Author Topic: Occam's Razor and 9-11 Truth  (Read 6778 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dogstar2012

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 56
Occam's Razor and 9-11 Truth
« on: September 11, 2007, 11:22:30 am »
I've seen a lot of posts all over the web saying we're full of crap because of "Occam's Razor" so I wrote this to shut those people up. Read this and if ur a troll, NEVER BRING UP OCCAMS RAZOR AGAIN!

uh attachment test.....

and if you have any ideas for modifying or if you feel something should be sourced, do it and I'll add it (i was pissed so I had to write this, but Im also super lazy) cheers.

for some reason it all went bold. if noone wants to dl I can just copy/paste it to here (it's pretty short)

Offline Dogstar2012

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 56
Re: Occam's Razor and 9-11 Truth
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2007, 11:30:46 am »
screw it I'll just post it

                                   Occam’s Razor and 9-11 Truth

By Dogstar2012

According to wikipedia “Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle 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……This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one," or alternately, "we should not assert that for which we do not have some proof." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities……Thus, if two theories are equally accurate and neither appears more probable than the other, the simple one is to be preferred over the complicated one, because simplicity is practical.”
This theory is often used by 9-11 “Debunkers” as the be all and end all of arguments to support their case. Usually postulating that a government plot to attack and kill it’s own people is so impossible and complicated that it couldn’t possibly be true. However, “Resorting to the importance of Occam's Razor within the limits of inductive arguments still leaves open problems of formulation; "the simplest explanation tends to be the best" is a hardly formally precise statement and cannot be used, as is, to rigorously compare two competing hypotheses.” and “Albert Einstein probably had this in mind when he wrote in 1933 that "The supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience" often paraphrased as "Theories should be as simple as possible, but no simpler." It often happens that the best explanation is much more complicated than the simplest possible explanation because its postulations amount to less of an improbability. Thus the popular rephrasing of the razor - that "the simplest explanation is the best one" - fails to capture the gist of the reason behind it, in that it conflates a rigorous notion of simplicity and ease of human comprehension. The two are obviously correlated, but hardly equivalent.”
So keeping this in mind, let’s reduce the elements of some 9-11 Truth theories and try to apply Occam’s Razor, assuming two theories (Official theory and 9-11 Truth theory) are equally possible. Try to imagine you’re in school 10 plus years ago, and each scenario is completely hypothetical, unrelated and new to you. Pretend your teacher is posing these questions in a multiple choice pop-quiz. Let’s start with the most observable element of 9-11, the buildings’ collapse.

1.   3 steel and concrete skyscrapers collapse at freefall speed, almost perfectly symmetrical, into their own footprints.

A)   Airplane impact + Fire destroys 2 buildings (first time in history), Fire alone destroys the third building (also first time in history).

B)   Pre-planted demolitions take out the buildings floor by floor.

2.   19 hijackers on the terrorist watch lists enter the U.S.A. , are flagged as           terrorists,  allowed entry regardless (customs agent being told they were part of a training exercise), get drivers licenses (listing their address as an army base) and flight training in the U.S.

A)   Through “cock-ups”, lack of communication between departments                     and  ignored intelligence + memos, they somehow slipped through the cracks.

B)   They were knowingly allowed into the country.

3.   The Pentagon is struck by something. 80-odd cameras are pointing at it. All video except 4 frames from 1 camera is confiscated and never shown to the public for more than 6 years.

A)   Nothing of interest on the tapes.

B)   Something to hide on the tapes.

4.   Norman Mineta testified before Congress that VP Dick Cheney ordered a       stand-down for intercepting the flight heading to the Pentagon.

A)   He was hoping the hijacked plane would un-hijack itself.

B)   He wanted the attack to succeed.

5.   The FBI, who is normally responsible for investigating federal crimes and  indicting those believed to be responsible for said crimes, do not accuse or indict Osama bin Laden for the 9-11 attacks.

A)   They have evidence he was responsible for 9-11

B)   They have NO evidence he was responsible for 9-11

Ok I could go on but let’s stop here. This is the method  where Occam’s Razor is applicable, not the overall master-plan. Otherwise, to say that “criminal elements that have infiltrated the government carried out an attack against their own people to further their global agenda” is too complicated to be possible, is like saying “The Universe revolves around the Earth because anything else is too complicated”.  This is where the Razor fails logic. If you answered B to ONE of these questions then we need a new investigation into the events surrounding 9-11. If you didn’t, put on the “Dunce” cap and go sit in the corner.

Offline bigron

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
Re: Occam's Razor and 9-11 Truth
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2007, 11:32:59 am »
Dogstar 2012  agree with you and suggest those in doubt to read the whole explanation.........

thanks for posting same....its easyer for readers here

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Occam's Razor and 9-11 Truth
« Reply #3 on: September 11, 2007, 11:53:01 am »
Occam's Razor
Argument from fallacy "ad logicam"
Affirming the consequent or Denying the antecedent
Faulty generalization Inductive fallacies such as
Biased sample
Hasty generalization
Misleading vividness
Package-deal fallacy or False dilemma
Proof by example
Questionable cause Informal causal fallacies
Begging the question, circular logic "petitio principii"
Correlation implies causation "Cum hoc ergo propter hoc"
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Appeal to consequences "ad consequentiam"
Appeal to force "ad baculum"
Appeal to probability & Slippery slope
Informal Relevance fallacies
Irrelevant conclusion "Ignoratio elenchi" like Red herring
Straw man
Association fallacy
Ad hoc
Argument from ignorance, incredulity, belief, conviction... "ad ignorantiam"
Appeal to emotion like Appeal to fear, Appeal to flattery, Appeal to pity, Appeal to nature, Appeal to spite...
Wishful thinking
Appeal to authority or Appeal to ridicule
"Ad hominem" — Attacking the person rather than the argument
Appeal to the majority "ad populum"
Appeal to tradition "ad antiquitatem"
Informal Verbal fallacies
Equivocation & Loki's Wager
Undistributed middle & No true Scotsman
Informal fallacies
Appeal to tradition
Appeal to probability
Appeal to authority
Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance)
Argumentum ad populum (appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people)
Appeal to emotion
Appeal to novelty
Appeal to flattery
Appeal to fear
Appeal to consequences
Appeal to motive
Appeal to pity
Appeal to ridicule
Appeal to spite
Argumentum ad baculum (appeal to force, appeal to the stick)

Who gives a crap what baseless argumentative style they try...

2 + 2 = 4

End of f**king story!
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dogstar2012

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 56
Re: Occam's Razor and 9-11 Truth
« Reply #4 on: September 11, 2007, 11:56:22 am »
I agree but it still feels good to knock another leg out from under their 3-legged table  :D

Offline I Am Wolfman

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 24
    • Gatecreepers
Re: Occam's Razor and 9-11 Truth
« Reply #5 on: September 11, 2007, 12:19:00 pm »
In my opinion, Occam's Razor should never be used to judge social or political situations.

Whilst purely chemical or physical reactions, for example, can be held to Occam's razor, activities by conscious beings can not, as conscious beings can deliberately add complexity to events, or they can behave in irrational ways.
I am teeth. I am fur. I am dribble.

Offline maddog3n

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
  • "Every man dies, but not every man lives!" Wallace
Re: Occam's Razor and 9-11 Truth
« Reply #6 on: September 11, 2007, 04:43:42 pm »
Dogstar...I'm glad that you bring this up as well because most people don't understand how to use Occam's Razor.  As well as you are absolutely right with definition of Occam's Razor. 

Although the logic of Occam's Razor is it's genius in my opinion, when I have used it most troll are too stupid to understand it or pretend that they don't understand it.

By the way your attachment did go through.
" The great secret of succeeding in conversation is to admire little, to hear much; always to distrust our own reason, and sometimes that of our friends; never to pretend to wit, but to make that of others appear as much as possibly we can; to hearken to what is said and to answer to the purpose. Bl

Offline Rufus Shinra

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 230
Re: Occam's Razor and 9-11 Truth
« Reply #7 on: September 11, 2007, 04:56:03 pm »

Who gives a crap what baseless argumentative style they try...

2 + 2 = 4

End of f**king story!


From 1984...
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows"

My version of this is:

"Freedom is the Freedom to say: "2+2=4"... if that is true, what follows is: "9/11 was an inside job."

Empire of the City -- Part 1:

Please take your time to watch Part 1 and Part 2... it's very informative.

Offline Femacamper

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,398
Re: Occam's Razor and 9-11 Truth
« Reply #8 on: September 11, 2007, 05:52:19 pm »
Awesome reasoning guys...somebody needs to blog this info.

Offline Harpakhrad11

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 335
    • From Pictures to Portraits
Re: Occam's Razor and 9-11 Truth
« Reply #9 on: September 11, 2007, 06:05:15 pm »
Occam's Razor can not be used to deny the existence of data. Nice points Dogstar2012.  8)

Offline Joe(WI)

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,272
    • Knowledge
Re: Occam's Razor and 9-11 Truth
« Reply #10 on: September 11, 2007, 06:42:22 pm »

It feels GREAT to hear this! You cannot know how I have been frustrated by this "Anti-Scientific Method", just because some data points don't fit THEIR world view, therefore the WORLD is wrong, no adjustment to their model necessary.

Enter the Scientific method...

A few more things to consider, make definitions absolute, defining ALL possible outcomes. Any outcome not modeled might be harmful. Flat Earth. Senses say it is, observation. BUT!, put a stick on Equator at high noon, vs higher latitude, and the shadows are different lengths.
First ask Occumist if Earth is flat or round. Observation says flat. Have YOU seen the Earth as round? Simply cannot be. You MUST accept what is plain to see. It is FLAT. Don't allow them to complain about astrophysics, which is supported by terribly expensive satellites, oooh no! They must have simple!

Then bring these out

These are not simple, but complex. Then you have fun  ;D

Eratosthenes was one who studied ALL facts. Like the angle a shadow makes in Alexandria(7) vs Syene(0) allows you to measure the circumference of Earth, 24,000 miles. Had those two facts never been compared, the world might be radically different!

Or the Greek acceptance PI=3. IS NOT!!! ask any engineer! Ask said engineer what would happen if they DID use PI=3! Lots of bad things I imagine ;D BUT!, for the Greeks, it was 3, because they didn't believe in fractions or decimals. BUT!, it suuure was simple!

Now make the arguement about behavioral science, not things you can measure, like "How MUCH better or worse do you feel today than yesterday?" Since they can't quantify a feeling, let alone the difference, how can THEY tell whether someone LIED to THEM? WHAT did THEY measure to get to THAT conclusion?? Simplicity says you MUST accept THEIR answer(lie) as truth!

I'd love to see where this goes, Occams is about as bad as "Agree to disagree" load of crap!!
The number, 666, has been changed. The new number is, 999.

Offline Sonja

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 773
Re: Occam's Razor and 9-11 Truth
« Reply #11 on: September 12, 2007, 04:02:12 am »
Ive heard as well Occams Razor in relation to 911- simply put AS IF! As if 19 hijackers from Saudi Arabia, were commanded by a guy in a cave in Afghanistan, trained without notice in the US, and coreleated 4 hijackings with boxcutters on planes, hitting 75% of their targets WAS the 'simplest explaination?' What BARF. The reality is, 'there is no/zero coroboration of this fantasy, except the flimsy story government put out which appears to a logical mind as total specualation, leading to the logical conclusion that the story was fabricated 'beforehand'.
Nothing but a flying passport and alleged DNA supports ANY of it, and they clam WE have no real evidence!

The simplest theory in accordance to occams Razor IS government involvement , considering history and everything that has happened since 911.

Words may show a man's wit but actions his meaning.