post means.

It means that you wouldn't have any "official story" without the efforts of 9/11 families sympathetic to the original hardcore of the 9/11 Truth Movement, such as Jon Gold and Paul Thompson. The Jersey Widows pressed for the 9/11 Commission, they pressed for justice and accountability, and they were stonewalled. Initially, the Bush administration attempted to appoint Henry Kissinger as the chairman. It's an outrage they would even contemplate it. But "debunkers" don't care about that. They don't care Max Cleland resigned in protest. They don't care about executive director Philip Zelikow's blatant conflicts of interest. Or that NORAD was nearly referred to DoJ for criminal obstruction. That eventually failed to come about because they were shielded and protected, not because they were exculpated. Or that whistleblowers were silenced and ignored, confessions extracted through torture, government witnesses intimidated by "minders" or that Bush and Cheney testified together behind closed doors, or that the 9/11 Commission was underfunded.... or in the words of chairman Thomas Kean "set up to fail".

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Are you saying that there are not dozens of sources making up what Truthers call the "OS"? They conflate them in order to make it look more readily like a conspiracy. Simple as that.

There are many, many thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of sources. Saying "dozens" leads me to believe you're just saying whatever you think will come across as pensive. The onslaught of nonsensical, poorly researched claims on the internet provides plenty of ammunition for garden variety "debunkers" looking to score some easy points. Rarely do I see intellectual courage among them to venture outside the wire frame of the truther-debunker dichotomy and ponder the struggle of the 9/11 family members to hold the Bush Administration accountable for 9/11 or at the very least, their subsequent, deliberate criminal cover-up of 9/11.

Yes, many truthers make many false claims. But so do many debunkers. The unwarranted superiority complex I see in the latter group is just as easily exposed as are the spurious claims by the former.

Originally posted by -PLB-
You have to realize that to non-truthers, explosives is as crazy as.....

This is a quote from a firefighters organisation.

"Why does N.I.S.T. REFUSE to this day to test for exotic accelerants in the most heinous crime in U.S. history? With the first high rise building collapses in history, why would N.I.S.T. NOT test for accelerants? Especially, with so many indicators, one in which we have lost so many lives, so many Brothers, so many Freedoms, and our Economy. I have not found a single fire investigator who can give a reason other than they didn’t want to find exotic accelerants or they were incompetent!"

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by septic

What is the official story, can anyone say?

It's a concept that Truthers have invented. In reality there is a shifting but generally consistent narrative supplied by dozens of sources.

Official story. Two words both of which have definitions.
Official in this context means relating to a public body, that body being government.
Story in this context means an account of events.

A shifting narrative supplied by dozens of sources is a shifting narrative supplied by dozens of sources. Information of this sort is sometimes referred to as fluff.

Originally posted by snowcrash911


You have familiar with the Jersey Widows? Mmmkay...

Classy. It's petty obvious what I meant.

It means that you wouldn't have any "official story" without the efforts of 9/11 families sympathetic to the original hardcore of the 9/11 Truth Movement, such as Jon Gold and Paul Thompson. The Jersey Widows pressed for the 9/11 Commission, they pressed for justice and accountability, and they were stonewalled. Initially, the Bush administration attempted to appoint Henry Kissinger as the chairman. It's an outrage they would even contemplate it. But "debunkers" don't care about that. They don't care Max Cleland resigned in protest. They don't care about executive director Philip Zelikow's blatant conflicts of interest. Or that NORAD was nearly referred to DoJ for criminal obstruction. That eventually failed to come about because they were shielded and protected, not because they were exculpated. Or that whistleblowers were silenced and ignored, confessions extracted through torture, government witnesses intimidated by "minders" or that Bush and Cheney testified together behind closed doors, or that the 9/11 Commission was underfunded.... or in the words of chairman Thomas Kean "set up to fail".

That's rather a lot to expect me to read into a couple of lines

It's also an enormous, convoluted straw man. You have no idea what my opinion is of any of those things, nor do you know what this blanket group of "debunkers" thinks. I am in fact alarmed by several of the things you write about, and I think that there were scandalous attempts to cover up what happened in the run-up to 9/11. But apparently you prefer to take generalised and clumsy swings at a group you presumably think I'm a member of.

You're also factually wrong. There would still be an "official story" without any of those people. It would just be different.

There are many, many thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of sources. Saying "dozens" leads me to believe you're just saying whatever you think will come across as pensive. The onslaught of nonsensical, poorly researched claims on the internet provides plenty of ammunition for garden variety "debunkers" looking to score some easy points. Rarely do I see intellectual courage among them to venture outside the wire frame of the truther-debunker dichotomy and ponder the struggle of the 9/11 family members to hold the Bush Administration accountable for 9/11 or at the very least, their subsequent, deliberate criminal cover-up of 9/11.

Yes, many truthers make many false claims. But so do many debunkers. The unwarranted superiority complex I see in the latter group is just as easily exposed as are the spurious claims by the former.

I was refering to the collated sources of information and to the media's reporting of them. If you like you can reduce this to the millions of voices who have some direct experience of 9/11, but you would be putting words in my mouth, and taking issue (and, ludicrously assuming I'm trying to appear "ruminative" in a brief internet post) with something that doesn't really demand it. But to accuse me of being slipshod and even intellectually dishonest because of something like that makes me think it's actually you who is looking to prove some sort of superiority.

Um...

The official story is what was set out in the commission report.

Am I being stupid here, that's what the point of it was wasn't it?

reply to post by Kester


Really? And which firefighters organization would that be?

Uniformed Firefighters of Greater New York?
California State Association?
Dixie Firefighers Association?

etc.

Please name names.

reply to post by Kester


Is there any reason in particular why firefighters can not be truthers? If not, what is it you are trying to say? That I am wrong? Well, ok, maybe there are some non-truthers who think explosives is not a crazy idea. Hook up with them and maybe they are willing to help the utterly impotent truth movement out. Although I kind of doubt it.

Edit: In fact, there is a non-truther doing just that. His name is Chris Mohr and he is planning to get the dust tested by an independent lab for thermite. I think he requested Jones to send him a sample of the material he claim is thermite, but I rather expect Jones will decline the request, the last thing he wants is an independent test. Chris Mohr is even paying for it himself AFAIK.

reply to post by hooper


My first guess was Fire Fighters for 911 Truth, and after entering the quote in Google that was confirmed.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Classy. It's petty obvious what I meant.

To be frank, I don't think you know much about them at all. Hence the garbled response.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
That's rather a lot to expect me to read into a couple of lines

Reading makes a country smart.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
It's also an enormous, convoluted straw man.

It may have been if I'd been addressing you directly.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You have no idea what my opinion is of any of those things, nor do you know what this blanket group of "debunkers" thinks.

After eight years of 9/11 research, I damn well do have a general idea what a blanket group of debunkers think. But I'm glad you don't want me to pigeon-hole and generalize you into a generic group of "debunkers", if only you will do the same with "truthers".

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I am in fact alarmed by several of the things you write about, and I think that there were scandalous attempts to cover up what happened in the run-up to 9/11. But apparently you prefer to take generalised and clumsy swings at a group you presumably think I'm a member of.

I'm glad you're alarmed. You should be. You said:

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
It's a concept that Truthers have invented. In reality there is a shifting but generally consistent narrative supplied by dozens of sources.

This is a pretty naive, run-of-the-mill debunker style put-down, and it betrays your ignorance on the subject of 9/11.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You're also factually wrong. There would still be an "official story" without any of those people. It would just be different.

But it wouldn't be authoritative, because it would merely be an amalgam of superficial media commentary based on unverified partisan administration claims. Factually wrong? How many "dozens" of facts did I get wrong?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I was refering to the collated sources of information and to the media's reporting of them. If you like you can reduce this to the millions of voices who have some direct experience of 9/11, but you would be putting words in my mouth, and taking issue (and, ludicrously assuming I'm trying to appear "ruminative" in a brief internet post) with something that doesn't really demand it. But to accuse me of being slipshod and even intellectually dishonest because of something like that makes me think it's actually you who is looking to prove some sort of superiority.

Yes, I am accusing you of being slipshod and intellectually dishonest. I'm not out to prove my own superiority though - as always, I'm protesting the rampant historical revisionism and the illusion of epistemological completeness on the part of self-styled pseudoskeptics. At other times, I put conspiracy theorists in their place, since what matters is not the conspiracy element of any claim, but the factual accuracy. As I said in another thread, there is a realm between conspiratorial paranoia and gullible naivete, I'm glad you appear to agree.

But, without any effort whatsoever to really delve into the historical record and explore 9/11 in every detail, you display cavalier dismissal of so much as even the concept of an official story, as outlined in the NIST reports, the FEMA reports, the 9/11 Commission report, the JICI report, the CIA inspector general report, the FBI inspector general report, the Pentagon Building Performance Report, the Arlington County After Action Report, and the myriad of official documents available through NARA.

All of which have extensive footnotes, and we haven't even delved into the mainstream media archive, or the alternative media archive. Or the activist archive. "Dozens" of sources? Your excuse for this mishap does not convince. My advice?

Jon Gold’s Official 9/11 Justice Start Up Kit

I think some humility is in order, when engaging the lesser minds in the 9/11 research arena, as you did, with an overly generous helping of hubris.

Cheers.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by hooper

 

My first guess was Fire Fighters for 911 Truth, and after entering the quote in Google that was confirmed.

Yeah, not exactly what I would refer to as a "firefiighters organization". These are the little lies that go to make a good conspiracy. Calling a truther cult cirlce a "firefighters orgnization".

Originally posted by hooper
Yeah, not exactly what I would refer to as a "firefiighters organization". These are the little lies that go to make a good conspiracy. Calling a truther cult cirlce a "firefighters orgnization".

Since Erik Lawyer is a firefighter, your statement is inaccurate. Here are his signatories, which include quite a lot of firefighters.

Now, are Erik Lawyer's claims factually correct? Debate that all you like. But he is a firefighter and he is running a firefighter association, and his references to the NFPA are certainly reasonable.

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by hooper
Yeah, not exactly what I would refer to as a "firefiighters organization". These are the little lies that go to make a good conspiracy. Calling a truther cult cirlce a "firefighters orgnization".

Since Erik Lawyer is a firefighter, your statement is inaccurate. Here are his signatories, which include quite a lot of firefighters.

Now, are Erik Lawyer's claims factually correct? Debate that all you like. But he is a firefighter and he is running a firefighter association, and his references to the NFPA are certainly reasonable.

Sorry, this is a truther cult circle, it has nothing to do with the profession of firefighting. Calling it a firefighter's association is a lie. By the way love the signatories, didn't know there were so many people named "xxxxxx".

Originally posted by hooper
Sorry, this is a truther cult circle, it has nothing to do with the profession of firefighting. Calling it a firefighter's association is a lie. By the way love the signatories, didn't know there were so many people named "xxxxxx".

Actually, the man is a firefighter and so are many of his petition signatories.

You have your own cult, the hundred-percenter cult, which compels you to view all issues in black and white, and all dissenters as enemies of the state. Calling everybody "cultist" without reasonable motivation is a mental shortcut for lesser minds. Cultist behavior is prevalent in many circles, "truthers" as well as "debunkers".

Some of his questions are legitimate, and some of NIST's behavior is inexcusable.

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by hooper
Sorry, this is a truther cult circle, it has nothing to do with the profession of firefighting. Calling it a firefighter's association is a lie. By the way love the signatories, didn't know there were so many people named "xxxxxx".

Actually, the man is a firefighter and so are many of his petition signatories.

You have your own cult, the hundred-percenter cult, which compels you to view all issues in black and white, and all dissenters as enemies of the state. Calling everybody "cultist" without reasonable motivation is a mental shortcut for lesser minds. Cultist behavior is prevalent in many circles, "truthers" as well as "debunkers".

Some of his questions are legitimate, and some of NIST's behavior is inexcusable.

Labeling the quote as being from a firefighters association is a lie.

Originally posted by MaxSteiner
Um...

The official story is what was set out in the commission report.

Am I being stupid here, that's what the point of it was wasn't it?

As I understand it the commission report was supposed to be the official 9/11 narrative brought into one place so we could all sit down and read it. However some representatives of the families of the deceased are reported to have said it didn't answer their questions, on the contrary it created a whole set of new questions.
When discussing the technical details of the WTC disaster the NIST report is the relevant official story. This thread is about physical evidence recovered from the WTC. Therefore the NIST report is the relevant official story. Information in the NIST report should be able to shed some light on how this evidence came to be in this condition.

Originally posted by hooper
Labeling the quote as being from a firefighters association is a lie.

It's an association of firefighters founded for an activist purpose. Just one that rubs you the wrong way. Think of them what you may, they are an association and they do have firefighters who signed their petition.

Of course, given the sensitivity of firefighters and 9/11, this causes some to break out in a hissy fit.

I've seen no such indignation over the treatment of the 9/11 first responders, though, who were left to die due to the United States' "anti-socialist" health care non-program. Rep. Peter King... a fine example of a true American patriot.

reply to post by snowcrash911


If a bunch of policemen were to start a football team, would you call it a police organization or a football team? The only difference is that these firefighter have another hobby.