Occam's Razor isn't really a tool for finding truth, but a guideline for which one of two probabilities would be a better bet. It is handy and useful, but it isn't an argument I would use in court.

[deleted]

I get what you're trying to to say, but I have to take offense to it. If I could make it a rule that no one could ever mention reptiles again, I would, but that would break the rules we already have.

Every time someone just hints at the word reptile, it makes us all look bad. It has become codeword for "those of us who have gone way too far over the edge", and the public knows this. One of the biggest PR hits we've had in the past year was simply Louis CK going on Opie and Anthony, and saying "People believe Rumsfeld is a lizard man".

I know all of that didn't really have to deal with what you're talking about, but "lizard men believers" is like the "nigger" of /r/conspiracy. It's a derogatory reference that doesn't really get any point across.

THAT BEING SAID: I did mention that Occam's Razor was useful, however it is not really a tool for finding the truth. It is merely a tool to figure out which probability to bet on in the absence of conclusive evidence. Occam's Razor is not some law of physics, nor is it even a complete rule for logic. It is about likelihood, not fact.

[deleted]

Again, Occam's Razor has nothing to do with actual truth or facts. If Occam's Razor leads you to support one probability, that process does not equate to that probability being a fact. Nor does it exclude the other probability from being fact.

Use it only as an investigative tool, not a divining rod.

I only mentioned the reptilian thing because the use of it tends to be almost slanderous against this community. "Oh, /r/conspiracy...you mean the folks who believe in lizard people?". See what I mean? It's used to make us look like idiots. That's why I hate seeing mentions of it. I didn't mention the lizard people thing to support my views on Occam's Razor. It was just a tangent.

Are there any instances where the conspiracy theory has the fewest assumptions?

The way I respond is to always stay completely focused on government documents. You can argue all day with someone over "science" when it comes what temperature steel beams melt and how fast buildings fall. So just point out the lies in the report. 503 firefighters were forcibly denied their opportunity to have their eyewitness testimony included in the history of this nation (legally, government workers like firefighters are considered "expert testimony" in the court of law). That's a blatant lie of omission. And what does Occam's Razor say when applied to lies? It's usually that someone is trying to hide something.

When someone brings up Occam's Razor as it applies to 911, remind them that it's not about the simple explanation as to what happened. It's about the way this crime was investigated and recorded in history. It's about legal justice and truth in the history books. As it stands, the version of history our children will be taught in school is a blatant lie.

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/b7foreknowledge.html

Nope. First responders even heard a countdown on the radio.

First responders One guy claimed he even heard a countdown on the radio. Yeah. That guy's story gets better and better each time he tells it.

He thinks the firefighters, the red cross, and the press were all in on it.

I think the fact that they knew the building was coming down merely meant that they had some very conscientious and knowledgeable firefighters and engineers weighing in on the matter at hand that afternoon. Way more knowledgeable than Richard Gage at any rate.

How knowledgeable if that was a historical first for that type of steel reinforced building?

That makes them seem especially talented to me. If they were to have shrugged their shoulders and concluded that the building was safe because no building ever fell down because of fire alone (even though they wouldn't have known that NIST would conclude fire was the cause six years later) and then the building fell they would have gotten people killed.

The firefighters were looking at a building with a huge gash down the side, and was burning like crazy all down the south side, and they were hearing bangs (not explosions) as parts of the structure was failing.

If you think something cannot happen because it hasn't happened before then I can't help you. I'm sorry.

A huge gash, you say?

More than a month after the bombing, at 7:01 am on May 23, the Murrah Federal building was demolished. That's some sturdy concrete!

Maybe *if WTC7 was made out of concrete instead of steel it would have survived, huh?

A huge gash, you say?

That's the north side of the building. Glad I could help you out there, genius.

How many stories was Murrah building? How many stories of the building are pushing down on that damage? Do you suppose that could make any difference?

A concrete building could survive a bomb that destroyed 1/3 of it and still stood straight for more than a month, but a steel building couldn't stand an office fire for 5 hours? Is that what your'e saying?

The fact that the Murrah building was smaller suggests that it should have collapsed due to having most of it's support blown off, but it didn't.

A concrete building could survive a bomb that destroyed 1/3 of it and still stood straight for more than a month, but a steel building couldn't stand an office fire widespread fires on multiple floors for 5 hours? Is that what your'e saying?

That's what NIST and the FDNY say. I agree with them.

The fact that the Murrah building was smaller suggests that it should have collapsed due to having most of it's support blown off, but it didn't.

Why does it suggest that?

How do office fires compare to an actual explosion that demolished 1/3 of a building, yet remained standing for more than a month using a weaker type of building structure?

How do office fires widespread fires on multiple floors compare to an actual explosion that demolished 1/3 of a building, yet remained standing for more than a month using a weaker type of building structure?

They don't, especially when the buildings are different types of construction, different sizes, and had different things happen to them.

Hence the contrast, rather than comparison: one fell down and the other one didn't.

Explosion < office fire. Got it.

Opinion of Landscape Architects for 911 truth > opinion of FDNY, real architects, and NIST.

Got it.

Richard Gage, AIA, is a San Francisco Bay Area architect of 25 years, a member of the American Institute of Architects, and the founder and CEO of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth.org), a 501(c)3 educational charity representing more than 2,000 degreed/licensed architects and engineers who have signed a petition calling for a new, independent investigation, with full subpoena power, into the destruction of the Twin Towers and the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11.

The more than 17,000 non-A/E signatories include many scientists, attorneys, and other responsible, educated citizens in the US and abroad. They cite overwhelming evidence for explosive controlled demolition.

Mr. Gage has worked on most types of building construction, including numerous fire-proofed, steel-framed buildings. Most recently, he worked on the construction documents for a $400M mixed-use urban project with 1.2 million square feet of retail, a parking structure, and 320,000 square feet of mid-rise office space—altogether with about 1,200 tons of steel framing.

Yep, And how did they "know" it was going to collapse? Because it was so badly damaged, or because the supposedly super-secret demolition plan was widely leaked on the day?

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc

Occam's Razor suggests Option A as more likely.

So you really felt for the trick of name dropping scientific sounding methods applied to irrelevant and non-related fields to impress people who did never heard of said methods? By definition Occams Razor is a rule of thumb that should only be applied to natural sciences (chemistry, biology and physics). The reasoning behind it is that Mother Nature optimized processes and does not waste energy and this means that the most straight forward and most simple explanation is something Mother Nature would come up. Therefore simple explanations are more likely. And still it is never used to proof a theory or to eliminate all other options.

With other words Occams Razor does not suggest non natural causes or human interventions to be more likely if they are the most common or most simple opinions or theories. Given that you did not interpret the definition of Occams Razor right there is no basis for your claim in your last sentence.

By definition Occams Razor is a rule of thumb that should only be applied to natural sciences (chemistry, biology and physics).

By whose "definition," exactly? I guess that rules out its use in, oh, religion, say. Must come as a surprise to the Franciscan friar and theologian, William of Ockham, after whom it's named. Or the others in the same field who used it before him, such as Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus.

The reality: it can actually be used in any field where you have data, hypotheses and assumptions. Which certainly includes 9/11.

Nope. First responders even heard a countdown on the radio.

This is shady as all get out. And begs answers to questions that must be answers. Never before has a steel structure "blown up" due to simple office fires. Yet it was widely known that it was going to "blow up."

Nope. Hey, I have a Youtube video too!

So I'm afraid I'm going to need rather more than these highly dubious reports, given the copious number of confirmed eye-witnesses who have gone on record as being able to tell that the building was in a precarious situation.

His story is consistent on all accounts. A steel framed building has never before collapsed due to fire. How come firefighters and police officers were warning people that it was going to collapse?

Because there are obvious signs when a building is critically damaged? A firefighter isn't just going to let people hang around if there's a chance of collapse.

Are those the same signs that a building will free-fall for two seconds into its own footprint as if the whole structural support of the giant steel structure was suddenly and simultaneously removed by some magical force?

So neatly into its own footprint that it did 322 million dollars in damage to one building and enough to a second that it had to be demolished. Both of those buildings were across the street.

I didn't say neatly, I said into its own footprint, which for the most part it quite obviously did, a few large pieces of debris notwithstanding.

Controlled demolitions don't always go flawlessly, and the perpetrators obviously didn't concern themselves with liability for surrounding structural damage given the nature of this operation.

In any case the point is that anyone with eyes to see witnessed a 47-story steel-framed building dropping like a sack of potatoes that NIST claimed happened due to some magical internal process that only they are able to model and for some strange reason refuse to release said model for peer review.

And yet debunkers have the gaul to call themselves the scientific ones.

I didn't say neatly, I said into its own footprint, which for the most part it quite obviously did, a few large pieces of debris notwithstanding.

So most of the debris ended up where the building had been standing...except for the stuff that made it all the way across the street.

Explain how this is odd. Did you expect the building to tip over like a tree?

Controlled demolitions don't always go flawlessly

You could say the same about uncontrolled collapses.

In any case the point is that anyone with eyes to see witnessed a 47-story steel-framed building dropping like a sack of potatoes that NIST claimed happened due to some magical internal process that only they are able to model and for some strange reason refuse to release said model for peer review.

When a controlled demolition scenario is modeled and peer reviewed, you let me know. Until then, only one side of the argument has even attempted to produce any work on the topic.

No, it's the same signs that show you don't know what you're talking about. The north face was in free fall briefly, because of the lack of support of the core of the building which collapsed before it. It also didn't fall into its own footprint; the rubble spread over several blocks and damaged other buildings. But you can continue with your straw men attacks anyway.

So the whole core collapsed all at once, and then the north face collapsed separately from the other faces?

I didn't say that, either. If you watch the (non-propagandically edited) video of it falling, you can see the collapse begin quite clearly beneath the penthouse, several seconds before the north face collapse.

north face collapsed separately from the other faces

Yes; the north face was essentially just a facade with little structural support apart from the core.

So did the core collapse simultaneously or not?

No. I don't recall claiming it did.

If the core does not collapse simultaneously, then why does the exterior face of the building collapse simultaneously?

It doesn't. I'm sure you've watched the videos yourself; certain sections fall faster than others, and the point directly in front of the primary failure starts falling before the rest (the section about 1/3 from the left).

So one exterior section is standing while another part is falling?

If you've seen then videos, then that is quite clear, yes.

Maybe we're looking at a different building. For approximately how many seconds is one section falling while the other is standing?

Did you watch the video? He's absolutely not consistent at all: significant aspects change dramatically between his two re-tellings. The phrase "laughed out of court" comes to mind.

As for your second question, this is a great opportunity to apply Occam's Razor. Which theory requires less in the way of assumptions?

• That the alleged super-secret plan to bring WTC 7 down was leaked to everyone present - including the BBC! - purely in the interests of public safety. Even though those supposedly behind 9/11 had shown themselves previously willing to kill over 400 first responders in the main tower.
• That people who know first-hand what dangerous buildings look like, recognized one - especially considering the main towers had come down, which would tend to focus one's mind on the possibility.

this is a great opportunity to apply Occam's Razor

Of course, I mean, it's not like you have another argument to use.

Watch this segment and give me the answers to the questions at the end. I'm sure that'll be easy peasy for you.

Well, that's 10 minutes of my life I'll never get back. All it does is confirm what I said: a general, highly widespread awareness that the building "is collapsing," according to CNN. Outside of McPadden's (already inconsistent and discredited) testimony, there's little or nothing which counters the hypothesis of a badly-damaged building, that everyone involved could tell was in a highly-precarious situation.

I see. Everyone could tell that something that has never happened in the history of steel-framed buildings was about to happen to this one. Makes sense, case closed.

Everything is "unprecedented" until it happens for the first time. Quite a lot of things that day, had never happened in history before either.

So maybe they should have also predicted that a unicorns and dragons would rain down from the sky too, since anything could happen on a day like 9/11.

Indeed that's what it must feel like to believe the official version of the events that unfolded, knowing everything we know about the "unprecedented" events of the day.

Like the three ace pilots that never flew any of those jets in their lives commandeering them through maneuvers that professional pilots with years of experience would have found difficult or impossible. Like a hundred other things that defy any rational explanation to someone capable of reason and logic.

Everything is "unprecedented" until it happens for the first time

and in the case of 911 something "unprecedented" thats never happened to a steel building before happened not once, not twice, but THREE times in one day. tower 1&2 fell because of 2 planes crashing and jet fuel, ok. but wtc7 no plane crash,no jet fuel(because thats how tower1&2 fell because of the extreme heat of jet fuel weakened the beams ok) so how did the temp get hot enough to weaking the steel beams on wtc7?

Not meaning it was going to collapse.

I don't know about you, but whenever I'm about to secretly demolish a building, I always do a New Year's Eve-style countdown in full view of witnesses.

So the first-responder witness is lying that there was a countdown?

Which version of his story?

Hmmm, this guy could actually SEE the building leaning before it collapsed.

He wasn't the only one. FDNY statements are positively littered with first hand accounts of the building leaning, or bulging, or creaking. They all knew it was going to collapse.

How did they know if it had never happened before, and the building was reinforced above the requirements during a renovation?

Ask the firefighter in the clip. I'm not the one making the claim, the guy in the clip who is paid to make that determination is the one saying it.

So you base your statement on the observation of 1 firefighter, while a whole community of experts say it's not possible? The building had been reinforced to a point where it would've made it even more impossible.

So you base your statement on the observation of 1 firefighter

Actually more like dozens of them.

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/b7foreknowledge.html

"Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors."

"At this point, 7, which is right there on Vesey, the whole corner of the building was missing. I was thinking to myself we are in a bad place, because it was the corner facing us."

"And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandeis came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. "

"I was looking at WTC-7 and I noticed that it wasn't looking straight. It was really weird. The closest corner to me (SE corner) was kind of out of whack with the SW corner. It was impossible to tell whether the corner (SW) was leaning over more or even if it was leaning the other way. . . . I'm sure I could see the building was leaning over in a way it certainly should not be."

"That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see"

Are you claiming all these men DIDN'T see what they claim they saw?

Are you claiming all these men DIDN'T see what they claim they saw?

They did, but that does not mean fire was the cause.

In your opinion, firefighters have more knowledge than the people who actually plan, design and construct these types of buildings?

Put it this way, if multiple firefighters on the scene tell me a building on fire is in danger of collapse, I'm not going to be surprised in the slightest when - hey! - it collapses.

Especially when they have never seen a steel framed building do that before in their lives?

They did, but that does not mean fire was the cause.

What was causing the building to lean and bulge then?

In your opinion, firefighters have more knowledge than the people who actually plan, design and construct these types of buildings?

Most architects and engineers have absolutely no issue with the NIST report on the WTC 7 collapse.

Firefighters are paid to know when a building is structurally unsound. These firefighters were actually on the ground and inside WTC7. They didn't make their determination from watching hours of YouTube videos, they were there.

They saw the building as a significant collapse risk hours before, and they were right.

The NIST report has not been peer-reviewed, therefore it's not a valid scientific document.

Since this was the first time a building of this caliber has collapsed "due to fire", how did they know that was the cause?

Got some good "peer reviewed" studies showing it was a controlled demolition? Or do you apply this standard only to one side of the argument?

Yes, I do.

"Peer reviewed."

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Then explain what it means and if that's what was done to the research done by NIST.

That was not your statement. Stop shifting the goalposts.

The vast majority of architects, engineers and demolition experts agree with NISTs report. The FDNY would also tend to agree since they saw the building in distress with their own eyes.

Since this was the first time a building of this caliber has collapsed "due to fire", how did they know that was the cause?

There was absolutely no evidence of anything else causing the collapse. No evidence at all of a controlled demolition. Controlled demolition experts that were consulted said it was not a controlled demolition.

The vast majority of architects, engineers and demolition experts agree with NISTs report.

No, they don't.

The FDNY would also tend to agree since they saw the building in distress with their own eyes.

Distress does not mean collapse.

No evidence at all of a controlled demolition. Controlled demolition experts that were consulted said it was not a controlled demolition.

Looks an awful like a controlled demolition to me. If it quacks like a duck...

No, they don't.

Yeah dude, they really do.

Distress does not mean collapse.

The FDNY sure seemed to think it did. Since they are the ones paid to make that determination, and they are the ONLY ones who were anywhere near that building, I'd say their opinion carries a lot of weight. They abandoned hundreds of their brothers who were dying in the rubble pile because they were so convinced building 7 was about to collapse.

Looks an awful like a controlled demolition to me. If it quacks like a duck...

So your YouTube skills mean more than the FDNY calling the collapse. Good to know.

Saying they do does not prove they do.

Explain how this was possible.

Where the information comes from (YouTube) is irrelevant if the information checks out. Are you saying everything on YouTube is a lie because it's on YouTube?

Just off the top of my head, the Murrah building wasn't made from the same materials, wasn't constructed in the same fashion, and wasn't nearly the same size as WTC7, therefore e scenarios are nowhere near comparable. In science, you have to compare apples to apples.

If you want to see a concrete reinforced building collapse from fire alone, the Delft University architecture building came down in 2008.

Concrete reinforced building sure, steel, not so much.

What other reinforced steel framed building has collapsed due to fire in 5 hours time?

Find me an example of a 40 plus story building with the same column design as WTC7 that sustained massive damage from debris, had its fire suppression system taken out, and had massive fires on over a dozen floors raging completely unfought for 7 hours.

The FDNY saw visible signs of impending collapse hours before. The fact that they called it makes your demolition theory laughable.

I can't because it never has happened before, is my point, and should not have happened at all. Architects & Engineers > FDNY.

I can't because it never has happened before, is my point

You're right, a 47 story building heavily damaged by debris and with fires burning unfought on over a dozen floors for 7 hours had never happened before. So what makes you think that is an easily predictable scenario?

You know what else has never happened before or since?

• Controlled demolition of a building over 26 stories.

• Controlled demolition of a building using thermite

• Controlled demolition of a building that was still completely occupied by tenants

• Controlled demolition of a building with 25 percent of the structure burning out of control for 7 hours. Exactly how did the demolition charges, triggers and miles and miles of wiring survive all that fire?

Seems like your controlled demolition scenario would have been equally unprecedented. By your rational, shouldn't that make it IMPOSSIBLE?

Unprecedented because it's never been tried. Now it has and it has been proven to work.

The way you bastardize the word "proof" makes me cringe myself into a ball.

No, the controlled demolition theory isn't proven. To even suggest it is laughable.

The 26 story building that stands as the record for CD took months to wire up, with the building completely empty. It also notably did not have fires raging over 25 percent of the building right before demolition. How did those charges and all that wiring function flawlessly after being trapped in an inferno?

Ridiculous.

Still in speaking in conjecture? No proof of anything you're saying?

The JL Hudson Department Store is the largest controlled demolition in history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._L._Hudson_Department_Store_and_Addition

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP1HJoG-1Pg

CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.

No conjecture at all. Straight facts.

It took 12 people 24 days to wire a completely empty building for demolition. They needed 4118 charges in 1100 locations, nearly 3 thousand pounds of explosives and 36 THOUSAND feet of detonating cord for that job. They didn't have to worry about a thousand full time employees, security guards or camera crews finding them out either.

That building was just over HALF the size of WTC7. That building also didn't have uncontrolled fires raging for hours before they pushed the button.

Again, the controlled demolition "theory" looks ridiculous.

Just as yours, uncontrolled fires raging. Oh the rage, so much rage, too bad office fires can't melt steel, much less in uniform to bring it down so symmetrically.

You're back to melted steel? Jesus, you guys love beating a dead horse, don't you. Do you have the slightest idea how foolish you sound?

There was no need for the steel to be melted, and in fact NIST does not suggest melted steel played any part in the collapse of WTC7.

Got it? Get your facts straight. I'm getting bored with having to correct you constantly.

So what caused it?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You're attacking NIST without even knowing what the fucking report says????

Jesus Christ man. Here, I'll give you a crash course:

The heat from the fires caused the 30 foot beams in the Northeast corner of the building to expand. The beams would have expanded 0.0000065 inches per inch of original length per degree Fahrenheit, a process known as "thermal expansion". In that rate, a 50 foot steel beam would increase 0.39 inches per 100 degrees Fahrenheit.

Based on the temperatures inside WTC7, those key floor beams in the northeast corner would have increased in length by over 4 inches. At floor 13, that expansion sheared the bolts that connected column 79 to the girder reaching across to column 44. This would also explain the visible bulging defect seen by multiple firefighters on the ground between floors 10 and 13.

Increased expansion pushed that girder completely off the seat holding it against column 79, causing the 13th floor to collapse onto the floors below it. That was what initiated the collapse. Column 79 had insufficient lateral support for the 33 floors above it at that point, causing it to buckle eastward. That began a progressive collapse starting in the northeast corner of the building.

That progressive collapse can be seen in the video you guys so often cite. The northeast portion of the penthouse develops a kink, followed by it collapsing into the interior of the building. A couple seconds later, the west penthouse collapses in the same way. Right after that, the north facade also develops a kink, followed by the north facade collapsing. Everything occurs from east to west in a progressive fashion starting directly above column 79.

No melting steel needed. Got it? Great. Now you can stop parroting that bullshit lie, right?

Nah, try again.

Where in your clip does NIST claim melted steel played a roll in the collapse?

That's the issue at hand. You said this:

too bad office fires can't melt steel, much less in uniform to bring it down so symmetrically.

Yet nowhere does NIST say what you're claiming they said. You're constructing a strawman argument made of bullshit. I proved that. Thanks for linking your video that backs up what NISTs explanation was, instead of your strawman lie.

Thanks for linking your video that backs up what NISTs explanation was

You seem to have failed to watch the part where NIST is debunked.

I proved you are a liar. That was my intention.

Proved? Where exactly did you look up the word?

You can't argue with science, that's the point. Materials have set meeting points, it's basic physics. You can't jurist dismiss it because it doesn't fit the theory you like the most.

But the Architects and Engineers have a model of how WTC 7 fell and the NIST have a model. Who's right? Let's compare the CAD and independently verify through science. Oh wait. NIST wont release their model while AE911 do. So what do you do? The government simply says the science is classified. Its a wash when it comes to the science unless its declassified.

forcibly denied their opportunity to have their eyewitness testimony included in the history of this nation

Hardly.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

Try to use it on proven conspiracies and see. Iran-Contra would be a good place. Did coke get pumped into this country in the 80's by a Columbian drug lord or by a vast network of U.S. government and shadow government employees (CIA, DOJ, US military, etc...) in order to purchase arms for the overthrow of the Iranian government. Occam's razor would suggest the former.

Occam's Razor appears to be most often used here as a crutch in support of anything 'official'. When invoked, it is literally never backed up with comparative lists of assumptions.

In the scientific method, Occam's Razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic

I've actually thought about this a few times myself. The magic bullet theory is one of those ridiculously far fetched sequence of events that would usually be dismissed using Ocaam's Razor but is warmly welcomed because it's in the offical report.

The way I see it there are two problems with OR:

1. Misunderstanding the OR altogether. Most often it is used to fortify any conventional position. It is erroneously used as a synonym to "that which is outlandish, cannot be true". If OR was only ever applied this way, one only has to do outlandish things to stay out of its reach.

2. Basic strawman use. Combined with the misuse outlined above, this is a common problem I see occurring. It doesn't take a propaganda wizard to utilize OR in building up a reptilian strawman and accepting any proposed, reasonable-sounding alternative.

Occam's Razor does not apply to conspiracy theories. The fox intentionally makes the trail complex to frustrate pursuers.

Occam's razor applies to literally anything that obeys some form of logic or structure. It is not irrefutable, or always correct, of course, but I fail to see how it isn't applicable.

When you realize humans don't behave rationally or logically or predictably like a physical science, occam just becomes a crutch.

Yes and no. It's not a tool designed to answer the question; it's just supposed to help guide you towards the most likely one.

some form of logic or structure

...which, by (conspiracy's) definition, is scrambled to code the actual intent.

guide you towards the most likely one.

I would reword this thought "guide you toward... one".

invocation of occam's = sure sign you are dealing with a shill

No need to invoke shills. There's no shortage of people who want to feel smug and intelligent by adopting the 'debunker' mindset.

Source: I was one

oh a convert? well done breaking the shackles brother.

i suppose you are right but when we say shill - really it covers a multitude of sins - from uninformed to retarded to paid by satan. there is no word for some of the turds we get in here, shill is just the closest we have.

assuming we are accusing you of being paid for it is a mistake

Let's avoid the term. It's being used like this a lot lately. Let's just call them "shady". I still agree with you.

Or you could just avoid personal attacks in general, and instead focus on the arguments put forth.

invocation of shill = sure sign you are dealing with someone who has a weak position, knows it, and has to resort to ad hominem attacks instead.

go back to kissing your supervisors crack

http://www.theonion.com/articles/911-truther-vows-not-to-rest-until-everyone-knows,35319/

Motive, means, opportunity. Ever since Egypt and Rome, people have been gaming whatever system there was, and covering their tracks.

Problem is the conversation is easily sidetracked to details that only experts with subpoena powers to get official information (assuming they would even get it) could seriously debate. And even then, there would be disagreements just like there are technical disagreements among experts on every issue in the world. JFK and the bullets, 9/11 and freefall. Are you a ballistics expert, an engineer? Then all you can do is pick one, and side with them. Against other experts. Its not going to resolve anything, not without motive, means, opportunity. Not the what, but the who.

So, some of the most significant data in a conspiracy is circumstantial. Let's say we got a jury of 19 people in a jurisdiction where the judge was not already sold out (good luck with that!) and have experts present testimony regarding who benefited, who had the means, who had the opportunity. Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld and dozens of others could be cross examined and related information subpoenaed. Let's say that you had expert air line pilots, experts in the demolition industry, experts on the flight path of the plane that they say hit the pentagon, experts in cell phone technology and commercial aircraft flight phone technology, experts in the US air defense systems, etc etc, I wonder what the jury would decide?

In totality, even Occam's razor might say that it was just too weird that the official explanations could possibly have pat but bs answers for every strange thing that happened in the years and months before and after 9/11 that would have to add up. Anthrax, the Bush/Blair conversations, Osama faked tapes, the winners of the oil game, the winners of the drug game, the conversion from cold war to war on terror, etc etc. How many fingers are pointing at random unrelated events? A lot of it is there in the 9/11 timeline.

But its all irrelevant. Dispassionate truth only happens after the subject is moved to the mythology and history shelves. We can discuss ancient Greek history in ways that would blow your mind. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still too hot to touch. Same with MLK, JFK, Vietnam. The Civil War realities are just now starting to be really discussed, and it isn't pretty.

There are 250 years of myth-making, the whole story of the US at stake and there are over 300 million lives tied to a shark like system that dies if it stops moving. The story works: you have gas, your fridge isn't empty, and on Monday morning, the whole thing rolls forward or if it doesn't, there would be total chaos.

i don't know how it came about, but these last few days Operation Gladio kept popping up in all my reading, often totally unexpected.

so there you go: Operation Gladio

research it.

little bit of info: Operation Gladio was the secret of secrets after WW2, developed by the US, enabled through Nato, administered locally, with governments often not knowing about it's existence or function.

very much a conspiracy.

basically it was designed to lead resistance to anything left of the political spectrum. killings and robberies all over Europe, Turkey and some say it was party to 9/11.

all nonsense to dear old Occam, but there it is, well researched but quite unknown.

Larry “Lucky Larry” Silverstein

You’ve got to be lucky to make $4 Billion killing on a 6-month investment of $124 Million

Larry Silverstein is the New York property tycoon who purchased the entire WTC complex just 6 months prior to the 9/11 attacks. That was the first time in its 33-year history the complex had EVER changed ownership.

Mr. Silverstein’s first order of business as the new owner was to change the company responsible for the security of the complex. The new security company he hired was Securacom (now Stratasec). George W. Bush's brother, Marvin Bush, was on its board of directors, and Marvin’s cousin, Wirt Walker III, was its CEO. According to public records, not only did Securacom provide electronic security for the World Trade Center, it also covered Dulles International Airport and United Airlines — two key players in the 9/11 attacks.

http://www.heartcom.org/LuckyLarry.htm

re- Occams Razor,

Debunking Conspiracy Theorists Paranoid Fantasies About 9-11 Detract From Real Issues By Gerard Holmgren, 2003-02-15

http://911review.org/Wiki/DebunkingConspiracies.shtml

"Occam's Razor" which suggests that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct. Conspiracy theorists hate Occam's razor.

satire

Nope. Hey, I have a Youtube video too!

So I'm afraid I'm going to need rather more than these highly dubious reports, given the copious number of confirmed eye-witnesses who have gone on record as being able to tell that the building was in a precarious situation.

Hmmm, this guy could actually SEE the building leaning before it collapsed.

He wasn't the only one. FDNY statements are positively littered with first hand accounts of the building leaning, or bulging, or creaking. They all knew it was going to collapse.

This is shady as all get out. And begs answers to questions that must be answers. Never before has a steel structure "blown up" due to simple office fires. Yet it was widely known that it was going to "blow up."

Well, that's 10 minutes of my life I'll never get back. All it does is confirm what I said: a general, highly widespread awareness that the building "is collapsing," according to CNN. Outside of McPadden's (already inconsistent and discredited) testimony, there's little or nothing which counters the hypothesis of a badly-damaged building, that everyone involved could tell was in a highly-precarious situation.

If the core does not collapse simultaneously, then why does the exterior face of the building collapse simultaneously?

The vast majority of architects, engineers and demolition experts agree with NISTs report.

No, they don't.

The FDNY would also tend to agree since they saw the building in distress with their own eyes.

Distress does not mean collapse.

No evidence at all of a controlled demolition. Controlled demolition experts that were consulted said it was not a controlled demolition.

Looks an awful like a controlled demolition to me. If it quacks like a duck...

"Peer reviewed."

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

So one exterior section is standing while another part is falling?