Is the frase " official story" or "official report" a confirmation of a cover up about the real

Official story= The uncomplete story?

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...

official story to me is well just that some one who is officially telling a story.
a work of fiction.. hence the term story..
another fnord and play on words to play on the minds of the people

sto·ry/ˈstôrē/Noun
1. An account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment: "an adventure story".

reply to post by sprocket2cog


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.

reply to post by stavis

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?

reply to post by sprocket2cog


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?

reply to post by lifeissacred


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?

reply to post by stavis


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.

reply to post by sprocket2cog


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.

reply to post by stavis


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.

reply to post by lifeissacred


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.

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.