9/11 Occam's Razor

reply to post by dereks


Your generalizing, and the things you are mentioning in your post aren't reflecting the threads topic. again and again in the moment of actually focusing on one point, you had to bring up the craziest theories. its funny because its been a looong time since those topics were actually being seriously discussed on this site, and i am talking 2003/2004. they are in the rear view mirror. its 2010, yes, people have moved on... apparently you haven't.

CAN i ask you WHY your bringing these back up in this thread, or are you utilizing the straw-man argument, OR are you rebunking?

REFUTE the peer reviewed paper with facts, not opinions.

refute the way the building fell, using facts, NOT opinions.

refute the topics mentioned, not bring in those other theories because they have been dead for a LONG time!

[edit on 2/13/2010 by ugie1028]

reply to post by downisreallyup

What's your goal anyhow? Why are you such a "truster?"

Lol, I like that. Soo can we now refer to the OS believers as "trusters" as the OS dis-believers are "truthers"? Let's make it viral!

Edit: S&F for the thread. It's interesting to see "occams razor" being presented from the other side for a change..


[edit on 13-2-2010 by Wookiep]

Originally posted by ugie1028
its funny because its been a looong time since those topics were actually being seriously discussed on this site,

again you are wrong, conspiracy theorists are still talking about explosives, nuclear weapons being used was mentioned this month...

and i am talking 2003/2004.

Wrong again, try 2009/2010...

REFUTE the peer reviewed paper

So you know who peer reviewed it, so who did actually peer review it?

with facts, not opinions.

Hang on, the conspiracy theorists are the ones bring their opinions here... and claim that they are facts.

Originally posted by dereks
Originally posted by ugie1028

again you are wrong, conspiracy theorists are still talking about explosives, nuclear weapons being used was mentioned this month...

Well explosives, yea, Thermite/thermate in the peer reviewed paper. Also what thread mentioned nukes? I am lost on this one.

Wrong again, try 2009/2010...

Bring me a thread that has over 70 flags from 2009 or one that reached the front page for that matter.

So you know who peer reviewed it, so who did actually peer review it?

Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen

Source was in the OP. to make it easier for you. its right here.

Hang on, the conspiracy theorists are the ones bring their opinions here... and claim that they are facts.

Are you sure? the link in the OP seems pretty sourced to me, as well as many other threads on this site. you have yet to bring to the table of why this peer reviewed paper is a lie. prove it!

[edit on 2/13/2010 by ugie1028]

Originally posted by ugie1028
the peer reviewed paper.

But who peer reviewed it? Are you sure it was peer reviewed?

Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen

Source was in the OP. to make it easier for you. its right here.

Nothing there about who peer reviewed it, so who did?

this peer reviewed paper is a lie. prove it!

Prove it was peer reviewed, you claim it is...

reply to post by dereks

its funny because its been a looong time since those topics were actually being seriously discussed on this site,

again you are wrong, conspiracy theorists are still talking about explosives, nuclear weapons being used was mentioned this month...

So what, most people do not believe that a “nuclear bomb” blew up the WTC that is so ridiculous.

If you support the idea that most people believe a“nuclear bomb” blew up the WTC, I would like to see the proof?
You do have a source for this information somewhere on the internet don’t you?

Hang on, the conspiracy theorists are the ones bring their opinions here... and claim that they are facts.

That is untrue and you know that.

Besides your insults, why don’t you discuss why you believe the WTC fell in a pancake manner, I am assuming that is what you are really defending here am I right?
If I am wrong, then please tell me what you are defending to what happened to the WTC and please show with some credible source to back your claims, as we are not interested in people’s opinions and claiming them as their facts.





[edit on 13-2-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Okay Dave, I can see that you at least trying to get to the truth of things, and for that I will take the time to discuss things with you in a level-headed manner.

I have been thinking that it would indeed be a good idea to formulate a possible conspiracy scenario to explain the how's and why's, but then I realized that even putting forth a possible scenario would not really open any kind of "hey, you're right... or maybe they would have done it this way..." The fact is, conspiracies are always hard to explain until the perpetrators are caught, so it is impossible to prove anything as long as the "potential wolves" are in charge of the hen house.

The thing is, I used to be exactly like you in the respect that I thought the world was basically decent and that governments of the western world were basically decent though terribly incompetent. I used to believe that what was reported on the news was essentially trustworthy, and that the world was pretty well understood by everybody.

Regarding 9/11, I was a big believer in the official story and felt a great deal of negativity towards the "evil doers" spoken of by the U.S. government.

Then, one day, after many months of ignoring them, scorning them, and completely ridiculing them, I decided to take a brief look into some questions that I had run into concerning the events surrounding 9/11.

There were all kinds of questions and issues swirling all over the net, and while I considered some of them interesting, many of them completely stupid and idiotic, there was a handful of questions that I found no good answer for... at least not one that fit within my view of a basically decent and well-understood world. Out of all the questions, the one that stood out the most to me was the issue of how quickly both the towers fell. I mean, building 7 took 26 seconds and it was only 47 stories tall. So, how did two 110 story skyscrapers fall in 15 seconds? For me, this became my Occam's Razon issue, because unlike all the other issues, it had a basis in simple physics calculations and was not dependent on witness accounts.

Sure, I had questions about how such a thing could be pulled off, but I knew that cunning men could always find ways to pull off conspiracies if they put their minds to it... it is much harder to explain violations of physics than it is to explain the sneaky actions of cunning men.

Conspiracies are not really that hard to pull off. By using strict compartmentalization you can keep many people in the dark. By telling everyone that you are running training exercises, you can get people to go along with your scheme, since they don't believe it is real. Once they find out it is real, their first inclination will be abject fear, for the thought will enter their minds that they were used to participate in a real conspiracy, and their first reaction will be to fear those who would be so cruel and shrewd to pull such a thing off.

Then, by dealing with the first whistle-blowers harshly, it will put the fear into all other participants. There were many stories of people who, after the first couple days, refused to talk to anyone about what happened. It's as if somebody got to them and warned them.

All the top people in such a conspiracy can easily be bought off by a combination of big bonuses and pay increases, guaranteed immunity from prosecution, and the threat of serious consequences for non-compliance or divulgence.

In fact, consider the following:

1) Cheney/Bush are in charge of the White House and also the media which will do as the White House says. Any dissenters are immediately called unpatriotic, thereby enlisting instant agreement. They also push the congress to do as they wish, authorizing invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

2) Rumsfeld is in charge of the military, carrying out the plans that the three have implemented. Nobody in the military can question him because he is in charge, under the president, and there is a strict chain of command. Rumsfeld gets the Pentagon reinforced so that damage will be localized and minimal. The Pentagon attack is designed to make sure it is seen by the military as a direct attack on them, and not just a financial attack. This will serve to get total compliance by the military for the main goals... invading Iraq and Afghanistan.

3) Bush (with help and advice from Bush senior) tell the CIA chief what needs to be done, and the CIA, working with the Mossad, get as few agents involved as possible to make sure all the bases are covered.

Everyone else in the government is totally in the dark. That is the reason for the training exercises on 9/11... to get the planes away from New York and Washington, and to create the confusion needed so the attacks would only be seen as attacks at the very last minute, when it would be too late.

This, by the way, is the exact same scenario used in the London bombings... the exact exercises that modeled the events of that day were being done as a supposed training event, when the actual event occurred at that very time. The chances of that happening by accident are virtually impossible. This is such an old trick, it has even used in movies where someone aims a gun that is supposed to be loaded with blanks, but it's loaded with real bullets instead.

Perhaps it would be a good exercise to try and lay out a workable plan to try and put forth a realistic conspiracy scenario, so at least people could see it is not impossible or even that hard.

Originally posted by Wookiep
reply to post by downisreallyup

 

What's your goal anyhow? Why are you such a "truster?"

Lol, I like that. Soo can we now refer to the OS believers as "trusters" as the OS dis-believers are "truthers?

Let's make it viral!

Edit: S&F for the thread. It's interesting to see "occams razor" being presented from the other side for a change..

[edit on 13-2-2010 by Wookiep]

Thanks wookiep Yeah, I was getting so tired of them calling us "truthers" and when I asked myself what kind of similar term I could use for them, the term "trusters" just popped into my noggin! I think those two terms compliment each other quite well, and they do represent the semi-derogatory disdain each side has for the other... so yeah, let's make it viral... good idea!

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by downisreallyup
Now, go look into it and you will find out that indeed this paper was peer reviewed through a tough and long process.

So who peer reviewed it? Who were the referees?

A simple question, so who were they?

If you want to know that, you call up Bentham yourself and find out. I don't need to do ALL your research for you. I think you would be hard pressed to find the answers because it is normal practice to get anonymous referees for the peer-review process.

For example, here is a random professional organization called "The Usability Professionals Association." In there guidelines, they make the following statements:

In the past, all submission proposals have been reviewed by a panel of peers. This year, we offer a peer review of full papers; that is, completed works, not just a proposal. Authors of accepted papers will be allowed to make small revisions based on reviewers’ comments. These papers will be in a separate section of the proceedings, clearly identified as peer-reviewed papers. We will be highly selective and will choose a limited number of submissions to ensure we are establishing a premier venue for publications.

And then down further:

As a submitter, you will receive anonymous reviewers’ comments in response to these questions for the paper, as well as feedback on the presentation review.

Source

I have looked at other random associations and professional organizations and found a similar practice. The review comments that come back from referees are anonymous so that the referees can be totally candid without fear of any reprisal. Also, the comments are private and meant for the improving of the paper. Once the paper has been published, it is then meant to be discussed and debated by the scientific community as a whole. So the peer-review process is merely a first stage to getting a paper in good enough shape to be seriously considered by the scientific community at large.

So, your insistence on knowing who the referees were is a strawman request and only shows that you have no real experience in dealing with scientific papers.

But, if you really want to know on this paper, and your not just doing your typical tactics, please feel free to contact Bentham Science Publishing and see if you can get them to tell you... I doubt they will because the reviewers don't want to be hassled by people, I'm sure.

reply to post by dereks


Where is the indisputable link that proves that it wasn't peer reviewed?

How about explaining the dust samples?

how about explaining how fast the buildings collapsed, violating the laws of physics by not slowing down under the impact zones? (there was enough mass to slow it down by half or more, but it didint!) What assisted the buildings in removing all that opposing force? why was newtons laws violated? Action-reaction; Every action has an opposite and EQUAL reaction. Where was the equal reaction from the undamaged section of both tower one and two?

we are stuck in 2 wars that are bankrupting this country, 3,000 lives have been lost on 9/11, not to mention first responders that are dying everyday because the GOVT LIED about the air QUALITY! If the government can lie about the air quality and not fess up for messing up, what makes you think they are telling the truth about what happened on 911? NOT TO MENTION that NO ONE HAS BEEN TRIED for 911!!!

follow the money, who benefited from 911? Bin laden? NOPE! Iraq/Afghanistan? NOPE! Muslims in general? NOPE!

How about Bush/Cheney? Carlyle group, and Haliburton sure as hell made a killing in both wars. not to mention black water, the drug trade in Afghanistan, the list just goes on and on and on... they had all the reason in the world to lie to us.

in the end, who has a reason to lie?

This is the way i see it. there was opportunity, there was MOTIVE $$, and the only thing that cannot be done without subpoena power is linking everything together. (getting legit suspects through questioning, and having people swear under oath, in PUBLIC!) I dont want the truthers to conduct the investigation, but what i do want is somebody not in the current/former administrations back pocket, completely free from govt insiders, and financial (Banksters). fair and balanced, not bought and paid for like the Commission and NIST report. Too many inconsistencies, too many coincidences, too many flaws in the OS its hard as hell for me to not question the OS.

Just think about it. if it was really terrorists that committed this act, then why all the secrecy during the commission report? why the closed door hearings between bush/Cheney? why all the in-fighting? so many questions, and i am not going to add them here. give me 100% undeniable proof that the OS is true, and ill give up on this conspiracy quest.

thankyou.

Originally posted by ugie1028
Where is the indisputable link that proves that it wasn't peer reviewed?

I am not the one claiming it was peer reviewed, it is up to those making the claim to back iyt up, which they refuse to!

how about explaining how fast the buildings collapsed, violating the laws of physics by not slowing down under the impact zones? (there was enough mass to slow it down by half or more, but it didint!)

Wrong, once it started collapsing it would not stop

why was newtons laws violated?

It wasnt, show us where it was,

[edit on 13/2/10 by dereks]

reply to post by dereks


are you aware of newtons 3rd law yet?

Whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.

wiki

where was the opposing force dereks? it was like the floors under both plane impacts weren't even there! the law proves it itself. i dont need to explain any further. if you cant comprehend physics, then i dont see why your continuing to deny that these laws weren't violated.



as you can see in this 10 sec video, the opposing force stopped the collapse.

NOW why were newtons laws violated? where is that opposing force that mysteriously vanished?

reply to post by dereks

Where is the indisputable link that proves that it wasn't peer reviewed?

I am not the one claiming it was peer reviewed, it is up to those making the claim to back iyt up, which they refuse to!

Since your making the claim it was “not peer reviewed” how about you backing up your silly claim?

how about explaining how fast the buildings collapsed, violating the laws of physics by not slowing down under the impact zones? (there was enough mass to slow it down by half or more, but it didint!)

Wrong, once it started collapsing it would not stop

You just demonstrated that you lack any understanding of real sciences.

why was newtons laws violated?

It wasnt, show us where it was,

You have no clue to what you are talking about, or even an understanding of it, you need to leave it alone and let these educated people in here have a civilized conversation into the sciences of this thread topic. Even you have to agree with that. looking at your last answer said it all.

Originally posted by downisreallyup
Out of all the questions, the one that stood out the most to me was the issue of how quickly both the towers fell. I mean, building 7 took 26 seconds and it was only 47 stories tall. So, how did two 110 story skyscrapers fall in 15 seconds?

They did not....

Rumsfeld gets the Pentagon reinforced so that damage will be localized and minimal.

This is why the conspiracy theorists are so silly and laughed at, just a little bit of research would have shown you that
The Pentagon Renovation Project

In 1993, the Clinton administration decided to upgrade the Pentagon, due in part to the growing concern over terrorist attacks. Upgrades included heavy duty fireproofing in the walls, thus reinforced the walls, and improved its general security. The renovation strategy called for dividing the work into five “wedges”, each wedge is a corner and a rectangle of the building (each covers 1.2 million square feet). The first wedge renovated was the one facing west (Wedge 1).

Wedge 1, was completely vacated by January 1999 and more than 5,000 personnel were relocated to leased office space or elsewhere in the Pentagon. Demolition was completed by mid-1999. Tenants were moving back into the wedge as early as the summer of 2000. Construction in Wedge I was essentially completed in December 2000.[iii]

The renovation work involved the demolition and removal of everything but the basic structural system. All electrical, mechanical, and plumbing systems were replaced and a modernized telecommunication infrastructure was installed. Elevators were also to be installed.[iv]

Among the improvements made to Wedge 1, were blast resistant windows and brick backup walls behind the building’s limestone outer facade. Upgrades to inner walls, consisted of installing a metal fabric mesh. This mesh was designed specifically to contain debris fragments in the event of a blast.6

working with the Mossad,

The old conspiracy theory fallback, blame the Jews!

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by downisreallyup
Out of all the questions, the one that stood out the most to me was the issue of how quickly both the towers fell. I mean, building 7 took 26 seconds and it was only 47 stories tall. So, how did two 110 story skyscrapers fall in 15 seconds?

They did not....

Dereks, I'm about ready to send a warning to the mods about you. Most people claim the buildings fell in 10.5 seconds or there about. I am actually going to the very high end and saying it was 15 seconds, which is the most ANYONE says it took. I have watched the videos of it falling many times and timed it. So please, stop with your tactics and stop saying that something isn't true when in fact it is extremely true.

The buildings fell in around 15 seconds, certainly less than 17 seconds. If you say they did not, then I charge you to state how long it took and to provide video proof of your claim! Go ahead, I dare you to actually provide some evidence for a change.

www.debunk911myths.org...

A problem with the silly claims explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings is these comments

" South Tower

Calls from occupants trapped in the upper floors relayed information via 9-1-1 about conditions. At 9:37, an occupant on the 105th floor of the South tower, reported that floors beneath him "in the 90-something floor" had collapsed.[1] Deteriorating conditions were also reported by the helicopters of the NYPD aviation unit.[2]

* 9:52 a.m. - the NYPD aviation unit reported over the radio that "large pieces may be falling from the top of WTC 2. Large pieces are hanging up there"

* 9:58 a.m. - they report that the South Tower is coming down. "

In this series of images from a video shot from outside Trinity Church (to the southeast of the WTC), the columns can be seen bending and bowing inward in the moments before the collapse occurred.

So you can see the tower starting to collapse, with zero sign of any explosives/superdupernano thermate

For the North tower we have this
"NYPD helicopters relayed information to command staff on the ground, regarding the deteriorating conditions of the North Tower.[2]

* 10:20 a.m. - the NYPD aviation unit reports that the top of the tower might be leaning.

* 10:21 a.m. - they report that the North Tower is buckling on the southwest corner and leaning to the south.

* 10:27 a.m. - the aviation unit reports that the roof is going to come down very shortly.

* 10:28 a.m. - the NYPD reports that the tower is collapsing. "

and again zero sign of any explosives etc.

reply to post by downisreallyup


"The official story is the one with the most assumptions" its a nice statement, but it has zero basis in reality.

For the official story (hijacked airliners crashing into buildings, buildings falling down) to have happened, there are far, far, fewer assumptions that have to be made. Provided you are willing to accept the facts. You talk about Kerrey's claim of a 30 year conspiracy. Well, in a sense, he does have a point. It has been pointed out on ATS, numerous times, that since the early 70's our politicians have made numerous decisions that have made it harder for our law enforcement, intelligence and defense agencies to do their jobs. Those decisions were made, not out of malice, but out of a near sighted belief in the need to correct (overcorrect actually) the abuses of power made by the FBI and CIA during the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Or, they were decisions made after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when our politicians were falling all over themselves to cut the defense budget so they could spend the "Peace Dividend".

Those decisions prevented full investigation of the information turned up by "Able Danger", prevented the sharing of information between the CIA who had reports of plots to hijack airliners and the FBI who had information about suspected terrorists learning how to fly, took 75% of our Continental Air Defense away from us.....prevented many things from happening. Those are not assumptions...those are facts. It left us wide open.

Far more assumptions would have to be made in order for ANY of the common conspiracy theories to be responsible. More events would have had to taken place, more people would have had to be involved, more people would have had to keep their mouths shut, it would be far more complicated for it to have been anything but a terrorist attack.

reply to post by ugie1028

are you aware of newtons 3rd law yet?

it was like the floors under both plane impacts weren't even there! the law proves it itself. i dont need to explain any further. if you cant comprehend physics, then.

For the structural system such as WTC, the energy required to arrest the collapse after a drop of only one or several stories would have to be an order of magnitude higher than the energy dissipation capacity of the structural system used in WTC Link

I think you do actually need to explain further...

i dont see why your continuing to deny that these laws weren't violated

Oh...

[edit on 13-2-2010 by Whyhi]

reply to post by dereks


Seriously what is it with you trusters?

Every post of yours that I have read has been nothing but strawmen arguments. Instead of bashing the OP and derailing his thread why don't you exercise your noggin' a little and actually EXPLORE the links that downisreallyup provided.

You are grasping at straw(s)men truster.

[edit on 2/13/2010 by dalan.]

reply to post by downisreallyup


I just do not know where you get your razor, but saying the building was wired to manipulate the fall is not the simplest explanation compared to an aircraft causing it all. So an aircraft taken over by a small group of people flown into the 80th floor is rather simpler than the 100s/1000s of people needed over a very long period of time, with many agencies involved, while none of them screwed up/came foward/got caught, plus the need to make planes/people disapear for good....and so on... . This branches off into so many directions I would not even know where to start.

So a plane hitting the tower is much more Occam's Razor like I would say..

Also why would it not fall close to freefall speed? When the 80th floor collapsed it accelerated 31 floors to about 20 miles per hour as they all hit the 79th floor with a dynamic load that easily collapse it, and whatever resistance in slowing the fall really became next to nothing after the first few floors. With only one more floor down we now have 32 floors hitting the 78th floor at about 27 miles per hour, or about 2 times the kinetic energy that the 79th floor was hit by. Since kinetic energy is proportional to velocity squared at about the time 33 floors hit the 77th floor it might as well been made of butter.

So just saying "Occam's Razor" in your post doesn't really mean much if it doesn't follow the principle to begin with.


Also your statement below suggests that you think there was some kind of equal force exerted on each floor to give a constant delay as you suggest, and that alone pretty much invalidates your whole post. With or without Mr. Razor on your side....

Even a small 1/4 second delay for each of the 80 to 100 floors (below the impact points) would introduce 20 to 25 additional seconds to the overall collapse time. Adding this to the free-fall speed of 9.21 seconds, gives us a total of between 29 to 34 seconds... much longer than the 15 seconds recorded.

[edit on 13-2-2010 by Xtrozero]