9/11 Occam's Razor

reply to post by GoodOlDave

It's as if they have some emotional need to believe the gov't is constantly plotting to murder us all...

Haven't you seen those trusters lately? Its like they have an emotional need to believe that the Federal Government loves them and would never harm them (Kent State?)


Aren't over-generalizations fun?

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by downisreallyup

Peer-Reviewed Paper: Nano-thermite Found

Who peer reviewed that paper. A simple question, so who peer reviewed it?

This paper that truthers cling onto is BS. This peer reviewed is nothing but a joke. Its a magazine where you pay to have your "work" published, its fake plus the editor was either fired or quit for allowing this in.

If the government, illumanati, nwo etc wanted to initate all the events post 9/11 by faking a terrorist attack why would they pick the most complicated and huge plan they could? To really believe a Conspiracy you have to believe that the most complicated plan in the history of mankind with millions of variables, played out live fir the entire world went off with a single problem. Its not logical, I think truthers are just bored and what to believe because it makes the world a more fantastic movie like place.

reply to post by dalan.


Maybe because he has not posted anything new and we have already discussed the links he is using?

Or, that he really just does not understand all the assumptions he must make to arrive at the story he puts his trust in?

Originally posted by downisreallyup

9/11 Occam's Razor

3) Laws of physics are more compelling than anecdotal evidence since they are not open to error or misinterpretation.

Oddly enough, the "laws of physics" are the most misinterpreted aspect of 911 conspiracy theorists. Anybody proposing or accepting a proposition that any laws of physics were "violated" is a dupe.

Good thread starred and flaged.

Personally my view is a mix of the OS and the goverment being in on it.

I think and I am happy to be proved wrong is it the goverment let the terrorists do it and maybe even had a hand in making the situation worse.

I might have missed it in previous threads but I also think thats its possible the twin towers being as important and holding the most evidence may have had a built in self destruct?

I really try to approach any theroy on ATS with an open mind then like Sherlock homes said "If you eliminate all the possibilities what ever is left how ever improbable must be the truth"

Only problem is there are so many probabilites to go through.

Another opinion I hold is that it won't be until there is no living memory of the event for the truth to come out properly.

The US government were surely told by the Germans of an impending attack involving buildings and planes. That should not have been so hard to imagine that one thing would be used on another. I am interested in topics like these, because they are attempts to fill a gap in the understanding as to how things fall down. To me it is nothing to do with trusting or truthing, and the OP said re; his thread, an open discussion. Not a slanging match. That requires addressing the information given, not a gang beating! It's all the "little" anomalies the creep in when you're not looking, the NIST $10m sophisticated CGI cartoon of the fall of WT7 as against the petty cash spent by the 9/11 Commission, which only prefaced WT7, and even there, the NIST cartoon had to be revised, because someone else was vigilant. Where are the people who made salient remarks on TV that day? Dan Rather," looks just like a demolition" now sidelined since 9/11, Harley Davidson man, [fully explaining how the tower went down] Philip Heyden, anchorman at BBC [announced that WT7 had fell, before it did] no longer at the BBC after 9/11. WT7 security man,[talked of explosions at WT7 before any collapses] deceased.Foreign troops in NY that day ushering people around. All little anomalies that could have simple, mundane explanations. What about Steven Jones? he WAS a respected publisher of scientific papers, he got sacked from his established job, for, rightly or wrongly, dared to speak his mind on a specific event which he had issue with...very democratic that. He probably didn't think he was being daring at the time! another gang beating victim. I wonder sometimes, for those that go along with the official story, how much of it do they believe themselves...every little comma and full stop? the same goes for alternative explanations too, some are obviously outlandish, to me that is, and in any case you can't accept them all. The Thermite idea however is based on something real, and there has been evidence gathering from the scene, so it is a valid theme for discussion here. Any references to other scenarios like holographic airplanes, and missiles and ufo's are not relevant here..unless of course someone can make a salient connection!

Originally posted by downisreallyup

I have been thinking that it would indeed be a good idea to formulate a possible conspiracy scenario to explain the how's and why's, but then I realized that even putting forth a possible scenario would not really open any kind of "hey, you're right... or maybe they would have done it this way..." The fact is, conspiracies are always hard to explain until the perpetrators are caught, so it is impossible to prove anything as long as the "potential wolves" are in charge of the hen house.

Nah, that's not it. Conspiracies...or to be precise, your 9/11 conspiracies...are impossible to prove becuase despite how desperately you attempt to manipulate the facts to your liking, there will always be a brick wall you simply cannot get past. For one, the towers were occupied buildings, containing tens of thousands of tenants, inspectors, electricians, mechanics, plumbers, security, etc etc etc, all on the lookout for sabotage ever since the FIRST WTC attack in 1993. For another, so many agencies and people were involved, from the FAA to NIST to the military to workers clearing the wreckage from ground zero, that it is utterly impossible to get *everyone* involved or to keep *everyone* quiet. For yet another, controlled demolitions ain't just walking up and planting a bomb liek you would a wad of chewing gum- you have to pre-cut the steel most of the way to weaken it and then wire the explosives in a chain so that they all go off simultaneously. There simply is no way to plant CD without getting noticed.

Up until now, the universal response of the conspiracy theorists to these blatant obstacles is to accuse literally everyone from military officials to NY fire fighters to even a taxi driver of being secret government agents involved in the conspiracy and/or coverup. I don't have to tell you this isn't proof- it's simply repeating the original conspiracy in different terms. I must tell you I am immune to circular logic.

The thing is, I used to be exactly like you in the respect that I thought the world was basically decent and that governments of the western world were basically decent though terribly incompetent. I used to believe that what was reported on the news was essentially trustworthy, and that the world was pretty well understood by everybody.

...so which of these damned fool conspiracy web sites did you go to that suckered you into believing there was some sinister secret conspiracy afoot instead? You and I both know that this is what got you to believe this paranoid rubbish, either that, or by someone who was suckered by them and who in turn suckered you.

Conspiracies are not really that hard to pull off. By using strict compartmentalization you can keep many people in the dark. By telling everyone that you are running training exercises, you can get people to go along with your scheme, since they don't believe it is real.

Your conjecture is intellectually bankrupt. These conspirators would have to be thoroughly as stupid as a bag of hammers to not understand that sneaking in undetected past security and planting hidden demolitions in an occupied building is going to get a lot of people killed, regardless of whether they were told why they were doing it or not. The same goes for whoever it was that was lined up to steer the planes into the towers to begin with.

Originally posted by downisreallyup
The "official story" is the explanation with the most assumptions. You simply refuse to look at them I guess.

I personally would LOVE to read their 'assumptions' pertaining to WTC7

Wait! What's that? They don't even mention WTC7 ? Is that a fact?

How conspiratorial of us!

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by downisreallyup

9/11 Occam's Razor

3) Laws of physics are more compelling than anecdotal evidence since they are not open to error or misinterpretation.

Oddly enough, the "laws of physics" are the most misinterpreted aspect of 911 conspiracy theorists. Anybody proposing or accepting a proposition that any laws of physics were "violated" is a dupe.

That singular remark requires an explanation, most items I have seen use gravity freefall as a marker, then plus mass not in freefall, and that goes for all parties. Neither of those parties mention the specific gravity on that day, not that it would matter all that much in this case.


[edit on 13-2-2010 by smurfy]

I think your math is a bit off... unless typo.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
When the 80th floor collapsed it accelerated 31 floors to about 20 miles per hour as they all hit the 79th floor...

(Emphasis mine)

Not sure what you meant to say here, but 80 - 31 = 49?

Chrono

reply to post by downisreallyup


An interesting scenario. Most people make quite a few assumptions when they speak from either side of this conspiratorial coin. Truthers often make the mistake of assuming that terrorists couldn't have done it, or that it couldn't have happened the way that it did. Most things under the sun being unknown one can't, out-of-hand dismiss the OS completely.

Then on-the-other-hand, you have so-called 'trusters' who assume that a conspiracy of this magnitude couldn't be done. I cringe every time I read some poor sap on these threads say that "it all went off without a hitch?" When, realistically, if it was a black op, then the closest I think anyone can say is that it barely worked. One has to simply look at all the holes in the story to see the errors that were made, the avenues of investigation that were overlooked, and the determination of people to solve what they view as a problem.

I find it very telling that (on average) both sides of the argument tend to ignore the most damning questions that have been asked, instead choosing to focus on petty little things (such as the intelligence of a poster, their age, relative education, etc.), instead of attempting to answer the question posed.

One of the questions I often read from trusters, is about how any explosives (if there indeed were any) would be placed without "anyone knowing." Well that one is easy actually. Most people actually tend to mind their own business in places of business. You see a group of people with jumpsuits on, carrying tools, and wearing badges, and you tend to go about your day. I saw an interview some time ago with a former resident of one of the towers that remembered quite a bit of 'repair work' going on in the weeks proceeding the 'attacks.' As for the comment that people would be preternaturally alert or suspicious because of previous attacks, well that's another huge assumption. One which totally ignores your average persons tendency towards laziness and disinterest.

As to the OP, well, you'd have to have a more complete picture of the event, and the protagonists to be able to use Occam's Razor effectively. The fact is, that there is so much missing, so much that is unseen or unexplained to get a good feel for the events. I have to agree, in that the rate of descent on the towers is probably one of the hardest to simply hand-waive away, and will probably continue to haunt investigators for some time. The best way to know, of course, is to recreate the event... but we all know that's not feasible in this case.

Chrono

reply to post by Chronogoblin
Hi Chrono,
I do wish there were people like you willing to allow something to be said without the gang beating. And you will always get the smart-ass to pull a certain phrase without comment,(which is often used out of its ultimate, empirical context to explain something realistic) as a term that has been abused, when it hasn't. BTW, Xtro, was talking about the 31 floors above the 80th floor, or rather, what was left of them.




[edit on 13-2-2010 by smurfy]

reply to post by downisreallyup


I think people tend to use Occams Razor a little too much when trying to account for 9/11 (or for most things for that matter). Occams Razor is strictly a probability statement, not physical law, so even though something sounds good according to the Razor, that doesn't necessarily make it the truth. Whether it's easier to believe 19 muslims did it or 50,000 US Govt. officials did it, Occams Razor will not solve the question.

I also think that the "truth" movement focuses too much on the towers. True, that is where the most destruction was and is what is burned into our memories, but 2 110 story buildings falling down is something unheard of. My opinion is that the truth movement needs to focus on things that are provable (i.e. have been done before), and then when the other parts of the official story have been shown faulty, that is time to attack the towers question.

Originally posted by Chronogoblin
I think your math is a bit off... unless typo.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
When the 80th floor collapsed it accelerated 31 floors to about 20 miles per hour as they all hit the 79th floor...

(Emphasis mine)

Not sure what you meant to say here, but 80 - 31 = 49?

Chrono

The floors ABOVE the 80th floor where the plane hit accelerated to 20 MPH as the 80th floor weaken and collapsed onto the 79th floor. What was designed to handle in static load capacity cannot handle the same in dynamic load, and so the 79th floor collapsed even though it was somewhat still structurally sound. Now you have 31 floors falling on the 78th floor at over 2x the kinetic energy that hit the 79th floor and it gave away even faster. By the time 32 floors hit the 77th floor there is almost zero resistance, since after the first few floors the force was so great it was turning concrete to dust almost instantly.

Just take a 20 pound weight and drop it 13 feet and you can see the difference between static and dynamic loads. Then drop it 26 feet, or 39….. hell of a lot of force.

Originally posted by Chronogoblin


One of the questions I often read from trusters, is about how any explosives (if there indeed were any) would be placed without "anyone knowing." Well that one is easy actually. Most people actually tend to mind their own business in places of business. You see a group of people with jumpsuits on, carrying tools, and wearing badges, and you tend to go about your day. I saw an interview some time ago with a former resident of one of the towers that remembered quite a bit of 'repair work' going on in the weeks proceeding the 'attacks.' As for the comment that people would be preternaturally alert or suspicious because of previous attacks, well that's another huge assumption. One which totally ignores your average persons tendency towards laziness and disinterest.

I also think placing explosives would be the easiest part. The timing though is a different story. The whole plane hitting the tower(s) created such a huge variable in the timing of it all. Also no one really knew what structure limitations the towers had in their designs to actually plan this event in the first place. The towers falling as they did was just as much a surprise to the terrorist as it was to us.

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by downisreallyup

9/11 Occam's Razor

3) Laws of physics are more compelling than anecdotal evidence since they are not open to error or misinterpretation.

Oddly enough, the "laws of physics" are the most misinterpreted aspect of 911 conspiracy theorists. Anybody proposing or accepting a proposition that any laws of physics were "violated" is a dupe.

That singular remark requires an explanation, most items I have seen use gravity freefall as a marker, then plus mass not in freefall, and that goes for all parties. Neither of those parties mention the specific gravity on that day, not that it would matter all that much in this case.


[edit on 13-2-2010 by smurfy]

What explanation would satisfy you? Even though no laws of physics were broken, this angle is played by some CTers to persuade the unsophisticated, often in the ways you've mentioned above, and usually employing a blinded-by-science technique. All physical laws worked perfectly on 911 and not one of the proposed agents that caused the alleged breach in the laws of physics is capable of such a tall order. If you're willing to accept such an absurd claim then presumably anything goes, and you'll likely accept that bombs, nukes or even UFOs could be the culprit.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer
That explanation, as an enlargement on what you first said will do just fine, it helps to know that you're not biased in any way BTW, what claim is it that I am willing to accept, I don't recall accepting anything, nor may I ever do to, whatever it is you're talking about.



[edit on 14-2-2010 by smurfy]

Originally posted by smurfy
whatever it is you're talking about.

I'm sorry you're unable to keep up. Here's the Cliff Notes version: if you believe anyone who claims that laws of physics were violated on 911 then you're a dupe.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by smurfy
whatever it is you're talking about.

I'm sorry you're unable to keep up. Here's the Cliff Notes version: if you believe anyone who claims that laws of physics were violated on 911 then you're a dupe.

Now you're going back to one-liners again, and you're telling me about what I believe in... I, repeat I, never said I believe anything about anything...what is it I'm supposed to keep up with? You're the one who keeps rattling on about the laws of physics. I only want to hear what people have to say on the matter of buildings that fall down in an unusual manner, not to see people verbalising about "Trusters" and "Truthers" that's just the old gang mentality.