Wrong on "United States authorities" ---- 9/11 was at least three years in the planning by collaborators of the Trade Centers security team , the CIA, and MOSSAD. In other words a planned false-flag* event to cause the USA to initiate a war/conflict in the Mideast to help secure heavy-crude oil flow to the USA and to provide much greater security to Israel by the USA.
* Pearl Harbor was a false-flag event planned by FDR to involve the USA in the European war
* Gulf of Tonkin event was an LBJ-planned false-flag event to expand his Viet Nam War.
Additionally, both remote-control B-757s that hit the towers were CIA owned (grey-colored) with explosives mounted under the aircraft noses. The craft that hit the Pentagon was evidenced by a cruise missile (thus the reason no airliner engines or landing gear was evidenced), and the cruise-missile-caused hole that pierced all three building layers to the center courtyard.
Just as Kary Mullis clearly stated the PCR test he got the Nobel prize for creating was NOT a diagnostic tool and should never be used as such, Occam's razor was a tool for use in crafting philosophical and theological 'arguments'. When such research and 'thinking' tools are applied in the real world, they don't work well. In fact, they come up with false results. I am weary of people trying to apply Occam's razor to explain real life events, as if the real world obeys the rule that the cause of any event is always the simplest. To see an extensive explanation of why people should stop taking Occam's razor out of its natural environment and using it to explain real life events, simply Google "reasons not to use Occam's razor to explain the causes of real life events."
Dennett's thinking tools hold up better than most because they are built to slow you down at the exact moment you want to speed up. Rapoport's rule, restating an opponent's view so well they thank you before you critique it, is the one almost nobody actually practices, since it forces you to risk being persuaded. His 'surely' alarm is the other underrated one: the word tends to mark the precise spot where an argument is weakest and is hoping you will not check.
Wrong on "United States authorities" ---- 9/11 was at least three years in the planning by collaborators of the Trade Centers security team , the CIA, and MOSSAD. In other words a planned false-flag* event to cause the USA to initiate a war/conflict in the Mideast to help secure heavy-crude oil flow to the USA and to provide much greater security to Israel by the USA.
* Pearl Harbor was a false-flag event planned by FDR to involve the USA in the European war
* Gulf of Tonkin event was an LBJ-planned false-flag event to expand his Viet Nam War.
Additionally, both remote-control B-757s that hit the towers were CIA owned (grey-colored) with explosives mounted under the aircraft noses. The craft that hit the Pentagon was evidenced by a cruise missile (thus the reason no airliner engines or landing gear was evidenced), and the cruise-missile-caused hole that pierced all three building layers to the center courtyard.
Just as Kary Mullis clearly stated the PCR test he got the Nobel prize for creating was NOT a diagnostic tool and should never be used as such, Occam's razor was a tool for use in crafting philosophical and theological 'arguments'. When such research and 'thinking' tools are applied in the real world, they don't work well. In fact, they come up with false results. I am weary of people trying to apply Occam's razor to explain real life events, as if the real world obeys the rule that the cause of any event is always the simplest. To see an extensive explanation of why people should stop taking Occam's razor out of its natural environment and using it to explain real life events, simply Google "reasons not to use Occam's razor to explain the causes of real life events."
Occam’s broom is the one that matters most inside companies.
The problem is rarely that nobody can think.
The problem is that the awkward fact gets removed before the meeting becomes expensive.
The guest did not come back.
The campaign only worked with a discount.
The team is carrying a process that was badly designed.
The offer is not as clear as we say it is.
Once those facts are swept away, the rest of the discussion can sound very intelligent and still go nowhere.
Critical thinking is not only sharper reasoning.
It is refusing to protect the assumption that is making the work look cleaner than it is.
Dennett's thinking tools hold up better than most because they are built to slow you down at the exact moment you want to speed up. Rapoport's rule, restating an opponent's view so well they thank you before you critique it, is the one almost nobody actually practices, since it forces you to risk being persuaded. His 'surely' alarm is the other underrated one: the word tends to mark the precise spot where an argument is weakest and is hoping you will not check.