207

UPDATED: London Bridge – Evolving Narrative

© Licensed to London News Pictures. Photo credit: Peter Macdiarmid/LNP

The final, official story of the London Bridge attack is beginning to take shape. More information is coming together all the time, the very efficiently edited Wikipedia page for Fishmongers Hall already has a short section dedicated to events of the two days ago.

Here is what we know so far:

The Alleged Attacker

His name was Usman Khan, he was from Stoke on Trent. That’s it as far as personal details go, nothing about his personal life or his family has yet emerged and/or been released.

UPDATE: Usman Khan now has his own wikipedia page. Very efficiently put together, but bearing absolutely no personal details except his birthday (no idea what the source is for that). We don’t know his parent’s names, where he went to school, or even what he did for a living.

We do know he pleaded guilty to “preparing acts of terrorism” in 2012, that can be confirmed with contemporary sources.

Much is being made of the “convicted terrorist walking the streets” narrative, but the truth of the case is that Khan had never actually hurt anyone. Or attempted to hurt anyone. Or acted with violent intent in any way. The BBC made it clear, at the time, that there were no weapons, or bomb parts, found at any of the men’s houses, and no evidence they had made any efforts to purchase such.

Under current UK “anti-terror” legislation “intent and determination” is enough to be convicted of “planning a terrorist attack”. Which is to say, spitballing, hypotheticals and talking shit to your friends can get you 10 years in prison.

It is interesting to note that even the BBC, at the time, considered these men more likely “fantasists” than threats. The judges sentencing is no longer available online.

We know that Khan, and his 9 co-defendants, were under surveillance by MI5 for two whole years before being arrested. We are not told how they came to be under this surveillance, except a vague term “concerns were raised in the community”.

We know the men knew each other through their involvement in the (now banned) organisation Islam4UK. It could be assumed that MI5 either monitored everyone associated with this group, or indeed helped set up the group in the first place to use it as a “honeytrap”.

Regardless of the exact details of his past conviction, we know Khan was released December last year, and was in a rehabilitation program. There are also reports he was still tagged. Both of those claims appeared in the Times.

We are still in the dark as far as motive goes, with speculation raging. The Mirror suggest he was taking “vengeance” for the alleged death of al-Baghdadi in Syria last month. But that doesn’t seem likely, given the timeline. However, it was reported that ISIS had “claimed responsibility” for the attack.

So far none of the classic “suicide tapes” have appeared.

The Attack

The attack itself, as a narrative, has coalesced in the last 24 hours. From wikipedia:

Khan had been attending the ‘Learning Together’ seminar in Fishmongers’ Hall, run by the Cambridge Institute of Criminology to help offenders reintegrate into society following their release from prison.

At 13:58 on 29 November, City of London Police were called to an incident at Fishmongers’ Hall. Khan, wearing a fake suicide vest, threatened to blow up the hall.

Holding two kitchen knives taped to his wrists, using similar tactics to the 2017 attack, he began stabbing people inside the building.

Several fought back, including a chef working at Fishmongers’ Hall who grabbed a narwhal tusk from the wall to use as a weapon, and a convicted murderer attending the conference.

Khan fled and began stabbing pedestrians outside on the north side of the bridge.

Several people were injured before members of the public and a plain-clothes British Transport Police officer, later seen walking away with a knife, restrained and disarmed Khan on the bridge. One of the people who stepped in to fight the attacker drove him back by spraying a fire extinguisher.

Armed City of London Police arrived a short time later and surrounded the attacker, who was being held down by a man. They pulled this person away to provide a clear shot, before firing twice. Khan died at the scene.

“Victims” and “Heroes”

The victims have since been named as Jack Merritt and Saskia Jones. They were apparently Cambridge graduates attending the Institute of Criminology event. There is still relatively little information about them available, although Merritt’s alleged father, David, has made a statement some would consider political in nature.

Three other alleged victims, two seriously injured and one with minor injuries, have been announced but not yet named.

A alleged classmate of Merritt’s, who now works for the New York Times, wrote a piece about him.

UPDATE: David Merritt has since had a column in the Guardian: ‘Jack would be livid his death has been used to further an agenda of hate’.

The heroes of the narrative have shifted.

The current hero list is the “Polish chef” known only as “Lukasz”, who apparently used a Narwhal tusk as an improvised weapon to fight back, and James Ford, a convicted murderer. Plus a couple of unnamed ex-convicts also attending the IoC event.

“Lukasz” has reportedly been awarded a special award by the Polish government.

But the first “hero” to appear, on Friday, was this man:

The “hero” who allegedly disarmed the “terrorist”.

He was described, early on, as a “hero” who “disarmed the attacker”. It has now been announced he was “a plain-clothes British Transport Police officer”. He has never been named.

The articles which first carried the video and the stills from the video have now blurred out his face.

This article from Buzzfeed, detailing “The People Who Bravely Stepped In To Stop The London Bridge Attacker” does not mention him at all.

UPDATE: The metropolitcan Police issued a statement on their “officer”, brought to our attention by @IAmFrankButcher on twitter:

The Metropolitan Police Service have asked that his image be pixelated, and we are kindly asking the public and media to respect this request and not identify the officer in any way.

You can read the whole statement here.

Politics

The politics isn’t going entirely as you’d expect. There has been very little talk of Corbyn being “soft on terror”, indeed most of the political fall-out has been aimed at the Tories.

They’ve been chastised for police cuts, and then for making “political capital” out of tragedy.

It’s perhaps noteworthy that this attack comes only a few weeks after the UK’s terror alert was downgraded.

There has been an unusually mixed message in the media, suggesting deeper than usual divisions somewhere in the heart of the deep state.

The latest polls put the UK in “hung parliament terroritory”, and given the coverage of both this incident and the election in general, it’s becoming ever more likely that this the desired outcome.

can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media

OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are not funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the smallest amount of support is hugely appreciated.

avatar
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Maggie
Maggie

12th December 2019
Today, John Krilley a burglar involved in murdering a Pensioner in 2005, let out ‘on licence’ in 2018… appeared on BBC1 6 o’clock news to be drug addled …is hailed as a hero for tackling Khan and telling him to blow his vest??? But Khan said he was” waiting for the Police” Then Krilley hit Khan with a ‘lectern’ which just happened to be there at the bottom of the steps where Saskia was lying. Krilley chased Khan outside and began spraying him with a fire extinguisher ( which would have really damaged him, lol.) When he could have hit him and knocked him out with the fire extinguisher, had he wanted to hurt him… Krilley then told the Police to shoot Khan… and they did????

Ffs, they think we are all stupid!

FALSE FLAG ALL THE WAY….

JudyJ
JudyJ

I am also intrigued by the BBC’s description of him as a “reformed ex-prisoner”. Do they deem him to be “reformed” simply because of his reported ‘heroic’ actions that day? For goodness sake, like Usman Khan he was only let out on licence in 2018. If the BBC had interviewed Khan about the Fishmongers’ Hall seminar the day before he (seemingly) went on the rampage, would the BBC have been so bold or foolish as to describe him as a “reformed ex-prisoner” whatever his previous crimes? He would have qualified as such, just as Crilly did. You would think the BBC should show a bit more caution and wisdom when it comes to hyperbole.

Vexarb
Vexarb

Cut&Paste: “American Herald Tribune article calling out the pre-election timing of British terror attacks in the past 2 years as well as the 1998 bombing of a
courthouse Omagh, occupied Ireland, that took the lives of 31 civilians: ”

https://ahtribune.com/world/europe/uk/3687-london-bridge-attack.html

Antonym
Antonym

“Londonistan Rising” from an Indian perspective here: http://indiafacts.org/londonistan-rising-why-britain-could-be-the-next-pakistan/

RobG

Ok, it’s The Sun, but it’s another little piece in the total bullshit about last Friday’s twerror attack…

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10477282/london-bridge-terrorist-weight-loss-jabs/

At this point you, the public, should be hiding in terror under your stairs.

Remember to have spare batteries for your torch, lots of drinking water, and lots and lots of toilet paper.

You’ll need the toilet paper because we are ruled by complete, total and utter psychopaths.

tonyopmoc
tonyopmoc

Petra Liverani (flaxgirl) has been following such events for about 3 years, and has made some very interesting comments, and done some deep analyses, many of which I agree with. I think she is highly intelligent, and brave posting under her real name.

I have been following such events, since 1999, when my country (England) was bombing Yugoslavia. The reason for this, was that it was personal to me, because in 1979, I fell in love with a girl who’s family came from Serbia. I could not understand why we were bombing some of the nicest people, I had ever met in my life. We split up, but that is not the point. The world had largely been at peace, certainly all of Europe, since the end of WWII. There is no way, the bombing of Yugoslavia was faked.

On September 11th 2001, I was on a computer training course, the other side of London. I immediately knew something awful had happenned, but didn’t know what, until I got home. I saw the news on TV, in a state of shock, but it was even worse than that, because again it was personal.

We had a young family then, and my wife was a full time mum. To bring a little more income in, she was also a registered child minder, and was looking after two twin baby girls about 6 months old.

Now flaxgirl is totally convinced, that 9/11 was faked, and no one died.

Well, the mother of the twin baby girls, received a phone call from their grandmother – her partner’s mother, who was actually in one of the twin towers, when the attack happened. She said, she felt certain she was going to die, and then the phone went dead. Communications between London and New York, were completely saturated, and for 36 hours, we all thought the grandmother was dead, because we could not communicate. She did in fact escape and survive.

flaxgirl, may think I am making this up, but why would I do that?

The idea, that everyone escaped the twin towers, before they were blown up by controlled demolition, is just completely absurd. The entire event happenned very quickly, and people were not evacuated, before the event. Large numbers of people died, on the day, and many more subsequently, for quite obvious reasons. There may well have been some fakery too.

As regards, other terrorist events subsequently, I agree that in many cases, there is clear evidence of fakery, and in some cases it is possible that the entire event was faked, and no one was physically harmed, but even when some fakery is obvious, it does not prove in any way, that no one was killed. I believe the fakery is an additional part of the terrorism, to drive anyone who takes much notice mad, the effect of which is now pretty obvious. It’s part of the brainwashing. Millions are mentally disabled, and can’t work out what is real from fake. Most still trust authority, cos that is deeply in-built in their psyche. People believe what they are comfortable in believing. You can’t change their opinion by argument.

I rarely take much interest in terrorist attacks now, particularly after the Boston Bombings, which Dave McGowan, analysed completely brilliantly. Unfortunately, shortly later, he dropped dead.

Tony

Victor G.
Victor G.

Hey Tony, if you want to get an idea of just how good P.L.’s “perps” are check this out:

https://nyfd.com/9_11_wtc.html

It’s like they say in New York, ” You can’t make this sh** up … ” . Except they did! (According to P.L.).

tonyopmoc
tonyopmoc

Dave McGowan, got it first, and wrote about it the next day. I always thought he was a genius, and I read him almost the next day he wrote anything on his handcarved website. I guess he learnt a bit of HTML first – and thought well it works..

I was gutted when he died. He was not only the best analyst I have ever come across. He was also a really nice guy. I have not yet read any of his books. I read him almost live on the internet. I never met him, nor had an email conversation with him. I was just in awe reading him. He’s Dead now RIP

https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/

Sad Loss

Tony

RobG

Tony, at 2pm (UK time) on 11th September 2001 I was cycling across Parliament Square, on my way to do an engineering survey at an office block just down the road near Victoria Station (by that time the traffic in London was so bad that I used to do the central London stuff on a bicycle).

As a cyclist from hell I always listened to a Walkman. News started coming through that a plane had hit the north tower of the World Trade Center in New York, where it was just after 9am. The thinking seemed to be that an accident had occured. My survey at the office block involved a few hours work. As I wandered around with a tape measure one of the on-site engineers told me that another plane had gone into the south tower. Terrorism. By the time I was cycling back through Parliament Square both World Trade Center towers had collapsed. There were loads of rumours flying around, one of which claimed that there were hijacked planes heading for the UK Parliament building. I jumped a few more red lights and made my way south over Westminster Bridge. They cleared the airspace over London. It was the first time I’d ever seen my hometown in the day without a single plane in the sky.

Don’t be too hard on the likes of Petra. We all have our own views of what actually happened that day, and none of us can’t still provide any absolute proof of it.

I think the only thing that just about all of us will agree upon is that the official narrative of 9/11 is total BS.

As a further anecdote, at the end of these cycle surveys in central London my first port of call would always be the Clock House pub on Peckham Rye. The Clock House not only did a good pint of beer they also did excellent steak and chips, much needed after all the cycling. On that September 11th I got there at about half five in the afternoon. Upon ordering my pint the first person I encountered was a guy with an American accent. He hadn’t heard the news and when I told him about the events in New York he looked at me as though I were mad. In fact he laughed at me. I told him to go find the nearest tv set.

George Orwell
George Orwell

I think it’s a total set up, if you are a terrorist wheres your gun, these UK based terrorists keep heading to London Bridge with KNIVES!!!
what ever the UK version of MK ultra is, this is it, hypnotised Mind control. Usman gets sent down to London and a trigger word sets him off on his mission. I find it difficult to believe that these terrorists are so inefficient, knives!!! for f,s sake, that’s all these people can find is a knife!! And the reason MI5 give him a fake suicide vest is so the cops can shoot him, no future problems.

lamingosarepink
lamingosarepink

What did the Transport Police Officer pull from his pocket and throw away. See the mirror video at the last two seconds. There are / were slower motion and longer videos on the day of the incident.

Observant
Observant

Yes, I saw that too!

Berlin beerman
Berlin beerman

If you see the entire escapade in real time from start to finish – something that is not all on video but is on record written and spoken, the whole damn thing plays out like a tragic comedy.

Two people died at the hands of the not then but now a terrorist , while others still lay wounded in hospital, then in turn, Police , also considered terrorists saw fit to murder the now new terrorist. In the midst of all this there was a rag tag team of citizens that used tusks, fire extinguishers, revolving locked doors and more to try to keep the knife welding man inside the building and prevent him from exiting.

So what we have is not a terrorist but an idiot who ended the lives of at least two young people for no reason what so ever, and whom in turn was murdered by trained killers who were obviously foaming to see some terrorist action as was the media for the most part.

Mr. Johnson, who mistakenly saw this as the second coming of Christ to his campagne, quickly made haste only to back peddle as will most of the commenters on this article will do because this is not a hoax but a terrible loss of dignity and life for the victims , of which we are all.

George Mc
George Mc

Considering all the puzzlement this attack has generated here reminded me of something that Naomi Wolf said in her book “The End Of America”. She was talking about the difference between the way lies are used in a democracy and in a fascist state. She summed up in an interview:

“I have a section in the book about how lies in a fascist shift serve a different purpose than they do in a democracy. In a democracy, people lie to deceive. In a fascist shift, lies serve to disorient. Lies in the service of a fascist shift make it hard for citizens to trust their own judgment about what’s real and what’s not. Once citizens don’t know what’s real and what’s not real, they are profoundly disempowered.”

Perhaps the point of this attack was to spread confusion as a mind control technique?

CAB
CAB

What’s the difference in outcome of ‘lying to deceive’ and ‘lying to disorient’ ?
The paragraph sounds like it should mean something, but it doesn’t.

George Mc
George Mc

Lying to deceive means wanting the other person to believe the lie. It implies a simplicity, a consistency and a level of credibility.

Lying to disorient means simply wanting to confuse the other person. This implies any number of lies – all of which can contradict each other. It also implies that each lie doesn’t have to even be consistent within itself, nor even convincing.

CAB
CAB

Lying is lying. Lying is not telling the truth. In a ‘democracy’ it’s tricky to tell a political lie because the democracy has created a trail of information crumbs acknowledged as truth. That plus lots and lots of video and audio.
The lie can be dismissed as a lie because the information can be researched, evidence can be gathered.
It’s why when I was listening to ‘Lord’ Falconer defending Corbyn on Talk Radio yesterday, I know he’s a lying, warmongering shit.

There is not much difference in a fascist ‘shift’ (? whatever that is). The only difference is that the dismissal of the lie isn’t registered by the people who leave the trail of information crumbs.
People on the receiving end of a lie know what a lie looks like. It’s why we’re all in big trouble.

George Mc
George Mc

“In a ‘democracy’ it’s tricky to tell a political lie because the democracy has created a trail of information crumbs acknowledged as truth. That plus lots and lots of video and audio.”

I had no idea that “democracy” could create anything. There are certainly “information crumbs” all over the place although it’s a moot question who acknowledges them as truth. And which ones are so acknowledged. Yes there’s also tons of video and audio too. But it all depends on how it’s used, how many see it and how many can detect discrepancies and do comparisons with other sources.

“The lie can be dismissed as a lie because the information can be researched, evidence can be gathered.”

Interesting use of passive voice there. Who dismisses? Who researches the info? Who gathers the evidence? Or does the lie, the info and the evidence do all these things by themselves?

There is not much difference in a fascist ‘shift’ (? whatever that is).

I think we are fast moving to such a shift – if we are not already there. The difference may be purely a matter of density i.e. constantly shoving gout deception so that it all gathers and no-one can tell – or perhaps even care – what the truth is.

“The only difference is that the dismissal of the lie isn’t registered by the people who leave the trail of information crumbs.”

The dismissal of the lie is already here cf. the Nayirah testimony where the American deep state tutored a young girl to lie (with admirable display of “grief”) about Iraqi soldiers ripping babies out of incubators. Enough of the American public bought it to back the first Gulf war. The lie was found out …and then they just repeated it in a later documentary – thus creating the means to bulllshit more sectors of the population later.

“People on the receiving end of a lie know what a lie looks like. It’s why we’re all in big trouble.”

Well sure. Corbyn knows. Assange knows. But what percentage of the rest of the population know?

CAB
CAB

Yes, exactly. So what is Wolf talking about then ? My original argument was about the difference in outcome regarding lies. There isn’t any difference when truth can’t and doesn’t exist without recognised arbitration – in your post referred to as ‘credibility’. What is credibility without a checkable history ? What makes something / one credible ?
Truth to the individual is in the experience of the individual.
Note I used the word ‘acknowledged’ regarding breadcrumbs of truth.
If history is written by gatekeepers then there is no difference between democracy and ‘fascist shift’, and it was ever thus. Long live the internet.

George Mc
George Mc

If the word “lie” is bothering you then perhaps the word “disinfo” may help. Disinfo is strictly speaking lies – but a network of lies consisting of total lies, half lies, three quarter lies all the way through to almost truths etc. Sometimes it contains total truths “contaminated” by the source being deliberately dodgy cf. one David Shayler – an ex-intelligence (?!) man who made an excellent video on 9/11 as inside job …and then turned round and declared himself to be the son of god! Nice one. So the truth there becomes contaminated by coming from “a nut”.

And there is a difference in the outcome of lies if the network of lies produces confusion and ultimately despair (the point Wolf is making).

“Truth to the individual is in the experience of the individual.”

Well the truth we are talking bout is strictly speaking not in the experience of the individual. It’s what is picked up from media. And the media can indulge in the kind of disinfo I described above.

“Note I used the word ‘acknowledged’ regarding breadcrumbs of truth.”

But who acknowledges? Yes there is truth but “truth” as in the disinfo of the media can be “acknowledged as truth” right across the media.

Of course there IS truth but lies can be used in all sorts of different ways.

CAB
CAB

“And there is a difference in the outcome of lies if the network of lies produces confusion and ultimately despair (the point Wolf is making).”

…..only if those who claim to arbitrate truth don’t acknowledge, or are prevented from acknowledging, the truth.
It’s not about the lie, it’s about the armoury that the receiver of the lie has to recognise the lie as a lie – historical knowledge or personal experience.

In an age of global media, many more people are aware of how a story that personally affected them is reported. They can compare the reporting with what they experienced. The Sun doesn’t sell so well in Liverpool. Ex miners aren’t so keen on the BBC. I don’t trust Lyse Doucet.

As a concrete example, two years ago the BBC reported that The Russians were preventing UN food deliveries to Syrian towns. As a consequence, people were going hungry and the price of rice had shot up.
On RT, the claim was that the UN had delivered the food, and Al Nusra had stockpiled it and was distributing as it saw fit. RT had footage of a Syrian woman complaining about the situation.
Which version was true (or closer to the truth) ? And why ?

George Mc
George Mc

Well we may be talking at cross purposes i.e. we believe the same thing and are getting bogged down in hair-splitting. Lies always mean to deceive and the complex network of lies simply deceives on a larger scale. Furthermore Wolf’s talk of “fascism” may be inaccurate. She may be described as a bourgeois liberal who bandies the word “fascism” about without really knowing what she is talking about. I would not say that the US or the UK are actually full out fascist – although I think that the ingredients are in place.

It is also true that a lie can be seen as a lie if it contradicts the direct experience of the listener. However, lies can also be detected by various other aspects and the “Corbyn is Hitler” crap provides an example of this. Two pieces of, as it were, internal evidence turned up in a recent BBC news programme. The first was that, under the pretence of balance we were told about “Conservative Islamophobia” and “Labour anti-Semitism”. The former got a few seconds and the latter ten minutes. Obvious bias there. But an even bigger giveaway – indeed the MAIN giveaway every step of the line – is that those ten minutes of “Labour anti-Semitism” were filled with moral outrage and scaremongering about “the precipice we are facing” and “the poison in our society” but no concrete examples of this “great evil”.

The combination of emotive hyperbole and zero content has been there right down the line.

CAB
CAB

Agreed. I’ve enjoyed this.

Rejuvenator
Rejuvenator

Anyone see anything wrong with this alleged photo of ‘Jack Merritt’ and his alleged gf ‘Hollie’?

https://twitter.com/holliej2193/status/1201132142685818884?s=21

tonyopmoc
tonyopmoc

Highly professional photography, of two very beautiful people.

Pera
Pera

There’s a shadow on Jack’s face between his eyes and a bright spot on the underside of his nose suggesting that the light source is not from the selfie camera. The light on Hollie’s face is more consistent with a flash with a selfie although there’s no shadowing from her hair on the right side of her face on the bed clothes.

Conclusion: Looks a bit like a photo montage to me.

Estaugh
Estaugh

I watched the Beeb vid of the shooting and found it weird that the action froze for the moments during which the shots were fired, four times. They didn’t sound right, like they were fired in closed space, an indoor firing range for ex, muffled. And then the action resumed from where it left off. Puzzled I am. Has the vid been meddled?

Editor there’s no evidence of meddling, the action doesn’t freeze, and if for some reason someone wanted to add gun shots to the sound track they wouldn’t need to do so over a still image – ed

Estaugh
Estaugh

OK. Sorry about that. I was looking at Beeb, I just done the RT copy and there is no freeze

Estaugh
Estaugh

For clarity, the Vid of which I spoke, >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mtskm5J7ztM <

Dungroanin
Dungroanin

It is so nice of On-Guardian to keep publishing photos of JC on his campaign having selfies with the multi-ethnic British voters – they really are getting that meassage across effectively
#Corbyns a [enter racist epithet to suit] lover!

Lol

MLS
MLS

I am gradually being persuaded by the hoax theory. Not in all cases certainly, but in some.

In fact I think we can trace a growing tendency to replace real staged events with real fake events, starting after 9/11.

Take a long hard look at the alleged Boston Bombing. I did recently and was truly shocked at the obvious evidence for fakery. From the color of the ‘blood’ to the clearly opportunistic GoFundme Pages by people claiming injuries that pics from the scene prove they could not have.

Ditto Sandy Hook. Where normal emergency procedures were flouted and no EMS ever saw a dead body. Where smiling parents with new hairdos and perfect makeup tell schmaltzy generic stories of their alleged kids’ love of butterflies or similar and how anger does no good, and of course how gun laws need tightening.

(0k ONE parent going weird like that – maybe. But this is literally ALL of them. Glassy, smiling, hair newly done, perfectly made-up, sometimes dabbing a bit at non-existent tears, but always grinning widely. Zero rage. Zero despair. All delivering the same no-anger, and anti-gun message. This is not on the spectrum of reality).

No death certificates at Sandy Hook. And the law changed to make it illegal for non-family members to obtain them. What is that?

No pics of Adam Lanza that don’t seem Photoshopped. Barely any reference to him existing before 2012.

Ditto for most major actors in the drama.

Was Sandy shook even a functioning school?

The web archive showed the school’s website had been in active since 2008 when rumour had it the school had been closed down.

The building looked unkempt. NOT like a place wealthy Connecticut bankers and media types would send their kids.

The bathrooms were adult size.

There was evidence some of the rooms had been medical in nature.

Some of the alleged video of the police operation was clearly shot at another nearby school.

There has yet to be ANY hard evidence for anyone dying st Sandy Hook. Or that anything real took place there.

Once that meaning and implication sinks in things start to look different.

There’s ample evidence that fakery is now the preferred option in staged terror events.

Why that might be doesn’t matter. The evidence speaks for the fact regardless of how likely we think it might be.

London Bridge has all the hallmarks of being another faked event.

Petra Liverani

I haven’t looked at a single terror event reported breathlessly 24/7 across the globe that didn’t share hallmarks with the Boston bombing and Sandy Hook … and 9/11. Death and injury were also staged on 9/11. The big difference between 9/11 and all the other staged terror is that they implemented a massive propaganda campaign targeting truthers to ensure they kept believing the lie of real death and injury. This is to stagnate the truth getting out. The perps know that if truthers try to tell people that 9/11 was an inside job where the US government killed all those people in the buildings they will fail because non-truthers will simply not accept that the US government would do such a thing – and in this the non-truthers are absolutely correct. They wouldn’t. Not their MO at all. They’ll kill people in other countries and even send their own soldiers to phony wars to die but they wouldn’t kill those people in the buildings and they couldn’t have done it anyway. 9/11 was a massive operation involving emergency response staff, police, firefighters, media, crisis actors, etc – there’s no way that they’d kill 3,000 in such an operation. It’s not as if all these people don’t know the buildings came down by controlled demolition. The very idea is ludicrous (sure, I believed it for four years of study because I swallowed their propaganda but the idea of the US government murdering 3,000 citizens in such a way is insanity). The only reason people believe it is the power of propaganda.

They are all the same MLS, essentially they are all anti-terror/shooting/etc drills pushed out as real events. This is an anti-terror drill done at the Manchester Trafford Centre a year before the “real” event. In the comments people predict a “real” event to follow. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyTTzLQ3mt0

MLS
MLS

There’s your over-zealous certitude again Petra.

If you said “there’s many indications death & injury were also staged on 9/11″ instead of baldly asserting “death and injury were also staged on 9/11” you’d instantly win over a lot more people and alienate a lot less.

Try to realise this is a shocking idea to most people that’s way outside their personal Overton Window. If you proclaim it as an undeniable fact you are a) making yourself seem irrational and easier to ignore b) giving people a legit reason to dismiss you.

Try saying “in my opinion” or “the evidence suggests” or ” it’s plausible that” – and then give the evidence for that interpretation, calmly and without demanding everyone immediately believes it as much as you do.

Stop posting your Ockham’s Razor stuff. And your monetary reward stuff. Stop preaching. And start simply putting up the best evidence.

Don’t divert into long screeds about the perps’ potential motives, which can’t be proved and don’t really matter much.

And don”t start with 9/11. It’s one of the least convincing. One of the most likely to have real deaths attached, simply due to the scale of what was done.

Start with the smaller ones, for which evidence of fakery is almost unequivocal.

And go light on the certitude. Long on the data.

You’ll be amazed the difference in the reception you get.

People are here because they are open minde and looking for truth. Remember that and let the facts speak for themselves.

Petra Liverani

Point taken, MLS, always best to say “evidence suggests”.

Stop posting your Ockham’s Razor stuff. And your monetary reward stuff. Stop preaching. And start simply putting up the best evidence.

I find it interesting how people have a problem with me using Occam’s Razor. I shall continue to use it, MLS, because I am a natural Occam’s Razorist. I constantly think in terms of, “Does the evidence support my chosen hypothesis with the fewest questions and assumptions raised?”, “Is there any evidence that contradicts it?”. Unlike other people, I never gloss over evidence and my respect for the evidence is absolute. To me my challenge provides a mirror to people to reflect to them that they cannot support their belief. I think it’s useful.

Best evidence requires others’ input but I don’t think it’s required. Because of the way they stage these events (they give signs and they never fake any aspect so well that it can be used to favour the story they tell us), Occam’s Razor is the perfect tool. Have you read my home page? I think I make a very good case on it for Occam’s Razor.

I really don’t understand “perps’ potential motives”. What are you talking about? I virtually never talk about motive. If you’re referring to deliberate signs that is a different matter and I think they are highly significant.

What interests me, MLS, is SUFFICIENT data, not so much long because when you have lots and lots of data then people can get all distracted with this that and the other. Compelling data that cannot be contradicted is what is important to me. And when you can show to people that they have nothing that they can provide to support the opposing view that is important. People will endlessly try to pick holes in your argument but when you force them to try to support their hypothesis and they fail that is significant.

MLS
MLS

You’re posting here in order to inform people, right? If you didn’t care about informing people you’d be off doing something else.

You’ve been telling people here about fakery for a long time.

1. How many people have you persuaded in that time?

2. How many people have you alienated & made even less likely to look at the evidence than if you’d said nothing?

We both know the rough tally don’t we. You have a terrible record of getting people to engage with your argument. No point in blaming them. It’s down to you to put your case in a way people can engage with.

If your aim is to inform and engage you’re going to have to change your approach along the lines I ‘ve advised. Arguing with me isn’t going to alter that fact.

Change your approach or continue to have your message fall on deaf ears.

Your choice.

Petra Liverani

You’re right, I have persuaded very few and alienated people. I think I’m different from most people in that I’m purely evidence and logic-based while other people are invested in their beliefs for one reason or another or won’t believe something that seems too counterintuitive or whatever.

For example, you think it sounds nutty to say that they give us the clues. You’ve studied the Boston Bombing and Sandy Hook as I have and there are many things that are glaringly obviously wrong, right? So it’s interesting that when I was told about the “signs” I had no trouble accepting the phenomenon because it accorded with these obvious things that had quite puzzled me, while you who has obviously encountered those “signs” too without understanding that that’s in fact what they were (as I didn’t) still think it sounds nutty. The only reason you think it sounds nutty is because it seems counterintuitive NOT because of the evidence. I haven’t received notification of you responding to my comment on the “signs”. Have you responded?

If someone said to me, OK, here are 10 points favouring Hypothesis X over Y, if you believe Hypothesis Y, you provide 10 points favouring Y over X, I’d jump at the chance (if it was about something that interested me) and THEN, if I found that I could find no fault with the 10 points favouring X and I couldn’t find 10 points – or even just the one – favouring Y, I’d do the logical thing and change my mind. I would have no problem whatsoever with doing that and I wouldn’t be alienated by someone presenting that challenge – I would respond to it with interest as a challenge. Other people obviously don’t operate like that.

Someone recently contacted me about a book they’re writing showing that nuclear bombs were not dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and, in fact, nuclear bombs are not a thing (someone else has written a book focused on this latter point). This is in massive contradiction to what I’ve always believed but almost from the outset I thought what this person said made good sense and I was all prepared to change my mind. I’m not 100% convinced at this stage but I think he makes a very good case. We massively disagree on two other phenomena but I think he makes a very good case for no nuclear so I’m with him on that line of thought. The thing is it would absolutely thrill me to learn there was no such thing as nuclear bombs – absolutely thrill me – even though it’s in massive contradiction to what I’ve always believed. Not that thrilling me is going to make me believe it, I always look at the evidence.

How I think is different from others so I need to find a different method to try to persuade them. A completely logic-based approach does not work.

Rejuvenator
Rejuvenator

I’m gonna take a punt on this and say telling people the reason they don’t get you is because they’re too dumb and emotional to grasp your flawless logic isn’t going to help put your point across.

Rejuvenator
Rejuvenator

PS if nuclear bombs aren’t a thing then nuclear fission isn’t a thing. The atom was never split. Rutherford lied. And nuclear power stations are empty buildings full of people paid to do nothing.

Petra Liverani

You strawman me, Rejuvenator, I don’t say they’re too dumb (they can, in fact, be extremely intelligent – much more intelligent than I am in certain ways at least) or emotional, I say they are not strictly evidence-led – for various reasons. I do not assert that my logic is flawless but I put it out there with a challenge to contradict it and no one has responded to the challenge. This seems to put people’s backs up, true, Rejuvenator, it wouldn’t put mine up if someone did the same but yes it seems to put other people’s up so I guess I need to change tack.

No one arguing against nuclear weapons argues against nuclear power. I’m way too unversed in the matter to even attempt to explain but you can look at the sample chapters of this book and see if you find anything persuasive in it.
https://www.amazon.com/Death-Object-Exploding-Nuclear-Weapons-ebook/dp/B071NGKY17

MLS
MLS

This is a new scientific low point, Petra.

If nuclear power is real then nuclear bombs are real, because they both harness the same process – nuclear fission.

If nuclear fission can be harnessed to produce heat to power turbines it can be used to produce heat in a thermonuclear explosion.

The two are inextricable. Anyone who tells you different is a liar or an idiot.

Petra Liverani

I evaluate what I read and hear according to my knowledge and understanding, MLS, and it will be on that basis whether I decide to accept the hypothesis that nuclear weapons are a fraud, it certainly won’t be on your bland dismissal.

I accepted the science on anthropogenic climate change quite easily because it made sense to me that if a trace amount of CO2 in the atmosphere keeps the earth from being a frozen ball – and at pre-industrial 280ppm we were perfectly toasty – then pushing that trace level up significantly would cause problems. We’re now at a very scary 415ppm which can only rise more alarmingly. For the past 3 weeks or so I, along with millions of other Australians, have suffered the unpleasant experience of breathing in bushfire fumes 24/7, an unprecedented occurrence, certainly in Sydney – it’s barely the beginning of summer and there’s no end in sight. Perhaps you can offer an alternative explanation for this unprecedented occurrence but please don’t waste your breath on me as I won’t believe whatever you say. I am currently not speaking with a friend because he has tried to tell me that it’s because of poor hazard reduction management (well, perhaps it is to a small degree because ability to perform this function has been hampered by unsuitable conditions in winter) and firebugs (I think he even threw geoengineering in as well).

MLS, you still haven’t responded to my question on the evidence I present for the phenomenon of “signs”. Do accept the phenomenon or do you still think the claim is “nutty”.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/they-tell-us-clearly.html

Petra Liverani

Just to add, MLS – indirect indications that nuclear weapons don’t exist are:

— we know that Mordechai Vanunu is an intelligence asset hired to pretend that he leaked Israel’s nuclear secrets. What a laugh. Just check out his Wikipedia entry.

— similarly, alleged Iranian nuclear scientists’ deaths by bombings are also ludicrous. If you click the link below for search responses on Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan you will find contradicitions and a very silly statement made by his wife
https://www.qwant.com/?q=Mostafa+Ahmadi+Roshan&client=ext-chrome-sb

— do you seriously think that Kim Jong-un, dubbed “Little Rocket Man” by the Donald, has nuclear weapons? I mean, seriously?

And we have to wonder why they present us with completely phony Hiroshima “survivor stories”, just as they provided us with phony 9/11 “survivor stories” and phony Christchurch “survivor stories” to name a few.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-06/hiroshima-survivor-junko-morimoto-talks-about-that-day/6675110

I was at home that day with my siblings — two older sisters and an older brother. I wasn’t at school because I had a stomach-ache. My brother was back from work and playing the guitar, my oldest sister was having a late lunch, and I was in the room with my second sister chatting. My father had gone out for a hair cut.

It was that second a strong light filled the place. A roaring sound followed. I felt the house crushing on top of me. Everything was completely dark. I fell unconscious.

I woke up — who knows how many seconds, minutes or hours it had been. What I saw around me was just unimaginable. My second sister had collapsed over me. My brother had glass pieces all over his body. My older sister had a chopstick struck through her lips. Our house was gone. I saw fire everywhere. We quickly ran towards the water. I saw people with (what I thought were) stockings hanging down from their limbs and body. I didn’t understand at that time that this was in fact their own skin. There were soldiers around; they too were burnt everywhere, but they were busily brushing oil (vegetable oil) on people’s skin to treat the wounds.
————
Not afraid of a nuclear holocaust anymore but I’m very, very afraid of a climate change holocaust. It makes me sick watching all the scary bushfires around the state.

Petra Liverani

Well, how’s them apples, MLS? I might need to do the mental leap that is always required whenever the power elite are concerned. While there is no doubting the reality of the bushfires, the smoke inhalation we are suffering and man-made climate change, I’m now wondering if the fires are a result of a very, very scary non-linear jump or if they are actually deliberate. It would seem insane but I wouldn’t put anything past these bastards.

Before my suspicions were raised two things struck me as odd:
— the seeming extremeness of the non-linear jump where from one year to the next we just have fires galore
— the constant mention of 500 houses being destroyed with very little information about them. And the houses we do see tend to look like virtual hovels anyway.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-17/nsw-bushfires-nearly-500-homes-destroyed-since-start-of-season/11711898

I was alerted to the possibility from a SMH front-page article whose author, Lucy Cormack, is notorious for staged-event stories. The school, Bateman’s Bay Public School, was spelt BOatman’s or BOateman’s (can’t remember which) and this is simply too glaring an error on the front page. Plus a few other things didn’t add up.

A friend told me that we’ve been told that Australian fires now occupy three times the land of the Amazonian fires – OffG did an article on the beatup of those fires and they always like to connect their beatups / staged events.

Whenever you feel terror you must always check to see who might be making you feel that terror.

I cannot say that these fires are deliberate. They do seem genuinely scary but, my goodness, my suspicions are raised. What better way to control people than to show them pictures of really scary fires, tell them they’re out of control and make them inhale smoke 24/7 for weeks on end.

Petra Liverani

And now I revert to terror again. The houses have been explained to me by people who live in areas where the houses have been destroyed. It seems it really is a massive non-linear jump aided by all the mining and fracturing causing lowering of the water table and reducing ground water.

Refraktor
Refraktor

Haha and who is trying to scare you with scary fires? Australia has always been a player in the global warming joke.

Petra Liverani

Just to add: the pioneering 9/11 researcher, Gerard Holmgren, who died sadly before I knew of him and whose thinking and research on 9/11 I find the most impressive of any analyst/ researcher I’ve encountered, divided the world as follows:
— 10% believe everything from authorities and cannot be persuaded
— 10% believe nothing from authorities and cannot be persuaded
— 80% are persuadable

I think he realised after trying to get the word out on 9/11 that he was wrong about the 80%.

If you’re interested this is a funny satire by Gerard on 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/gerard-holmgren.html

Independently, from experience arguing with my twin sister and a couple of friends I kind of worked out the disbelievers-by-default group. Man, I have argued about the moon landings with my sister for an insane number of hours – not to prove that we went but just to show her the error in her argument – and she will not have it. Give her a mathematical logic problem and she’ll work it out while I won’t but she is utterly convinced we didn’t go to the moon and there is simply no way to show her that her arguments for saying we didn’t go lack logic.

What is clear to me is that people believe according to their tendencies to believe, not according to the evidence. I just happen to be someone who is detached. I just don’t have a tendency to believe certain things. It’s not that I strive to be that way, it’s just the way I am. Why my identical twin is a disbeliever-by-default and I’m not is a bit of a mystery no? considering we had the same upbringing and share exactly the same genes.

I have a friend who’s partly onboard with hoax events – but if it’s police bashing a disabled pensioner then she’ll believe it’s real cos she doesn’t like the police and thinks that it’s plausible (plausibility is never a good reason to judge things) but if it’s a knife-wielding Muslim terrorist then she’ll get that’s a hoax cos she recognises the BS against Muslims. I keep trying to tell her they’re all the same, they’re all hoaxes and I think I’ve finally got her around but it was an arduous journey.

Refraktor
Refraktor

If the psychopaths that be judged 911 had become too toxic and needed purging how might they do this? Possibly only by pretending it was all a fake. They might first introduce increasingly transparent hoax scenarios such as Skripal and the Doumas (which is even now being debunked on the fringes of the MSM).
Perhaps we should go along with Petra and her scary fires.

Victor G.
Victor G.

And don’t forget the FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS …

Steve Hayes

This “terrorism” is a very strange form of terrorism.

Terrorism is violence for a political purpose. Remember IRA terrorism back in the 70s? The IRA had explicit political demands. They tied their violence to those demands, attacking primarily expressions of the British state. They wanted an independent Ireland, free of British imperialism. But Islamic terrorists, such as Mr Khan, do not appear to have any political objectives; they don’t tell us what they want; they don’t tie their violence to any rational strategy. This, whatever it might be, isn’t terrorism.

RobG

I totally agree with what you say; but would further venture that this isn’t ‘terrorism’ in the accepted sense, it’s ‘government terrorism’.

Ahead of the general strike in France this coming Thursday, a large car bomb in Lille was defused by police this afternoon.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7750929/Lille-lockdown-car-filled-gas-cylinders-suitcase-spotted-near-military-hospital.html

I know, it’s the Daily Mail, and at the time of writing it’s still very hard to find out what actually happened in Lille today.

charles drake
charles drake

But Islamic terrorists, such as Mr Khan, do not appear to have any political objectives;

most of these chaps are shy loners one could call them loan wolves
little islands of hatred and envy tory blair did say they hated us for are freedumbs did he not.

my guess is if you where too confront of these musselamic with a Narwhal tusk or even better a city of london masonic red dagger he will cry out
it’s a fair cop i did it for the oded yinon
for the red heffers for moloch and the new temple and
satan
already

ity

I have to say that I struggle with the premise, as suggested by many on here, that this attack is a hoax. And when I say ‘hoax’, I mean a staged event using many actors and fake deaths. It just doesn’t make much sense. Or rather, there is an explanation that makes much more sense.

Let’s for arguments sake say that this is a false flag operation. So, which scenario seems the most likely?

a) That this is an elaborate hoax involving many actors, and that no one actually died.

b) This is a simple false flag operation involving one very suggestible patsy who is now conveniently dead.

My instincts would have me choose the simple alternative b every time. Why? Because it is neater, more tidy, and with less likely to go wrong. And there is much less possibility of the truth leaking out. The less who know the better.

I think that all these theories of this being an elaborate hoax just muddy the waters. An elaborate hoax is not needed. All a false flag operation like this requires is one easily lead and very dead perpetrator. Job done.

Why choose the very complicated and dubious theory when a very simple and water tight theory is staring you in the face?

In fact the propagation of a complicated and dubious theory could be seen as a false flag operation in itself. Always try and blow away the smoke, rather than create more smoke. A smoke free zone is a healthy place to be.

charles drake
charles drake

when one says no fishmonger died during this performance puff piece it is true.
i have checked the ancient records within temple and no khans are members.

so the statement stands the khan fellow was not an honorable fishmongrel.

a mental defective maybe
dead maybe
one thing is for sure lord’s mcalpine,britain and good old janner
along with epstein are chillin in tel aviv or some such
init

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker

I tend to agree with you Ity. It’s hard to imagine our leaders being capable of organising a piss up in a brewery let alone an elaborate hoax. Even for certain agencies with high organisational skills, it doesn’t even make sense for them to stage a hoaxed event and especially in the middle of a busy Friday in London.

charles drake
charles drake

nothing 2 sea here franky boy A
is that your gist?
move along now vauxhall’s finest are here
for the clean up of the bell pottinger event circus.
tim bo bell the white helmets chap and site news intel man about town rita katz are already onto the next production
coming soon
already

ity

The thing is, that it is in the realms of possibility that the event was ‘nudged’ into taking place. A word here, a word there, a ‘helpful’ suggestion perhaps… But this still doesn’t make the event a ‘staged’ or ‘hoax’ event. The event would still be very real and genuine to all those involved, but it would still suit the purposes of anyone wishing to take advantage of the event for their own nefarious ends. And the more genuine the event the better, as this leaves fewer loose ends to tie up, and fewer possibilities of any compromising leaks further down the road.

I’ll always assume that any dark operatives will be keeping things as dark as possible, which would mean operating on a strict ‘need to know’ basis. Why let needless weak links into any chain of operation?

Rejuvenator
Rejuvenator

The claim that the PTB are too stupid is used to dismiss all ‘conspiracy theories’ out of hand. It seems a little sophistic to me.

Petra Liverani

ity, what you say doesn’t factor in how power works. Power doesn’t have to worry about the truth leaking out. I know a barista whose dad worked next door to the Sari bar, site of the 2002 Bali bombing. The dad said that he was asked to go and help with the injured but when he went to help there were no injured to help. So the truth “leaked” a tiny bit but so what? The barista only told me after a few months after my going into the cafe bleating on and on about 9/11 being a completely staged event (like this one) and other events. I’m sure he tells very few people because what do you think their reaction will be? And you know what happens when I try to pass this information on? Do you think people embrace what I say with belief?

Loads of people are in on these events and no doubt they tell the odd person or two but it doesn’t make it into the media so it still stays hidden. 9/11 was essentially a massive Full-Scale Anti-Terrorist Exercise pushed out as a real event that hundreds and hundreds of people would be in on and they may tell the odd person, talk about it among themselves and so on but it doesn’t make it into the media – of course, hundreds, if not thousands, across the global media are in on these events … but they publish the BS version, not the real version. These events are TABOO and people don’t want to know and won’t believe you, even when you point out the clear evidence or tell them “I know someone who knows someone who was there.”

But the truth is right in front of your face. There is ZERO evidence of the reality of this event or any other “terror event” broadcast 24/7 around the world. ZERO. My policy is that if the media tell you something that is riddled with anomalies and where no clear evidence of their claims are shown, don’t believe it. You have to ask yourself why you should. Why would you believe an anomaly-riddled story with no clear evidence of the death or injury claimed. You don’t believe in the WMDs so why believe this event? They’re both lies, it’s just one’s a staged event and the other isn’t.

Just tonight I saw a story on the 7:30 Report (Australian current affairs) about a guy supposedly seriously injured by a 12-year-old suicide bomber in Afghanistan in 2012. The guy had obvious physical injuries (doesn’t mean it was from a suicide bomber though) but there were a lot of anomalies in his story, the video footage was extremely choppy and he didn’t sound convincing. I cannot be sure it was fake but I don’t believe it either.

Moreover, ity, they’re not going to kill people – you think all the emergency response staff and other people involved in these events are going to be in on events where the people are killed for real? No way! It’s not the MO. These events are essentially drills pushed out as real events. They have an MO and it does not involve killing for real.

ity

I’ve had a quick look at your site. I find it ironic that you use the concept of ‘Occam’s razor’ in the very title of the site, but then proceed to demonstrate an almost complete lack of understanding of what Occam’s razor is all about.

I’m sorry, but as far as I’m concerned, you are someone who is either intentionally trying to obfuscate and confuse, or you are genuinely as mad as a box of frogs. Please forgive my abruptness and rudeness here, but I don’t intend to engage with you further. Life’s to short.

MLS
MLS

Petra goes too far, is too emphatic and full of certitude, which effectively destroys her own argument.

BUT the claim for faked death is much stronger than she makes it seem.

It’s worth looking into on your own terms. There are many many anomalies in recent alleged terror events that strongly imply fakery.

Petra Liverani

MLS, Could you please identify an example where I’m too emphatic and how I destroy my own argument?

MLS
MLS

MLS, Could you please identify an example where I’m too emphatic and how I destroy my own argument?

Certainly – and with no intended offence.

All those claims of certitude about the perps’ intentions, deliberately leaving clues etc just put people off and sound nutty.

The fact is you don’t know what the perps’ intentions are, and neither does the guy you always quote as an authority and neither do any of us. Presenting speculation about their intentions as fact is pointless. It adds NOTHING to the important point (the alleged fakery), diverts from it and makes you seem irrational for claiming as fact that which is merely rumour of speculation.

Your point is much stronger without it. Trust me.

I don’t agree with you in defining 9/11 as fake – simply because three buildings definitely fell down. But I am increasingly of the opinion fakery does happen. Maybe a lot. Maybe it’s even the default now.

Petra Liverani

MLS, I say that they give clues because I was told this and had no hesitation believing it because I’d previously been baffled by things that didn’t fit “carrying off the event as realistically as possible”, eg, Robbie Parker walking to the microphone with a big smile on his face and the second plane popping out the other side of the South tower. I have a page devoted to support of this claim. Can you identify on my page where what I put forward for supporting this claim does not in fact support it?
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/they-tell-us-clearly.html

Sound nutty – yes, it does seem that people simply cannot get their head around the fact that they TELL us. Despite my constant bleating about the fact they TELL us with clues and providing evidence for it people still think it’s nutty. But that’s because, MLS, people are simply not judging by the evidence. It may sound nutty although when you understand power properly it really isn’t but regardless of how nutty it may seem, the evidence supports the claim. And I go by the evidence not by how nutty something might sound.

I don’t say the buildings didn’t come down MLS – of course they did. It’s all the rest that’s fake.

MLS
MLS

I’m trying to help you get your message across Petra, because I agree fakery is an issue that needs to be encompassed on sites like this one. There’s no reason to get defensive.

MLS, I say that they give clues because I was told this and had no hesitation believing it because I’d previously been baffled by things that didn’t fit

Sure, there’s nothing wrong with your believing it. The problem – as I said – is presenting your belief as if it were a fact. (A fact, btw, is something that is proven to be true, NOT something currently not proven to be false. Important diff).

Plus this stuff adds nothing to the fakery debate. It just brings in more speculation and muddies the water.

If your aim is to persuade people I think you will be much more effective if you abandon that line. But if that’s not a problem for you by all means carry on as you are.

Petra Liverani

I used the word believe but I could have used the word “recognise”. When there are numerous examples of an hypothesis being supported then I think we can call it “fact”.

I think in a previous post I gave a link to my page which is devoted to evidence supporting that they tell us. If you do not think this is sufficient evidence to call it fact perhaps you can explain why not.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/they-tell-us-clearly.html

ity

I’ll certainly try and keep an open mind.

Petra Liverani

ity, You’ve said you have no wish to engage further so fair enough if you don’t respond but people are always telling me I don’t understand Occam’s razor or I’m not using it correctly or whatever but they never actually explain how they think I’ve got it wrong. Would you mind doing so?

ity

Petra, as I understand it, Occam’s razor is about keeping things as simple as possible. It is a way of comparing hypotheses, and Occam’s razor suggests that the least complicated hypothesis will more likely be correct than the more complicated hypothesis. Occam’s razor is sometimes summed up by; ‘The simple solution is more likely to be right than the complicated solution’.

Occam’s razor also doesn’t like assumption, and so naturally veers away from assumptions. Assumption can be the enemy of critical thinking.

So, to me your posts and your site are riddled with assumptions painted as fact. And you like to unnecessarily complicate things, and often to an extreme degree. It often comes across as if you are looking for ‘facts’ to fit your hypothesis and beliefs, rather than looking at facts first, and then using facts to form an hypothesis. It looks like you put the cart before the horse.

The above is of course just my half arsed opinion. But I’ve given it anyway. Hope it is of some help.

Petra Liverani

ity, You still avoid specifics. I define Occam’s Razor on my home page and I follow my definition. How I define it is similar to what you say, “Which hypothesis fits the evidence with the fewest questions and assumptions raised.”

For my Occam’s Razor exercises I simply present facts and indicate that those facts support my chosen hypothesis better than the opposing hypothesis. It’s very straightforward.

So, to me your posts and your site are riddled with assumptions painted as fact. And you like to unnecessarily complicate things, and often to an extreme degree. It often comes across as if you are looking for ‘facts’ to fit your hypothesis and beliefs, rather than looking at facts first, and then using facts to form an hypothesis. It looks like you put the cart before the horse.

This is waffle. Can you please provide a specific example.

ity

Petra, if I could move away from Occam’s razor for a moment, and post something related to your site.

I want to be careful here, as I’m not trying to attack you, but want to give you some understanding. But the point I’m about to make might perhaps about to pull the rug from under your feet, so make sure that you are sitting down. Do you mind if I quote you from your own site?

I’m not swayed by my emotions nor am I unwilling to change my beliefs or recognise that I’ve been duped – I feel no sense of shame at being duped where others, I think, do, which makes them resistant to recognising it. That’s it. I may have believed something for years but in almost an instant I’ll turn on a dime to believe something else if the evidence indicates I should. After watching JFK to 9/11 it took a little while to accept that 9/11 was an inside conspiracy because my initial awakening was only to the “inside conspiracy” part of the event not the key “staged death and injury” part (which took 4 years of study to get to). Had the awakening been to both truths at the same time it would have happened more quickly because the evidence of fakery of the plane crashes and controlled demolition is very clear – it was just the extreme cognitive dissonance required to accept that the US government callously killed the people in the buildings which set me back (the pretence of which was so cleverly suppressed by their truther-targeted propaganda campaign) but then – as I learnt four years on – they didn’t kill those people (of course, that would never be their MO), no cognitive dissonance required (at least in that regard)! Once over the initial 9/11 hurdle, my mind was set to be open to whatever evidence came my way.

You have admitted that you could not, and cannot, accept that the US government could callously kill people. You talk of your open mind, but there is something that you cannot accept, and will not accept. You believe that 9/11 was an inside job, but you need a way to deal with the cognitive dissonance, and you found it. The hoax explanation.

But the problem here is your cognitive dissonance, which you have tried to side step, rather than dealing with it head on. This admission of yours, that you can’t accept that the US government might be capable of killing innocent people, shows that you are decent and wish to see the best in people. But it also fundamentally undermines your whole argument that 9/11 is a hoax, and that no one died, because you have revealed an innate need, a motive for believing in your hoax theory. Because without that hoax theory, you must accept what you cannot. Which is that the US government is capable of killing innocent people.

Petra, I’m sorry, but you need to go way back, and start again. Everything that you think you believe about hoax theory is built on sand. It is built on your inability to believe the worst of the US government. Once you accept that the US government is capable of killing it’s own people, everything becomes simpler, and everything starts to make sense. Your hoax theory is your way of avoiding a horrible truth.

Petra Liverani

I’m afraid you misinterpret what I say, ity. When I first woke up to 9/11 being an inside job I believed the US govt killed the people so the cognitive dissonance was great but I believed they cold-bloodedly and callously killed them. It wasn’t until four years later that I realised that the cognitive dissonance I’d suffered earlier was greater than it needed to be because at that point I realised they didn’t kill them.

ity

I haven’t misinterpreted. Your own words are there. You need the hoax theory because you can’t accept, and will not accept, that the US government is capable of killing its own people.

This is an example of you misunderstanding Occam’s razor. You have made an enormous assumption, that the US government couldn’t kill its own people, and have used this assumption to underpin everything that you believe in. But what if this assumption of yours is wrong? And on what have you based this assumption? Is it just a need to believe?

And it looks like you have gone to great lengths and contortions to try and fit reality into your own theories. Which again is against what Occam’s razor is about. You needlessly complicate what is perhaps simple.

Of course you will resist anything which threatens the fabric of your belief system. Who wouldn’t? I myself have resisted many possible truths that I now suspect might be true, because the horror of those truths were just too much for me to cope with.

Petra Liverani

ity, I will change my words to make them clearer but if you read them carefully you will see that what I say is that I went through the cognitive dissonance at the time believing that the people really died but then realised LATER that the severe cognitive dissonance gone through at the time was unnecessary because the people weren’t killed.

I will withdraw from this discussion now.

ity

OK. But might I suggest that you didn’t in fact go ‘through’ your cognitive dissonance, that you never really came to grips with it or dealt with it, instead looking for ways to avoid it, to explain it away. Which is where your hoax theory comes in.

Petra Liverani

I put 10 points favouring staged death and injury over real at the link below, ity, and have issued a challenge for those who believe that death and injury were real to present 10 points with favouring reversed. No one has responded. Perhaps the challenge will interest you?
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/3000-dead-and-6000-injured-a-lie.html

ity

Goodbye Petra.

Petra Liverani

I wonder what’s behind your goodbye, ity. Did you look at the 10 points at all? Did you decide that they didn’t favour the staged death and injury hypothesis over real but you’re not bothering to say why? Have you come up with a single point that favours the real death and injury hypothesis?

So you’re letting me know that you have finished “engaging” with me as it were and yet you have actually not made one valid claim with backup in all your words – not a single one – the one claim you did make with “backup” showed a misinterpretation. Ity, I think you show promise as a hoax analyst in your obvious observational skills but you need to develop your logic and reason skills. You cannot make claims without backing them up and you need to read more carefully. And you must always keep an open mind and judge by the evidence. The evidence rules! A course in logic might not be a bad idea. I’ve often thought of taking one myself but have never got round to it.

ity

Actually Petra, I wish that I hadn’t responded to your post in such a dismissive manner. I can’t be sure where you’re coming from with your posts, or your site, but I do detect a lack of logical thinking in what you say, and poor reasoning, and can find many holes in the ideas that you push. You just jump to too many conclusions, and too quickly.

But the reason that I don’t wish to personally engage with you in argument or discussion, is that I can see any discussions between us going nowhere. We are both perhaps quite adamant in what we believe, and past experience has taught me that sometimes it is better to just not engage, rather than get involved in pointless discussions/arguments that could go on for months, and in a fruitless fashion that gets us nowhere. I’m trying to learn to conserve my energy for battles that are worth fighting. Peace.

Petra Liverani

OK, ity, but at this point you haven’t actually identified anything specific and thus we haven’t actually engaged at all. Are you not being just a tiny bit premature? How do you know how I’ll respond. Don’t you think that rather than simply make assertions about someone not understanding Occam’s Razor and exhibiting a lack of logical thinking that you need to identify where their errors are? I state very clearly on my home page how I use Occam’s Razor and I believe that I follow my explanation of it so I’m not sure where you think I’m wrong. Do you think I define it correctly but don’t follow my definition or do you think my definition is incorrect?

ity

Look Petra, as far as I am concerned, your site and posts are full of loopy assumptions, illogical reasoning, and jumps into goodness knows where. And now you are trying to get me to engage with you, which is what I am trying to avoid. Why? Because there is nothing in it for me.

I could waste months picking over your points, and I could spend months going over your site with you bit by bit, and telling you where I think you’ve gone wrong, but why would I bother? Do you think I have nothing better to do?

Please, don’t take this personally, but I just don’t have the time or the energy. If you can’t be bothered to make sure that you have a good understanding of Occam’s razor before using it in the title of your site, then I certainly can’t be bothered putting you right.

My advice to you would be to take it all down, accept that you might be wrong, if you can, and start again. And stop thinking that you know everything. That is not a good look. Have a holiday or something.

Petra Liverani

Waffle again, ity. Yes, I think we can leave it here.

ity

Yes, sorry about that. I’ve left a more considered and hopefully more helpful reply to you further up the thread. Your use of Occam’s razor has obviously been fatally compromised by a belief that you hold dear.

Petra Liverani

Just to add, ity:

Do you think I have nothing better to do?

If you don’t wish to spend the time explaining your claims then simply don’t make them. If you wish to criticise you cannot simply make claims, you need to back them up. They’re really quite meaningless without backup, aren’t they? What credibility do they have? The fact that you keep making claims without backup indicates that it is you who has the problem with logical reasoning, ity.

ity

I’ve moved on from the above curt dismissal, (rudeness is a weakness of mine) and have engaged with you as best I can further up. So it looks like I don’t in fact have anything better to do. 😉 x

Victor G.
Victor G.

Jeez ity, what about the FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS???

ity

The $5000 us nothing but bait, an attempt to suck people down a bottomless rabbit hole. I’ve had a look at Petra’s site, and it is nothing but bullshit folded into bullshit, and then wrapped up in more bullshit. With a dollop of bullshit on top for good measure.

Is it an intentional tool designed to confuse, entangle, and break the mind? Or is it just the creation of a mind already confused and broken and hopelessly entangled? Not sure, and I don’t really care. But no way am I engaging further with that craziness. No siree.

Antonym
Antonym

ISLAMABAD: A few dozen unidentified people on Monday staged a protest outside Dawn offices over publication of a news report regarding the ethnicity of the London Bridge attacker who stabbed two persons to death last week.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1520079/mob-besieges-dawn-offices-in-islamabad

Antonym
Antonym

Fair is fair: all trouble in China, India or Russia with Islamic terrorists must be faked/ false flags too.
The CIA and/or Mossad is Almighty and everywhere.
It just cannot be Islam itself, that religion of peace since 627 AD.

Dungroanin
Dungroanin

So how are the Saudi Trillionaire dollars feeling in your bank accounts?

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/theresa-may/news/87317/theresa-may-sparks-backlash-over

Who are their local bessies and reservoir rats?

Antonym
Antonym

Those Saudi dollars go to the defenders of Islam, people like you?

Dungroanin
Dungroanin

Not I. Headchoppers ain’t no muslims bro!

This lot are the ones troughing it though:

‘Through offshore or front companies in Europe, USA and South Africa, Israeli business are operating in Saudi Arabia, on desalination, infrastructure protection, cybersecurity, and intelligence surveillance.

Though, caution is thoroughly employed when it comes to weapons sales. At the New Hampshire plant of Elbit System of America, a subsidiary of Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest private defence contractor has been involved in covert sales deals with Saudi Arabia, without anyone noticing.’
https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/indepth/2019/8/14/saudi-israeli-relations-the-emergence-of-a-new-alliance

George Mc
George Mc

Round ‘n around ‘n up ‘n down we go again
and again
and again
and again

Petra Liverani

A London correspondent poses the question: How could London Bridge have been so quiet at the time of day the incident occurred?

Police are urging people to use “common sense” and refrain from sharing videos of the London Bridge incident today.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/london-bridge-police-issue-warning-to-anybody-sharing-videos-from-incident/ar-BBXwvvc?li=BBoPRmx&ocid=iehp

Petra Liverani

Toby Williamson is “proud to know” the heroes.

JudyJ
JudyJ

Petra

I’m glad you posted this – intending to post a link last night, I could only find a partial version of it. I read his comments in yesterday’s (UK) Times newspaper and couldn’t believe what I was reading…surreal. I honestly thought the newspaper must have got it wrong in some way or were adding dramatic flourish to the testimony but this link proves they didn’t.
But, and I think this explains a lot and could add to the mystery of the whole affair, Toby Williamson was described as former Royal Navy officer Commodore Toby Williamson.

AndyG
AndyG

What the fuck even is this? Who is this guy and why is he being interviews while clearly reading off of a crib sheet?

Petra Liverani

To me it looks as though he’s reading both when he looks down and when he’s looking at the camera. There seems to be two sources of his script. You must always bear in mind, Andy, that they give us the clear signs that it’s a hoax, so the obvious script reading is not an accident. I found his saying “You’ve got Alla and Sandra” amusing because my sister’s name is Alessandra.

JudyJ
JudyJ

Commodore Toby Williamson is the Chief Executive at Fishmongers Hall i.e. he employed the ‘heroes’ whom he names and describes in his very peculiar ‘homage’.

Pam Ryan
Pam Ryan

It is entirely possible that this is a hoax. Anyone who doubts it should think back to the barking insanity that was the Skirpal narrative last year. It was one huge hoax, which became more unhinged by the day. By the time it started to fade from the headlines, the entire story had all the credibility of a fairy tale told by a dead talking zombie cat. Yet no one in the Pravda MSM challenged any of it. Shows you what they’re capable when ever they fear a loss of power and influence. Ditto Russiagate.

Petra Liverani

Pam, I think the more accurate way to put it is, “It is impossible that it is a real event.”

RobG

Pam, good point to bring in the Salisbury poisonings (which were so ridiculous it’s embarrassing).