Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JBTFD who wrote (390)	4/28/2003 11:52:20 AM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20039

When looking for information that is off limits to mainstream media, you need to get information where you can. Why is this "information" you're referring to "off limits" to "mainstream media"? I don't know what Occam's [R]azor is, so you can explain it if you want. It's essentially an ordering principle for constructing logical arguments; essentially, an effective process of working through an investigation of any sort is to start with the simplest explanation and develop increasingly complex hypotheses with which to explain it. As opposed to, say, creating a far fetched, reaching explanation up front or - worse yet, from this perspective - fitting the evidence to an a priori, inviolate conclusion. You seem to have the attitude that to discuss a topic like this you need to have iron clad proof. I'm conjecturing only on the nature of the "evidence:" which is to say, its fundamental nonexistence; I have no objection to, and in fact encourage, discussing this type of thing. If my questioning the laughable sources of information prevalent thusfar bothers you, well, that's how it goes. I disagree. Clearly; unsurprisingly. I question your motive in playing the role of the "credibily police". Another conspiracy, perhaps? I'm no "police[man,]" nor do I seek to act as one; to that end, you certainly have the right to put me on ignore or simply not reply to my posts. Why the heck would you ask someone on line you don't even know if they find a particular source "credible?". Because you are interested? No. Answering for me? Bold. Why wouldn't I ask if a poster, leaning on a single website of unfamiliar origin and itself containing no citations, finds a site credible? You find it offensive to have your sphere of belief stirred, I take it? Because you want to make a big frikin' [sic] deal of the point that you don't think the source is credible. What's wrong with that? Is that any more objectionable than making a point - let alone starting a thread - buttressed by sources that one believes to be credible? To me it is patronising. Cry me a river, pal. Now: what other evidence do you have? LPS5

To: JBTFD who wrote (390)	4/28/2003 12:32:02 PM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

RE: Occam's razor Occam's razor is a scientific principal that if two theories explain the same set of facts, the simpler of the two is the more likely explanation. For example: Bush appoints the anti Iraq hawks employed by his father. An International investment firm with companies in energy and defense submits a proposal for using WMDs as an excuse to take control of Iraqi oil. A group of terrorists enter the country to hijack airplanes. The FBI discovers the terrorists but are prevented from investigating. A bunch of put options are placed on the airline stocks, but no investigation takes place. An Israeli company moves out of the WTC 2 weeks before the attacks. The attacks take place, but there is a complete failure of any kind of air defense. The WTC is reduced to powder, but was designed to with stand a jet collision. Evidence from the WTC is destroyed. Anthrax identical to that at Ft. Detrick is mailed in 4 letters, but the investigation goes no where. At least 7 of the hijackers were using false ID, and the other 12 can't be proven conclusively. Another Israeli company packs up and abandons their business when 5 of their Israeli employees are arrested and two of them turn out to be Mossad agents. You might end up with a number of theories to explain the facts. For example: Osama bin Laden did it and it was coincidence it gave Bush an excuse to attack Iraq. It was also a coincidence and bad luck the FBI were not allowed to investigate. It was also a coincidence and bad luck the Air Force never got anywhere close enough to do anything about the attacks. No one knows why public investigations haven't taken place or why so much evidence is classified top secret by the Bush administration, but they might have a valid reason. A team of top bioweapon experts spent over a year attempting to produce something close to their own anthrax weapons, using home lab equipment in order to prove the anthrax might have come from someplace else. Although most of the WTC evidence was destroyed, a government panel offers an inconclusive opinion a fire burning at half the temperature needed to melt steel, may have melted steel and caused the WTC to turn to powder. The Israelis were released and deported on the assumption they didn't have anything to do with the attacks. Or another theory might go something like this: Bush needed an excuse to attack Iraq and decided the sacrifice of a few Americans wasn't too high a price to pay considering the billions of dollars involved and a personal hatred for Iraq. Israeli agents were brought in to pose as Arabs and the Bush administration hawks provided cover for the operation to prevent its failure. The attacks succeeded and the Bush administration then used their authority to destroy evidence and impede investigations. Bush gets his war and all his buddies make lots of money. Occam's razor cuts the first theory to shreds. Too many unexplained accidents had to happen for the plan to succeed, and too many other events aren't covered in the theory. The second theory covers all the facts without having to stretch the imagination to try to make it fit. By the principals of Occam's razor, the second theory would be the correct one.

To: JBTFD who wrote (390)	4/28/2003 12:38:28 PM
From: Edscharp	Respond to of 20039

Mark, The simplest definition of Occam's razor states, that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. If you are arguing with someone and that person starts adding a lot of 'ifs', 'ands', and 'buts' to his argument, he is increasing the complexity of his argument and therefore increasing the likelihood that his argument is a poor one. Occam's Razor is not an absolute principle. Occasionally, even in the real world, there are some pretty convoluted explanations for events that occur. But, as a general principle Occam's Razor is a pretty good tool when you're trying to assess the validity of an argument.

To: JBTFD who wrote (390)	4/29/2003 2:04:19 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

OCCAM'S RAZOR -- AND THE MIGHTY WURLIZER It is interesting that this old logic concept came up here. I got into a heated debate with a 19 year old on the local campus of OSU last evening. After denying the truth I told about June 11, 2001: Message 18888794 Not even attempting to come to grips with the facts, he spouted "Occam's Razor" to explain away a very troubling use of the U.S. corporate media for propaganda purposes. Which leads to my question. I'm wondering which of the mouthpieces of the Might Wurlitzer* has introduced "Occam's Razor" into common parlance among the RWEs this week? Hannity? Bulimbaugh? Ari Fleishacker? Someone has entered this red herring into the echo chamber, and it's being misapplied all over... *http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=18889614&s=Mighty%20Wurlitzer