Occam’s Razor and 9-11 Conspiracy Theories

Are You Sure Laughing at Conspiracy Theories Makes You Smart?

One of the favoritest pastimes of nationalist ass-kissers , deaf, dumb and blind flag-wavers and those who just want a shortcut to looking smart (and this) is to laugh about (most) Conspiracy Theories, a category of weirdness far worse, it is felt,  than say ‘liberal’, for instance. As for booby prizes, they go to those, right, left and center, who chuckle the loudest and most-snearingly about “Conspiracy Theories”, while the raspberries are reserved for those who consider them to one extent of another, no matter how carefully. It’s a sure sign of intellectual pretension to ridicule “conspiracy theories.” Rarely is much thought given to distinguish one theory from another or to evaluate any of them on their merits. For instance, Bill Clinton being a secret Communist who consorts with bisexual dwarves is put in the same “Conspiracy Theory” category as is questions about 9-11. A relevant example is the post of a ‘Svenis’ person at this site. He or she mixes crazy and more plausible theories about 9-11, smearing and dismissing the latter in the process. The problem, in part, is that one of the persons he argues with, one ‘Bushwhacker’, doesn’t help when he mixes stuff himself without apparently evaluating some of them.

There are always really wacky or just plain factually challenged theories , and they never help either (which raises potential questions about the origins of those ideas). The only thing that matters, though, to the Conspiracy-mockers is the question: Does the Conspiracy Theory reflect badly on their beloved America (the concept, not the place or the people)? And this is crucial. If so, it is rejected out of hand as mere “anti-Americanism.” If the Conspiracy Theory, on the other hand, reflects well on their beloved America (the concept, not the place or the people), it gets the reverse treatment: blind and complete acceptance. Republicans and others, without seeing the irony, call the science behind the idea of global warming “junk science.” Something similar happens with “conspiracy theories”. Case in point is the competing theories about 9-11. The Official Conspiracy Theory starring Osama Bin Laden and 19 mysterious hijackers is simply unquestionable no matter how many questions and contradictions remain, no matter how “junk science” it is. Conversely, any theory, and there are many, of various quality, that questions the Official Conspiracy Theory starring Osama Bin Laden and 19 mysterious hijackers is immediately and completely laughable, by default – and this is considered obvious, not challengeable, putting the entire matter in the realm of faith, not reason.

The more sophisticated of the Conspiracy Theory mockers who fancy themselves debunkers deploy the logical principle known as Occam’s Razor, or often merely appear to. Occam’s Razor is a logical principle “attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham)” which “states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed.” Of course, it happens that Occam’s Razor is often thrown around carelessly and thoughtlessly, a prop for political theater posing as serious, open-minded discussion, much like Republicans scream “junk science” when defending junk science. Sometimes the Razor-wielder doesn’t realize how dripping with irony it is to ridicule a Conspiracy Theory via Occam’s Razor while failing to recognize how deep it might cut into their own preferred, politically-correct, pro-America theories.

The best recent example I can think of that deploys the logical principle of Occam’s Razor in such a way as to discredit conventional theories in favor of a “conspiracy theory” is BYU physics Professor Steven E. Jones’ paper ‘Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse’. In this paper, which I invite everyone to read, Jones makes a plain, clear and convincing case that, from a physical point of view, the controlled-demolition-caused collapse theory easily trounces the conventional fire/damage-caused collapse theory. That is, the former accounts for the facts far better than the latter while making fewer assumptions, in keeping with Occam’s logical principle. But do you think this will cause the thoughtless Bin Laden-haters, Bush-lovers and people who think they’re smart ‘cos they read Christopher Hitchens (or at least his headlines) to even think twice? It should, but in too many cases I think it won’t. The funny thing is, Jones’ paper will likely be cited, without even being read or seriously considered, as an example of crazy conspiracy theories.

A lesson is that, yes, not every conspiracy theory stands up to scrutiny – an example being the what Michael Rivero over at What Really Happened ( www.whatreallyhappened.com ), calls the Pod People (cited above). Not all conspiracy theories fare well in a confrontation with Occam’s Razor. And we shouldn’t latch onto them if they don’t. But don’t take anyone’s word for it. Scrutinize the scrutiny. Evaluate the case made by those who laugh at conspiracy theories, and look at what they promote in their place. And we shouldn’t adopt a belief because it does not contradict what we already know or wish to believe, either. But the relevant lesson for those knee-jerk Conspiracy Theory-mockers is that their own beliefs and counter-theories often do not fare well under such scrutiny either and that some of the theories they choose to mock, because its politically-correct and socially-acceptable to do so, fare much better under serious scrutiny than they could bear to realize. For instance, the more one looks, the more one realizes that the Official Conspiracy Theory starring Osama Bin Laden stands up to scrutiny about as well as the Pod People’s theories and the notion that Clinton was secretly a Communist dwarf-humper.

Comments

[brisa]

It all boils down to faith. Does one have faith that the government tells the American public the truth? What happens when the government's explanations for the causation of an event is contradicted by the known laws of physics?

Who you gonna believe, the government or your lying rational mind?

The critical thinking ability of the US population must be at an all time low. One can only hope that, over time, the truth will emerge and those truly responsible for the 911 atrocity will be exposed and prosecuted.

I would love to know what information concerning 911 Mr. Cheney would give up under the Gitmo interrogation regimen.

[nolocontendere]

Boy do I agree with the above comments by brisa. Blind faith that the guvmint would never, ever do anything to harm us is killing rational thought.
And let me add my own conspiracy theory to that mix - flouride in the water supply has short circuited our cognitive abilities. By design.

[zerotsm]

I still think that the official cause of the failure of the WTC is correct. But the important thing to consider is that the US Government knew in advance the targets and allowed it to happen, so as to raise support for attacking the middle east. Why else would the Secret Service allow Bush to continue reading about goats in that school classroom with a supposedly unknown number of airplanes crashing into buildings. Cheney was rushed to safety. The only reason that makes sense is that Bush and the Secret Service knew what the targets were going to be in advance.

[Ron Leighton]

Hello,

Great comment, Brisa. I like your irony and sarcasm. :)

And you're right, nolocontendre, the issue of flouride is no joke, and perhaps worth revisting. I know Rumsfeld had a hand in Aspartame. Is he too young to have had a hand in flouride?? haha. :)

[Ron Leighton]

Hi zerotsm,

Interesting comments. I am curious though why you still believe the official collapse theory. Did you read Jones' entire paper?

Interested in your comments,

[freshtracks]

Great Article. What amazes me is how many people can be presented with the evidence that clearly shows that the 9/11 Commissions' conclusions are so full of holes and distorted "facts" and yet stick their heads right back in the sand.

"Our govt could never do that!" they claim, and yet we've seen what they've done with the bogus build up to the Iraq War, etc. Tens of thousands killed, and by the end I'm guessing at least another 3,000 dead Americans.

Anyway, keep talking, and conversing. I know what I know, and official 9/11 story smells like a big steaming pile of bovine excrement.

Props to WRH... a wonderful source of daily information for this Controlled Demolition Believer!

[Ron Leighton]

Thanks freshtracks. Sorry I missed your comment until now. I think the idea that "Our government would never do that!" is the main thing that stands in the way of people rationally considering the relevant evidence for or against a "conspiracy theory." I also think the plans for Operation Northwoods (apparently shelved by Kennedy) answered in the positive "could it happen here?" But also, frankly, anyone with a realistic understanding of actual U.S. history would not doubt that the U.S. government COULD do some extremely wicked things - even to Americans. The only question is did they, not would they.

Take care,

[Gregg Roberts]

GREAT column, Ron! Keep up the good work!

Gregg Roberts
Associate Editor
http://911research.wtc7.net

[Ron Leighton]

Thanks Gregg,

I'll do my best! Thanks for the link. I've been there before, but not in awhile. I'll check it out again.

Take care,

[Phil_Howe]

Well done, thoughtful article. A man after my own heart.

I am a 911 'conspiracy theorist' as is evidenced by my blog.

There is a lot of crap out there, as is the case in all fields of life.

The fact remains though that the official version of events is as logically flawed at the Pod people- whom I know well as I used to work with Phil Jayhan of www.letsroll911.org.

Excellent article though. I like the way you think, not many ushc thinkers left in my opinion.

Cheers,

Phil

[Ron Leighton]

Thanks Phil,

Glad you like "Occam's Razor".

What are "ushc thinkers"? It sounds like a compliment, but I'm not sure. haha. Or is that a typo for "such"? I guess that's what it is.

Oh, and let me know how to get to your blog, all the link shows is your profile.

Take care,

[Dick Douglas]

Here's my take, for what it's worth: The true engineers of 9/11, whomever they may be, in whatever dark corner of reality they hide (all I know for sure is that it's not a batcave in Afghanistan) are lining up their fall-back theories, should this putrid feces ever contact the osculator.
Fall back #1 is: this is a big pile of hooey, the government would never do such a thing.
#2: some rougue state, such as Isreal (wink, wink) must have pulled this off.
#3: some rougue elements inside our own government did it, unbeknownst to the administration. (Some J-3 General just snapped.)
#4: some bad guys in the admin. did it behind Bush and Cheney's back.
#5: Dick Cheney blasts off in his personal spacecraft for Mars, with "Go F*ck Yourself" painted on the side. Bush admits to drinking heavily again.

[mondo]

Great article. Plus, you reminded me of something. I find it disappointing and a bit suspicious that Rivero mocks the "Pod people". This makes Rivero suspect, which is too bad as I have found many interesting articles on his site. I just hope that he's one of those people which you described as a person who won't "adopt a belief because it does not contradict what we already know or wish to believe". Because the fact of the matter is, there was something attached to the bottom of that plane. When the airline was asked about it they said they couldn't comment 'because it was a national security issue". That right there is enough to warrant extreme suspicion and the fact that Rivero consistently ridiculed the Pod makes him a suspect as a disinfo agent.

[mellioo]

"I find it disappointing and a bit suspicious that Rivero mocks the "Pod people". This makes Rivero suspect"

No, really, it doesn't.

The "Pod" story is utterly ludicrous on its' face, and doesn't appear to have anything concrete to back it up (other than some fuzzy pictures).

Therefore, it does not deserve deserve the same consideration as more reasonable questions about what happened on 9/11/01.

Like "Why else would the Secret Service allow Bush to continue reading about goats in that school classroom with a supposedly unknown number of airplanes crashing into buildings?"

That's a perfectly reasonable question. Anyone who attempts to discredit it either has a vested interest in doing so, or they possess no critical thinking skills whatsoever.

Thank you for providing such a well-written, thought-provoking blog :)

[hornet]

Anyone who believes the official the-fire-caused-it story is eating funny mushrooms.

How could the NYC Firemen be reporting from the 89-91st floors to Dispatch two minutes before the bldg came down if the fire was 2700+ F...the temp required to affect the structural columns?

Please. Stop the nonsense.

[hornet]

The problem with Rivero's mocking of the pod story or anything except the official version of huge-plane-flies-into Pentagon-and-disintegrates is what Jones, a nuclear physicist with bonafides, brings out in his report.

The temperature at which steel is vaporized is around 5000 F. Since there was no tail, no wings, no nothing, after the plane hit the Pentagon....and since Rivero said it was because the huge AA plane melted on contact, then one must assume the temp was close to 5000 F, according to Dr. Jones.

If that's the case, explain what we see in Pentagon after-photos. Just give me one reasonable explanation that does not defy science.

[Rabbitvoz]

Rabbit has been dealing with these morons for a while now too, and the level of denial and delusion in the Official Conspiracy Theory crowd is quite surreal.

As an experienced Pyrotechnician with some explosives and demo experience, Rabbit has known since 911 that those buildings were brought down not only with cutter charges, a very sweet job at that, there appears to be a fair bit of other stuff going on in a pyrotechnic sense too. The fact is that the crashes and the collapses wre hollywood perfect, including effects which frankly are not there or not as obvious in real life.

It was tweaked to look good. somebody mentions Professor jones report, and it is the begginning of the end I think. The response amongst his peers is the begginning of the tidal wave, many people, especially experts must have known for a while, but the problem is breaking through the screeching ignorance of the faith brigade, the sheeple with fears for ideas.

You seem like a man after the Rabbit's heart, well met.

..........................^^..........................

[Ron Leighton]

Hello Mondo, Hornet and Mellioo,

I think the pod issue is dead. It is, as Hornet says, ludicrous on its face. If you point me to a link, Mondo, that provides some info about the Pod issue, I'd be glad to see it.

As I see it at this point, the Pod theory suggests blurry-but-otherwise-explainable bulges under the wings of the 9-11 planes to be a "pods", containing what technology I don't know. However, if I recall from the In Plane Site video, it seems, strangely enough, that the same people pushing the Pod theory also are pushing the hologram theory! In Plane Site does just this. Aren't those theories mutually exclusive?

In addition to What Really Happened.com, I suggest this website for info on bogus and distracting 9-11 stories: http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html

Now, as for the Pentagon, who knows. There are questions about that. I'm not as familiar with that side of 9-11 as I am the WTC portion. I do know though that the same people now pushing the Pod/hologram theories (In Plane Site) had on their website what was supposed to entry AND exit damage at the Pentagon when fact they were merely the same damage photographed from different angles. When I emailed them to point this out to them and I never heard back AND they never changed it.

In Plane Site is not worthy of your time. Unfortunately I cannot get back the 2 hours or whatever I wasted on it already.

Take care,

[StoneWT]

hornet,

"....and since Rivero said it was because the huge AA plane melted on contact..."

Bullsh*t. Rivero didn't say that. Are you deliberately lying or just ignorant?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html

[Uhhh]

Not to be a jerk or anything, but your "people trash us because they want to feel superior/smarter" is kinda a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Some of the comments are even worse; if you believe one of the non-official theories, you get to be smarter than 95% of the population instead of your small minority.

I'm not making a statement on the theories, just pointing something out.

[*Cough*]

So, this is all a joke, right?