Occam's Razor Proves 9/11 is a Conspiracy

If you ever try to argue with someone that 9/11 was an inside job, you'll probably get the phrase "Occam's razor" thrown back at you to explain away the evidence you present. Occam's razor is the logical principal that states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed, or when it's put in its "simplest" terms: the simplest explanation is the best one.

For example:

Conspiracy question: "Why did our military stand down and why were all those war games going on the day of the attacks?"

Occam's razor answer: "The military wasn't ordered to stand down, they were just caught off guard and the military practices all the time, so having a war game going on shouldn't be too surprising."

CQ: "Why were all of the four planes only about 25% full of capacity?"

OR: "The hijackers choose flights with the fewest passengers, so they would be easier for them to control."

CQ: "How did the towers completely collapse to the ground at free-fall speed when the fires weren't even hot enough to melt the steel?"

OR: "The planes crashing into them caused structural damage and the jet fuel fires didn't have to melt the steel, but only needed to weaken them which caused the trusses to give and the weight of the top section caused each floor to pancake down on each other at a high rate of speed."

CQ: "How was Hani Hanjour able to fly a Boeing 757 like an experienced jet fighter pilot into the Pentagon when his flight instructors said his flying skills sucked?"

OR: "Crashing a plane is not very hard to do. Taking off and landing a plane is the hard part and none of the hijackers were training to do that."

CQ: "Why is there no plane at the Pentagon, but all the passenger's remains were supposedly recovered there?"

OR: "The plane virtually disintegrated upon impact, but there were few parts that survived which are seen in photos and the passengers were identified by their DNA which only small amounts are needed to do so."

Notice how each question seems easily answered by using the principal of Occam's razor. People who use this principal are at an advantage because:

1. Some events, such as 9/11, have a lot of evidence surrounding it, so usually you will only be able to present one or two pieces of evidence at a time which makes it easier for someone using Occam's razor to debate against instead of having to explain all the evidence away.
2. Some evidence can be complicated, so Occam's razor can be an easy way out of trying to explain away something that is complicated.
3. The official 9/11 story itself is very simple (19 Arabs with box cutters hijacked four planes and crashed them into our buildings because they hate our freedoms.), so that fits with Occam's razor perfectly.

Now notice how Occam's razor is basically explaining things as being a coincidence too. Yes coincidences do happen and the bigger the event, the more likely you will find more coincidences. However, each time you add on another coincidence, the odds get greater and greater that they can all still be just a coincidence (unless you think like a coincidence theorist). And remember, the flip-side of a coincidence is a conspiracy:

Coincidence - A sequence of events that although accidental seems to have been planned or arranged.

Conspiracy - An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.

Well 9/11 doesn't just have a few coincidences surrounding it, it has TONS of coincidences surrounding it. So far I've found over 200 coincidences surrounding 9/11 with the help of a lot of great websites out there and some coincidences by themselves seem too coincidental to believe they're just a coincidence.

So how can one explain how an event, such as 9/11, can have so many coincidences surrounding it?

"Simple" (and ironically): Occam's razor.

The simplest explanation for there being so many coincidences surrounding 9/11 is that it was a conspiracy!

Case solved.