Occam's razor & Coincidence theorists

Originally posted by HowardRoark
So you admit that they existed, right?

well someone was on the other side of that camera when it took their pictures. But why don't you go ask them, some are still alive.

"drank, smoke, watched porn, hired prostitutes"

And "real" pilots don't?

Islamic fundamentalist ones?

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by diggs
The 7 did.

Did it?

Yep:

Originally posted by bsbray11
The NIST reports don't prove anything. They just repeat themselves over and over. If you disagree, I'd love for you to prove me wrong.
Posting the NIST reports as final words on what happened just shows that you haven't read them.

I never said they were the final word, they do however provide much info as to what occurred during the impact of the planes and subsequent fires and what followed. To say that they don't prove anything is misleading at best. They provide a wealth of physical and modeled data about the event. The modeled data while based on as much info as possible probably isn't to your liking since it does not come to the conclusions you want.

We must agree to disagree on things.

Originally posted by diggs
Each floor is designed to support the floor above it. But maybe the towers just fainted from all the trama of being hit by a plane.

You just said it yourself. Each floor was designed to support the floor above it, not ALL the floors above it if they ALL fell down upon it. That is why the collapse happened the way it did.

Originally posted by pavil

We are all getting off the topic of my post. Maybe you'd like to take a stab at my question:


At what point do coincidences cease being coincidences and become conspiracy?

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by diggs
Each floor is designed to support the floor above it. But maybe the towers just fainted from all the trama of being hit by a plane.

You just said it yourself. Each floor was designed to support the floor above it, not ALL the floors above it if they ALL fell down upon it. That is why the collapse happened the way it did.

So the 1st floor should have not of been able to support the rest of the 100 floors above it?

Originally posted by diggs
So the 1st floor should have not of been able to support the rest of the 100 floors above it?

Correct. Not if all the floors above it had failed and that floor had to support all the weight of the floors above it. Floors are designed with some redundancy but not enough for a single floor to take all the bearing down of floors above it without support.

For example in the WTC towers the initial impact did in a number of support columns. If there were no fires or explosion from the impact, the towers probably would have withstood the initial impact and stayed standing. The floors had some built-in redundancy for the damaged columns. However the initial impact had an explosion and subsequent fire which is what did in the towers Despite the redundancy built in. It was just too much damage for those initial floors and still standing columns to take and they gave. Once that started, the towers started their descent and nothing was going to stop it.

Originally posted by pavil
To say that they don't prove anything is misleading at best. They provide a wealth of physical and modeled data about the event. The modeled data while based on as much info as possible probably isn't to your liking since it does not come to the conclusions you want.

You mean the ones where they cranked up the fires to unrealistic temperatures before anything at all would fail in the amount of time given?

Or what about the lab tests they did, where they similarly couldn't get anything to fail?

Yeah, I totally brush that all of that aside when I say they don't prove anything.

Besides, to prove what happened to the WTC Towers during collapse, you ultimately have to use the video and photographic evidence to back up your theoretical work. NIST fails utterly there, because the buckling they point out is neither widespread enough to account for the collapse initiations, nor thoroughly shown to be the result of heat in the first place.

Originally posted by pavil

I continued our discussion in the appropriate thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Feel free to answer the question at the start of this thread.

Originally posted by pavil
Floors are designed with some redundancy but not enough for a single floor to take all the bearing down of floors above it without support.

Without support? What about all the columns still intact?

According to NIST's own figures, one of those upper floors (WTC1) could've handled its gravity loads with up to only 1/4 of its columns. That means 75% of the columns, or something equivalent in overall integrity, would've had to have been compromised on any given floor for that floor to fail.

Can you show me any floor with even one fourth of the perimeter columns buckled? Let alone three fourths, and the perimeter columns were only half the story as far as gravity loads went, according to NIST!

For example in the WTC towers the initial impact did in a number of support columns.

Does anybody in the anti-conspiracy crowd care to attempt to answer the following:

At what point do coincidences cease being coincidences and become conspiracy?

Originally posted by diggs
Does anybody in the anti-conspiracy crowd care to attempt to answer the following:

At what point do coincidences cease being coincidences and become conspiracy?

when CT's decide that it does so. Without proof of a conspiracy, then you have none. just conincidences that happen. And one thing that is evidenced throughout history about consipracies, is that at least one Part of the "conspiracy" falls apart (becomes known). Its been 5 yeras since the happenings on 9/11. IF there had been a conpspiracy, someone would have SAID something by now.

is it a consipracy if twins seperated at birth grow up acting the same way, doing the same things, share the same tates, drive the same type of car, pretty much are in the same job profession, but grew up in different states, 2000 miles apart? No, these are conincidences.

Originally posted by diggs
At what point do coincidences cease being coincidences and become conspiracy?

Hi diggs. You guys have got me thinking about all this again. Now i'm trying to perceieve things in terms of probabilities...though I can't do it justice because my mathematical skills are somewhat limited.

As has been said, planes that deviate from course are routinely intercepted, and were pre-9/11. What, I wonder, is the probability that on the very day four planes are to be used as weapons, a well tested and effective procedure should fail, for all four said targets?

What is the probability of two 110 story(?) skyscraper's being totally demolished as a result solely of impacts to their uppermost floors, and then falling almost in their own footprints in the process?

Originally posted by KhieuSamphan
Hi diggs. You guys have got me thinking about all this again. Now i'm trying to perceieve things in terms of probabilities...though I can't do it justice because my mathematical skills are somewhat limited.

As has been said, planes that deviate from course are routinely intercepted, and were pre-9/11. What, I wonder, is the probability that on the very day four planes are to be used as weapons, a well tested and effective procedure should fail, for all four said targets?

What is the probability of two 110 story(?) skyscraper's being totally demolished as a result solely of impacts to their uppermost floors, and then falling almost in their own footprints in the process?

Hi and exactly! What are the odds at least 4 war games were going on at the same time, the NRO was planning a plane crash drill the very morning, jetfighters from Andrews being sent south before the attacks, the Pentagon section hit was the most empty and was the only renovated blast-resistant section? Factor in the over 200 other coincidences and the statistical odds that they can all be mere coincidence is astronomical. Occam's razor would say the simplest explaination for so many of these coincidences surrounding 9/11 is that it's a conspiracy!

Originally posted by Wizy

Originally posted by diggs
Does anybody in the anti-conspiracy crowd care to attempt to answer the following:

At what point do coincidences cease being coincidences and become conspiracy?

when CT's decide that it does so. Without proof of a conspiracy, then you have none. just conincidences that happen. And one thing that is evidenced throughout history about consipracies, is that at least one Part of the "conspiracy" falls apart (becomes known). Its been 5 yeras since the happenings on 9/11. IF there had been a conpspiracy, someone would have SAID something by now.

is it a consipracy if twins seperated at birth grow up acting the same way, doing the same things, share the same tates, drive the same type of car, pretty much are in the same job profession, but grew up in different states, 2000 miles apart? No, these are conincidences.

No it's not a coincidence at all, especially if they're identical twins. It makes perfect since that indentical twins growing up in different environments have many of the same habits, idealogies, and mannerisms. That was a completely ridiculous analogy Wizy.

Let me ask you a easy question Wizy.

Do you find it possible to pull off the whole event on 9/11/01, nearly flawlessly, without ANY kind of inside help? At least one person?

Please be realistic.

Originally posted by Wizy
And one thing that is evidenced throughout history about consipracies, is that at least one Part of the "conspiracy" falls apart (becomes known).

Such as?

Its been 5 yeras since the happenings on 9/11. IF there had been a conpspiracy, someone would have SAID something by now.

If they were part of the conspiracy, why would they talk?

is it a consipracy if twins seperated at birth grow up acting the same way, doing the same things, share the same tates, drive the same type of car, pretty much are in the same job profession, but grew up in different states, 2000 miles apart? No, these are conincidences.

those are called similarities Wiz.

Originally posted by diggs
Such as?

research past criminal cases concerning "conspiracy". It falls apart because one part of the "conspiracy" either blabbed, or made some dumb move that brougth that conspiracy to "light".

If they were part of the conspiracy, why would they talk?[/quote

Dont know, but criminal prosecution makes a lot of people talk for the sake of getting "better" setences. Loose toungues you know.

those are called similarities Wiz.

No they are coincidences. Why would twins who were spearated, end up pretty much doing the same things, when they grew up in two entirely different households, under different influences.

Originally posted by Wizyresearch past criminal cases concerning "conspiracy". It falls apart because one part of the "conspiracy" either blabbed, or made some dumb move that brougth that conspiracy to "light".

Again, you made the claim, why do I need to to the footwork to back up your claim? If you make a substantial claim, back it up, or don't bother making it.

If they were part of the conspiracy, why would they talk?

Dont know, but criminal prosecution makes a lot of people talk for the sake of getting "better" setences. Loose toungues you know.
That's only when people get busted. So far our gov't isn't interested in pursuing the conspiracy angle, which is kind of odd, isn't it? It's like Ft Knox being broken into and they don't question the guards or superiors of the place.

No they are coincidences. Why would twins who were spearated, end up pretty much doing the same things, when they grew up in two entirely different households, under different influences.

No, they are similarities because there is no conspiracy on the flip side of them.

BannedintheUSA answered that above.

[edit on 2-6-2006 by diggs]

Originally posted by diggs
Again, you made the claim, why do I need to to the footwork to back up your claim? If you make a substantial claim, back it up, or don't bother making it.

considering you're doing the same thing....why should I do your footwork to prove that you think there is a conspiracy when there isn't any.

many conicidneced doesn't mean there is any type of conspiracy.

That's only when people get busted. So far our gov't isn't interested in pursuing the conspiracy angle, which is kind of odd, isn't it?

Maybe because there isn't any conspiracy happening? I'd say the conspiracy is why there wasn't any thing done prior to 9/11 but that's about it.

No, they are similarities because there is no conspiracy on the flip side of them.

again, concindences do not make a conpsiracy and conspiracies do not happen because of alot of conicidences.

twins having similar life styles, choices are coincidences not similarities.

Originally posted by BannedintheUSA



Since no steel structure in the history of mankind collapsed due to fire, I would conclude that something is extremely suspicious here. Wouldn't you?

No.

have you been around every single structure fire since the dawn of time?
And the WTC towers were unique in building and design, so how would you know that steel wouldn't be affected by fire the way it did? Were you part of the design and engineering team?

Care to explain your credentials?