Justin Case wrote:

"Cardinal Chunder" <cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:e7ui9301t9i@news3.newsguy.com...

Justin Case wrote:

"Bookman" <thebookman@kc.rr.comNULL> wrote in message
news:klir9254lup6r4qm8tec6gcl19s00b2g9v@4ax.com...

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 21:44:36 GMT, "Amanda Angelika"
Proves nothing.  Which never stops the konspiracy ko0ks.  Ever heard
of Occam's Razor?

Occam's Razor is used to trim the fat off of scientific theories.

Bullshit. It is, to paraphrase, to favour the simpler explanation, all
things being equal.

Surrrrrrrre it is kookman,

The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is,

"when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same
predictions, the one that is simpler is the better."

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html

Congratulations for confirming what I said you dolt.

Concerning 911, all things are not equal.
Nice try though

You're right they're not equal. Konspiracy kooks (that's you) don't have a single shred of evidence to back up your wild fantasies. You don't even state with specificity what your wild fantasies even.

It would not be wise to use it in conjunction with a conspiracy because
most conspiracies have patsies and cover stories.

And apparently casts of thousands all prepared to murder in the most
baroque convoluted and nonsensical series of events that only a kook
could string together.

Your kookiness is showing. What cast of thousands ?

The cast of thousands required for any of the stupid alternative explanations that kooks allude to without providing details.

The cover story will be easier to believe than the complications of
the conspiracy. If you apply Occam's Razor you will always be duped
by the patsy. You will always fall for the cover story.

Complications such as? I ask merely because konspiracy kooks bleat a lot
about the supposed flaws in the commonly accepted view of 9/11 but
they're not so quick to emphatically state the alternative, complete
with supporting evidence.

It was once the commonly accepted view (thanks to the Murdoch machine)
that Saddam was involved in 911. That Iraq had WMD's. Just to name a couple
flaws.
Got anthrax ?

Your total evasion of the question is noted. Come on now, let's hear your "alternative" explanation complete with supporting evidence such that we may apply Occam's Razor to it.

For someone so ardently ranting and raving about the official version of events you sure are evasive when it comes to explaining how you think it happened.