Thursday, September 11, 2008

Manditory 9/11 post

The attacks that took place 7 years ago today were carried out by 19 Islamic terrorist. Most of us by now accept the veracity of that statement. If you are one of those who don’t, what I’m about to say will either put your mind at ease or leave you very disappointed. There are a few who prefer to view the world neatly divided between good and evil.
Occam’s razor holds that the simplest explanation is usually the best explanation. Nineteen hijackers sponsored by an overseas terrorist group is the simplest explanation for the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. A conspiracy within the US government would require the cooperation of hundreds of government officials and employees. The federal government simply lacks the competence to carry out a covert operation of this magnitude. How can they succeed so well at carrying out a “false-flag” attack, and then not find (or even pretend to find) Osama bin Ladin or any WMDs in Iraq? How could an organization so supposedly skilled at manipulating public opinion be run by a guy with a 30% approval rating?

4 comments:

Bernie's Dad said...

Occam's razor in an esthetically assumption (not a law) that can be not a good assumption for modeling very complex system.

Conspiracies are called party interests, fraternity, unions, clubs, associations, special interests and such, to provide a moral comfort from an ugliness or conspiracy term. The bottom line, they do what they want, per their own interests, as it is beneficial to hunt in packs. With sheer amount of laws impossible to know and follow (Kelty anyone?), everyone is vulnerable, especially one leaving a pack. Be good to your pack and your pack protects you.

A few facts showing a chances of conspiracy in 9/11 aftermath from Steve Coll's book "Bin Ladens" or Paul Sperry "Infiltration" book are extracted here:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=74628

Robert Enders said...

People do tend to act in their own interests and in the interests of the groups they belong to. A person might kill another person for the sake of personal or financial gain. But is there really any financial gain sufficient enough to motivate a group to carry out mass murder? Morality aside, blowing people up carries a lot of personal risks. It would be far easier and safer for a group of unethical elite to make money through insider trading.

Bernie's Dad said...

Not all societies are based on individual rights. Some are clan society, when an obligation to a clan (pride) is above one's own life. Promised numerous virgins once in paradise add up. A sixth son of poor parent has no other chance to multiply per having no money required. Hence a pipe dream. Versus getting killed if not done. With families kept hostages. Nothing new here. Uncle Joe practiced it. Vikings practiced it too. Just medieval. With centuries old receipts how to solve it.

Robert Enders said...

If I'm reading your cryptic sentence fragments correctly, you are implying that it's possible that a group could force an individual to kill a bunch of people and possibly himself as well. But that sort of thing is less likely in an open society like the US.