According to wikipedia “Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory……This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one," or alternately, "we should not assert that for which we do not have some proof." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities……Thus, if two theories are equally accurate and neither appears more probable than the other, the simple one is to be preferred over the complicated one, because simplicity is practical.”
This theory is often used by 9-11 “Debunkers” as the be all and end all of arguments to support their case. Usually postulating that a government plot to attack and kill it’s own people is so impossible and complicated that it couldn’t possibly be true. However, “Resorting to the importance of Occam's Razor within the limits of inductive arguments still leaves open problems of formulation; "the simplest explanation tends to be the best" is a hardly formally precise statement and cannot be used, as is, to rigorously compare two competing hypotheses.” and “Albert Einstein probably had this in mind when he wrote in 1933 that "The supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience" often paraphrased as "Theories should be as simple as possible, but no simpler." It often happens that the best explanation is much more complicated than the simplest possible explanation because its postulations amount to less of an improbability. Thus the popular rephrasing of the razor - that "the simplest explanation is the best one" - fails to capture the gist of the reason behind it, in that it conflates a rigorous notion of simplicity and ease of human comprehension. The two are obviously correlated, but hardly equivalent.”
So keeping this in mind, let’s reduce the elements of some 9-11 Truth theories and try to apply Occam’s Razor, assuming two theories (Official theory and 9-11 Truth theory) are equally possible. Try to imagine you’re in school 10 plus years ago, and each scenario is completely hypothetical, unrelated and new to you. Pretend your teacher is posing these questions in a multiple choice pop-quiz. Let’s start with the most observable element of 9-11, the buildings’ collapse.

1.   3 steel and concrete skyscrapers collapse at freefall speed, almost perfectly symmetrical, into their own footprints.

A)   Airplane impact + Fire destroys 2 buildings (first time in history), Fire alone destroys the third building (also first time in history).

B)   Pre-planted demolitions take out the buildings floor by floor.

2.   19 hijackers on the terrorist watch lists enter the U.S.A. , are flagged as           terrorists,  allowed entry regardless (customs agent being told they were part of a training exercise), get drivers licenses (listing their address as an army base) and flight training in the U.S.

A)   Through “cock-ups”, lack of communication between departments                     and  ignored intelligence + memos, they somehow slipped through the cracks.

B)   They were knowingly allowed into the country.

3.   The Pentagon is struck by something. 80-odd cameras are pointing at it. All video except 4 frames from 1 camera is confiscated and never shown to the public for more than 6 years.

A)   Nothing of interest on the tapes.

B)   Something to hide on the tapes.


4.   Norman Mineta testified before Congress that VP Dick Cheney ordered a       stand-down for intercepting the flight heading to the Pentagon.

A)   He was hoping the hijacked plane would un-hijack itself.

B)   He wanted the attack to succeed.

5.   The FBI, who is normally responsible for investigating federal crimes and  indicting those believed to be responsible for said crimes, do not accuse or indict Osama bin Laden for the 9-11 attacks.

A)   They have evidence he was responsible for 9-11

B)   They have NO evidence he was responsible for 9-11


Ok I could go on but let’s stop here. This is the method  where Occam’s Razor is applicable, not the overall master-plan. Otherwise, to say that “criminal elements that have infiltrated the government carried out an attack against their own people to further their global agenda” is too complicated to be possible, is like saying “The Universe revolves around the Earth because anything else is too complicated”.  This is where the Razor fails logic. If you answered B to ONE of these questions then we need a new investigation into the events surrounding 9-11. If you didn’t, put on the “Dunce” cap and go sit in the corner.