Am I the only fan here of Occam's razor?

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

"one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything."

I imagine the atheists here ascribe to some sort of Occam's razor (as it provides the earlies foundations for an argument against the existence of God), though I don't mean this to be an atheist/deist thread.

MIHOP, LIHOP? What about sheer laziness and incompetence? What about this administration being everything but Clinton? What about their utter egoism? I've read dozens of your links (and thank you for them). But I just can't stop thinking of my Franciscan friend, William of Occam.

I find most things can be boiled down to laziness or stupidity, or perhaps a combination of both (perhaps a fitting summation of my life).

Tinfoil: wear it tight; wear it right.

Cheers.

[Padraig18]

1. There are at least two of us.

:thumbsup:

[Tansy_Gold]

2. Three

but we're still a minority

[Darth_Ole]

6. Four!

And I get so pissed in the movie "Contact" when Jodie Foster's character explains Occam's Razor by saying "All things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one" b/c that's not quite it.

[Arianrhod]

60. How can anyone be a "fan" of a philosophical theory?

As a nonTheist, I have also made use of Okham's Razor in my arguments. It corresponds nicely to what physicists are discovering about the universe: That all of its multitudinous complexity is built up from a handful of relatively simple rules. So taking that position makes sense to a large degree.

But you four are, I think, misinterpreting the position. Okham's Razor does not postulate throwing out possibilities simply because there may be too many of them; having numerous events come together is not ruled out by the philosophy. After all, look at the sequence of events that had to happen in perfect order for life to begin on the Earth. Would you throw out the possibility of evolution, as the Creationists do, on the basis that Okham's Razor indicates the process was too unlikely?

I'm not a MIHOPer; I don't think the government perpetrated the attacks. But I think they took advantage of a situation that they knew existed. The primary reason I've seen given for opposing MIHOP is the one mentioned above: That "too many people had to be in the know". I disagree with that stance. It only takes a handful of people to maneuver events within a context of apathy and distraction. The conspirators don't have to create every circumstance; they merely have to be ready to act when the circumstances permit. Thus, the FBI ignores warnings of terrorists training in the US, because they have been ordered by Ashcroft to do so. They don't need to be "in the know", they don't have to keep any secrets. All they have to do is follow orders. This circumstance sets up the opening for hijackers to board planes unsuspected. The air traffic controllers are ordered not to implement emergency procedures. All they have to be told is something like "This is an exercise, please ignore it", and they will. They don't have to be in on anything at all. And such reasoning could be used for everything that happened that day--allowing quite nicely for Okham's Razor.

In order to use the Razor effectively, one must be able to analyze a situation to see its basic parts, and how they fit together. The ultimate event may be quite complex; but that doesn't mean it can't flow together in very simple, straightforward ways.

[troublemaker]

3. Diehard skeptic here

[Nevernose]

4. MIHOP is definitely invalidated by Occam's Razor

It requires too many people keeping a secret, for one thing. For another, it is far more likely that 20 religious nutjobs hijacked four planes than any elaborate conspiracy involving the US, Al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and God-only-knows-who else.

Every so often, though, something comes alonf that is too bizarre and outlandish to be true, yet it is, defying Occam's razor. I thing it's important to keep in mind that said razor is more of a guideline than a rule.

[EstimatedProphet]

14. Actually, no, I disagree

MIHOP isn't invalidated by parsimony, from that stand. It doesn't require too many people keeping a secret for 9/11 to be on purpose, just the 3 or 4 at the top who we now suspect of it anyway, since all commands are going through them. The connecting people between binLaden and the US would be trained to keep secrets anyway, so they'd be able to. And binLaden isn't going to say anything to the American press, nor are his followers.

BTW don't assume from this that I believe MIHOP. I haven't made up my mind on anything yet.

[wtmusic]

21. MIHOP is invalidated by Ben Franklin

"Three can keep a secret, as long as two of them are dead".

[EstimatedProphet]

34. OK, but

I don't buy that, because if word got out, ALL of them are dead. Pretty strong motivatot to keep quiet.

[stickdog]

70. 9/11 is invalidated by Ben Franklin.

But it happened.

So deal with it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

19. Amen my friend

[stickdog]

69. Bullshit. Would it be simpler to rob Fort Knox with or without inside help

MIHOP is the simplest solution, by far.

19 people in high positions of power can implement such a plan a lot easier than 19 peons. To argue otherwise is idiotic.

[KFC]

117. Strawman

Possibly the most stupid post I have read.

[Selwynn]

79. Hear, Hear friend!

[QC]

5. Here's another one.

But yeah, we're a small crowd here. Most seem to think that the most bizarre, complicated theory is always the correct one, hence all the hysterics over white plastic chairs and the like.

[donhakman]

10. Read seven days in May

Or better yet read the 20 or so Rumsfeld documents that always mention the need for a Pearl Harbor like event to get the Defense budget rolling.

Rumsfeld even evoked that arguement for more space based weapns against aliens.

[troublemaker]

18. You are proving the point here

Person C desires X

X happens

X was thus caused by person C

[Pithlet]

15. I don't think we're as small as you think

I think a lot of us just don't post as much or as loud as the LIHOP/MIHOP crowd. I stay out of those threads, for the most part.

[stickdog]

72. In the case of Berg, the simplest explantion is that Berg's gangster

freeper business partner was involved in Berg's death.

He had means, motive and opportunity. He says he was the last guy to speak with Berg alive.

Introducing a mysterious, reportedly dead, Muslim but gold ring wearing, one legged terrorist mastermind supposedly from Jordan but without a Jordanian accent -- who broadcast his name but felt compelled to cover his face and body completely -- doesn't make for the simplest possible explanation.

Sorry.

[Guaranteed]

7. "Never attribute to malice that which can be perfectly well explained

by stupidity."

While I do think there's plenty of malice exhibited by this administration, particularly post-9/11, you're right. We have no real evidence showing that these guys pushed forward an attack on our country. It does seem that they had an idea that it was coming, and didn't act on it, but that was probably just a product of disbelief. They suffered from the same delusion that we all did, that America had a protective bubble covering it.

[stickdog]

71. Why? Why is incredible stupidity more believable than consistent

malice?

[TomNickell]

111. Incredible stupidity is far more common.

Just tune in to -any- Conspiracy Hobbyist thread......

[nodehopper]

8. Occam's razor is a logical fallacy

It's a red herring that cannot be applied absolutely.

[Guaranteed]

11. It's not supposed to be a deductive, logical rule.

The most important part of the principle is the concept of the "most likely" explanation, anyway. It doesn't set anything in stone.

[troublemaker]

30. re: most likely

I don't think it's necessary that the fewest entities is more likely. If complicated answers were just as likely to be true as simple answers the maxim would still apply. It's an orderly reasoning process that doesn't (or rather, shouldn't) require that it be an accurate assessment of actual solutions. It is, I'm just saying it's not necessary.

(I'm not talking about what the man actaully said, but about what parts of it are vital)

Start with the simplest answer. If that answer has no fatal errors then you can use it until fatal errors appear.

Even if answers were likely to be byzantine that would still be the right course because starting with one entity is faster than starting with seventeen. One can be disposed of most simply if it's wrong.

What the conspiracists absolutely DO NOT UNDERSTAND is what constitutes a fatal error. An error in the official story of something does not invalidate the general theme of the story. It was debated for fifty years whether a Japanese sub was sunk near Pearl Harbor 12/06/41, but either way the general theme of Japanese planes bombing American ships was never in jeopardy.

[disinfo_guy]

44. "most likely" can be quantified

Has Occam ever been tested? Is it falsifiable? Frankly it seems more like a popular internet adage than anything else. I like it though.

[troublemaker]

12. It's not a *logical* anything--just very good advice

Like "don't paint yourself into a corner."

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

13. That's a nifty line.

"a red herring that cannot be applied absolutely." Is there any red herring that can be applied absolutely?????? One would hope not.

I'm not sure I ever said it was an absolute governing principle; I'm just a fan.

Argumentus has it just about right above: it's more of a guideline than a rule.

[wtmusic]

16. There is no way to apply it absolutely

It only requires that one provide the minimum number of possible constructs or variables to explain a phenomenon.

[starroute]

104. Theories have to be complex enough to explain observed facts

In the history of science, the number of assumed entities almost always increases. More different elements, more sub-atomic particles, more quarks, more fundamental forces . . . Simplicity is a goal, but the scientific ideal is to have a single theory which explains everything. If it leave out important facts, if it takes certain things simply as givens, or if it resorts to coincidence, it probably isn't the best possible theory for the job.

In the human domain, stupidity and incompetence are the equivalents of coincidence in physical science. When you find yourself invoking them over and over, that's a sure sign your paradigm needs adjusting.


For my part, I tend to follow LIHOP in the daytime (in the version which assumes they were expecting a traditional hijacking and did their best to let that slip through) but MIHOP always creeps up on me around midnight. There are just too many strange facts out there -- like those Florida flight schools -- that don't make any sense at all unless you assume a deeper conspiracy.

Perhaps there were different stories for different groups. A tiny handful of real MIHOP conspirators pulling the strings. A larger group of LIHOP Neocon types being given the wink that security was going to be relaxed a little in hopes of provoking a Pearl Harbor event. Others who simply got orders not to make trouble for anybody with a Saudi passport, or who were told that terrorism was not a top priority (and that it would do their career no good to get obsessed with it.)

All of those people would have been behaving in ways that furthered the conspiracy. Many of them would have believed they were bending the rules just a bit to promote some larger objective. But almost none of them would have known what was actually going on -- or be able to admit to themselves even now that they were used in the service of evil.

[Raskolnik]

9. Is that the new one that has the battery in it?

I heartily agree with you. People are often too clever by half when it comes to conspiracy theories.

The truth is often much more mundane and depressing than we would like it to be in my opinion.

[justjones]

17. I've always said, it's either LIHOP/MIHOP or utter and total incompetence.

After hearing those recordings of the FAA, either those guys were really bad actors or just plain fucking dumb (excuse my language, but given the circumstances, I couldn't find words more appropriate). My dog would have been more decisive in an emergency. The whole lot of them should be out of jobs.

If that was an example of the supposedly most advanced country in the world responding to a crisis, we are up shit creek without a paddle.

[durutti]

20. It doesn't apply well to social science.

But I'm skeptical nonetheless.

[Durtal]

22. Using Occam's Razor hardly rules out LIHOP/MIHOP

Occam's Razor merely advises us to prefer the simpler theory over the less simple theory. But what counts as "simpler" is not always obvious.

Someone who thinks LIHOP is true may well argue that it is, indeed, a simpler theory than the incompetence theory. Here's one way to make that plausible. On the incompetence theory, the myriad intelligence failures are all attributed to distinct, independent screwups. On the LIHOP theory, many of them have a common cause -- a decision by conspirators to prevent the ordinary workings of the machinery from discerning and stopping the attack. The LIHOP theory is in a sense simpler, since there is only one thing needed to explain all these failures, while the incompetence theory needs many independent errors.

I'm not endorsing this claim here, understand. But I think appealing to Occam's Razor as if that resolves the dispute is just naive. Indeed, Occam's Razor cannot be considered anything more than the most preliminary bit of advice about how to start adjudicating competing theories.

[Cheswick2.0]

26. excellent Durtal

I agree, if Occam's razor is to be applied here then it supports LIHOP.

[Guaranteed]

29. But is it more plausible that so many were informed of the

plan to attack ourselves, and said and did nothing, or that they were just taken by surprise?

[troublemaker]

37. shaky reasoning

>On the incompetence theory, the myriad intelligence failures are all attributed to distinct, independent screw ups.

Person X wins the lottery. Person X obviously has a confederate inside the lottery office who fixed the result in his favor, because the alternative is the absurd proposition that person X picked every single lotto number correctly. Perhaps he might have picked one or two of the numbers, but all of them? It's impossible.

The idea that the lottery is fixed is far simpler.

Screw-ups and oversights happen every single day. The President declaring war on his own country is a more exceptional event than a bureaucrat failing to make a connection, a source passing along bogus stories, etc. Those things happen. They generally do not lead to disaster, but it's inevitable that they do sometimes.

Every disaster assessment finds a long chain of events leading to the disaster. What were the odds of the elevator cables failing on the same day the hydraulic brakes were damaged by workmen? Very low, and thus most times the cables fail there's a back-up and there's no elevator accident to investigate and nobody asking the question.

Once you know some crazy thing has actually happened there's always a "perfect storm" because everyone makes it back to port okay when the storms are imperfect.

And so on...

[stickdog]

73. His reasoning was clear. Yours is shakey.

Your analogy is tortured.

MIHOP is actually the simplest theory. One concept and one agency explains everything. And it could be accomplished with less than 19 people "in the know." It explains all simply. That doesn't mean it's true, as you try to illustrate.

But it makes for the simplest explanation, and that's what we were discussing.

[troublemaker]

82. why weigh in when you have no understanding of the concepts at issue?

>MIHOP is actually the simplest theory.

You don't understand what simplicity is. Simplicity doesn't mean "most simplistic" or "most accessible to a child." If you substitute "least extraordinary" for "simplest" you may reach a better understanding of the concepts being discussed here.

It's not entirely your fault--a lot of people have inappropriately accented 'simplicity' for its own sake. The *simplest* explanation of oil prices is that they are set by one person by fiat. That theory has very few moving parts. It is, however, at odds with a billion pieces of evidence. Evidence matters.

[Durtal]

85. Response to troublemaker

First, do note that I didn't say I endorsed the bit of reasoning in support of LIHOP. My main claim is that appeal to Occam's Razor doesn't provide anyone with a simple and easy shortcut to the conclusion that certain theories should be ruled out. In other words: those who think that either LIHOP or MIHOP is plausible should not be intimidated by a simple invocation of the principle. The principle is not that substantive in its application. As I said before, whether or not one theory is really simpler than another is often difficult to evaluate.

Someone who thinks LIHOP or MIHOP plausible should, of course, be confronted with various alternatives and asked to explain why LIHOP/MIHOP fares better than those alternatives. I'm all for that sort of critical debate. My own view is that LIHOP is pretty reasonable, though I've not managed to assimilate the new information that's come out in the last several months due to the independent commission.

Second point: In your (really unnecessarily condescending) response to stickdog, you accuse him of not knowing what simplicity is:

You don't understand what simplicity is. Simplicity doesn't mean "most simplistic" or "most accessible to a child." If you substitute "least extraordinary" for "simplest" you may reach a better understanding of the concepts being discussed here.

Nothing in stickdog's remark above implies that he thinks "simple" means "most accessible to a child." Not fair, troublemaker.

But more to the point: just what is simplicity? You suggest thinking of a theory as simpler when it is less extraordinary. You might as well suggest thinking of it as simpler when it is overall more plausible. If that's all that Occam's Razor comes down to, then, it is a pretty boring principle indeed. For then it says: Choose the most plausible, least implausible theory.

Woop-de-do! Not that this isn't good advice. But it's not helpful in advancing any debate! If you tell a LIHOP believer that he needs to heed this principle, he's obviously not going to be impressed; he is already convinced that LIHOP is the more plausible theory.

So does Occam's Razor have any point? Yes. Here's a better way to understand it. It's a sort of tie-breaker principle. If you have two theories T1 and T2, and both of them explain all the relevant evidence, then you can break the tie between them by opting for the one that is simpler. Simpler in what respect? Simpler in the number of independent truths that need to be invoked to explain what it explains. If T1 requires that five independent events all happen in order to explain some of the evidence, whereas T2 only requires three, T2 seems thereby superior.

Thus understood, Occam's Razor is still only a relatively weak tool. If the less simple theory fits more evidence than the simpler one, than it would be foolish to insist on the simpler one. Hell, you yourself make that point with your last analogy about the oil prices As you say, "Evidence matters."

The important point is that Occam's Razor can't be used as a bludgeon to eliminate theories you don't like. It's a razor, after all, not a sledgehammer. Use with care.

[troublemaker]

99. The condescension was earned

I dislike the common practice of trying to legitimize nonsense (Scientology, MIHOP, creationism) by attrition--essentially abusing the good graces of people by demanding thoughtful discussion of facial absurdities and playing word games with the obvious.

I invested a few minutes of my life to actually trying to help a hypothetical reader (who is not a professional crank) by offering a valid and easily comprehensible analogy. For someone to respond "that's a tortured analogy" simply because he cannot understand it is intellectual vandalism--a message board mainstay. And to obliquely refer to that person as a child is warranted.

Since it's impossible to reason a person out of a position he didn't reason himself into in the first place there's no reason to exchange words with a conspiracy nut on any topic related to his mania.

I was wrong to take the bait, even tangentially. But offering snide abuse is actually more flattering than the seemingly polite response of simply ignoring such talk.

Also, I am unapologetic in my condescension because the MIHOP people are the most condescending people around here, in precisely the way Jehovah's Witnesses are condescending. They are either solipsists or meglomaniacs... they believe their emotional state contains a valid description of the world.


Occam's Razor is, in its specific original form, a philosophical dinosaur and not worth much discussion--he was a TRUE giant but was writing and thinking in the context of medieval theological philosophy. His original meaning is of only historical interest. (Much like Darwin; a true intellectual hero, but because he was unaware of genetics there's no reason to fetishize his specific writings in preference to modern formulations of his general ideas) I assume that when people today refer to 'Occam's Razor' they are really talking about the scientific method and related rational, logical step-by-step problem solving.

Science is the body of things we can all agree upon because they are not optional; people of good faith agree to abide by the rules of reason so that a common truth, an exterior objective truth can be discussed.

Conspiracists refuse to enter into that pact. So there is no basis upon which to discuss anything with them. Conspiracists are, in that sense, indistinguishable from religious nuts.

Look at it this way... how many conversations do you have with people in real life that involve you explaining the most basic mechanisms of reasoned thought? I'm guessing zero... if such remedial help is required just to provide a basis for conversation few of us pursue the matter. The only exception is conversations with children.

So if you find yourself having to explain that a=a and such to a person you cannot see, the simplest explanation is that you are talking to a child.

I am a Democrat because irrationalists are a tiny, tiny bit less prevalent on our side of things, but I draw no distinction between Republicans and "progressive" conspiracy nuts. Both are enemies of reason.

[stickdog]

91. In this case, complicity *simply* fits the evidence better than

incompetence.

Of course, Occam's Razor doesn't typically apply to human interactions which often have complex motivations and explanations.

[troublemaker]

101. If you are talking about Occam's Razor in the narrowest sense

in terms of Occam's specific words, I agree with you. (I apologize for being rude, by the way.)

My assumption throughout this thread is that people have been (or should have been) treating Occam's Razor as interchangeable with its broader expression as a desire for parsimony in theories.

MIHOP may not run afoul of Occam's razor narrowly defined, in that it does not involve a needless multiplication of ENTITIES. So you are right about that.

MIHOP does, however, fail tests of parsimony provided one incorporates the entirety of what is known about the world into a variable called "the world as it is." The world (or existence) is very very very complex, but as a starting point it's simple because you can subtract it our of both sides (mixed metaphor there, I'm sure, but you see what I mean)

Unless an event *cannot* happen in the world as we know it there's little reason to look for more complicated explanations. I consider all exceptional circumstances complex in that they differ from an accepted baseline of the nature of the world.

MIHOP relies upon an emotional sense that exceptional events require exceptional causes. All religion and mythology rely on that sense. We are born with that notion wired into our brains and we (should) struggle life-long to suppress it.

I know of no datum that suggests MIHOP above other less exceptional explanations, but I am locked into an absolute oath to accept the dictates of reason, so if MIHOP is ever demonstrated or proved I will accept it without looking back.

I put MIHOP on par with Yeti. It's wildly unlikely, but if it proved to be true it would not require any fundamental reassessment of rationalism, science, etc.. MIHOP and Yeti are both likelier than the Loch Ness monster. Nessie is far, far likelier than telepathy, which would require shit-canning half of science. And so on...

[stickdog]

107. Inside jobs are always easier to pull off.

I'm not saying this makes MIHOP or LIHOP true. It doesn't.

But 9/11 would have been much EASIER to pull off with some inside help. The more inside help the better.

And inside help explains the non-reactions of Bush, Rumsfeld and Myers. It also explains the money insiders made an United & American puts. It also helps explain the lack of air defense response, and a slew of otherwise incredible coincidences like the fact that Pentagon officials didn't fly on 9/10, Ashcroft didn't fly commercial for the whole summer of 2001, Atta's indestructible passport and the "unrecovered" black boxes, the fact that Flight 77 was "lost" for 45 minutes, the fact that Flight 77 hit the most reinforced part of the Pentagon where the least number of people were, Warren Buffet's meeting with many WTC executives at a secure Omaha, NE airbase, etc, etc, etc ...

[starroute]

109. But exceptional events *do* tend to have exceptional causes

Paleontologists spent decades trying to explain why the dinosaurs became extinct using only normal phenomena -- climate change, competition, disease -- and getting exactly nowhere. But once the hypothesis of a massive asteroid impact was introduced, many things suddenly fell into place.

Now that the notion of major environmental catastrophes is becoming respectable, various historical mysteries are being illuminated as well -- from the fall of Old Kingdom Egypt (and most other civilizations of the time) around 2350 BC to the final decline of the Roman Empire in the 500's. The theory of a century ago, that civilizations fell because they became "decadent," has given way to one with far more explanatory power.

In the same way, assuming that 911 happened just because a lot of people weren't paying attention explains exactly nothing. Start with the fact that four airplanes were hijacked at the same time without any of the hijackers being detected or stopped for questioning. If it was really that easy, why weren't planes being hijacked constantly before 911? If it was just a matter of dumb luck that the hijackers were able to get through security, how did they manage to luck out every single time? And who would ever base a conspiracy on expecting to have that sort of luck?

(And, just as a matter of curiosity, did you really swear an absolute oath to accept the dictates of reason? And if you did, on what altar did you swear it and with what solemn ceremonies? It sounds very impressive.)

[troublemaker]

110. about planes being hijacked constantly

Sure, extraordinary events sometimes have extraordinary causes. Absolutely! But they don't require extraordinary causes and the extraordinary should be invoked only when the ordinary has failed. I'm not seeing any evidence that the 'ordinary' story of 9/11 has failed. I hope it does fail, but to me it remains broadly sufficient.

I was confident there were no stockpiles of WMD in Iraq for precisely the same reasons I am confident that AQ MIH. MIHOP is in the same intellectual class as the Iraqi WMD. It's a bunch of appeals to an audience's generalized paranoia supported by outrageously cherry-picked data-points.

>>If it was really that easy, why weren't planes being hijacked constantly before 911?

That's a very interesting question because it gets to the heart of some human mysteries, but I don't think people's previous failure to exploit that vulnerability was extraordinary. Arguably inexplicable, but not extraordinary.

Why weren't time bombs being put in the checked luggage airplanes all the time? There was a guy in the mid-1950s who blew up a passenger plane for his mother's insurance. It was a famous case and everybody in the country was made aware of the technique. That technique has remained available for fifty years until last year in a few airports (maybe they're screening all checked luggage by now, last I heard they were running behind), but it never caught on even though no meaningful counter-measures were implemented. It was a vulnerability so wide open that we would assume terrorism where there was none. I think the security changes that first tried to match passengers to luggage followed the accidental Long Island explosion.

Since individuals showed only minor interest in destroying airplanes (without even having to be blown up themselves) it suggests that the impulse to mass murder is surprisingly rare. Rare enough that 20 like-minded people were exceedingly unlikely to fall together into a plot to crash four planes simultaneously. In addition to being mass-murder minded they need money, four of them need to be able to fly, many of them are aware it's a suicide mission, etc., etc..

If contemporary America-directed Islamic cult-terrorism can be considered a technology it's a new one... a combination of motive, means and opportunity that hadn't existed before 1992. Terrorism has been common all our lives but never like 9/11, which suggests something new. It could be GWB that was new, but the existence of training camps for like-minded people, some of whom are already known to plot the organized destruction of American airplanes and landmarks, seems a more straightforward candidate.

Hundreds of airplanes were hijacked throughout the 1970s, but they were not flown into things. Many were hijacked by politically motivated Arab terrorists specifically to make a statement, yet they were still not flown into things. Surely the possibility occurred to people--it occurred to me and I was just a kid--but they didn't do it. But *for whatever reason* it was never done.

One could suppose that a 9/11 attack in 1975 would have required Gerald Ford's acquiescence, but I'm not buying it. I think 20 high school kids could have done it any given year.

I agree that it would be remarkable if it took years for anyone to exploit an obvious flaw in the valuation of options, or to figure out that a certain model of car can be started with a fork. But the means/motive/opportunity crowds for profitable trading and auto theft are large enough to make up a market. Afghanistan in the 1990s seems to have been the only game in town when it came to organizing motivated men to crash airplanes into buildings. Fair enough! Everything has to start somewhere.

BTW, if MIHOP were proved I would be only 1% less happy than the biggest conspiracy nut on Earth. The moment the second airplane hit I said to the person with me, "It's the Reichstag fire," meaning that I expected the event would be used to form an American fascist movement run from the White House. So I'm more sympathetic than most to MIHOP--I just don't see any "there" there.

(As for the oath part--in the course of typing that seemed like the appropriate phrase, though antiquated. Any phrase meaning "made a promise to one's self set aside in the mind as really important and a thing to be honored even if no one's looking")

[starroute]

118. The trouble is that we don't really know how hard 911 was to carry out

Your arguments seem to depend on the assumption that there was an "obvious flaw" which was fairly easy to exploit, so that all it took was a group of people with the motivation to commit mass murder and the opportunity to get together and work out the details.

But when I look at what happened, it strikes me as almost impossibly difficult. Airport security may have been lax, but it wasn't all that lax -- I recall my son having to take his boots off at the airport because the metal tips on the laces were triggering the metal detectors. Even if one bunch of hijackers might be lucky enough to smuggle some box cutters aboard, would all four? Would they be so sure of that as to have their entire plot depend on it?

Also, how able would half-trained pilots have been to fly those planes into buildings? I've seen statements suggesting that even hitting the WTC straight on would take a fair level of skill. The Pentagon isn't very tall, and the plane that hit it had to come in over the city, then drop almost to ground level and fly straight into the building at a level barely above the lightposts. With even a slight miscalculation, it could have either rammed into the ground or missed entirely.

I'm a fan of archaeology and ancient history, and I'm always suspicious when a writer describes accomplishments like domesticating goats or building the pyramids as being easy enough for mere primitives to accomplish, especially when those are things we lack the ability to do ourselves. It seems a lot more likely to me that the ancient knew a trick or two that we don't.

In the same way, I'm suspicious of any theory of 911 that depends on the assumption that it would have been a piece of cake for a bunch of people living in caves in the Hindu Kush to plan it and then send their thugs over here to carry it out. Either there was some extremely high-level expertise involved -- or else al Qaeda really does have God on its side, and we should probably just give up and surrender to them right now. I really can't see any other options.

[Eloriel]

92. And NOTHING explains the lies

from this administration on just about every aspect of the whole subject, which fact absolutely has to be taken into account, nor the fact that some of those who were responsible for some of the intel "failures" were never fired, demoted, or otherwise sanctioned but instead PROMOTED, nor the stonewalling by the administration of any and all investigations.

There are many other things that are unexplained and IMO simply don't add up to a bunch of incompetence in myriad places as well. What about the put options, for example? By this time it's almost more damning that we have never heard any answers about this than the original put options themselves. (Same could be said re the anthrax attacks on Dem Senators too.) Many, many other things fall into this category of "not explained by incompetence," of course. Bush having the plan for the Afghanistan war on his desk on Sept. 5, by his own admission (or was it Rice? I saw one of them, possibly both, reveal that).

I think folks who buy some Occam's Razor view or otherwise remain skeptical about LIHOP/MIHOP either (a) don't know about all the anomalies re 9-11 and/or (b) have trouble believing that "our government" could be responsible for such an atrocity.

As another DUer put it once upon a time: They didn't steal the election to do good.

[troublemaker]

102. "They are Liars" would seem to explain it just fine.

[muffin_man]

23. Fanboy here

I think if it was MIHOP/LIHOP we would not have all this "evidence" like the rummy memo about needing a Pearl Harbor and so on. I try to avoid the MIHOP/LIHOP threads like the plague!

[newyawker99]

77. Hi muffin_man!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

24. Can I just say that it warms my heart to see

that a post with Occam's razor in the subject line would garner 21 posts so quickly. Just about the time I question the intellectual fortitude at DU, all of you redeem ALL of us (myself included--have you seen some of my idiocy?).

And here I was about to come up with a theory that pig-mutant freepers had . . .

[Cheswick2.0]

25. It's hardly a law of nature

It can't be proven scientifically. It's just a theory, kind of like "the early bird gets the worm". Basically I think it is meaningless. It is however a great weapon for people to throw around when they can't stand that people don't agree with them....or have the nerve to talk about things they don't think should be talked about.

It just sucks when you can't control the world or other people's minds, huh?

[donhakman]

27. No one has ever lost money

betting on the stupidity of human nature.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

28. Yes, I'm part of the master plot.

Shouldn't you be worrying about getting your cigarettes from Nurse Ratchett, Cheswick?

Can't be proven scientifically? Uhh, perhaps you need to do some homework, friend. Unless we want to quibble over the words "proven." To be completely deconstructionist, I would argue we can't really "prove" anything since the subject always already has his or her a priori assumptions in mind.

But that's another story, I imagine.

[stickdog]

74. No, you're just ignorant because you are trying to use Occam's Razor

in a flawed (MIHOP's simpler) and inappropiate (human interactions don't conform to it) manner.

[troublemaker]

31. It is indeed NOT a law of nature

but it's an indispensable framework for reasoned examination.

You start with the simplest explanation and work with that until it is DISPROVED. Then you move to the next simplest explanation, and so on...

Even if the right answer is quite byzantine you will find it faster by that method, and will be more confident of the answer when you find it.

[Eloriel]

97. Well said, Cheswick

The more I see of Occam's Razor theory at the hands of its proponents, the less impressed I am as well.

[disinfo_guy]

32. yes, all the rest of us are crazy conspiracy theorists

Obviously, Occam requires that the 19 hijackers acted all on their own. The rest of it - the longstanding ties with US intelligence, the family connections with the BinLadens, training at US bases and Florida flight schools, the unusual behavior on that day, the money trail, and the abandonded forward trades against airlines are coincidences or just dumb luck.

[troublemaker]

40. Glad you're coming around

[JPJones]

33. Sounds like LIHOV

(We) let it happen (while) on vacation.

The problem with LIHOP or MIHOP is that if you are writing a story, you will tend to make yourself the hero. No one in the government looked heroic or competent that day. The only way that this bit of fiction (LIHOP or MIHOP) works at all is if Bin Laden or someone else double-crossed them.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

35. Nice! (nt)

[stickdog]

75. The planes got too spaced out in time. This allowed 93's passengers

to abort the planned dramatic shootdown just outside DC.

It also made Bush, Myers & Rumsfeld look like idiots for twiddling their thumbs waiting for Flight 77 to hit the Pentagon before lifting a finger to do ANYTHING.

[Eloriel]

98. You misunderestimate the goals -- it wasn't to be heroes

It was to create the conditions in the country called for in the PNAC plan -- "a new Pearl Harbor" -- which would allow them to push through their will, all the way from Patriot Act to global domination.

Perhaps you need some information on PNAC:

PNAC - The Links Archive
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=3021&forum=DCForumID12&archive=

NEW: PNAC Links Archive (Redux)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=110&topic_id=80

New to DU? Here's your =======> Intro to PNAC (Stephanie)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=301411

A repost thread: New to DU? Here's your =======> Intro to PNAC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1069536


Kerry, the New Democrats, and American Military Hegemony
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=326015#326061

[Yavin4]

36. Forget MIHOP, LIHOP, or Laziness; Try INDIFFERENCE

They simply didn't care about Bin Laden and terrorism. They wanted to go after Saddam, and the intelligence community--looking to please their new bosses by going after Saddam--took their eyes off of Al Qeda and Bin Laden.

[Tansy_Gold]

47. Could be an example of Inattentive Blindness???

Is it possible that the booshies came into office with Saddam on the brain? Whether because of Poppy's failure to "complete" Gulf War I, or because of the oil, or because of the wimp factor, or whatever, did the boosh cabal come into office with such a hard-on for Saddam, that they really could not see any other evidence of "terrorism," even when it was shoved under their noses by Berger, Tenet, Clarke, et al.?

Maybe it wasn't indifference so much as that their attention was so completely focused elsewhere that they didn't/couldn't see anything else.

As I was thinking about this response, I recalled the perception experiments that were shown to me in an art class a couple years ago. I did some googling and found additional information. For those interested

http://home.att.net/~jeff.dean/blind.htm (Gives some background info, but it's a spoiler, too.)

http://viscog.beckman.uiuc.edu/grafs/demos/15.html (This is one of the experimental videos. Takes a while to load, but it got interesting results from hubby. . . . .)

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

38. I didn't intend for this thread to be LIHOP/MIHOP.

We have ample threads for that. I guess I was simply talking about the principle, across a broad spectrum, of Occam's razor and its relation to DU.

For example: Bush wins again. I would propose the following explanation: the citizens are too stupid and lazy not to elect this proto-hominid.

We can blame the media, the voting boxes, etc. But why are all of you here? Were you, like I clearly was, just born gifted? Or does it take a little time and a little hard work? Does it mean switching off the TV?

Fpr those opposed to Occam's razor, we could try this: let's talk about election 2000 within the context of this thread. What is the explanation for Gore's loss and, not that its application would be correct, let's apply Occam's razor.

[troublemaker]

41. Occam's Razor says your intentions don't determine the nature of respo

Sad but true!

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

42. Here, here!!!!

Very nice.

Damn you, Occam.

[alfredo]

39. I know nothing of razors. I haven't shaved since Aug 22

1969

The last I saw of my face, it was young.

[CaptainClark23]

43. Occam consistent with MIHOP?

Systemic laziness and incompetence were required for M/LIHOP to succeed.

In which case laziness and incompetence are primary explanation for M/LIHOP to occur.

Occam was right, and those wacky tin foilers might be too.

[Jack Rabbit]

45. No, you're not the only fan of Occam's razor

It sounds like laziness to me.

Bush wasn't interested in the terrorist threat before it bit us all in the ass on September 11. Why not? There was no money for his cronies in it. He was trying to sell an expensive space-based missile defense system that would be useless against a dozen or so desperate men with box cutters.

Bush was given the now-famous briefing in August that told him the Osama was plotting to hijack planes and crash them in New York City; he just assumed the appropriate agencies were on it and he didn't need to know more. If Clinton, Nixon, Carter or even Jerry Ford had reacted that way, I would have been very surprised. On the other hand, I could see Reagan being inattentive. From Bush, this kind of detachment and incompetence is no surprise.

There were other matters that do approach the conspiratorial, such as his squashing an investigation of bin Laden family (some of Osama's brothers are his business parters, after all). However, problematic to think that an investigation of Osama's brothers, who are legitimate Saudi businessmen, would have uncovered anything about what their estranged brother was up to. Greg Palast, the investigative journalist who has done the most work on this story, does not believe it is a good basis for a conspiracy theory.

[timtom]

46. Ya know,

The better part of me tends to agree.

However....I would have been willing to let this all go IF the current misadministration not pre-emptively started sealing archives, documents, papers and IF this misadministration had been even the teensiest bit forthcoming with a shred of evidence, cooperation and IF there weren't such a bizarre web of links to the Bush family and the most disjointed events for the last, oh, 60 years or so. I mean...talk about coincidences! MY daddy didn't know the Hinckley(sp?) family, and MY daddy didn't know de Morenschildt and MY daddy didn't know anyone named bin Laden(sp?). I mean, WOW. That's one for Ripley, isn't it? What're the odds of those connections and the (3!?) trashed banks/savings and loans being connected to one family? I'm simply blown away by the sheer improbability of it all. Surely this is all just unfortunate circumstential evidence.

Honest...I would rather have believed incompetence.

[Octafish]

48. How does Occam's razor help explain this?

Just want to know how to approach things.

Have a nice day.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

49. I would probably apply theories of Mandlebroit et al.

Or various components of Fractal theory. But they too have at their very foundations Occam's theory. Their rejection of basic Euclidian geometry applied Occam's razor against a Plantoic application of Occam's razor.

I could be wrong. Perhaps you could explain some of the mathematical principles which found this "monster of geometry." I do hope, however, that you will be able to defend the most basic of your mathematical of principles.

[Octafish]

56. Your nouns describe something other than the object in the picture.

Your words also fail to address the subject, which is an EXPLANATION of the facts.

Simply reducing them to their simplest or most logical or most expedient usually fails to address their true nature.



BTW: I know what a fractal is. Do you know what causes a crop circle?

Don't worry, I won't ask you about Stonehenge or Prof. Hawkins.

http://www.tivas.org.uk/stonehenge/stone_ast.html

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

58. Fractal geometry is simply one of the earliest, and best known,

mathematics used to explain the visualization of chaos theory. I'm sure you have fractal screen savers. I wasn't intending to be a smart ass with my response to your post. Your first image could be calculated using Maldebroit's theorems (though I am certainly not capable of doing so). I thought you were serious in your proposal to me: how would I explain the image you presented. And, if I were so inclined, I would use chaos theory--which at its foundation uses a mathematical form of Occam's razor (to combat a 19th-century faith in Euclidian Occamism).

What were the "facts" you presented in the other post to me. I've reread it, and I can't find it. Was the image the facts? That image is quite theoretical. Perhaps you can explain to me the "facts" that comprise (or are comprised by) that image. Then perhaps you can show how they invalidate Occam's razor, which is a principle not a scientific (or even a serious philosophical) law.

I can't comment of the mathematical structure of Stonehenge (or its history or cultural background).

Or maybe you can give me another cool image. I'm a huge fan of Dali and of Van Gogh.

[Octafish]

62. That's great. Use math to figure out the thing's shape.

That explains everything. Right.

Since you brought it up: Have you ever see a Van Gogh? If so, photos don't do it justice.

Same goes for a real crop circle or Stonehenge. These things are documented to be unusual from the way the crops are bent-without-breaking, to the mathematically exquisite patterns created.

There are even more complex geometries in the images formed by crop circles than the one pictured, which is several hundred yards across.

And you know what? It seems some of them haven't even been thought of by people; several theorists report new insights on mathematics described by the crop circles.

Whatever the idea-- the intelligence -- behind them, it isn't the result of a couple of drunken ex-RAF non-coms holding some string tied to a post and wearing some planks tied to their boots. So far, that's the best government science -- an unusually large proponent of shooting down conspiracies, particularly in cases of political muirder -- has come up with.

To sum up: What I'm saying is Occam doesn't tell the whole story. For me, that doesn't "cut" it. I want all the facts. I want the whole Truth -- whether the subject is crop circles, Stonehenge, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy or the events surrounding the terrorist attackes of September 11.

[immoderate]

89. To apply Occam to crop circles

one would say that they are done by humans with some time on their hands. The "bend without breaking" nonsense doesn't hold up because I've seen crop circle experts declare a crop circle "real" after pointing out this feature, when the circle was indeed made by hoaxters.

Occam applies to space visitors in general beacause the number of assumptions that have to be made about the visitors' dominance over relativity, etc. to arrive here undetected by anyone but the toothless hillbillies they tend to visit and abduct is a lot harder to accept than the simple explanation, people are full of shit.

Here is one question I have to abductees: If these people can cross the universe undetected, and put you in a state of suspension and levitate you, then why do they have to stick their finger in your butt? (Forget about those home proctology courses.)

--IMM

on edit: My apologies to toothless hillbillies who have not claimed to be abducted.

[joe1991]

115. Well, if it were aliens...

Don't you think they would have centered the pattern in the field better??
All these crop circles have been made the same way.
Why not use a different method, or maybe leave something to go along with it? a picture, a bolt off the ship, or a piece of that metal that goes back into shape after you crumple it up?

College kids playing giant spirogragh has always been my opinion,
and fits occums razor theory also.

[nemo137]

50. Cheers! Not MIHOP, not LIHOP, but MIHTGFI

Made It Happen THrough Gross Fucking Incompotence.

(I'll admit it's not as catchy)

[leyton]

86. (to be pronounced mit-giffy) eom

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Arianrhod]

64. Show your work, please.

And cite your sources.

Thanks.

[stickdog]

76. Inside jobs are always simpler than outside jobs.

They also require less co-conspirators.

[newyawker99]

78. Hi cinci!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[DemBones DemBones]

52. Of course you're not the only fan of Occam's Razor at DU.

It is frequently trotted out by posters wishing to appear learned and erudite while simultaneously ending discussion of any topic they don't wish to discuss.

In short, Occam's Razor is a good tool, but it's often misused as a weapon of intimidation.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

54. Yes, well clearly the best way of ending a post is

through innuendo? Passive aggressiveness?

O.K., I suppose I can accept that.

For the record, if I wanted to appear "learned" or "erudite" (the repetitiveness here of the synonym here seems forcedly cliche--perhaps lay off the Roget's thesaurus), I wouldn't pull out an eighth-grade concept such as Occam's razor. But each man's interpretation of an appearance of erudition is his own, I suppose.

Thanks for the advice.

[AgadorSparticus]

53. i disagree that occam's razor applies to this group in the WH

i do not think for one minute that they are stupid, lazy, or complacent. i think that is a carefully constructed image they project for various reasons.

but underlining everything they do is sheer malice. i truly believe they are just pure evil. they have bought into the business model of bottom line. forget ethics and logos. it is all about getting what you want at all costs. i get this impression of business people. they are cutthroat and the ends do justify the means. it's really scary.

but for these guys, i don't even think it is about the money. i think it is about the power. "what do all rich men want?" "more power". this neo conservative movement will not stop until they reach global domination. pnac.

alright. that's it for me tonight. i'm going to step away from the keyboard now and go to bed. peace, everyone.

[genius]

55. This is why I believe Bush did it.

[MetaTrope]

57. Not sure why people insist some elaborate terrorist network was needed

When everything could pretty much have been set via a phone call between George H.W. Bush and Bakr bin Laden.

[Northwind]

59. While generally sound, There is one major problem with Occam's Razor

Whether it is expressed as "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything" or the more common "The simplest explaination tends to be the correct one," it relies on a very subjective criteria. How do you define the "simplest"? Or how do you determine how many entities are "necessary"?

[Pobeka]

61. That's why I believed that "just a few bad apples" were doing the torture.

That was certainly the simplist explanation, we should've demanded a stop to further investigation immediately with that reason because it was a waste of military resources. :eyes:

[Beaker]

63. personally, I like the new Gillette M3...

the one that vibrates...it's like shaving with a little dildo.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

65. LOL. Increase the number of blades used per week for the next 50 years

is someone's job in the razor industry and they are cleverly succeeding.

A degree in male ergonomic hygiene must be available at a university somewhere.

[Beaker]

66. Saturday Night Live had a parody commercial a lo-o-ong time back

for a 3-blade razor- it was about the time that the industry was coming out with 2-blade razors, and one of them had an animated commercial showing how the first blade tugged at the hair, allowing the 2nd blade to cut it off below skin level...
SNL's commercial parody used similar imagery,showing a 3rd blade cuttting it even lower, and a voiceover saying something to the effect of how the public will believe anything.

when the first triple blade razors came out, all I could do was laugh, and think of that SNL skit...

But goddamn- those triple blade razors sure do give a nice shave.

[stickdog]

67. We are not being told the truth. None of the biggest questions have been

addressed, much less answered.

Why?

Complicity simply fits the known facts of the case better than incompetence.

Complicity answers all the questions. Incompetence must be stretched to incredible limits to explain a legion of questions. In addition, there are more than a few questions -- like why didn't several Pentagon officials fly on the 10th and who made the money of the puts on Ameican & United -- that it doesn't explain at all.

[stickdog]

68. MIHOP is the simplest explanation.

Why is incredible incompetence simpler than malicious opportunism?

[MUSTANG_2004]

81. MIHOP isn't the simplest explanation

First, I don't think it was "incredible" incompetence. We live in an open, unsuspicious country. That 19 fanatics were able to take control of airplanes and fly them into buildings says more that we were complacent rather than wildly incompetent.

Second, anyone who has worked in a government bureaucracy knows that, while individuals may be intelligent and capable, the process itself is fairly slow-moving especially when confronted with something unusual. That there wasn't an immediate military response doesn't seem suspicious to me.

Third, you're suggesting that the president of the United States is willing to kill thousands of New Yorkers and bring the economy to a standstill for political gain. While not a fan of GWB, I think that he, like all of our other presidents, doesn't want to go down in history as a traitor. As dense as Bush can be, he would know that if Nixon couldn't keep a low level burglary secret, there is no way Bush could keep secret that he destroyed the WTC.

Fourth, if you're suggesting Bush MIH, why didn't he make his life simpler by setting it up as an Iraqi attack? If this was all part of some master plan, wouldn't he have designed it so he could go straight to Iraq and skip Afghanistan?

[leyton]

87. Well put. Everybody should read that post.

Better put than I could have. (Wow, I butchered that sentence, didn't I?)

[stickdog]

93. Dude, an inside job is ALWAYS easier than an ouitside job.

That's all I'm saying.

I don't even believe MIHOP because I think LIHOP best explains the facts.

[Eloriel]

100. Saddam was no longer a CIA asset

And I'm not sure the same can be said of Osama bin Laden. I don't necessarily believe he still IS a CIA asset, but I simply don't understand why we dropped ANY real interest in finding him soon after we inadvertently (or not) let him go in the mountains of Afghanistan.

No one in this administration mentions him or the pursuit of him any more. Why? Instead, they're mired in Iraq but already gearing up for Syria and Iran.

Third, you're suggesting that the president of the United States is willing to kill thousands of New Yorkers and bring the economy to a standstill for political gain. While not a fan of GWB, I think that he, like all of our other presidents, doesn't want to go down in history as a traitor.

Bush doesn't much care what people think of him -- or, more accurately, he prefers people to fear him than like or admire him. All he is interested in is exercising more and more power. He's not the normal sort of human being the rest of us are and the more people realize that, the better. In short, he's a power-hungry psychopath. The death and suffering of others mean nothing to him, except to the extent he's learned to fake it for the press. He blew up frogs as a child (stuffing lit firecrackers down their throats), smirked at the thoroughly rehabilitated Carla Faye Tucker's plea to him to save her from execution in Texas (which even astonished Tucker Carlson). Of COURSE he'd be willing to kill thousands of Americans to satisfy his selfish goals of global domination. Remember: Things would be a lot easier if this were a dictatorship, just as long as I'm dictator. What kind of human says a thing like that (3 times he said it!), not long after stealing a national election?

Further, as for people in our government being willing to sacrifice Americans "for a greater good" (in their minds), perhaps you're unaware of Operation Northwood. You might google that one.

Finally, here's what Hitler had to say regarding the Big Lie (which is what those of you who patently refuse to seriously take a look at LIHOP/MIHOP keep proving the validity of):

The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, because the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad.

The primative simplicity of their minds renders them more easy victims of a big lie than a small one, because they often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell big ones.

Such a form of lying would never enter their heads. They never would credit others with the possibility of such great impudence as the complete reversal of facts.

Even explanations would long leave them in doubt and hesitation, and any trifling reason would dispose them to accept a thing as true.

Something therefore always remains and sticks from the most impudent of lies, which all bodies and individuals concerned in the art of lying in this world know all too well, and therefore they stop at nothing to achieve this end.

And I sure as heck wish I could find it again, but regarding the last paragraph, Bush1 was quoted as saying something to the effect that who cares if a lie is broadcast to millions, its correction will only reach thousands. I see this administration using that principle over and over and over again, in little and big ways, just about daily.

[Selwynn]

80. No you're not the only one :)

Depraved indifference is the correct answer to the 9/11 issue.

[Cat Atomic]

83. I'm not so sure that incompetence is the simplest explanation anymore.

There comes a point where malice seems more likely that consistent incompetence. Rumsfeld's changing of NORAD's long-standing intercept protocols may be a tipping point for me.

It seems to me that the Bush administration left the cash register open, the doors unlocked, and went on vacation. A person might do that out of sheer incompetence, but is it the simplest explanation?

[Eloriel]

103. Add to that

the fact that they had an exercise going on that very morning in the Pentagon with hijacked planes as the scenario. Was this a cover for what was really going on -- keep people confused about whether the REAL hijacked planes were part of the exercise or not?

[leftofthedial]

84. have you thought of applying said razor to the official cover story?

it is at least as far-fetched as LIHOP or MIHOP.

[leyton]

88. No, it's not that far-fetched.

Planes have gotten hijacked in the past; al Qaeda has carried out spectacular attacks before; there were warnings, such as the memo presented to President Bush; what again makes this as far-fetched as a government conspiracy where the President decides to destroy his own buildings for political gain and in this age of whistleblowers, it's been kept a secret?

[stickdog]

94. You just don't know the details.

The 19 guys working alone theory requires about 10,000 bizarre coincidences.

[leftofthedial]

95. name another time when four planes were hijacked simultaneously

from major US airports

Name another time when three of four untrained pilots were able to hit targets no larger than an aircraft carrier (even trained non-Navy pilots have trouble with that).

Name another time when in the face of even one hijacking, the air defense command failed to respond.

way far-fetched.

[troublemaker]

113. >>Name another time when three of four untrained pilots

were able to hit targets no larger than an aircraft carrier (even trained non-Navy pilots have trouble with that).


Isn't there a little more to a carrier landing than "hitting" the carrier? I'll bet even the bad pilots can "hit" the carrier.

[leyton]

114. Name any instance of two identical events occurring anywhere,

anytime, any place, in exactly the same manner.

Obviously, the 9/11 attacks were unique. That doesn't make them implausible. It's still a more believable story than some huge government conspiracy.

Second, I believe the towers were somewhat bigger than an aircraft carrier, being 110 stories tall and everything.

Third, hijackings have not usually been for the purpose of using the plane as a weapon in a surprise attack. Generally the hijackers have demands and communicate them, spurring a response on the part of the air defense. In this case there was no announcement until too late that hijackings were in progress.

[leftofthedial]

119. the SOP for air defense doesn't care whether it is a hijacking or not

if a commercial plane goes off transponder and refuses to respond, they launch. Unless, of course, today happens to be 9-11-2001.

The exposed surface the planes had to aim at was not the entire height of the building. They could have crashed anywhere easily enough, but untrained pilots would likely have a hard time finding Manhattan, much less the side of a particular building.

the series of events, from middle eastern politico-religious activists on US "watch lists" getting visas with no problem, to airport security not finding last minute cash transactions suspicious, to the failure of airport security, to four simultaneous successful hijackings, to the failures of law enforcement leading up to it, to the wholesale destruction of evidence prior to a bona fide investigation, to the failure of air defense, to the (non)response of our political leaders on that day, and on and on and on is HIGHLY implausible.

No one is claiming a HUGE conspiracy. It would require relatively few people.

[leftofthedial]

120. dupe--delete

[TruthIsAll]

90. Occam's is a crutch for those too lazy to analyze the facts..

and go beyond govt. lies, pablum and propaganda.

[TomNickell]

112. Right, and Logic is the Bonebreaker

of the Conspiracy Hobbyist...

[Cleita]

96. I agree with the laziness and stupidity assessment which the present

administration has in abundance, but you can't overlook the malfeasance part of the whole package. Actually, the stupidity is in the fact that they thought they could get away with no one questioning the official explanation of an event that didn't quite add up.

[whirlygigspin]

105. from the: "Government is the problem" department

Why should anyone who beleives that "government is the problem" spend any time or effort, actually doing their jobs in government? or "swatting flies" as Condelezzy Rice calls it... when they have so many more important things to do, like deregulating energy markets in California?

ha, suckers!

Now, watch my golf swing--


FOUR!

[Rex]

106. Who decides what is necessary to explain something?

Can you tell me the why/who/hows of 911? No, nor can anyone else because the BFEE is trying their best to keep the truth from ever being revealed. It is necessary to understand the reasons behind 911, who profited from it occurring, how it could happen - until then I just don't see Occam's Razor being favored as part of the debunker's toolkit. FWIW, laziness and stupidity are wonderful excuses, but they don't hold up as a legal defense in a court of law.

[gulliver]

108. Big fan here.

It's just good engineering. Complicated structures with many parts are always going to be prone to brittleness. Simple designs work best.

Complicated, amoral designs don't work at all, e.g. the torture/abuse at Abu Graib. Simple amoral designs work fine, e.g. the rise of Bush on a movement of money and blatant deception.

Clinton's political design was a complicated moral design, and it failed on one BJ. All of the our greatest achievements are complicated. Only the scientific ones hold up.

[PATRICK]

116. About time

Examining philosophical underpinnings is something people don't often have patience for- like reading the instructions before putting the bike together.

One should never make an absolute about a human reflection though. It is a good and useful guide. BFEE complicates matters a lot because of all their connections and associations with the "club of human ills", most of whom are protected by freedom, free markets, institutional power etc. So it could be very messy trying to fathom the whos, the whys, the whats.

A good, even brilliant theory, like E=mc2 can be eye opening challenging and sweeping in explaining the unexplained. It stiil has to be proved. Interesting that while proof(such as airplanes traveling fast around the earth counterclockwise to the rotation), useful applications and even total acceptance moved far far along without it.

So with Bush theories except not one took root in the mainstream or has had a useful application except the engagement of busy minds and the call for investigation and accountability. Really far far behind a good theory or proof. We almost need proofs ahead of a theory, no small thanks to the sweeping fantasies of impractical theorists explaining far more than needs to be explained.

9/11 investigations, namely the evidence so far seems to eliminate the really unbelievable large scale conspiracy that some have indulged in. NORAD, FAA, even the CIA. No one was given the advance warning and none were well prepared for some of the simplest emergencies where a professional SHOULD know that the murk of the event scrambles unprepared minds. Incompetence, bureaucracy, lack of imagination, communication failures, panic, confusion, denial, loss of command response. All there.

The simplest explanation is that the those on top, with the CIA going through their channels, did not do the job of making defense work. They were intent on the ME offensive so much so that 911 was merely a convenient blip on their road to war and consolidation of power.

Now they were too politically weak to admit this or even their lapses and most were willing to prop up people who goofed in a crisis. Most other presidents also had failures and breakdowns in command and thrived by "handling" the aftermath. So in essence, it was also natural for these people to seize an enormous amount of slack since they would never admit to a mistake anyway.

Now that they have used abused and thrown away the slack, the suppressed truth is taking a high toll, like the old golf swing.

IF more evidence comes out there is still a lingering, very justified question about pre-knowledge, special knowledge, pro-active withholding of knowledge, deliberately ineffective behavior and slowness during the crisis on the part of the WH. Either blind incompetence or LIHOP is pretty damning, and subsequent criminality may not need the proof of original sin.

Occam's razor, like any criminal conviction, slays the beast while not having to account for the whole body in detail. What criminal is ever indicted and punished for all the evil they have done? But in this nexus of most of what is bad in the economy, the government, the world
we have to keep cutting until the beast is dead. The simplest explanation is not always the most palatable or the most logical, even in things simpler than twisted human nature.

So this is an extremely disciplined and useful principle, though not absolute(that is why the bad guys try to multiply apparent complicity and visible ties to hide the tree in a forest). People are trying to hide from such scrutiny all the time. Besides taking too much comfort in simple explanations one must remember that you still need proof, however useful the theory might be, and not, ever stop seeking until the job is done and the whole truth(if possible) is out.

The other principle used by crackpots is that sometimes a derided crackpot is right and common knowledge is wrong. The exception proves the rule, but what about that exception? It derives from latching onto
things and making inappropriate rules and absolute generalizations replete with denied blind spots. One must remain open, with a good touch of skepticism and that 99% of everything is crap.

The horde of Mayberry Machiavellis descending on the WH guaranteed a higher proportion of crap than usual. Trying to cast that bunch as a unified clique of arcane evil genius aided and abetted by distrusted institutions and the ever lurking secret cabals that control the world
is creating a monster that could not exist without falling apart anyway. In the end it will all come down and as Gen. Grant said, we are sick of guessing what the incredible genius Lee might do and start concentrating on what WE will do. because simply Grant knew Lee, whom he knew to be a bit arrogant, was stuck in a mess with weaker forces.
Projected fantasies empower the enemy. But put that aside and jeering at the extent of how much THEY believe their own drivel one realizes their defeat is inevitable IF opposed in strength.