Fellow debunkers: We should always challenge Truthers when they refer to "the official story."

Since their basic premises are usually wrong, there's really no need to waste time debunking Truthers. An excellent example is their use of the term "official story."

When Truthers say something is the "official story," they are telling you their impression of the official story. It's what they sort of think the government sort of says. It's just something the Truther makes up in his head--and it's probably different for every Truther.

As always, what the Truthers are doing is setting up a strawman and knocking it down. But--since there is no "official story" for 9/11--the Truthers cannot offer a single shred of evidence that something really is the government story.

They made it all up. No wonder they think the cover story is so lame!

The best a Truther will be able to do is show you some document which he has completely misinterpreted. If he does this, you can debunk it.

The official story is just another mythical beast which must be slain by the intrepid skeptic. If you debunk that, you don't have to waste time refuting the other stuff. (Not that it all hasn't been disproven a thousand times.)

http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

What's gotten into you Perry?!?!?

Perhaps you may not realize this, because of your **ahem** peculiar relationship to the reality based community, but there is an official story that is being referred to.

Major Clue Alert!!! It's called the Report of The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. This Commission is commonly known to reality based community members as the 9-11 Commission, and its report is commonly known as the 9/11 Commission Report.

Serious question: Perry were you aware of that fact?

Have you ever sat through one of Logan's videos?

They give new meaning to the term STATE OF AWARENESS. I'd be interested in seeing a MRI of that

slogging through one of your ponderously long, incoherent posts, SLAD. Pot calling the kettle black?

NOTHING can compare to that! And I know ugly facts with links are always hard to look at especially with your eyes closed.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Open your eyes bolo

Did ya know that bolo?


http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5ji6oBY4TwQm8QsHw2uaY-mYE3Kmw

The one in your post? You mean the one with the very misleading tagline? The one that says, "Never forget that no plane hit this building"? You mean the tagline that SHOULD say, "Never forget that this building was extensively damaged by the collapse of an adjacent building and was on fire for hours with no firefighting until it finally collapsed"? THAT visual?


And you wonder why "truthers" aren't taken seriously. Your "visual". at the very least, is exceedingly intellectually dishonest, especially in how it doesn't even start until AFTER the mechanical penthouses have already collapsed. You should be embarrassed but, of course, you're not.

And tonight, on Air America, the report will be deconstructed for you, should you care to listen;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=206312&mesg_id=206312

Here is some serious criticism of the Report;

http://youtube.com/view_play_list?p=605E68182CFB244A

More detail here;

http://www.911blogger.com/node/14030

Go ahead and deny the Official Story. In the meantime, it will be deconstructed.

The Official Story is real, therefore, you have falsely ascribed a position to the 9/11 Truth movement, and then you encourage your "fellow debunkers" are encouraged to perpetuate.

How is this not a "strawman argument"?

Oh wait, you are in denial of that too, aren't you?

within and between themselves.

On edit: that is one of the man reasons that there are "9/11 skeptics" - they cannot believe the official story or stories because of the contradictions.

paul thompson's complete 9/11 timeline documents at least seven different accounts of the military's action (or non-action) on the morning of the attacks.

obviously, if there are 7 different stories, at least six of them are lies.

...

when i was researching bush's actions on 9/11, i found seven different accounts of how bush learned about the first crash (including bush's claim -- which he made twice -- that he saw it on live television).

...

looking at 9/11, we see this time and time again. for every event, the govt. has offered at least two different (and usually contradictory) accounts.

don't really have to defend anything at all. We should instead spend our time attacking anyone who would dare question the sanctity of the official justification for our neverending war on terror. A good attack strategy is to ask 9/11 skeptics to spell out what they think happened on 9/11 so that we can point out how inane their theories are. Since we don't have any actual single consistent narrative of what happened on 9/11 ourselves, they cannot use the same tactics against us!

If there are "so many versions", as you claim, it's fairly obvious there would be no "official story".

And, yes, it is self-contradictory by design.

how is it my claim?

But then again, in contrast to the developer of the OP, I'm a fan of internally consistent logic.

first you tell me it's MY claim. Then I ask you how it's my claim, to which you respond, "you tell me". Let me make sure I get this straight. Now you want me to prove YOUR claim that it's my claim??? Please don't bother responding. BTW, your claim that you're a fan of internally consistent logic is the funniest joke I've heard all day. If you're interested, there's a great study entitled, "Unskilled and Unaware of it". It basically makes the point that people who are illogical lack the cognitive skills to understand how illogical they are. The authors probably had you in mind when they wrote it.

At least I hope you're just feigning.

mhatrw

I want the 9-11 Commission to give us our money back

and all the millions of words in bush speeches, cheney speeches, rumsfield speeches, white house press conferences, and other official utterances need to be stricken from the record.

You mention the 9/11 Commission report, but how many times has it been slandered and maligned by alternate theory advocates for being incomplete (i.e., 7 World Trade's collapse)?

I'm currently reading Phil Shenon's excellent book,"The Commission," and I recommend it to all. If the September 11th forum consisted of this kind of research and analysis, it would be a valuable part of DU.

if mentioning the "official story" is verboten. Dontcha think?

There were many events before 9/11 and there were many events on 911, and there are conclusions and narratives that one may put together from the constellation of facts.

Leaving aside everything else, taking one dead simple aspect, consider the following assertions:

1. "The Pentagon was damaged on 9/11"

2. "A flying object hit the Pentagon and damaged it"

3. "A large airplane hit the Pentagon"

4. "A Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon"

5. "Flight 77 hit the Pentagon"

6. "Flight 77, piloted by Hani Hanjour hit the Pentagon"

7. "Flight 77, piloted by Hani Hanjour hit the Pentagon, at the behest of an Islamic terror organization"

8. "Flight 77, piloted by Hani Hanjour hit the Pentagon, at the behest of an Islamic terror organization, despite warnings of a terror attack known to the US government which the US government did not heed because of ineptitude, incompetence, and poor ability to deal with reality"

Now, every single successive assertion in that sequence is inclusive of every other previous assertion.

However, each step in those assertions is a jumping off point for one group of folks or another.

Someone who says "it was not an airplane, it was an armed missile" is working at assertion number 2.

The 9/11 Commission Report is something approximate to number 8, if I understand what people have said about it. I've never read it.

A LIHOPper can go all the way to number 7.

A "remote control planer" can go all the way to number 5.

But if one is debating at the level of "whether or not an airplane hit the Pentagon", then taking the position that "an airplane hit the Pentagon" is not "defending the OCT" at level 8, it is a matter of arguing over whether it was a freaking airplane.

And that's precisely why characterizing an argument over something as basic as "whether there was an airplane" at the edge between assertions 2 and 3 as "Oh, you are a defender of the OCT" is pointless and stupid.

Those number assertions are just one Chinese restaurant menu of facts and conclusions over which people can and do argue. But being told stupid things like "so you think Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 because you love the Bush Administration" simply because I believe an airplane hit the Pentagon, is beyond idiotic.

That's why "OCT" does not advance useful discussion about any particular aspect of the events of 9/11. It is a conversation-ender, just like the "why do you hate America?" and other rhetorical conversation-enders employed by the right wing.

9/11 is only useful to justify a state never-ending war.

What does this mean?

There are all sorts of threads in the 9/11 forum that deal with aspects of the commission's investigation.

Today you say, "since there is no "official story" for 9/11..."

Review your posts over the past few years and realize you have used lack of a cohesive theory on the part of the 9/11 "Truthers" as definitive evidence to debunk CT'ers.

Now you're saying that there is no official story. You have, by your own reasoning, debunked the OCT.

By whom, the "conspiracy theorists" or the "debunkers"?

I just realized Perry Logan must be intentionally sabotaging the official story believers from within by insisting on stupefyingly wrong and surreally absurd claims, analogous to how the "no-planes" crew operates as a fake "9/11 truth" front to destroy the movement from within. It's even the same routine, in fact. There were no planes vs. there is no official story (but I will defend it against those who question it).

Good work, Agent Logan! Soon, thanks in no small part to your efforts, no one will ever take 9/11 "debunkers" seriously again.

I should have recognized Logan's double agent status sooner. Welcome, Comrade Logan!

The "official story" is a fabrication of the individual conspiracy guy's mind. It's a straw man every time.

Some of you obviously think the 9/11 Commission Report equals the official story. But I'll bet you couldn't even get all the conspiracy people to agree with you. You just jumped to the conclusion that the 9/11 Commission Report was the "official story."

Nobody jumps to conclusions like conspiracy guys. Then they say everyone else is incredibly dumb for not thinking the way they do. This is especially funny when you realize that

1) no two conspiracy guys in the world agree on anything, which means
2) that each and every conspiracy theorist in the world thinks he is the only person in the world who has got the story right (an egotism bordering on megalomania, I'd say), which proves
3) that all 9/11 conspiracy theories must be wrong, save possibly one.

If you ask two conspiracy guys what "the official story" is, they will give differing answers, start fighting with one another, and end up calling one an other CIA agents.

Debunkers should simply demand that the CT go away until he can prove that what he says is the official story is in fact the official story. He will never be able to do so, because there is no official story. In this way, he goes away and you don't have to waste any more time.

Also, I don't see where anybody disputed JR's characterization of the OCT
in the "Official Story" thread.

So not only is your reasoning effed up, you're not perceiving the facts
accurately.

Again!? :banghead:

Come on Truthers. We're tired of trying aiming at a moving target with you guys.

Have a meeting. Do up your list. But It has to be stuff you all agree on ;).

Then we'll start debunking you guys again.