It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Occam's razor & Coincidence theorists

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   
I've noticed the anti-conpiracy crowd here loves to bring up Occam's razor when debating 9/11 evidence and they also seem to cast off each piece of evidence that supports a conspiracy as mere coincidence.

Lets just say that every piece of 9/11 evidence that supports a conspiracy is just a coincidence for now. Every event will have a few coincidences surrounding it, but the more coincidences an event has, the less likely they can all be mere coincidences.

If you anti-conspiracy people haven't noticed yet, there are literally hundreds upon hundreds of coincidences surrounding 9/11:

The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11
200+ 9/11 'Smoking Guns' Found in the Mainstream Media
9-11 Coincidences

At what point do coincidences cease being coincidences and become conspiracy?

You would think when there are literally hundreds of them (with some coincidences being so amazingly coincidental all by themselves) that even the most harden Occam's razor fan would even succumb to the obvious that the odds are just too astronomical that there could be that many coincidences surround an event like 9/11 without it being a conspiracy.

Sorry, but unless you are a coincidence theorist, Occam's razor doesn't fly in the wake of so many coincidences surrounding 9/11.




posted on May, 31 2006 @ 04:47 PM
link   
With so many co-incidences the simplest explanation is a conspiracy. Isn't this what Occam's razor dictates?



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by mytym
With so many co-incidences the simplest explanation is a conspiracy. Isn't this what Occam's razor dictates?


Oh man, that line is what I meant to include in my original post and I totally forgot to include it! Way to stay on top of thing!


Well I guess we proved that 9/11 was an inside job to them, especially since none have tried to refute my point.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Another thing to keep in mind is that the razor doesn't take into account impossibilities.

For example, if the towers could not have possibly fallen naturally as they did, then any use of Occam's razor assuming otherwise would be void. Everything still has to be logical, meaning possible. Logistics is much less of a problem than physical impossibilities.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Another thing to keep in mind is that the razor doesn't take into account impossibilities.

For example, if the towers could not have possibly fallen naturally as they did, then any use of Occam's razor assuming otherwise would be void. Everything still has to be logical, meaning possible. Logistics is much less of a problem than physical impossibilities.


Well I'm sure the anti-c crowd will say it was a coincidence that if fell the same way as if it were demo'd, but that still goes for our side since it adds one more coincidence to the HUNDREDS that we have.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by diggs

Originally posted by bsbray11
Another thing to keep in mind is that the razor doesn't take into account impossibilities.

For example, if the towers could not have possibly fallen naturally as they did, then any use of Occam's razor assuming otherwise would be void. Everything still has to be logical, meaning possible. Logistics is much less of a problem than physical impossibilities.


Well I'm sure the anti-c crowd will say it was a coincidence that if fell the same way as if it were demo'd, but that still goes for our side since it adds one more coincidence to the HUNDREDS that we have.


there could a few thousand coincidences. its a coincidence that my cat died at the moment the plane hit hte WTC North Tower. Its a coincidence that my mother called me at precisely the moment that the South Tower collapsed. Its a coincidence that traffic became a stand still at 9 am for me on the freeway when reports over the radio poured in about the pentagon being hit.

Yet all these coincindences do not point to any conspiracy.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizy

Originally posted by diggs

Originally posted by bsbray11
Another thing to keep in mind is that the razor doesn't take into account impossibilities.

For example, if the towers could not have possibly fallen naturally as they did, then any use of Occam's razor assuming otherwise would be void. Everything still has to be logical, meaning possible. Logistics is much less of a problem than physical impossibilities.


Well I'm sure the anti-c crowd will say it was a coincidence that if fell the same way as if it were demo'd, but that still goes for our side since it adds one more coincidence to the HUNDREDS that we have.


there could a few thousand coincidences. its a coincidence that my cat died at the moment the plane hit hte WTC North Tower. Its a coincidence that my mother called me at precisely the moment that the South Tower collapsed. Its a coincidence that traffic became a stand still at 9 am for me on the freeway when reports over the radio poured in about the pentagon being hit.

Yet all these coincindences do not point to any conspiracy.



I love this derailment. My cat died at the same moment. of course THEY have nothing to do with one another... But if you take Silverstein saying at 3:30 pm to pull it knowing there arent any firerighters in the building since 11:30 am then its a RELEVANT coincidence.. there is a PROFOUND difference between the two.

AKA... time to bring a more valid arguement to the table.

Balls in your court


[edit on 31-5-2006 by TONE23]

[edit on 31-5-2006 by TONE23]



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 08:01 PM
link   
I found the site of the airfield you asked about and google mapped it.... its such an easy spot they could have landed it



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 08:29 PM
link   
At this point I think it's foolish for anyone who has been "enlightened" about 9/11 to deny that the USA was caught completely by surprise or that they didn't conspire to profit from the impending devistation.

My theory is quite simple, they took charge of planning the attacks early on, and "prepared" for it by planting bombs in the WTC buildings to finish the job and cash in royally (Silverstein wanted SEVEN BILLION DOLLARS in insurance money claiming the planes were 2 separate acts of terrorism). Remember, he didn't even own the buildings until earlier that year I believe, the "city" owned them until somehow he was allowed to purchase its lease..??

I guess all you would need was Osama to swap plans with, and they swap while he's at the hospital in early September or something. Osama gets Al-Q to do the job by the specs and the US makes sure they at least get their first two targets (WTC 1&2). After that... who knows, fake a Pentagon crash? Shoot down the plane in PA? Scare tactics to make a point? I really can't explain those in the grand scheme of the Government plot, I can't explain Moussaoui(sp) either. Regardless, they failed us on purpose and covered their ass as best they could. Maybe they thought the evidence wouldn't be so damning.

What all of us will remember and understand were the towers coming down, and that's what the government wanted to happen all along, remember the report that large amounts of money in excess of 100 million dollars were transfered moments before the towers coming down, only the lord of the Internet knows where they nice amount went. Earlier this week I saw this huge, muscle-bound guy in a bar with the towers TATTOOED across his right forearm and the phrase "We'll Never Forget" in script underneath it, I was tempted to tell him he should check out Loose Change but thought better.


It's sick and I want to blame someone but we can't be sure just how much say Bush had in this, if any. Maybe his father from behind the scenes? Let's get Florida Jeb in there for 8 more years of peace and see what happens. We could blame Cheney though, he seems like one hell of a candidate with all that defense contract money. Something in the back of my mind is telling me the year 2012 will be the deathblow before the microchip is required, then we wave bye-bye to Mr. Constitution and enjoy the ride I guess. Isn't it funny though, after 9/11 we've clamped down on security in search for what... BOMBS!

Ok, I'm done my ridiculous ranting.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.



So for you to assume there was a conspiracy by other people not just Al Qaeda.
You must assume (add levels of complexity) : Just a few to start with

1. The government must have know when and where the planes would strike. At a minimum how many people would have had to been "in" on it?

2. The government needed to rig the buildings with explosives, to finish the job, knowing full well that the two aircraft would not do the job. Never mind that there had never been such an extreme case as the planes slamming into the WTC full speed with massive amounts of fuel. Again, how many people would have been needed for this?

3. If you are to claim that there were planted explosives in the WTC on 9-11 I would expect some actual proof not just claims. You still would need actual physical proof of planted charges, discovery of planted charges etc. To my knowledge there has been none presented.

4. If you start taking into consideration the "200+ smoking guns in the mainstream media" then you add at least another couple of layers of complexity(assumptions) to the operation, making it even harder for it to happen undetected.

5. Just for the sake of coincidences sake I say the assassinations of Lincoln and Kennedy were related. I mean look at the the coincidences:

www.answers.com... tween-abraham-lincoln-and-john-f-kennedy



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavilSo for you to assume there was a conspiracy by other people not just Al Qaeda.
You must assume (add levels of complexity) : Just a few to start with

1. The government must have know when and where the planes would strike. At a minimum how many people would have had to been "in" on it?


Mininum? 19. If 19 cave dwellars could pull it off, why not 19 special ops?



2. The government needed to rig the buildings with explosives, to finish the job, knowing full well that the two aircraft would not do the job. Never mind that there had never been such an extreme case as the planes slamming into the WTC full speed with massive amounts of fuel. Again, how many people would have been needed for this?


I give, how many?


3. If you are to claim that there were planted explosives in the WTC on 9-11 I would expect some actual proof not just claims. You still would need actual physical proof of planted charges, discovery of planted charges etc. To my knowledge there has been none presented.


so the dozens of witnesses to the basement explosions, multiple interior explosions, pops/flashes inside and outside the buildings, aren't good enough? I mean we would have analyzed the steel afterward, but that got hauled off to China in a hurry to be melted.


4. If you start taking into consideration the "200+ smoking guns in the mainstream media" then you add at least another couple of layers of complexity(assumptions) to the operation, making it even harder for it to happen undetected.


And that's why Occam's razor comes in as mytym beautifully put: With so many co-incidences the simplest explanation is a conspiracy. Isn't this what Occam's razor dictates?


5. Just for the sake of coincidences sake I say the assassinations of Lincoln and Kennedy were related. I mean look at the the coincidences:
www.answers.com... tween-abraham-lincoln-and-john-f-kennedy


We are talking coincidences, not similarities.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 09:39 PM
link   
One of the most wierd coincidence, according to me, is FAA b4 9/11 had a clean sheet at intercepting aircraft who had lost radio contact or change direction. 100%! Remember Payne Stewart when he lost his route and died?

Yet on 9/11 they failed 1/4 that day.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by diggs
19. If 19 cave dwellers could pull it off, why not 19 special ops?


So you have basically just doubled the level of complexity of the operation.




I give, how many?


Since you like 19, lets say 19. You have just increased the level of complexity by another 100%. That is a minimal estimate of the people as well.



so the dozens of witnesses to the basement explosions, multiple interior explosions, pops/flashes inside and outside the buildings, aren't good enough? I mean we would have analyzed the steel afterward, but that got hauled off to China in a hurry to be melted.

Wouldn't basement explosions have dictated a bottom to top collapse? That runs contrary to the video evidence. Again adding extra levels of complexity.
Yes it would be nice to have one physical shred of evidence to back up such a claim.
For instance, has anyone spectrally analyzed the light from the pops/flashes in the building to try to determine what exactly they are before jumping headlong into "they must be planted explosive charges by the government" because they cause flashes as well. Till you present compelling physical evidence, you have the burden of proof for your claims.



And that's why Occam's razor comes in as mytym beautifully put: With so many co-incidences the simplest explanation is a conspiracy. Isn't this what Occam's razor dictates?


No it doesn't!
You are adding unnecessary levels of complication to explain the event.


Occam's razor
One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything

pespmc1.vub.ac.be...


The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is, "when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better."

math.ucr.edu...





We are talking coincidences, not similarities.



Coincidence: an event that might have been arranged although it was really accidental


Are not those similarities coincidences as well. Why is it different?



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by eagle eye
One of the most wierd coincidence, according to me, is FAA b4 9/11 had a clean sheet at intercepting aircraft who had lost radio contact or change direction. 100%! Remember Payne Stewart when he lost his route and died?

Yet on 9/11 they failed 1/4 that day.


Well, Wizy says there could be a "few thousand" coincidences without it being a conspiracy, so...

Just kidding! Obviously Wizy is a coincidence theorist.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
So you have basically just doubled the level of complexity of the operation.

Since you like 19, lets say 19. You have just increased the level of complexity by another 100%. That is a minimal estimate of the people as well.

So?


Wouldn't basement explosions have dictated a bottom to top collapse?

Not necessarily, the basement is the building's foundation, weaken that and the rest weakens thereby making it possible for a top-down collapse.


Yes it would be nice to have one physical shred of evidence to back up such a claim.

Well they took away the steel and melted it before we had a chance.



No it doesn't!
You are adding unnecessary levels of complication to explain the event.

and you are adding astronomical odds if you think hundreds of coincidences can still be just coincidences and not conspiracy.


Occam's razor

The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is, "when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better."

math.ucr.edu...
It says simpler is better, it didn't say simpler is the only possible explanation. O.R. is just on person's opinion, it is not scientific fact. Seems like you O.R. fans keep forgetting that.

Answer my initial question: At what point do coincidences cease being coincidences and become conspiracy?


Are not those similarities coincidences as well. Why is it different?


They are not coincidences at all, just similarities. The other side of coincidence is conspiracy. What would the conspiracy be for their assassinations?



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Coincidence: an event that might have been arranged although it was really accidental



Are not those similarities coincidences as well. Why is it different?



There are mere coincidences and then there are big and sometimes outrageous coincidences.

If a big coincidence, like, let's say how US Intel that morning conducted a planned exercise to stimulate a plane crashing into a gov. building. I would say that's a pretty big coincidence but I don't see conspiracy. But I think one of the blantant outrageous coincidences is how 3 steel skyscrappers came crashing down into a pile of rubble due to "fire" on the same day when never in the history of the world this has happened, without explosives of course. And there are just too many big and outrageous coincidences for me too believe that just 19 Saudi hijackers pulled this off. No way.


[edit on 31-5-2006 by BannedintheUSA]



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by BannedintheUSA

If a big coincidence, like, let's say how US Intel that morning conducted a planned exercise to stimulate a plane crashing into a gov. building. I would say that's a pretty big coincidence but I don't see conspiracy. But I think one of the blantant outrageous coincidences is how 3 steel skyscrappers came crashing down into a pile of rubble due to "fire" on the same day when never in the history of the world this has happened, without explosives of course. And there are just too many big and outrageous coincidences for me too believe that just 19 Saudi hijackers pulled this off. No way.


[edit on 31-5-2006 by BannedintheUSA]


sicne the WT towers were made of a majority of steel that was under fire for nearly an hour straight without anything to cool or remove flammable material coupled with the amount of jet fuel, weight and how much destruction, yes its a "conspiracy" that two planes crashed and destroyed the wtc towers. (not)



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizy


sicne the WT towers were made of a majority of steel that was under fire for nearly an hour straight without anything to cool or remove flammable material coupled with the amount of jet fuel, weight and how much destruction, yes its a "conspiracy" that two planes crashed and destroyed the wtc towers. (not)



Since no steel structure in the history of mankind collapsed due to fire, I would conclude that something is extremely suspicious here. Wouldn't you?



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by BannedintheUSA

Since no steel structure in the history of mankind collapsed due to fire, I would conclude that something is extremely suspicious here. Wouldn't you?


Has any other structure received the same blast as did the two WTC towers?

From all reports the planes barreled into the towers at pretty clost to their maximium speeds, plus being loaded with a huge amount of fuel since they were on coast to coast trips. Thats probably another coincidence for you though isn't it?
Do me a favor, find out the force that someone has calculated that occurred at impact on the WTC towers.

It wasn't just fire that did the towers in, it was the impact explosion and the ensuing fire that did them in. There has not been a comparable event to what happened on 9/11. If it did please find it for me.

Please show me another building that has sustained as much damage from an aircraft (ie size of aircraft, speed at impact and fuel load) hitting it as did the WTC towers. Until then, the simplest answer still works the best.

K.I.S.S.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by BannedintheUSA

Since no steel structure in the history of mankind collapsed due to fire, I would conclude that something is extremely suspicious here. Wouldn't you?


Has any other structure received the same blast as did the two WTC towers?

From all reports the planes barreled into the towers at pretty clost to their maximium speeds, plus being loaded with a huge amount of fuel since they were on coast to coast trips. Thats probably another coincidence for you though isn't it?
Do me a favor, find out the force that someone has calculated that occurred at impact on the WTC towers.

It wasn't just fire that did the towers in, it was the impact explosion and the ensuing fire that did them in. There has not been a comparable event to what happened on 9/11. If it did please find it for me.

Please show me another building that has sustained as much damage from an aircraft (ie size of aircraft, speed at impact and fuel load) hitting it as did the WTC towers. Until then, the simplest answer still works the best.

K.I.S.S.



This is the only example I can give you:

www.esbnyc.com...

This isn't definitive truth that the WTC's shouldn't have fallen down, but it should give you the idea of at least the horror and confusion bought to those people that day(somewhat similar to the witnesses on 9/11). Also, no one heard secondary explovise devices or whatever. EVERYBODY KNEW IT WAS THE PLANE! No conspiracy there back in '45'. Now, I know the B-25 is smaller than the 757, but that's not the point. The Empire State building burned locally just like the WTC's. But the Empire stood TALL like a champ, no collapse. WHY?

Now I know you people will say that the B-25 was only travelling at 200mph and the 757's were going 500+, but really you anti-conspiracy people. Are you just to weak to think on your own?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join