Index
| Parent Index
| Build Freedom:
Archive
[DTF's Note: I recommend that you first read the Introduction in Questioning "Official" Narratives; Confronting Evil, then return here.]
Contents:
"Each of us is put here in this time and this place to personally decide the future of humankind.
Did you think you were put here for something less?"
- Chief Arvol Looking Horse
"Those who do not have power over the story that dominates their lives,
the power to retell it, rethink it, deconstruct it, joke about it, and change it as times change,
truly are powerless, because they cannot think new thoughts."
- Salman Rushdie
"... because even if I should speak, no one would believe me. And they would not believe me precisely because they would know what I said was true."
- James Baldwin
In 2014, randomly and unsuspectingly, I clicked a link in Facebook to the 3.5 hour film on YouTube by British historian, Francis Richard Conolly, JFK to 9/11: Everything is a Rich Man's Trick. This awakened me to the Emperor's New Clothes / Big Lie world we live in. I want to do my bit against the massive resistance from all sides to getting the truth out, especially as I have no desire to live in the global fascist state we are inexorably moving towards. To this day, despite having watched so many more films and read so much on the internet, no other document I've consulted provides such a good understanding of how the global power elite control us. It is a must-see film and the best document to get started on your journey of truth if you're still at the point of believing that 9/11 was the work of 19 terrorists armed with boxcutters (where I was before I watched it). Even if you're further along it's still very much worth watching.
I believe the five most important things I've learnt since viewing this film are:
- The power elite, while drowning us in propaganda, actually tell us what they do very clearly.
- 9/11 wasn't the work of terrorist hijackers but nor was it a "false flag" or an "inside job" per se. 9/11 was a Trauma-based Mind Control Psychological Operation in the form of a massive Full-Scale Anti-Terrorist Exercise comprising numerous smaller exercises and drills - many admitted to but crucially some not, for example, those producing images of the alleged injured - pushed out as a real event. Like a number of other events pushed out as real it was a bombing of evacuated areas (note the FBI codename for the 9/11 investigation was PENTTBOM - Pentagon Twin Tower bombing - yes it really was). The only physical realities on the day of 9/11 were damage to and destruction of buildings. The planes were faked as were death and injury. This knowledge has led me to understand that 9/11 is just one staged event on a long and broad continuum that starts at least as early as the Great Fire of 1666 (fascinating article by Gloria Moss) and includes Pearl Harbour, the 1980 Bologna station bombing and the post-9/11 anthrax attacks and numerous other events. Currently, staged events seem to be happening at ever-increasing frequency be they big terror events or just little local events
- A concerted propaganda campaign has been targeted at 9/11 truthers to ensure the perpetuation of the key lie of 9/11: that 3,000 people died and 6,000 were injured. This understanding has led me to realise how sophisticated and counterintuitive the propaganda techniques they use to fool us can be. Also, while they talk of streaming propaganda to targeted groups, I think it's clear that they still use blanket propaganda with the knowledge that the groups within society they have clearly profiled will react to it differently: the propaganda whips each group, according to their inclinations and beliefs, into a ferment that is hostile to the ferment of other groups' beliefs. This suits their divide-and-conquer approach to us. There are about 8,000 of them and 7 billion of us.
- The power elite infiltrate "the opposition" like a mutant octopus and have a complete stranglehold on it. If you do an internet search for "controlled opposition" you'll find the alleged quote from Lenin, "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." Whether he said it or not, promoting Lenin's saying of it is pure propaganda. "Controlled opposition" has been around since ancient times and the power elite know that in order to control the world they must control the opposition ... by leading it. To that effect, they have no trouble spewing out reams and reams of truth. It truly makes your eyes water how much truth they are prepared to give us (ironically, I've learnt so very much of what I know from them). They know that they can afford to because only a small percentage of the population will pay any attention to that truth. But while they push out truth they mix it with lies, snow us with half-truths, push out reams of red-herring style information to distract us from more important truth and use it in other ways to dupe us. People always seem to want to settle for the seemingly more comfortable half-truths they feed us rather than go for the nitty-gritty confronting truth. I really don't know why that is. It is only the truth that shall set you free, not half-truth. Half-truths make great lies.
- They can pull off absolutely monumental psyops such as the alleged COVID-19 pandemic (see also Debunking the debunkers: Exposure of scientific fraud stands strong).
When I discovered the truth of how we're being massively hoaxed - like others in my situation - I wanted to get the word out, of course! What a Herculean endeavour! (As said by Mark Twain allegedly, "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.")
Getting very tired of arguing round and round in circles with my friends and others, I instinctively gravitated towards Occam's Razor although I wasn't quite sure what it was. How magical is this logic tool from ancient times - 14th century monk, William of Ockham, didn't invent it, it just has his name because he was a great proponent of it. In fact, Aristotle, Newton, Einstein and others speak of their own version of Occam's Razor - it's all about simplicity.
Why Occam's Razor is the perfect tool to analyse events that might be staged
Occam's Razor is a principle that states that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary*, the simplest explanation to fit the evidence - not the story we're told, I point out - is generally the correct one. The razor is a device used to illustrate the point that among competing hypotheses we should choose the one involving the fewest complexities and assumptions in explaining the evidence. Like a physical razor, Occam's Razor needs to be used carefully. Both sides of an argument will use Occam's Razor to prove their side - but obviously only one side is correct (or there may be another possibility not even considered). Some people approach Occam's Razor in terms of likelihood and plausibility which to my mind lacks scientific rigour and seems more subjective. My approach is to think in terms of questions and assumptions. What hypothesis does the piece of evidence in question fit with the fewest assumptions and questions. And then can I compile a number of pieces of evidence that fit the hypothesis in this manner - like a glove so to speak - while any competing hypotheses lack that assemblage of supporting pieces?
* "In the absence of evidence to the contrary" is implicit in the definition but I think it's not a bad idea to state it explicitly as Gerard Holmgren did in his brilliant satire on 9/11, Debunking Conspiracy Theorists.
Events staged at the behest of the power elite include two very important elements:
- Clues that they're staged: sloppiness of execution, poor expression, grammar and spelling (beyond what one might consider "sloppy journalism"), over-the-top ridiculousness, discrepancy between show and tell, the actual truth, smiling grievers, things that don't add up, contradictions in the story, physical impossibilities, Masonic numbers and symbols and on and on.
- Scrupulousness in total absence of a single piece of evidence faked so well that it can be used by believers of their stories to defend their belief. When you blow away the magic propaganda dust, there's simply nothing there. As "the absence of evidence to the contrary" is always clearly the situation, Occam's Razor is the perfect tool.
While Occam's Razor is regarded as more a "rule of thumb" and not necessarily a tool of proof, when used for events that might be staged, the results of analysis using the tool are extremely compelling. No evidence to the contrary will ever be found because that's not the way the power elite stage their events and so there will always be an absence of evidence to the contrary and there will always be evidence in support of the hypothesis that is made very clear by the perpetrators. True, they can be very tricky, and push out what seems very compelling, eg, molten metal at Ground Zero had me completely fooled for years but, as stated, as soon as you blow away the magic propaganda dust, the truth shows clearly. Moreover, if you are talking about explanation of a scientific phenomenon where all possible hypotheses to explain it cannot be positively identified then yes Occam's Razor is more a rule-of-thumb tool but where the set of hypotheses under consideration is limited - in the case of staged events generally to two - then it can assume the mantle of a tool of proof, assuming enough clear evidence is available.
This site contains Occam's Razor exercises on three "terror" events on Western soil that a number of researchers claim are staged by an intelligence agency/government/media alliance at the behest of the global power elite from before and since 9/11.
DISCLAIMER: I do not state with certainty no one was killed or injured, and if anyone was I apologise for my claims, but I do claim the events were staged and that there is no compelling evidence showing that anyone was killed or injured.
It also contains pages on other events including the post-9/11 anthrax attacks, Pearl Harbour, the bombings at Bologna station 1980 and in Mogadishu 2017, the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu, the 1995 Srebrenica massacre as well as links to information on other events. What I've realised since starting this site is that Pearl Harbour, Bologna station, Mogadishu and 9/11 (and I'm sure other bombings I haven't analysed) all have something in common: the bombings were real - but they occurred in an evacuated area, in other words, death and injury were staged. The FBI code name for investigation into 9/11's attacks is PENTTBOM (Pentagon, Twin Towers bombing - see how shameless they are?). Note that the FBI code for the Oklahoma bombing was OKBOMB (no doubt also in an evacuated area but I haven't studied it) while that for the anthrax attacks was Amerithrax. Also since starting this site I've realised that we have been subjected to masses of fakery that is not limited to terror events but all kinds of things - my page on these which is a work in progress. A notable one, only recently twigged to (April 2019), unfortunately, to which I have a personal connection is the controlled opposition used to undermine Wikileaks.
To my mind, Occam's Razor works best for situations where a number of details can be shown to support a hypothesis. If only one piece of evidence exists, choosing an hypothesis based on on that one piece may not be reliable unless the piece of evidence is extremely compelling, however, the greater the number of details supporting a hypothesis, the more convincing. At the same time, one doesn't need to use a massive number of details either, even if such a number exists, especially if there seem to be no or very few pieces of evidence supporting any competing hypotheses, for example, no one has responded to my Occam's Razor challenge to produce equivalent 10-point exercises favouring hypotheses opposing my chosen hypotheses ... or even come up with a single point at all! Thus, I have chosen 10 significant details as the number of details sufficient to show that the hypothesis I favour is the correct one. For each event, I welcome comments on the validity of my claims and also on whether you consider other details to be more significant than the ones I present - ideally, I'd like to have the most compelling details among the 10 presented.
Occam's Razor is not treated as a tool of proof, however, if you have only two hypotheses needing consideration and 10 points can be found that favour Hypothesis A over Hypothesis B, and none can be found favouring Hypothesis B over Hypothesis A, then in what possible scenario could Hypothesis B be correct?
I have applied the 10-point Occam's Razor analysis to three events (with 9/11 involving three distinct exercises):
This is sufficient to show that we have been massively hoaxed. In fact, the hoaxery seems to be increasing at a rather alarming rate. Without even paying attention to the news it seems there are events occurring globally on, at least, a weekly basis.
For more general information on these events see About staged events.
If you have strong beliefs in the media stories of terror events and would like to prove your beliefs are valid, as mentioned above, here is the Occam's Razor challenge to produce your own 10-point Occam's Razor exercise with favouring of hypotheses swapped.
⇧ Back to Contents ⇧
Sitemap (Full Directory and File Tree) - overview of the entire Occam's Razor on Terror Events website - from a brief top-level only view, partially or fully expandable up to all articles/chapters. Optionally also see all available descriptions at once.
Index
| Parent Index
| Build Freedom:
Archive
Disclaimer
- Copyright
- Contact
Online:
buildfreedom.org
| terrorcrat.com
/ terroristbureaucrat.com