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:

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.

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]

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?

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]

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.

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
destructive?

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 .

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.

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?