Ockham’s Big Bushy Beard

November 3, 2008

We all have a world view through which we judge events, we all have assumptions, and it can be an uncomfortable process having them questioned, worse still disproved, as it requires that we step out of our comfort zone and reappraise everything we thought we knew.
I was recently speaking to someone about 9/11 and they responded quite defensively saying “What’s wrong with Ockham’s Razor?” I responded to him that it is the Truth Movement position which better fits Ockham’s Razor and the official story which abuses it. The below is how I would like to think I phrased my argument, although in reality I’m sure I was far less articulate.

Ockham’s Razor, of course, is the notion that the best form of investigation is to fist shave away all assumptions and needless concepts, and then, taking just the verefiable evidence which remains, look for a single and simple solution.

So what is wrong with Ockham’s Razor? Well as an aside I would note that it’s a 14th century philosophical concept and not a golden rule of science. We know that sometimes the correct scientific solution is sometimes complex and not simple and we never would have achieved a tenth of the advancements we have today if we had stuck rigidly to only considering the simplest and most all encompassing explanation to a phenomenon or event. Didn’t the theory of evolution seem a little complex, for example, when compared to the “god snapped his fingers” official story we were given by the authority of Darwin’s time – the Church.

However, there is a lot of merit in the basic principle of Ockham’s Razor, namely that the shaving away of assumptions until all we are left with is naked evidence is the correct way to approach every issue. Because as comforting as our assumptions are and as precious as our pre-conceptions and presiding world view may be, they will always be a hinderance to finding the truth in that they limit the scope of possibilities and restrict the freedom of our thinking.

Looking at the official narrative in its most simplified form, which thanks to an irresponsible main stream media which is essentially servile to power is the extent of most people’s knowledge of it, it would seem at first glance to fit with the concept of Ockham’s Razor. Planes are flown into buildings, the buildings collapse – simple – case closed. With closer investigation though, that simple sentence expands out into volumes of tens of thousands of pages and is unfeasibly complex. You will find many extrodinary and unusual things happening within the official story. You will find aluminium glowing orange in daylight, when it is mixed with organic materials, this has never been seen before and people who have tried to recreate this effect with tests have failed. You will find the sulphur in gypsum boards magically fusing with other trace materials in the rubble to form a natural incendiary capable of turning heavy duty steel beams into swiss cheese, much like the idea of throwing some eggs and flour into an oven, heating them, and opening the oven door to find a cake. Entirely new rules of science which worked for just one day. As you start to actually attend to the evidence rather than taking the simplified form you have been fed you will see some of the most ludicrous abuses of science ever perpertrated. Worse still you will find it is based entireley on assumptions.

The 9/11 Commission Report did not set out to find out who committed 9/11 – that’s apparent in the introduction when they explain that their task was to find out how al-Qaeda carried out 9/11 – the whole affair began with an unproven assumption and considered no alternatives.

The NIST report did not set out to find out why the buildings exploded to mangled steel and a huge cloud of powdered concrete in seconds, they explain that their task was to show how the plane impacts and fire caused the buildings to collapse – the whole shebang started with an assumption and actually failed quite spectacularly to support that assumption in any way as they never even attempted to explain the collapse of the towers themselves.

The reports which deal with 9/11 did nothing to discover what happened, instead selecting the evidence which they could contrive to make fit with the assumptions they started with. But what is most damning is that it does not even attend to all the evidence – rather than shaving away assumptions and then looking at the evidence they shaved away the evidence itself to maintain and protect the huge assumption they began with!

Numerous and corroborated reports of explosions, heard seen and felt inside the towers and world trade centre 7? Don’t fit the assumptions – shave it away.

Numerous and corroborated reports of molten metal at ground zero – impossible from a jet fuel or office fire? Threatens the assumptions – shave it away.

The speed of the collapses – violating the very laws of physics? Destroys the assumptions – shave it away.

The pulverisation of concrete to a fine powder? Blasphemes against the holy assumptions – shave it away.

Those are just four examples of hundreds of pieces of important evidence you will find entirely ignored in the official story, if you are willing to look for them. They were ignored by the official story in defence of frankly un-defendable assumptions which are only in place to protect and distract from the true perpetrators of this crime. The official story is an example of Ockham’s Razor being turned on it’s head, indeed, we are witnessing Ockham’s Big Bushy Beard.

So what does fit Ockham’s Razor? Who has done away with assumptions and looked at the evidence with an open mind? Who has a simple solution which encompasses all of the evidence?

The millions of concerned citizens around the world who compirse what is known as the 9/11 Truth Movement has. And we have a single explanation which covers all the evidence. And when the evidence is viewed, shorn of all assumptions and preconceptions it is clear that the twin towers were destroyed by controlled demolition. This theory not only covers every piece of evidence the official story admits to in a simple and single theory, it also encompasses all of the censored evidence you are not being told about.

Many of us will find it hard to accept this and allow our own assumptions get in the way. And we all have them. We assume “that sort of thing doesn’t happen these days” that “the government would never do that” that “they’re too incompetent” that “they couldn’t keep a secret like that” that “conspiracy theories are always incorrect” we assume that we do not live in a world where “things like this happen” and it is frankly scary to even consider that they might. But however much these assumptions have been drummed into us as though they were fact, they remain assumptions and they need to be done away with because the stakes now are a little too high to approach such an important issue in such an irrational manner.

Nearly 3000 innocents died that day, over a million in Iraq and Afghanistan have died since and the tally continues gruesomely, the Magna Carta lies in tatters while a police state grows up all around us. If we are wrong about this, and all of the architects and engineers and scientists and pilots and academics and concerned citizens alike all over the world are wrong about this then you have lost nothing back taking a proper objective look at the evidence. But if we are right… and we do nothing… then we risk losing everything.