Thanks for your comment, @edicted. You know, I came to a similar conclusion as yourself about the seemingly flexible Occam’s razor. First, I went into it from the perspective that a well-calculated conspiracy would not be the best instance to apply the law too. A superbly performed conspiracy would imply one thing, yet make it happen via something unorthodox, so unorthodox that the most simple answer would be incorrect by design.

This is especially true in the case of false flags that convince an entire population about "who done it." On September 11th the conspirators did a piss-poor job. Then as I was writing, I decided to show that one could just as easily use the tool to pare down any unnecessary elements of a conspiracy contaminated with potential disinformation.

It's kind of like taking that poisoned well water and running it through a filter so as not to taint one’s perspective on the solid elements. I tell you my immediate reaction, and I noticed this recently when I’m first introduced to a conspiracy and it’s the more out there version, then it closes your mind off to the plausible parts. So I’m now actively trying to be careful as to not throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to considering these things.

I'm hoping I didn't misuse the concept. If I did, I did so in an attempt to make an accurate measurement. I'm not sure whether I was measuring the correct things or using the tool well. Hopefully, Occam's isn't the duct tape of philosophical concepts. (Extremely useful no matter who you are and how you apply it.) That might be something worth examining at a later time, as your illustration really brings that to the fore.