$5,000 occam's Razor Challenge for skeptics

For an hypothesis to be correct it must be able to accommodate all the evidence. The corollary is, of course, any competing hypotheses cannot.

If there are only two hypotheses needing consideration, Hypotheses A and B, and 10 points can be found that favour Hypothesis A over Hypothesis B while none can be found to favour Hypothesis B over Hypothesis A, in which possible scenario could Hypothesis B be correct?
According to the Australian Skeptics organisation, "Skepticism is a dynamic attitude to the world around us. It is not a dogmatic approach restricted by “accepted wisdom”, but a serious and sincere appraisal of claims of how the world works". Thus a true skeptic is not a person who dismisses a claim of a State Crime Against Democracy (SCAD) with the label of "conspiracy theory" without looking carefully – and continuing to look carefully, if necessary – at the evidence. Nor do true skeptics accept what the Big Boy media and the Big Boy government tell them when there are serious anomalies including downright impossibilities in their stories. But perhaps you’re a skeptic who swallows? Do the test below to find out.

The competition
I am offering $5,000 to the first person who can perform a credible 10-point Occam’s Razor exercise favouring hypotheses as shown below. Choose any one for your exercise. The links are to my own exercises on these events with favouring reversed.
​​I feel confident that no one will be able to rise to the challenge because I do not believe that successful Occam’s Razor exercises can be performed on the same event favouring opposing hypotheses. Moreover, the power elite clearly signal they're hoaxing us with physical impossibilities, major discrepancies between show and tell, smiling grievers, general ridiculousness, things that don't add up, the actual truth, etc, as a form of justification, believing that their signalling puts the onus on us to call them out and if we don't, they're spared karmic repercussions. They are, in fact, scrupulous (if that is the correct term) in ensuring there is nothing that the believers of their stories can brandish to support their belief. They provide no convincing dismembered limb, no seemingly genuinely crying parent, no convincing signs of fire as cause of the collapse of WTC-7, etc. When you blow away the magic propaganda dust and look at the evidence clear-sightedly there is nothing to support the official story. Nada, niente, zilch. It's all smoke 'n mirrors. All clever propaganda. There is such great reliance on the Hitlerian lie (if you tell a lie, tell a whopper - people will not comprehend its audacity) - we simply do not expect to be hoaxed like this and nor should we - but we are.

The judges - you choose, can't get fairer than that!
  • For collapse of WTC-7, a structural engineer of your choice.
  • For the four plane crashes, an aircraft accident investigator
  • For the other three events, a person who works in coordinating Emergency Response - your choice.
If you prefer another method or would like to modify the judging rules in some way I am happy to consider it.

Closing date: When a submission is judged to meet the specified criteria. Submit to petral@iinet.net.au.

From October 2017, challenge submissions:
Collapse of WTC-7 (9/11) - 0
Sandy Hook massacre - 0
Manchester bombing - 0

From September 2018, challenge submissions:
​3,000 dead and 6,000 injured (9/11) - 0

From January 2019, challenge submissions
​Four faked plane crashes - 0

The test

Collapse of WTC-7, September 11, 2001
The mother of all SCADs (State Crimes Against Democracy) is 9/11 and the major smoking gun is, of course, the collapse of WTC-7, a building outside the footprint of the World Trade Centre, not hit by a plane but by the debris from the falling twin towers, that collapsed (from start of roofline descent) in 6.5 seconds.

​While independent researchers say that WTC-7 collapsed by controlled demolition, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), who did investigations into the three building collapses, said it collapsed “primarily due to fires.”

To accept that the building came down primarily due to fires you must believe that:
  • for the first time in history, a high rise steel frame building, not hit by planes, came down by fire, without any explanation by NIST for this unique phenomenon apart from explanation by the hitherto unknown phenomena below
  • for the first time in history, “thermal expansion” pushed a girder off its seat leading to collapse of a column, without any explanation by NIST for this unique phenomenon.
  • for the first time in history, a single column collapse led to a cascade of floor failures, without any explanation by NIST for this unique phenomenon.

​Did you question:
  • how NIST surmised that "thermal expansion pushed a girder off its seat" and that this displaced girder ultimately "caused a floor to collapse leading to a cascade of floor failures," without forensic examination of material and without access to data on what went on inside the building before and during the collapse (apart from, allegedly, the presence of "uncontrolled fires"), in other words, without a skerrick of evidence of these hitherto unknown phenomena?
  • why NIST’s model of the collapse does not follow the building’s collapse to the end, nor match the reality of the collapse?
  • why all the journalists on the day who commented on the collapse compared it to controlled demolition without once alluding to fire and did you question how some journalists knew it was going to come down and why they did not allude to fire or, indeed, any cause in their predictions?
  • why Dutch controlled demolition expert, Danny Jowenko, when shown the building’s collapse (without knowing its controversial nature), identified the collapse as controlled demolition without a moment’s hesitation, giving his reasons?
  • the remarkable similarity of the collapse to recognised controlled demolitions?
  • why there were no obvious signs of the building being affected by fire in the videos of the collapse?
  • NIST's dismissal of investigation of controlled demolition as the most obvious hypothesis because “there were no loud sounds of explosions” when apart from the fact that this assertion is untrue there were many other signs of controlled demolition?

Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting, December 14, 2012
​Did you question:
  • why we can easily find images of blood at another terror event, the Boston Bombing in 2013, but we cannot for the Sandy Hook massacre, that is, a Google image search returns no results of images showing blood, or, in fact, any signs whatsoever of a massacre at Sandy Hook?
  • why, in response to Dr Oz's question about what he remembered of the day, a child says "... when we were having a drill, we were hiding ..." (at 9:39), when, in fact, those who claim that this event was a SCAD (State Crime Against Democracy) say that it was a FEMA Capstone School Active Shooter drill passed off as real?
  • the behaviour of the parents whose children died, for example, Robbie Parker’s? Did you question why and how on the day after his 6 year-old daughter's death, he gave a press conference in which he responded to an (inaudible) question with information about a Facebook fundraising page "for his daughter" set up by "a couple of friends from back home" and that directly following this question he received an (audible) question asking what his daughter looked like, in response to which he described her a little and added that there were photos of her on the fundraising page - thus giving two consecutive answers mentioning a fundraising page (at least $27 million dollars was raised in the name of the 26 people who allegedly died at Sandy Hook).

Manchester Bombing, May 22, 2017
Did you question:
  • why, in this advanced digital age, there is no footage and only a single blurry image of the bomb scene, displayed in all media (at different levels of crop and zoom)?
  • why this single image does not indicate a scene of carnage and destruction where 22 people were killed and 250 injured?
  • why Dr Ibrar Majid, lead children’s orthopaedic surgeon at Manchester Hospital, in a highly-packaged BBC interview, stated, "What we saw was essentially war wounds so the kinds of wounds you would see on a battlefield," yet these are the images we were shown?
  • the credibility of a father, Nick Bickerstaff, walking around the foyer of the Manchester Arena looking for his daughter while filming himself, ostensibly in case of being killed in a second bomb blast so that in that eventuality there would be a memento for his family of his last moments searching for his daughter? Did you question the credibility of his wailing due to "everyone around me laughing because they can’t see what’s behind me ... people blasted to bits and half their bodies are everywhere" while not actually filming any of this carnage? Of course, you might suggest that it's so ridiculous it wouldn't be faked - surely, the hoaxers wouldn't serve up this gratuitously bizarre carry on to us and risk raising our suspicions ... Ah, but that's the thing, you see, Swedish false flag analyst, Ole Dammegard, has said that insiders have told him that the power elite justify what they do because they TELL us and if we're too stupid to pick it up, it's our own fault. They have some kind of belief that because they tell us so blatantly with ridiculousness, things that don't add up, scarce evidence, evidence that obviously looks purported, smiling grievers, etc, that they are not doing such a bad thing and their karma will not suffer. So even though these events are staged in, let's say, a very stagey manner, we still swallow every last drop of them. Not that I blame anyone who hasn't been advised, I swallowed it all myself until I watched the film JFK to 9/11 Everything is a Rich Man's Trick but those who have been advised and stubbornly refuse to see I feel differently about.
 
Did you pass the test? Are you a true skeptic - or a skeptic who swallows? Never too late to change your status though if you have the intellectual honesty and courage.

Happy Occam’s Razoring!
Widget is loading comments...