Is it Wrong to Question the Official Story When Tragedy Strikes?

TDB's picture

Via The Daily Bell

The media says, “Jump.” And the public responds in unison, “How high?”

“As high as you ever have jumped before, except maybe after 9/11, or the Kennedy assassination.”

Of course, when there is news, it should be reported. Today it is reported sensationally, as entertainment. Is it meant to inform, or induce?

Which came first, the media’s obsession with violence, or the public demand for violence? In the 1990’s as violent crime in America dropped, the media filled more or more time slots with stories about violence.

By the end of the 90’s the public was clamoring for the government to do somethingabout what they assumed was a rising trend in violent crime.

Was that orchestrated? The government certainly benefits from a hysterical public begging them to help. It certainly gives the government an important role in the daily life of an average citizen. But this alone doesn’t mean that it was a conspiracy. Acknowledging that the government benefitted from the media’s overreporting of crime is not the same as suggesting the government actively pushed the media to do so.

But why not wonder? Exercise those thought processes.

It is a known fact that thousands of journalists were at one time on the payroll of the CIA. It was called Operation Mockingbird, and agents would place false stories in publications like the New York Times, and Time.

So when it comes to the case of the fake 90’s crime wave, it makes sense to wonder if a similar program still exists. The courts have ruled that FBI agents can legally impersonate journalists in the course of an investigation.

Do we need to discover the actual program in order to speculate? Well, I certainly wouldn’t say that it is happening without knowing for sure. But we can acknowledge a historical fact and draw a parallel between that and a similar contemporary trend. In such circumstances, it makes sense to be skeptical.

Either way, we shouldn’t fall prey to the media’s manipulations about such things, regardless of the catalyst. So why not remind people that in the past, lies from the government shaped public opinion?

But there are some cases when questioning, wondering, and speculating is considered downright wrong.

When it is most important to speak freely, you can’t.

How do I walk the line between my inherent mistrust of the government media complex and sincere compassion and empathy for victims of tragedy?

Is it wrong to question official narratives after a tragic event? Is it disrespectful to wonder if there isn’t more to the story? Should I censor myself to avoid appearing insensitive, when I want to talk about inconsistencies in the media tale, or the motives that various groups could have to lie about such events?

I think it is especially important to be able to talk freely when it comes to tragedy. The more potential an event has for exploitation, the more possibilities should be explored.

If we are conditioned to hold our tongues, to suppress our curiosity and skepticism when it comes to tragedy, then the worst actors in any given situation win. Those in power need only create a tragedy, and it becomes impossible to question the official narrative. Otherwise, you are disrespectful and uncaring.

When someone is gravely wounded, you don’t slap a band-aid over it. You’ve got to clean out the wound. And that hurts in the moment. But in the long run, it is necessary to prevent infection.

We should wonder if 9/11 was a false flag attack. I don’t think it is disrespectful to the victims to do so. I think it would be more disrespectful to unquestioningly believe the official story. The official story comes from the people who have the most to gain.

Did the terrorists who carried out the attack on the twin towers have anything to gain? Well maybe if they believed the whole 72 virgins thing. But in real life, they died. Suiciding bombing is a thing that people do, however, so it certainly can’t be ruled out.

Did Osama Bin Laden have a lot to gain? Well again, it is tough to understand the motivation of terrorists. Apparently, they think killing innocent people accomplishes something. But now he is dead.

And what about the official storytellers, the ones who investigated, and revealed the true culprits behind 9/11?

Their gains remain. They gained the power to easily declare wars and conduct military operations. Money was poured into the defense budget. Agencies like Homeland Security and the TSA sprang into existence.

Attention was diverted from missing money at the Pentagon. The PATRIOT Act was passed. Due process was no longer a concern.

“Mission Accomplished” in Iraq; the glory of killing Bin Laden. The public became desensitized to war. America helped toppled regimes in Libya and Egypt, and support a civil war in Syria.

These things alone don’t prove anything. But it looks awfully suspicious. The ones who we rely on for information about what happened had the most to gain from the attack. They are the ones who will “solve” the problems.

It is a conflict of interest even if the official story is true. It just so happens that their recommendations on the best course of action were the very things that would grow their power, expand their budget, and swell their ranks.

Again we have a historical fact to turn to for comparison. The Joint Chiefs of Staff under Kennedy floated the idea of carrying out a false flag against American citizens to get them involved in a war with Cuba. It was called Operation Northwoods. Kennedy told them if they ever mentioned the idea of murdering innocent Americans again, he would have them tried for treason.

Well, we all know what happened to Kennedy, but that is a whole rabbit hole of its own. What we know for sure, is that as early as the 1960’s people in the U.S. government wanted to commit false flag attacks against Americans to provoke war. And the leader most vehemently opposed was assassinated.

Incidentally, the Kennedy Administration approved of Operation Mockingbird.

May I Speak Freely?

I want to wonder, and I want to speculate. I get as angry and sad as anyone else with a properly developed conscience when horrible things happen. I want those responsible held accountable. And it is against my skeptical nature to accept an official story without digging for more evidence. Horror does not paralyze my desire to question the official narrative and wonder about inconsistencies.

One thing that strikes me about all of the mass shootings of the past few years, is the great diversity in location and venue.

A college in Virginia. An elementary school in Connecticut. A mall in Washington. A nightclub in Florida. A church in North Carolina. A movie theater in Colorado. A political meet and greet in Arizona. The streets of California. A concert on the Vegas strip.

If someone wanted to strike fear into the hearts of Americans, they could not have chosen a better range of targets. The message would be whatever place you live, wherever you go in public, whatever your age, job, or social status, you are not safe.

Maybe that is the truth. And maybe it is random.

We are told these were all carried out by lone a lone gunman–or a married couple in one case.

But why are there so often witness reports of a second gunman? Could it be chalked up to confusion?

The victims tragically lost their lives. Their families lost loved ones, which will impact them for the rest of their lives. The American people lose their sense of security and their rights. Relationships deteriorate as bitter disagreements turn personal, blame abounds, fingers point, defenses go up.

And after so many tragedies, the culprit is left dead. Is that justice?

Who benefits? The dead guy on the 32nd floor?

The Democrats who want gun control? The Republicans who want militarized police? The media who get a bump in ratings? The Generals who want war? A government that “never let(s) a good crisis go to waste”?

I want this madness to stop. We know how the media wants it to play out. They will get their ratings with division and bitter disagreement. The government always gets more power, more relevance, more opportunity to insert itself into the everyday lives of Americans.

That is why it is so necessary to look deeper, to ask those tough questions that we don’t even want to consider as a possibility. We can’t sit by silently wondering if we are being told the truth or fed lies. It is not disrespectful to question the official story. It would be a miscarriage of justice to accept it without protest, as we are told is what should be done in times of crisis.

The only other option is to play into the hands of the media and government, whether they be orchestrators or opportunists. When we replay the same old arguments and put forth the same stale solutions, when we look to them for information and solutions, they win.

Question everything. Clean out the wounds. It may hurt to get in there deep. But if we don’t, the infection will grow and fester, as it always has before.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Ben Tornilloed's picture

Hell, I question the official narrative everytime they say the word official.

dizzyfingers's picture

A study from the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) shows during the time period 2007 to 2015, the percentage of adults with carry permits rose 190% and violent crime fell by 18%.
jin187's picture

Once again, not a conspiracy. The advent of 24/7 news, and being able to view it anywhere, and at any time is why people think violent crime is up. Murders sell papers and get ratings. No one is watching 24/7 cable news to hear feel good stories about puppies and lemonade stands. Jackboots stomping puppies, and smashing lemonades stands is the headline that sells.

There are studies that I don't feel like writing a wall of text about, but suffice to say the human brain is designed to remember things that are bad much better than everything else. When something is mostly good, people tend to only remember the bad, or falsely believe that the bad was the majority of what they experienced, even when the opposite is true.

That said, people in the 90's saw all this 24/7 coverage of rapes, robberies and murders they would have never heard of before then, and started crying out for politicians to clamp down on the "increased violence". Politicians like staying in office, and you don't have to ask them twice to go after easy targets to score political points.

dot_bust's picture

Then there's this:

Las Vegas: Bellagio Hotel Guests And Staff Confirm Multiple Shooters

The Bellagio Hotel lobby was sprayed with bullets by a second shooter during the Las Vegas attack, according to hotel guests and staff who recount the horrific experience in a newly surfaced video.

cheech_wizard's picture

So throughout that whole video I don't see anyone in a panic... Point me to the timestamp in that video where that happens... 


dot_bust's picture

Watch the following video at the 11-second mark and you'll see a security guard on the left side of your screen who is crouching down with an automatic weapon and firing into the crowd at the Vegas concert:

So, there were multiple shooters, some of whom were at ground level and mixed in with the concergoers.

LA_Goldbug's picture

Lots of disinformation and/or "I believe that" people around.

aloha_snakbar's picture

We should wonder if 9/11 was a false flag attack.


If ???

DjangoCat's picture

There are so many problems with the narrative, it boggles the mind.  How can the people who pulled this off expect it to go unquestioned when there are so many loose ends and so much obfuscation and apparant lying going on?

Are they getting more arrogant and less careful about setting up their false flags?  Seems so.

MrBoompi's picture

If you don't buy what the media is selling, you won't be a victim of the propaganda.  When the entire MSM seems to have a ready-made script prepared to broadcast to the public after an "event", you should be very skeptical.  If you don't question what you're told, you are not yet awakened.  

1.21 jigawatts's picture

FORTY-SEVEN WEAPONS means AT LEAST 24 trips up to the hotel room from his car.

Show me the surveillance!!!! 

ThorAss's picture

In a Reuters article: “What we know is that Stephen Paddock is a man who spent decades acquiring weapons and ammo and living a secret life, much of which will never be fully understood,” Clark County Sheriff Joseph Lombardo told reporters on Wednesday night.

Lombardo said he found it hard to believe that the arsenal of weapons, ammunition and explosives recovered by police in their investigation could have been assembled by Paddock completely on his own."


No evidence was provided about how they know any of this. I thinking questioning everything is your civic duty.


yellowsub's picture

It is now ingrained into people's mind to be obedient.  


dizzyfingers's picture

When the U.S. government constantly lies to the people and is so completely untrustworthy, is it not every citizen's patriotic duty to question every word, statement, proclamation, and idea that comes out of that government and that comes out of any entity that speaks for or about the government?

Chupacabra-322's picture

There is a shooter on the ground in the concert crowd that is point blank shooting people and also dressed as a Security guard, like the one who was captured running in front of the taxi cab lady’s car in the video at the 25:59 second mark on the infowars video last night. Video below. He is seen at the 4 second mark and squats down to the left like the military. You can see the butt if the gun as he shoots.

ThorAss's picture

If it is a shooter, he's a very stupid one and could easily have been caught. No way they are that stupid. Why come out and start shooting in the crowd? If there are multiple shooters you could become collateral damage. Why not just stand well back out of sight, say in a hotel room and pick people off with automatic weapons?

DjangoCat's picture

I hope you saved this somewhere.  Other Youtubes are being taken down.

optimator's picture

Never let a crisis go to waste.  Here's poor Connecticut Senator Murphy (net worth minus $100,000 because of unpaid student loan) on LV.

Reaper's picture

Do spectacles control you?  Who controls the spectacles controls you.   To govern is to control. 

mayhem_korner's picture

A college in Virginia. An elementary school in Connecticut. A mall in Washington. A nightclub in Florida. A church in North Carolina. A movie theater in Colorado. A political meet and greet in Arizona. The streets of California. A concert on the Vegas strip.

The common thread among the conspiracists here is that whatever the "official" report is must not be true.  With a couple doses of confirmation bias, that is an easily-sustained state.

But I'd challenge you to pick any one of the referenced events and reduce to writing an affirmative descrpition of what actually DID happen such that there is complete agreement among your peer conspiracists. 

Take 9/11 for example.  How do you reconcile the "there were no planes" fringe with the "there were military planes" and the "there were demolition explosives" crowds? 

Try as you may, you will only end up in the place where I started - the only belief you share is that what is reported to you cannot be believed.

Cthonic's picture

Take 9/11 for example.  How do you reconcile the "there were no planes" fringe with the "there were military planes" and the "there were demolition explosives" crowds?

The lead investigator in the case, Gene Corley of the American Society of Civil Engineers, said the Port Authority refused to hand over blueprints for the twin towers - crucial for evaluating the wreckage - until he signed a waiver saying his team would not use the plans in a lawsuit against the agency. "This is the first time I have signed something like that," Corley said, setting off a wave of angry comments from members of Congress and outcries from an audience made up mostly of relatives of victims of the Sept. 11 terror attacks. Corley leads a team of engineering experts empaneled by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, but his team lacks the power to subpoena witnesses or order the preservation of evidence.

william114085's picture

the biggest "false narrative" of all time happened somewhere in Europe during the late 30s/40s.  I'd be more specific, but I live in a country where it is illegal to question this narrative.  

9/11 comes in at #2.  

mayhem_korner's picture

You'd be more specific, except that you DON'T KNOW.

Non-disclosure is the conspiracist's ultimate life preserver.

Chupacabra-322's picture

My “confirmation bias” leaves me at the door step of:

The Dancing Mossad Isreales.

That’s Irrefutable FACT.

mayhem_korner's picture

I'm sure somewhere in your word salad there is a point. 

Soldier on, Jethro.

Chupacabra-322's picture

Well please, allow me to retort with absolute, complete, Irrefutable Fact.

It is beyond the slightest shadow of doubt that Israeli agents had foreknowledge of the 911 attacks, and, together with scientific forensic proof of controlled demolitions of WTC 1, 2 and 7.

The very first people arrested on suspicion of involvement in the 9/11 attacks turned out to be five Israeli Jews: Sivan Kurzberg, Paul Kurzberg (Sivan's brother), Oded Ellner, Yaron Shmuel and Omer Marmari. Their white Urban Moving Systems van was stopped and they were arrested within hours of the attacks, on the afternoon of 9/11/01. Sivan Kurzberg, Ellner and Shmuel had been observed by several eyewitnesses at the rear parking lot of the Doric apartment complex in Union City, New Jersey. They were seen atop the van with cameras, high-fiving, smiling, joking with cries of joy and mockery, hugging each other, and taking photographs and video of the Twin Towers within a few minutes of the first plane impact.

Marc Perelman of New York's Jewish weekly The Forward reported on March 15, 2002 that the FBI had concluded that at least two of the Israelis were agents working for the Mossad, and their employer Urban Moving Systems Incorporated was a suspected intelligence front. On September 14, 2001, Urban's owner Dominick Suter fled the U.S. for Israel. Perelman also tells on video of how he was able to confirm that, according to the FBI, two of the five Israelis were "Mossad agents". Christopher Ketcham says the transcripts of the Carl Cameron report were later removed from the Fox News website following pressure from Abe Foxman of the ADL, and replaced with the rather Orwellian message: "This story no longer exists".

When arrested, the Israelis - dubbed the "High-Fivers" by the FBI - were found to have airline tickets with immediate travel dates for destinations world-wide, and tie-ins to 9/11. Dual US-Israeli citizen Michael Chertoff, who co-authored the USA Patriot Act" and headed the Justice Department's Criminal Division in the aftermath of 9/11, is a prime suspect for pulling strings to get the Israelis released and sent home.


You’re it. My “confirmation bias” Mind as well as those from Architects & Engineers for 911 truth are waiting.

“Conspiracy Theory” is a Bias term for the truth one does not want to believe in.

mayhem_korner's picture

Nice narrative. 

"They were seen," "Christopher Ketcham says," "were found to have," "had been observed," "they were arrested," "was a suspected intelligence front," etc.

What is the affirmative conclusion of all of your "facts?" 

You've made the point nicely that you are vested in attempting to disprove one narrative - not constructing a plausible, coherent alternative.  And since you are unable to articulate an affirmative story line, you simply drift in the sea of 'non-disprovable theory.' 

I'm not "it" because there is no onus on me to reply to an unformulated theory. 

But keep trying.  You just might be on to something.

mayhem_korner's picture

Another swing and miss. You still haven't articulated any plausible story. Just drumming up alt-facts is all you do, assuming that they magically tell a story. 

pump and dump's picture

Check out this video that is supposed to make me believe these were not actors. It's true they were not actors but they were trying to be actors. Some very crappy actors. I have seen many dead bodies before and not one of them died with their eyes closed.When you die suddenly you do not close you're eyes.No screaming no crying.People looking like they are enjoying themselves.The dude did not even really check them properly to see if they were still alive, He had to be told where the wounds were because it was a drill.I am not buying that the ambulances could not come in because of the danger. The ambulances could not come in because it was fake and a real emt would of known right away. My only question is how did they keep other people who were not involved from noticing.Funny how everyone seems to be getting in on the act. Everyone wants their 15 minutes of fame.Like this new story of the security guard that went to the door and got shot in the leg. The shooter did not aim for the chest.Lets see the door.

Gerrilea's picture

What drugs are you on?  Actors?  There is no way these were actors. Sadly, I watched the video twice. Just to understand what it was I was seeing.  The people there were being slaughtered.  What I find odd, is that while the band on stage was running off, they turned the lights off....THEN after they left...they went on immediately.  The people were sitting ducks. AND while the guy was filming and the shooting had actually stopped, they THEN turned the lights off...while people were trying to help each other.


Cockoo's picture

The Rituals continue nothing to see here.

cheech_wizard's picture

I don't have the time nor the inclination to do a timeline, but it's going to have to be done, and it is going to have to be accurate beyond a shadow of a doubt.


cheech_wizard's picture

and now this...

So get busy and check the hospital records... you want truth, dig fast and hard.


RKae's picture

A guy at work: How DARE you question Sandy Hook? There are parents hurting! THEIR CHILDREN ARE DEAD!

Me: There's enough evidence that, at the very least, some of them are scamming to bilk charity money out of people.

A guy at work: How DARE you! THEIR CHILDREN ARE DEAD!

Me: OK, try this one: If somebody WERE to pretend to have a kid shot in order to shake down millions of people for chairty money... how would we catch him?

A guy at work: Uh... well, they'd never get away with it.

Me: How would we catch him if it must not be questioned?

A guy at work: ...Uh...

atomic balm's picture

A possible answer- the move is not to gun control, but to security.  "They" want a law mandating better hotel security- backscatter devices like those in airports would be required!  The company making them is owned by Chertoff!


Don't miss this brilliant video:

DjangoCat's picture

This article and its follow up go into some detail on this.



Ben A Drill's picture

The official story keeps changing. Zero Hedge readers are smarter than the officials think we are.

Lost in translation's picture

What happened in Vegas? Hard to say with certainty - we live in an Age of Deception.

But the official story is theater of the absurd. The pieces don't fit, and can't be made to fit, though quite a number of emotionally troubled souls here desperately need the the State-approved version to be truth.

Pretty sad, really.

Albertarocks's picture
"Is it Wrong to Question the Official Story When Tragedy Strikes?"

Of course it's not wrong... it's our duty.  What's alarming is that that question is even asked.

JailBanksters's picture

You should always trust the Governments narrative !! , that's why you hired them, right, right ?

It's just the Feral Reserve, Pentagram, DHS, NSA,TSA, CIA, FBI you can't hire or fire.

HoserF16's picture

This fucking government? The real question is: Why wouldn't you question it???