Occam’s Razor On Terror Events
Petra Liverani’s 9/11 research and analysis site:
Petra can’t seem to address the evidence of the impact holes. Like so many alleged truthers, she dances all around the evidence at the scene of the crime:
The irony of Petra Liverani using the term “Occam’s Razor” as the name for her blog is that Occam’s Razor refers to a method of determining which hypothesis is most likely to be correct. From the conceptuality.org website:
Some argue that the scientific method was built upon the principles of Occam’s razor. Underdetermination says that for any theory in science there will always be at least one other rival theory that could conceivably be correct, so the scientific method uses Occam’s razor in order to circumvent this issue and choose a working hypothesis.
Remember, however, that Occam’s razor is a heuristic, a rule of thumb, to suggest which hypothesis is most likely to be true. It doesn’t prove or disprove, it simply leads you down the path that’s most likely to be correct. Also, ‘simplicity’ is often subject to heavy debate, so you and I might come to different conclusions when faced with a decision between the same 2 hypotheses.
Petra calls irrelevant the evidence of the lateral impacts of small projectiles, which can be seen in both impact holes of the Twin Towers. She calls me obsessive. She’s got that right, anyway. The thing is, her way of dealing with the evidence of missile impacts is to ignore it, something I’m pretty sure Occam would have frowned on. How can she claim to be using Occam’s Razor to determine which hypothesis is correct, when she waves-off the evidence used to arrive at the hypothesis?
From the Caitlin Johnstone article, came the below comment from Petra:
PETRA LIVERANI / DECEMBER 14, 2019
Steve, I think your obsession with the holes is a case of not seeing the forest for the trees. We don’t have to know everything about the event, do we? We don’t have to know exactly what, who, when, how re the building collapses, do we? And, in fact, you don’t know but the point is it doesn’t matter. We know CD brought the buildings down and that is all we need to know at this point in time.
Just because you think you know what created the holes (and you may well be right) doesn’t mean that this seeming fact needs to be acknowledged and studied at this point in time. We know CD and we know fake plane crashes – whether the holes were caused by CD alone or in combination with missiles or by missiles alone is not particularly relevant in the scheme of things just as knowing how, when and what re the explosives bringing the buildings down is not particularly relevant.
You need to get a perspective on 9/11. It’s the nature of the phenomenon that is the most important. When we get the nature then we know that the primary culprits are Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. All of it was under their orders. It’s as simple as that.
Petra seems to think she knows some stuff. So do I. Using Occam’s Razor to determine which hypothesis is correct would require her to address the evidence that leads me there. Her way around that is to ignore it. Why bother when she’s already made up her mind? It was Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Nuff said. See her responses to this thread, and ask yourself if this is the attitude of someone who is genuinely interested in learning the truth.
P.S. This article was written for truthers like Petra.
If you’re like me and just want to follow the evidence wherever it leads then the details discussed in this post can lead directly to the most likely cause and the most likely suspects. If I’m wrong then there must be a better explanation for it and I want to hear what that is but so far the response has been silence. It is as the late Harold Pinter described how Americans react when they hear “real news” about all the atrocities committed by the USA around the world since the end of World War II:
“It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.”
It is this hypnosis that has kept the war on terror going strong, with both sides so entranced they will reject the evidence that can lead to the truth in favor of fantastical explanations straight out of Gene Roddenberry’s imagination. The truth is, no, planes can’t slice steel and no, buildings don’t turn to dust in the real world. For 16 years both sides (all sides) have bent over backwards to avoid the first step in any investigation; the scene of the crime, probably partly because it makes most of the truth movement’s hypotheses irrelevant, but also because of the staggering implications that accompany it.
Years ago a friend warned me that even if I did discover the truth about 9/11 nobody will give a damn, a prescient prediction. Not that I’m saying I’m right, but I have done my best to keep myself honest in my investigation, and although I am often wrong, I am also often not wrong. All I can say is, the fact that no one will address these clues is exactly what I would expect from controlled opposition if I did stumble on the right path.
Fake news is everywhere, but from what I can tell most people like it that way, Truthers included, which is a pity. The truth may hurt but it really does set you free.