Re: I don't know if "no passenger jets" means just that or no planes whatsoever?
Ockham's razor
SYLLABICATION: Ock·ham's razor
[...]
VARIANT FORMS: also Oc·cam's razor
NOUN: A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. Also called law of parsimony.
ETYMOLOGY: After William of Ockham.
education.yahoo.com
Applying Ockham's razor to 911, I'd say that "airliners should not be multiplied needlessly." I'm still of the opinion that no planes whatsoever hit anything on Sept 11, 2001.
Actually, I'm grappling with yet another clue to the "no-planes" theory: the media coverage of Manhattan precincts on September 11, 2001.... Remember that I found it odd that all the footages and pictures of the burning towers were shot from a vantage point NORTH of the WTC towers. Of course, that might no longer be true today after US intelligence video-artists and other self-appointed 911 pundits have polluted the web with doctored videos/pictures showing the towers from every possible angle....
But let's get back to the very day 911 occurred --after the first (south) tower was hit. Hundreds of TV crews and reporters just rushed to Manhattan, CNN set up a live-TV crew atop a building NORTH/Northeast(?) of the WTC --but what about setting up TV crews elsewhere??? Look at the map and you'll notice that it would have made sense for CNN, ABC, CBS, Fox, you name it, to position TV crews on the New Jersey coastline southwest of the WTC... The Statue of Liberty islet wasn't open yet, granted, but that's no problem for CNN and other major networks!! The Statue of Liberty islet offers the best sightline of lower Manhattan --how come CNN didn't use a launch to get to the islet to set up one more TV crew there???
That's really odd, isn't it? On September 11, 2001, I remember that the only vantage points viewers from all over the world were allowed amounted to one or perhaps two spots located NORTH of the WTC precincts, atop a skyscraper --as if the big networks had been told NOT to position camera crews SOUTH of the WTC... or, if they actually did position crews south of the WTC, all the footages thereof was subsequently confiscated and classified. As you know, it's consistent with my "no-planes" theory: since the hijacked airliners were said to have hit both towers on their north/northwest facades, TV crews positioned southerly should have caught the "exit blasts" of the crashes, that is, all the debris and window splinters blasted by the shock wave... but nothing happened on the WTC towers' south side. Nothing happened because the blasts resulted from planted bombs. The WTC towers were monster buildings, very large, so much so that you could set off a bomb in an office on one side of a WTC tower without upsetting the opposite side... and, as I said, that was the compelling reason why both towers had to collapse completely and utterly.
Gus |
