Democratic Underground in a nutshell

[nomo]

Clearly you have more than mortal knowledge. So why was it locked, then? Enlighten us, nomo. The suspense is killing me.

How the hell should I know? And why the fuck should I give a damn? I don't hang out at DU. Just looking at the page, it seems that at post #11, someone started frothing at the mouth.

[MacCruiskeen]

Apart from completely missing the point (again), you're still not answering the question.

Naive and inconsequential

In what way, precisely? Specify.

And then answer the question:

does ANYONE still believe the official 9-11 story? Much less the Commission report?

[nomo]

Sooooo not going there.

[MacCruiskeen]

Anti-mudfest nomo said, frothing at the mouth:

How the hell should I know? And why the fuck should I give a damn? I don't hang out at DU. Just looking at the page, it seems that at post #11, someone started frothing at the mouth.

So, while introducing the f-word to this thread, you admit that:

a) You in fact haven't a clue why that DU thread was locked; and

b) You were in fact just pretending to know that it wasn't locked because of the original post.

This does [duhs?] wonders for your credibility, nomo.

[Jeff]

Has "official story" been added to the dustbin yet?

[MacCruiskeen]

Why should it be, Jeff?

[Jeff]

It's purposefully contentless. It's a rhetorical means of discounting disagreement en masse without defending one's one argument.

People are accused of supporting the "official story" if they simply assert that planes struck the towers.

[MacCruiskeen]

So how should people be referring to the account given by the country's leading officials, if not as "the official account"? There has to be some way of referring to it in passing -- in a blog comments box, for example -- that doesn't involve writing a ten-page essay every time.

I know, by the way, that the [whatever we're going to call it] is vague, incomplete, and very fuzzy on the details, and probably deliberately so. These are among the reasons it deserves to be contested, and it's hard to contest a thing if it can't be named.

[Searcher08]

So how should people be referring to the account given by the country's leading officials, if not as "the official account"? There has to be some way of referring to it in passing -- in a blog comments box, for example -- that doesn't involve writing a ten-page essay every time.

I know, by the way, that the [whatever we're going to call it] is vague, incomplete, and very fuzzy on the details, and probably deliberately so. These are among the reasons it deserves to be contested, and it's hard to contest a thing if it can't be named.

I always like the term OCT
Official Conspiracy Theory

It captures that so much of 9-11 was about Officials Conspiring...

[MacCruiskeen]

Jeff wrote:

It's a rhetorical means of discounting disagreement en masse without defending one's one argument.

Well, certainly not in every case. In most cases, it's merely a neutral shorthand way of referring to the version of events given to the world by the US government. That version (vague, partial, incomplete and implausible as it is) has to be referred to somehow.

People are accused of supporting the "official story" if they simply assert that planes struck the towers.

Yes, accused by idiots or disinfo merchants. But exactly the same idiotic accusation would be made even if "the official account" were to be given another name -- any other name. Such as "OCT", for example, or (I guess) any other name you care to suggest.

[Jeff]

So how should people be referring to the account given by the country's leading officials, if not as "the official account"? There has to be some way of referring to it in passing -- in a blog comments box, for example -- that doesn't involve writing a ten-page essay every time.

The problem is when it's used as a test of faith, as it was in the DU post, because there is a Truth catechism that 9/11 skeptics dissent from at risk of being shunned by "the Movement."

Yes or no, do you believe the Official Story? That's the way to a worthless conversation without agreement beforehand about what constitutes "Official Story." And except for the most extreme contrarians, everyone is going to find some agreement with the "Official Story." Officially, Flight 77 struck the Pentagon. Unofficially, some unnamed wealthy people became wealthier thanks to 9/11 insider trading. I believe both. So how should I answer Yes or no, do you believe the Official Story?

[MacCruiskeen]

The problem is when it's used as a test of faith, as it was in the DU post,

I don't think it was being used as "test of faith" there. The question was perfectly reasonable, and easy to rephrase more longwindedly: "Is there anyone -- except the inevitable diehards who will "believe" anything their rulers tell them, even if it's self-contradictory or demonstrably false -- who finds the US government's explanation of 9/11 adequate or convincing?"

Yes or no, do you believe the Official Story? That's the way to a worthless conversation without agreement beforehand about what constitutes "Official Story."

Complete agreement on that question can never be found, because the "Official Account" has been left deliberately vague, partial and incomplete. But it has been left that way by the people who delivered it to us, and they are responsible for the state it's in. And the officialest presentation of that account (the Commission report) is admitted to be inadequate even by those who concocted it.

everyone is going to find some agreement with the "Official Story."

Well, obviously. For instance: the worst damage was done in New York, the attacks took place on September 11th, many people were killed by falling buildings, etc., etc, etc. There are so many true statements in the Official Account that it would be very hard to list them all.

Officially, Flight 77 struck the Pentagon. Unofficially, some unnamed wealthy people became wealthier thanks to 9/11 insider trading. I believe both. So how should I answer Yes or no, do you believe the Official Story?

Well, clearly you should answer "No"; because you're the author of The Coincidence Theorists' Guide (and much else besides), which shows in great detail why the Official Account[s] cannot be believed. The fact that there are true and plausible elements in that Account (planes, Arabs, incompetence, the weather, etc.) does not make it any less of a lie in toto.

Most false alibis contain elements that are true. If a suspect tells the police "I was at home with my wife all Monday night", then it might well be true that he was at home with his wife on Monday night; but if he in fact nipped out for even a few minutes that night, then the police are justified in saying that he gave them a false account . And it's entirely irrelevant that some of that account, and indeed nearly all of it, was true.

From the 9/11 Commission Report, page 1:

Tuesday, September 11, 2001, dawned temperate and nearly cloudless in the eastern United States.

I agree wholeheartedly that this is true. So am I now obliged to say "I don't know if I agree with the Official Account or not"? Clearly not.

[Jeff]

Yes or no, do you believe the Official Story? That's the way to a worthless conversation without agreement beforehand about what constitutes "Official Story."

Complete agreement on that question can never be found, because the "Official Account" has been left deliberately vague, partial and incomplete. But it has been left that way by the people who delivered it to us, and they are responsible for the state it's in. And the officialest presentation of that account (the Commission report) is admitted to be inadequate even by those who concocted it.

Then maybe it would be more constructive and less confrontational to ask not, Do you believe the Official Story? but rather something like, Do you believe there remain unanswered questions? 9/11 activists used to talk about questions. Today, too often, they sound as though they have all the answers. And that's a political cult.

[Eldritch]

While I agree that many "9/11 Truthers" behave as though they have all the answers and that this seems uncomfortably like a political cult, the term "official story" seems to me to refer more to the dogmatic narrative that has been promulgated by "officialdom"—which itself forms a political cult.

The biggest political cult in this country, in fact.

Questioning the dogma of that narrative is to question the primacy of that official political cult.

Which is why I question it.

[Jeff]

Questioning the dogma of that narrative is to question the primacy of that official political cult.

Agreed, and well said.

I'd just like to find a jargon-free zone, somewhere.