Occam’s Razor On Terror Events

Petra Liverani’s 9/11 research and analysis site:

https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/

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:

https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/four-faked-plane-crashes.html

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.
https://conceptually.org/concepts/occams-razor

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.

Steve

P.S. This article was written for truthers like Petra.

Excerpt:

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.

Comments

    1. truthermusical

      Occams Razer only works when it’s not used to justify the Big Lie of the fake NASA moonlanding of 1969. I’ve sent Petra, Steve, Jim etc. an email, and We the People hope for their reply soon:

      Dear Steve Deak and Jim Fetzer,

      I’ve written to Petra L., because he is offering $5000 to anyone who can prove via Occams Razer that NASA didn’t go to the moon in 1969.

      I forwarded Fetzer’s quote about the simplest explanation being the NASA photos – concerning how small the Earth appears in size from the moon’s surface. Fetzer believes the Earth should be much larger considering it (the moon) doesn’t have an atmosphere, and is about 5 times less in diameter size in comparison with Earth size. The moon is a mere eyeball compared to an apple-sized earth, so why is the Earth the same size as the moon in our sky when seen from the moon?

      I have also explained to Petra the religious conspiracy behind the great illusion of moon-landing fakery.

      If you care to write a more detailed explanation of your ‘size of Earth from moon’ hypothesis, then we can forward it to Petra to be considered for winning the prize money in question. If your argument is stronger than our religious argument, then the prize money shall be yours, but if we both win then we can share the prize between us. However, it’s not about winning any money but finding the truth for the benefit of human progress.

      Thank you for your attention to this matter.

      Kind regards,

      1. Post
        Author
    2. Post
      Author
  1. Petra Liverani

    “Petra can’t seem to address the evidence of the impact holes. Like so many alleged truthers, he dances all around the evidence at the scene of the crime:”

    Just so you know, I’m a woman, Steve. I do not dance around evidence. You seem to wilfully not comprehend what I say.

    I am not interested in fleshing out all the information possible on the fakery of the planes or the controlled demolitions. This is obvious in the fact that I say very clearly on my home page that I only want to present enough information to prove my case and that is why I have chosen 10 points only. I only want to prove my case, not provide all the evidence possible. I say it so very, very clearly.

    As far as I can tell from what you say about the impact holes, it is in the realm of theory. The information you have is not sufficient to call it evidence as such it so it is really only in the realm of theory. What I’m interested in is things that can be stated as fact, not theory and I have all the information I want for planes and controlled demolition. I simply don’t need any more. Until you raised it I didn’t give a toss about the impact holes. I don’t need to know what caused the impact holes to show that fakery of planes happened so I’m simply not interested, especially not in a theory to explain how they were caused. If you could state with certainty what caused them perhaps but regardless not on my priority list.

    I state my case so clearly. I simply do not understand why you are so concerned with the impact holes, I really don’t. You can see I latched straight onto the “magic dust”, can’t you, Steve? The dust was fantastic. That explained things that really puzzled me and the various functions it performed are fascinating. The dust is highly significant but what caused the impact holes, especially when you only have theory to explain them is just not a priority for me.

    This is my last word on the impact holes, OK, Steve.

    1. Post
      Author
      Steve De'ak

      “Just so you know, I’m a woman, Steve. ”

      My apologies, I stand corrected.

      ” I do not dance around evidence. You seem to wilfully not comprehend what I say.”

      You sure do! You do what most truthers do – try to prove what DIDN’T happen, but totally skip what did happen. You claim there were four faked plane crashes. Oh? How were they faked, then? You even claim 175 cut through the tower! You seem to be channeling the Planes Hoax site. If flight 11 didn’t exist, then what cut the hole in the tower? You cite witness testimonies that favour the lack of planes. Those testimonies also favour the use of missiles. But you brushed past that. You even mention Shanksville, that there was no recognizable wreckage, but you skipped the fact that the Shanksville crater is consistent with the impact of small projectiles at trajectories of less than ten degrees from horizontal. Anyone can recreate the Shanksville crater on a smaller scale any time they wish. Predictable and reproducible are hallmarks of the scientific method. Pity you avoid the evidence that leads to that conclusion.

      You then point to the Pentagon’s lack of plane wreckage as proof of what didn’t happen, but you like most truthers, skip the evidence that can explain what did happen. You brush it off as “theory.”

      “I state my case so clearly. I simply do not understand why you are so concerned with the impact holes, I really don’t. ”

      Your case, from what I can tell, is to attempt to prove the official story false. This is what all truthers already agree on. But it isn’t called the “9/11 What Didn’t Happen Movement.” Proving what didn’t happen isn’t how the police go about solving crimes. But that’s good enough for truthers.

      The truth is what it is, whether or not it agrees with our preconceptions. Not all truthers can be right. There can be only one right answer. There was only one series of events that resulted in the holes in the twin towers. Only one series of events that resulted in their destruction. One series of events that made that odd shaped crater in Shanksville. One answer for what cut down street lights, blew a hole in the Pentagon’s brick and concrete facade, mowed-down a forest if reinforced concrete pillars and blew a 12 foot circular hole in the C ring. Something collapsed the roof, but you find those details irrelevant.

      ” The dust is highly significant but what caused the impact holes, especially when you only have theory to explain them is just not a priority for me.

      This is my last word on the impact holes, OK, Steve.”

      Okay then. I’ll leave you to it.

      Steve

  2. Petra Liverani

    “You even claim 175 cut through the tower!”
    What on earth are you talking about, Steve? I say 175 couldn’t have cut through the tower.

    “Your case, from what I can tell, is to attempt to prove the official story false. ”
    Absolutely not. I hate that nonsense. It is easy to prove what actually did happen – in macro terms, at least – controlled demolition, fakery of planes, staged death and injury – not just prove the story is false. As I say, Steve, it was an Emperor’s New Clothes affair. Pathetically simply stating that the official story is false drives me crazy.

    Steve, I simply think you do not understand what my aim is and what I have done and we will continue to talk at cross purposes. My aim is to show what kind of phenomenon 9/11 was (not a terrorist attack, not a “false flag” but a massive exercise pushed out as real) and the basic facts involved. There is simply no point in continuing discussion because you infer things from what I say that are not true. I present 10 points to support each of the following:
    — WTC-7 collapse by controlled demolition
    — Four faked plane crashes
    — Death and injury staged

    I provide evidence to prove those things so the claim that I simply want to prove the official story false is nonsensical and I have no idea where you get the claim that I say 175 cut through the tower. You are misreading.

    There is simply no point in continuing this discussion.

    Also, I am not a believer, Steve, I do not believe, I judge by the evidence. I don’t believe the government story about the moon landings, I judge by the evidence but I am going to leave discussion here because you simply do not understand what I say and we will be forever discussing at cross purposes.

    Despite my disappointment in not being able to have reasonable discussion, I am inordinately grateful to you, Steve, for the information on the twin towers’ magic dust. That is enormously helpful and solved, I believe, the only remaining thing that puzzled me about 9/11. Of course, there’s loads of stuff I don’t know but as far as the significant basics are concerned, the only thing that still puzzled me (that I can think of at the moment) was the alleged toxic dust causing issues for all those poor first responders.

    Thank you, forever grateful for that.

    1. Post
      Author
      Steve De'ak

      Petra,

      You say your research has led you to the conclusion that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were behind 9/11. My research (and Occam’s Razor) says your conclusion falls far short. Good luck to you,

      Steve

      1. Petra Liverani

        Steve, You need to be much more careful in interpreting and paraphrasing what others say. I do not say that those three were “behind” 9/11. I’m sure a number of people were “behind” 9/11 and those three may not have had a great deal to do with the planning and strategy for all I know. I really have no clue about those responsible for the planning although one can certainly hazard guesses. I’d absolutely love to know who had the idea of pushing out CD to the inevitable truthers to hide death and injury but perhaps this is just an example of a technique used in the past that we don’t recognize.

        What I do say is is that it was under their orders – at least technically. If you think it was under others’ orders I’d be most interested to hear who.

      2. Post
        Author
        Steve De'ak

        Pardon me if I misunderstood.

        From Caitlin Johnstone’s blog:
        https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/12/12/why-i-dont-talk-more-about-911/
        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.

      3. Petra Liverani

        OK so let’s put the emphasis on the word primary. They signed it off, no? If so then they are the primary culprits. If you think it was others who signed it off then please let me know. If you think others can be called primary without signing off please let me know why and who those people are.

      4. Post
        Author
      5. Post
        Author
        Steve De'ak

        Evidently the technology was there for a warhead that can account for the physical evidence at the scene of the crime; the means as it were. The motive was to apparently terrify the public into supporting long-planned aggressive wars, while destroying the white-elephants known as the WTC. The opportunity was at any time they pleased, but they chose 9/11, 2001. Who are “they?” Well ask yourself who had the means, motive and opportunity? Who controls the US airspace? Who controls the US missile arsenal? Who controls the media? Who has spent the last 16 years invading the world? Obviously 9/11 was run from the pinnacle of US power, but it wasn’t just a US operation. The US wouldn’t have attempted such a ruse without first ensuring other nations wouldn’t blow the whistle on them, especially the “enemy” nations that allegedly have every reason to do so. Nations like Iraq, China, Russia, North Korea, Libya, and Iran have their own critical thinkers who are well aware that in reality, mostly hollow aluminum jets can’t bore through concrete structures, burrow into the ground or slice through steel skyscrapers, and they would be the first people to recognize missile damage when they see it. But they all played along. That doesn’t mean everyone is involved but it does mean very smart people all over the world were duped just like the rest of us. These would also be the first people to know that if the leaders of all the world’s governments, media, military and academia were proclaiming planes can do such a thing, they would have no place to turn even if they wanted to blow the whistle. 9/11 is proof the New World Order is just the Old World Order with better graphics, and in case you haven’t noticed, the Old World Order was all about slavery.

        https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-what-could-have-cut-the-plane-shaped-hole/

      6. Petra Liverani

        I pretty much gree with what you say, Steve, but who signed off at the highest level? Aren’t they simply the ones to target in the first instance and then they can be questioned for all their collaborators, who are numerous as you say?

      7. Post
        Author
        Steve De'ak

        Petra,

        At the top are unknown names, almost certainly. Everyone else is just doing as they’re told – Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld included. Now we know what they discuss at Bilderberg, eh?

        “The most-likely suspects behind the destruction of the World Trade Center, the attack on the Pentagon, and that odd-shaped crater in Shanksville, are the leaders of most of the world’s nations, media, businesses, law enforcement, and what passes for academia.”
        https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-what-could-have-cut-the-plane-shaped-hole/

        Steve

  3. Petra Liverani

    Just to perhaps make my case clear to you, Steve, although I doubt I ever will:

    My aim is to present the clearest evidence to make my case and ONLY that. I try to avoid things that are open to discussion. Do you agree that what caused the holes is open to discussion? Will you allow that? Controlled demolition is not open to discussion. Faked plane crashes is not open to discussion. Staged death and injury is not open to discussion. I try to limit things to making them not open to discussion.

    Proof that I have done that:
    No one has responded to my challenge to provide 10 points that say “fire”, “real plane crashes” or “real death and injury”, nor have they poked any holes in my own 10 point exercises – well they’ve tried but not successfully.

  4. truthermusical

    Petra says you”re obsessed with “impact holes”, so Steve I think it best you abandon 9/11 truth research altogether, and focus instead on tracing the roots of your family tree. There is a strong possibility that you may be related to the golf-obsessed Scottish people, or to an Apollo astronaut. Everyone knows that the only reason astronauts (especially Scottish ones) went to the moon, was for the opportunity to play some serious kick-ass golf. One Apollo 8 astronaut even stated as he was looking at Earth from the surface of the moon: “I imagined that at one lunar distance away, the Earth was the size of a golf ball… at 100 lunar distances away it would be like a grain of sand”. Why would an astronaut imagine such an illogical analogy? The Earth could never be the size of a golf ball when seen from the Moon’s surface, whose image could be covered behind a mere thumbnail – as Apollo 8 astronauts have claimed. We are dealing with people who are truly obsessed with impact holes for obsessive golf, extreme sport. They also happen to be werewolves, but that’s a story for another day. Our question now is thus: “Is Steve Deak related to a werewolf-Scottish Apollo astronaut engaged in extreme golf sport on the moon?” This is the mother-of -all Occam’s Razor questions. Answer this Steve, and like Disney’s Lion King, you shall truly know who you are, and will be able to control your obsessive-compulsive attitude towards 9/11 “impact holes”. Just who the hell are you Steve?! Who’s your daddy? Is it Darth Vader from Star Wars, with more holes in his 9/11 theory than Swiss cheese, or as what can be counted on the moon’s surface? It’s up to you to dig deep and rediscover your true origins. Christopher Bollyn is waiting to know, as indeed we all are. Remember, to be human is to love – so says Wander Woman.

    1. Post
      Author

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.