The Idiocy Behind the '9/11 Truth' Movement

by **bvonahsen** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:11 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Old Occam's not in with a shout; Few know what he's really about. "If simple, then right" Is the vulgarised shite That's touted by many a lout.<hr></blockquote> Bullshit. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor">Occam's razor</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>When it is proposed as a maxim of science, Occam's razor is construed as a decision procedure for choosing among competing systems of hypotheses. In this context a system of hypotheses, together with its supporting definitions and its logical consequences, is commonly described as a theory. To evaluate the utility of a radular (razor-like) tool in this setting, it is necessary to establish both the ground rules of scientific procedure and the operational definition of a particular brand of razor with a significant degree of formal precision.<hr></blockquote> It's really cute to quote some obscure luddite but hardly an argument.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:13 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>So far, the 9-11 truth movement has failed to do so. Why? Because it has not produced it's own theory, one that accounts for all the facts. That is how scientific reasoning actually works you know. At some point, you have to put up or shut up.<hr></blockquote> A far more coherent hypothesis than the White House's that includes the laws of physics has been posited by '9/11 truthers.' And it includes means-motive-opportunity-precedent-evidence. You can stay with just the controlled demolition of WTC 1,2, and 7 and you've proved the Inside Job.  By who? Harder question. But that a technically sophisticated heinous deed has been done proves evil-doers behind it and limits the potential suspects just as in the anthrax mailings. There is photographic proof of controlled demoliton of the WTC on the supermarket newstand where for sale is LIFE Magazine's 9/11 Fifth Anniversary Commemorative Edition for about $13. I thumbed through it not expecting more than flag-waving and was shocked to see evidence so I bought the thing. Go buy it and look at page 81 to see a vivid full page color photo taken by James Nachtwey of the demolition of the first tower. In the photo massive amounts of debris including steel beams are caught in mid-flight as they are exploded away from the collapsing building. Just like when the planes first hit and blew up. Same thing in the photos on pages 52 and 53. Steel beams were hurled hundreds of feet and embedded in nearby buildings as if by a massive cross-bow or catapult. That's not a 'pancaking gravity collapse,' bvonahsen. That's blowing up the damn buildings. Pages 76 and 77 show firefighters peering into a white-hot light coming from a hole into the lower-level rubble where the molten metal pools burned for weeks. The physics of this molten metal proves an energy source much hotter than burning jet fuel or office furniture. Proves it.

by **nomo** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:30 pm

You can stay with just the controlled demolition of WTC 1,2, and 7 and you've proved the Inside Job.  What controlled demolition? Why not just stay with the holograms? Because that also proves it was an Inside Job. And don't forget the pod, and the cruise missile! There is photographic proof of controlled demoliton of the WTC on the supermarket newstand <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"> Yeah, that's where you can also find proof that Elvis is still alive. C'mon Hugh, you can do better. We've all seen the pictures of the buildings coming down ad nauseam, and they prove exactly diddly squat about exactly how it happened. That's not a 'pancaking gravity collapse'. That's blowing up the damn buildings.  Dude, do you have ANY idea how much energy was contained in those buildings? In case you don't remember, they were truly massive structures, among the tallest in the entire world. Now, when that shit comes tumbling down, do you REALLY believe it's physically imposssible for steal beams to go anywhere but straight down? white-hot light coming from a hole Wow! And all this damning "evidence" in a single issue of LIFE Magazine, you say? Did you call the FBI? I mean, sorry Hugh, but you're showing yourself to be a perfect example of the numbnuttery that is rampant in 9/11 "Truth" circles. You come to these wild-eyed conclusions based on absolutely nothing but a few pictures in a supermarket rag. The only thing it proves is that some people are too gullible for their own good.

by **sunny** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:31 pm

By all means, let us use Occams Razor to formulate a hypothesis. So here is what we have: The gov't say 19 Arabs hijacked the planes. -but no one can find them on the manifests, and there is no forensic evidence they were on the flights. Also there is credible evidence that some of the accused are still alive. The gov't says the buildings "pancaked" to the ground. -but they do not even address #7 and do not explain the freefall speed at which they fell. The gov't says-what exactly?- is the reason fighter jets were not scrambled that day until it was too late. -but the errant plane of a golfer is intercepted immediately. The gov't says the people who bought the put options are anonymous. -but knowledgable people say this is impossible. Try to buy stock anonymously. I dare you. The gov't does not address the fact that members of the Bush family were in high positions in security firms responsible for the WTC and at least one of the airlines. -but anyone with a lick of sense would look at the security details in the event of a mass murder. The gov't says... on and on. Please add to these examples. Hmm, now we are getting somewhere. Questions not addressed, questions answered with lies and obfuscations. Occams Razor .... slices off the official version and sends it into the abyss.

by **orz** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:32 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>as if by a massive cross-bow or catapult.<hr></blockquote>I'm sure you didn't mean it but with that analogy you just all but made a counterargument to your own claim! <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes">

by **nomo** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:45 pm

The gov't say 19 Arabs hijacked the planes. -but no one can find them on the manifests, and there is no forensic evidence they were on the flights. There's also no forensic evidence of literally hundreds of people who worked in the towers. So what? Also there is credible evidence that some of the accused are still alive. Or at least someone with the same, or a similar name. Beyond the original BBC piece mentioning this in late 2001, has any follow up research ever been done? The gov't says the buildings "pancaked" to the ground. -but they do not even address #7 and do not explain the freefall speed at which they fell. The buildings did most definitely not fall at freefall. And yes, for lack of a better word, their collapse did indeed resemble "pancaking." The gov't says-what exactly?- is the reason fighter jets were not scrambled that day until it was too late. -but the errant plane of a golfer is intercepted immediately. Look it up: Payne Stewarts plane was most certainly not intercepted until at least *hours* afterwards. Do you think maybe general confusion (sure, and the war games) might have contributed to the lack of response? Or does it always have to be a nefarious plot? The gov't says the people who bought the put options are anonymous. -but knowledgable people say this is impossible. Try to buy stock anonymously. I dare you. It's notoriously difficult to know who exactly is behind such transactions, given that they are done through agents and fronts and overseas companies, you name it. Not saying that I believe the identities are kept from us, but that it might not be as easy to find out as you think it is. The gov't does not address the fact that members of the Bush family were in high positions in security firms responsible for the WTC and at least one of the airlines. -but anyone with a lick of sense would look at the security details in the event of a mass murder. Oh please. Those people were sitting on the board of directors. That doesn't mean they were involved with day to day procedures at all. More likely they were appointed to those cushy seats because that's how people like them make all that easy money. "You sit on my board, I'll sit on yours." Again, this proves nothing. And indeed, on and on it goes. The more you post here, the more you prove that Taibbi's position is pretty much spot on. You point out perceived "holes" without even attempting to come up with an alternative explanation. It's just plain lazy.

by **stickdog99** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:46 pm

Newsflash for Taibbi: The Oklahoma City Bombing was also a patently obvious false flag operation.

by **KeenInsight** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:49 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Fine, while you kids continue the silly little debate about what might have happened that day, the grownups have moved on from even before that day up to where we are now.<hr></blockquote> Look up "Strawman" argumentation, nomo. This is the context of your writing and thinking style. What has it done for you exactly in this thread? Not a whole lot, right? I can see the ranks filing into towards your viewpoint already...[/sarcasm]. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Just for a brief moment, take a deep breath and think about it: it is entirely within the realm of possibilities that 19 hijackers flew those planes into the buildings, and it is indeed entirely possible that those buildings came down because of structural damage.<hr></blockquote> Hmm, this might take me a while... ah screw it. Nope. It is entirely within the possibility that the "red wave" of Communism simply happened? Uh, nope. Empires need enemies. What better way than to create one. Problem, Reaction, Solution. It's at all works out in the end, innocent people die, while a bunch of assholes say their death was worth it or "That's war." Bull shit. The fact of the matter is, while the rest of America is sleeping, there are plenty of people who see these "coincidences," A.K.A. Conspiracies, A.K.A., CRIMES for their true purposes. Funny how people in America actually did something about the Vietnam war. Hell even history books talk about the lies that led to that war. Nobody gives a shit anymore though. Too obsessed over mind-numbing Television and other useless crap. I'll tell you one thing, if E.T.'s are here and watched humans, they'd probably have to say, "WTF is going on here." /end rant

by **stickdog99** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:54 pm

I absolutely believe that the government would take full advantage of an event like 9/11 (well, you'd only need to look around), and I can also quite imagine them actively supporting such a plot. My issue (and Taibbi's as well) is the emphasis that is being put on bombs and missiles when in reality, the "official story" at least as far as the mechanics are concerned, seems quite plausible to me. So you think it's plausible that government insiders were involved in the 9/11 plot. And you also think it's plausible that 9/11 was the work of exactly 19 suicidal Muslims with no material assistance from any other soul living on this continent. When you consider means, motives and opportunity -- which is more plausible?

by **dbeach** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:57 pm

I always thought it was strange that Bush sr had breakfast at same conference as Bin Lidens brother on 9/10/01.. you are the company you keep..guess it accepted business? <a href="http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a800bushwhitehouse">www.cooperativeresearch.o...whitehouse</a> "Former President George H. W. Bush, along with former First Lady Barbara Bush, leaves Washington, DC, by private jet, bound for a speaking engagement in St. Paul, Minnesota. The Bushes spent the previous night at the White House. They had flown to Washington the previous day to attend several meetings and a dinner. One of the meetings attended by the former president was the annual investor conference of the Carlyle Group, which was also attended by Shafig bin Laden, one of Osama bin Laden’s brothers (see (9:00 a.m.)). They are later informed of the WTC attacks while on their jet. Due to all planes being grounded, they have to land in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. [CBS News, 11/1/2002; CNN, 10/25/2003; Name Missing, n.d.] Entity Tags: George Herbert Walker Bush (9:00 a.m.): Bin Laden Brother Attends Carlyle Group Conference The Carlyle Group is a large private-equity investment firm, closely associated with officials of the Bush and Reagan administrations, and has considerable ties to Saudi oil money, including ties to the bin Laden family. This morning it is holding its annual investor conference at the Ritz Carlton hotel in Washington, DC. Among the guests of honor is investor Shafig bin Laden, brother of Osama bin Laden. [Observer, 6/16/2002; London Times, 5/8/2003] Former President George H. W. Bush, who makes speeches on behalf of the Carlyle Group and is also senior adviser to its Asian Partners fund [Wall Street Journal, 9/27/2001] , attended the conference the previous day, but is not there today (see (8:00 a.m.)). [Washington Post, 3/16/2003] " <a href="http://killtown.911review.org/bush.html">killtown.911review.org/bush.html</a> "What was Bush's father (the former President, Ex-CIA Director, Carlyle Group employee) doing at the White House the morning of 9/11? September 11, 2001 A Tuesday - "Afterward, Laura returned to the second-floor family quarters for a quick breakfast with her in-laws. George H. W. Bush and his wife Barbara had spent the night at the White House and were about to board a private jet bound for a speaking engagement in Minnesota." - CBS 'The Early Show' (10/01/02) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The former President and First Lady had been at the White House the night before the terrorists struck. They were flying to St. Paul, Minn., when the first news was flashed to their Secret Service detail. Their plane was diverted to Milwaukee, Wis., and they were rushed off to a motel beyond the city limits." -Time (9/24/01)"

by **Bismillah** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:59 pm

Old Occam's not in with a shout; Few know what he's really about. "If simple, then right" Is the vulgarised shite That's touted by many a lout. bvonahsen's considered response: "Bullshit. It's really cute to quote some obscure luddite but hardly an argument." The "obscure luddite" was me. (Clearly, you don't have a clue what a Luddite actually is, or was.) In any case, you cannot use Occam's Razor, or Occam's Toothbrush, or Occam's Towel, or any other item from Occam's Bathroom, in order to decide who is responsible for a crime. Imagine bvonahsen and nomo in charge of a murder investigation: ---------------------------------------------- bvonahsen: Mrs. Smith is dead. nomo: Yeah, and the neighbours said she used to argue with her husband nearly every night. bvonahsen: So the husband did it. nomo: Right. Crime solved. bvonahsen: Case closed. nomo: Arrest that Smith bastard! bvonahsen: Warm up the electric chair! bvonahsen & nomo (turning to the camera, in unison): And it's all thanks to Occam's Toothbrush... ---------------------------------------------- This is the New Criminology, a timesaving device for amateur detectives. No investigation need be carried out. But of course Occam did not actually say that the simplest explanation is always, or even always likely to be, the true explanation for anything - least of all a crime. And maybe Mrs. Smith was in fact killed by somebody else. "If simple, then right" is the vulgarised shite that's touted by many a lout.

by **nomo** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:04 pm

I can see the ranks filing into towards your viewpoint already... Uh huh. I'm here to win a popularity contest. Get a grip. Empires need enemies. What better way than to create one. Absolutely! And what better way to create enemies than by acting like an elephant in a porcelain shop and alienating people from all over the world, as the USA has done for decades. Or do you seriously believe the whole world *loved* us until we invaded Iraq? That there couldn't possibly have been people who really wanted to blow our shit up until then? I'll tell you one thing, if E.T.'s are here and watched humans, they'd probably have to say, "WTF is going on here." Cute. But I'd just politely tell them it's none of their damn business. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)">

by **nomo** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:07 pm

So you think it's plausible that government insiders were involved in the 9/11 plot. And you also think it's plausible that 9/11 was the work of exactly 19 suicidal Muslims with no material assistance from any other soul living on this continent.  Pulleaze. Of course those 19 had considerable help, as we know for a fact. It's not one or the other. Hows about govt.insiders+19hijackers+pakistani intelligence+florida drug cartel for starters? (I know the thermite thingy is alot easier to uderstand but bear with us for a minute)

by **nomo** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:09 pm

And maybe Mrs. Smith was in fact killed by somebody else. "If simple, then right" is the vulgarised shite that's touted by many a lout. Dammit, I hate cliff hangers! Tellus Bismillah, please! Who did it???

by **Bismillah** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:15 pm

nomo: "Or do you seriously believe the whole world *loved* us until we invaded Iraq? That there couldn't possibly have been people who really wanted to blow our shit up until then?" Wielding Occam's Toothbrush, Nomo the Ace Logician and New Criminologist proudly presents his proof (cue drumroll): --------------------------------- 1. The whole world didn't love us. 2. Therefore, Osama bin Laden and 19 named Superstudents bear sole responsibility for the September 11 attacks. 3. Case closed. --------------------------------- There's logic for you. Inspiring, isn't it? The world is so easy to understand if you just have the Monk's Magic's Toothbrush in your hand.

The Idiocy Behind the '9/11 Truth' Movement

Re: hmm

Re: bvonahsen's comment

Re: bvonahsen's comment

Occams Razor

hmmm

Re: Occams Razor

Re: Nomo's Antithought

Re: The Idiocy Behind the '9/11 Truth' Movement

Re: yes, in fact

Re: The Idiocy Behind the '9/11 Truth' Movement

Occam's Toothbrush

Re: The Idiocy Behind the '9/11 Truth' Movement

Re: yes, in fact

Re: Occam's Toothbrush

Nomo's Magic Toothbrush

Who is online