It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


The use of Doublespeak to derail Occam's Razor.

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 10:58 PM
I have noted a great deal of time and energy wasted in the pursuit of 911 Truth (with a capital T) many detractors in the house... who baited people into deadends, if you don't bite you'll find yourself entangled in a web of deception. A game of smoke & mirrors.

Many of you may be all too familiar with these concepts and their misuse, but i have found that many are not aware or clear on their proper use. So it's my hope that this thread will provide clarity, sanity & bring new comers up to par in providing a solid foundation from which one can accurately assess/avoid mind traps before you are consumed in a web of illogical contradiction made to look logical.

Isaac Newton stated the rule of Occam's razor as... "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."

Ernst Mach advocated a version of Occam's razor which stating that "Scientists must use the simplest means of arriving at their results and exclude everything not perceived by the senses."

As i had stated in a previous post ""Common sense" is the knack of seeing things as they are... not as you were lead to believe. When something talks and walks like a duck, common sense tells you that it's a duck. Much like 3 buildings collapsing, each looking like a controlled demolition, common sense tells you that they are controlled demolitions. And in the case of coverups and lies, there are a long list of "coincidences", "incompetencies" and omissions which common sense tells you, that we are being lied to. Now to be ignorant of these realities and believing that you are using common sense when you are not, puts you in a mode of spreading disinformation, without ever knowing it."

Imagine for a moment witnessing all three towers collapse without any commentary from the media or government... given the freedom to come to your own conclusions or hunch what do you see with your very own two eyes? This is where the application of Common Sense as an Occam's Razor gives you a clean slate from which to develop your own theory on what caused the collapse. Naturally the simplest explain is where we should start in our research, this is just good common sense and also serves an accurate use of Occam's Razor. Simple enough, but not quite, while we were all in a state of shock, we were bombarded with the osama-bin-laden-mantra almost immediately after the towers fell... till we silently started chanting the mantra to ourselves. This injection of preconceived prewrapped perception package/baggage was our first introduction to Newspeak/Doublespeak... where the use of language is constructed or limited to disguise or distort its actual meaning. Like the use of slight-of-hand in a magic trick.

A quotation from Orwell's novel, 1984:
"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed - if all records told the same tale -- then the lie passed into history and became truth... It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. 'Reality control', they called it: in Newspeak, 'doublethink.'... His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, & then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed."

... in summary my signature should ring a bell:

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 12:34 AM
Did you not see two huge jetliners crash into and explode inside the Trade towers?

Do you not consider that a legitimate destructive force?

Have you ever seen an "impact-point-down" controlled demolition before? When and where, and what were the similarities? The differences?

Your misuse of Occams razor is dumbfounding.

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 08:14 AM
thank you taxi for volunteering to be a prime example from which to illustrate these principles.

correction on your omission: a total of 3 towers collapsed, wtc towers 1, 2 & 7 ... and "two huge jetliners" are not a legitimate destructive force to explain why all 3 towers collapsed

As for witnessing an "impact-point-down" controlled demolition,
i'm sure no one outside of the small controlled demolition niche of specialized businesses has ever witnessed this.

Now we have plenty of examples of larger fires burning much hotter and longer in steel framed buildings and even have plenty of examples of planes crashing into buildings, but none of them fell... not until 911 do we have such a phenomenon occur.

which brings us to Occam's razor and our 2 prominent theories...
1. a hybrid thermite controlled demolition
2. 2 planes brought down 3 buildings due to key structural damage and fire

theory 1 is the simplest most sufficient explanation for why all 3 buildings fell as they did

theory 2 is a more complicated explanation, which doesn't adequately explain why all 3 buildings fell as they did, unless we were talking about a stack of cards that fell much like a strip of dominoes would - if such is the case then theory 2 is the simplest

to say this common sense application of Occam's razor is a misuse
shows a symptom of Doubespeak

...up is not down and in is not out...

this is why many avoid people on the Gravy bandwagon...
it's a deadend process discussing basic-logic/common-sense,
with those trapped in the "official story/theory" newspeak dogma.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by The All Seeing I]

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 08:18 AM
But nobody found/saw explosives in those buildings.It is a theoretic suggestion And yet people saw the jets smashing into 2 out of the 3 buildings - it is a factual evidence. So how about the Ocaam razor now?

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 08:48 AM
Obviously we all witnessed the planes hit the towers.
Now lets take off the "official theory" goggles with blinders for a moment,
and take into account what we know to be true (laws of physics) and then select the most sufficient explanation... this is the proper use of Occam razor.

remember Newton stated Occam's razor as... "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." and i would venture to say if Newton was here with us today he would add "We are to admit no more... and no less"

with that said... there is a nugget of knowledge that should never be missing
but unfortunately is often vacant from people's awareness or just flat out ignored
and with this great omission they hastily apply Occam's razor prematurely,
and thus the collapses don't defy basic principles of natural law.

a pdf of "The Twin Towers and Common Sense"

This is a very simplistic illustration, in very simple terms,
but it brings up a very important valid fundamental fact that is just as easily observed as the two planes crashing into the towers, that needs to be included in the equation in order to make proper use of Occam's razor.

Such omissions don't do anyone any justice in our collective research efforts.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by The All Seeing I]

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:09 AM
reply to post by The All Seeing I

While I personally did not see the planes hit the towers, I rely of the media (we all saw what we say thru several cam angles) and eyewitness testimony (who saw the planes strike the tower). The most simplistic explanation is the most plausible. The destructive force of the burning jet is enough to weaken the structure to the point it collapses under its own weight. It was demonstrated quite effectively in my book, and the results are most certainly reproducible and I am sure it will happen again in the future. Time will tell.

As far as Osama Bin Laden being responsible goes... is more of real question in my mind. Was he a scapegoat? perhaps but I justify it in my own mind because it is a fact he a terrorist and an enemy of the state.

If you believe that towers were demolished in another manner, you will be wrestling with the "lie/conspiracy" theory for the rest of your days on this planet, because history has already occurred and the story set in stone. We all have to live with the aftermath of the tragedy... bad enough. but to

attempt to make people believe conspiracy occurred is bad news. I say evaluate your belief, make your decision and live with it. All the talk in the world is not going to change the end result.. terrorism. That is something we must all agree shall be defended.

Occam Razor principle states that we should make a few assumptions as possible. If there were no witnesses or media cam to the planes hitting the towers, you would assume explosive detonation, but given the facts... why do you assume deception? To deny seeing the planes hit the tower implies a hoax on a grand scale, which is highly improbable.

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:39 AM
To make certain conclusions for either theory... we all make assumptions to some degree or another based on the evidence at hand.

The point of Occam's razor here is to determine which theory has the least amount of assumptions backing it as well as which assumptions have the most sufficient explanations to merit their proposal.

As for you having such a black and white perspective on our search for better answers then the ones we have been give, leaves you cutting out the grey.
Grey matter is where you have to dig, it's a greater challenge and contribution to all. To say this quest is otherwise, shows how removed you are from the big picture.

And if there is one assumption i'd recommend addressing,
it would be the assumption that the "official story" is true.
What you will find, is the more you look at what they don't tell you versus what they do... you come to realize it's just a story.

And yes history is full of stories, but this one is being inked during my watch on my soil and as a Citizen of the world community... i can't just stand by and look the otherway, when this lie is milked and will continue to be milked in an effort to justify more and more domestic and global robbery.

This is an information war.
No warrior is complete without first and foremost being a scholar.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by The All Seeing I]

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 10:10 AM
reply to post by The All Seeing I

Making an assumption of thermite being planted in the buildings without evidence does not compute with me. If it had been present in the carnage, it would have been detected and reported. (then you would have to decide whether the explosives were on board the plane or planted in the building) To my knowledge there was no thermite detected. Is there any evidence to support that theory? If not, assume based on the fact as they exist instead of leaping to this assumption.

Making an assumption that the rate/speed at which the buildings collapse is somehow a justification for "other assumptions" does not compute either. There was nothing the in that PDF that defied physics, or give me a basis for making any other assumption to the contrary. The tower fell in this manner, so how does this make you assume there was thermite involved.. (imo, a huge assumption on your part) The document admits that no other steel has fallen like this... why? because the document states, it is an unprecedented event, and the first time it has been observed.

In my opinion, you are trying to use Occam Razor to validate assumptions, which is contrary to the theory. The most likely assumption to make is that the planes destroyed the towers. It would be a real stretch if you told me the planes were a holographic image hoax portrayed by hollywood and the media. You can sell your ideas of conspiracy to some, but I'm cool with my own thoughts on the topic. Occam Razor really means the most simplistic conclusion, is most likely the correct conclusion. It is a law of succinctness and derived from a reductionists perspective, you are introducing ideas which convolute. In other words, you are working against the premise you chose to write about.

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:10 AM
Boy this is exhausting... 3 modern buildings made of concrete and steel, designed to withstand a direct hit by an airliner, dropping like castles of cards isn't evidence of a more sufficient explanation?

Introduction to termite & thermate

Lecture on thermate


1. assuming that 2 planes caused 3 buildings to collapse at free fall speed a castle of cards

2. a hybrid thermate application caused all 3 buildings to collapse at free fall speed a controlled demo

very simple comparison, which leaves us with a very simple conclusion.
Since theory 1 is already spoken for, riddled with flimsy assumptions and yet those behind the theory and believe in the theory see no need to re-evaluate the official claims... why not investigate theory 2 further?

Science if full of educated guesses/assumptions, i see no contradiction in my premise. We need occam's razor to narrow down the variables... many of these variables covered by the "official theory" are insufficient explanations, due in part to the omission of valuable information and the pressure to make the external blame stick... on Osama the cave dweller on dialysis? ...on afghanistan, iraq and now possibly iran?

As those who believe in the "official story" go on with their days having their energy and focus directed else where. For those of us who are still not convinced of the sincerity of our government and pawns. We haven't stopped digging, double checking facts and pressing for the release of more information. To advocate to people who actively have their eyes open and encourage others to open theirs... to close their eyes... is a questionable motive in character.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by The All Seeing I]

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 12:56 PM
reply to post by The All Seeing I

Forget it The All Seeing I,

First off, you suggesting that Thermite was used to bring down the towers is mistake no. 1. Second, you're dealing with people that don't know how to use their own eyes(i.e. they need other people to tell them what they are looking at).

I've moved off the Demo'd buildings and other stuff like that and moved on to the more solid evidence, like the Israeli Mossad connection. The evidence is so strong, the blind avoid it like the plague.

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 03:49 PM
Again Occam's razor... the simplest most sufficient explanation means the one which uses the fewest assumptions and predicts the least complex result.
Look at the lengths to which NIST, FEMA and the commission report have gone to explain why these 3 buildings went down as they did. A very complex explanation in comparison to the thermite theory.

beam... the dealings of israel's utopian zionist dream is so ingrained in every facet of our society i'm afraid it's an even greater epic battle then 911... but i will borrow one footnote from their thought police... to illustrate the corrosive power of language used to derail further inquiry. The Doubletalk in use of such terms as "occam's razor", "common sense", "conspiracy", "evidence", "assumptions"... is similar to how the ADL throws around the label "anti-semite" to discredit and silence anyone who holds up a mirror to israel's face.

My point being, that neither 911 theory holds a trademark on these terms.Without a preconditioned perspective these words maintain their original intended meaning, not morphed into a twisted illusion. Again the quote i have used as my signature is a prime example of this distorted/misuse of language for propaganda means.

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 07:32 PM

and "two huge jetliners" are not a legitimate destructive force to explain why all 3 towers collapsed

So 2 airliners weighing in at 350,000 lbs and hitting building at 500 + mph
are not destructive?

10,000 gallons of burning jet fuel cascading through the buildings not

Top of skyscaper falls on adjacent building is not destructive enough?

What haven't accounted for is synergistic effect - aircraft impacts
damaged many of the supports columns and at same time set numerous
fires over multiple floors. Aircraft impact and associated secondary
debris knocked off fireproofing on the steel support columns exposing
them to fire. Impacts also knocked huge holes in building which allowed
air to feed fires .

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:06 PM
What you have described to be a sufficient enough force to bring all 3 towers down at free-fall speed... is data-wise correct... but you have it narrowly framed by a story we were told about what happened. If we reject the story and conduct research from a clean slate... more data is taken into account and a whole other story emerges, that provides a simpler more sufficient explanation for why all 3 towers collapsed as they did... thanks in part to factoring in all relevant data and applying the occam's razor.

There are many more factors that play a part in this equation...
details that most people overlook... and as the proverbial saying goes "the devil is in the details". 911 Mysteries does an excellent job of covering all the most relevant details that are the most often overlooked.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by The All Seeing I]

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 12:20 AM
You articulate in a very mechanic nature. It's not going to resinate to the blind.

These people are the types that wouldn't believe an A-Bomb was possible back in the 40's. We go to the moon in 69, develope weapons to destroy countries with one bomb, but we can't demo 3 buildings all the while making it seem like a terrorist attack?

You are not dealing with people that live in "reality". You are dealing with people that barely have to capacity to connect A to B. You are dealing with children.

The key is the Israeli Mossad. No OS believer has an answer to it. Stick to that and you can never lose a conversation regarding to who was really behind 9-11.

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 12:24 AM
reply to post by JimBeam

JB.. So what the deal with the Isreali Mossad? I am not aware of that theory.
Can you elaborate on this please?

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 12:44 AM
Boy o boy.

I'm a bit lazy right now(Friday night). Here's a link to Fabled Enemies. Lots of different sources stating the fact that Israeli agents have been/are spying in the US, monitoring suspected terrorists, etc.

Here's the link if you have the time to watch. And while you are at it, go research the USS Liberty attack.

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 02:29 AM
reply to post by JimBeam

JB, Thanks, I watch all 15 of those video clips and there was very little about the Isreali Mossad. I understand why some may suggest their involvement, but I will defer any speculation on my part until there is more info about their involvement. Is there any other compelling evidence along those lines?

The thing that really baffles me is the collapse of WTC7. If there was anything at all suspicious about the whole 9/11 deal, it was the collapse of this building which sustain no direct damage. They do not show all sides of the building, so I cannot tell if the NST report was accurate, the video only had 1 eyewitness. He talked about the building evacuation like it was an abnormal event, but if I had been there... I was have gotten as far away from the WTC as possible. He says he heard an explosion from beneath from an oil tank?? I dont know too much about the other details, but the whole event was surreal.

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 05:07 AM

The thing that really baffles me is the collapse of WTC7. If there was anything at all suspicious about the whole 9/11 deal, it was the collapse of this building which sustain no direct damage. They do not show all sides of the building, so I cannot tell if the NST report was accurate, the video only had 1 eyewitness.

No direct damage???? When North Tower struck WTC 7 it carved
10 story gash in south face of building as well as setting numerous fires.

Here are clips from video by fire photgrapher Steve Spak who took
pictures of the damaged south side - most are of undamaged (by debris)
of north side (south - red granite facings, north - black marble)

Notice damged to building and smoke from numerous fires pushing out
of WTC 7 (grey concrete building in foreground is Verizon building on
West street)

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 05:47 AM

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
Did you not see two huge jetliners crash into and explode inside the Trade towers?

Do you not consider that a legitimate destructive force?

Have you ever seen an "impact-point-down" controlled demolition before? When and where, and what were the similarities? The differences?

Your misuse of Occams razor is dumbfounding.

I saw those jets slam into two of the three buildings that fell that day. I also understand how physics works and know that what I saw was not right.

Remind me again did WTC7 collapse top down or bottom up after the plane never hit it?

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 05:49 AM
reply to post by thedman

Yeah Thanks... I saw some footage of the WTC7 fire, the damage to the facade and pretty big chunks of the bottom part of the structure destroyed just before it collapsed.

The Fabled Enemies video didn't show these other views or footage, so it left me wondering just how that building fell. There is some pretty obvious conspiracy bias in the Fabled Enemies videos. It did not take much effort to get pics of the other side of the building which shows the breach of structural integrity of WTC7. There was a pretty good bit of smoke billowing near the top. I just didn't realize the debris flew that far. It also showed a huge amount of debris on the streets all around that area even before the towers actually hit the ground. I think that pretty much answers the question of the destructive power.. just like a damn bomb.

I think they said the debris caught the building on fire at 9:30am and the WTC7 fire cooked 8hrs before it collapsed.

[edit on 20-9-2008 by mapsurfer_]

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in