7/7 Exercise - why would they have pretend bombers?

I've just read this through, and congrats to AgentSmith in the face of adversity. Honestly guys this is a non-story. A simultaneous attack on the tube is probably the most predictable attack Al-Q could make, exercises based around a terrorist bombing have occured constantly since 9/11. The odds of 3 x 10e24 or whatever are ludicrous. The odds of this happening are probably more like 50/50 when you take into account how many crisis exercises occur all the time.

Also, we have pictures of 4 bombers travelling together to KX, then they split up, then they're all (or at least 3 of them) found at the sites of the bombings in 3 distinct areas of London. The chances of them not being involved and in someway being a scapegoat are pretty damn slim.

I'm not convinced by this talk about a training exercise at all. Not one jot. Conspiracy theorys need to pick on interesting facts, not random coincidences...

50/50 Huh ??

So if anyone bombs the London underground then there is a 50/50 chance that there will be an anti terrorist exercise aimed at exactly the same time and place as the bombing?

That's the same as saying that no matter where you are on the London Underground, at any time there is a 50/50 chance of there being an anti terrorist exercise going on involving your exact location?

Which is the same as saying that 50% of the London underground is, at any given moment, the subject of an anti terrorist exercise.

I think not.

Congratulations for courage in the face of logical adversity




[edit on 20-7-2005 by Roy Robinson Stewart]

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
50/50 Huh ??

So if anyone bombs the London underground then there is a 50/50 chance that there will be an anti terrorist exercise aimed at exactly the same time and place as the bombing?

That's the same as saying that no matter where you are on the London Underground, at any time there is a 50/50 chance of there being an anti terrorist exercise going on involving your exact location?

Which is the same as saying that 50% of the London underground is, at any given moment, the subject of an anti terrorist exercise.

I think not.

Congratulations for courage in the face of logical adversity

Right, well said. Isn't the estimated Mathematical probabilty of the Drills and attacks coinciding at the exact same times and locations One chance in 3.5 Quattuordecillion? Thats an awfully big number, and even if you shave about 10 Zero's off it it still equates to a much, much, much, smaller chance than 50/50!

FatherLukeDuke says it all when he said (on page 3 of this thread but you chose to ignore it):

Here's another bit of stats that will show the fallacy of this reasoning. What are the chances I was wearing brown shoes at the same minute the bombs went off:

Well lets take this over a 10 year period (no reason at all to do this, but the original calculation did).

I have not worn brown shoes in the last 10 years and I only bought them from the Moorgate (these coincidences are everywhere if you look) M&S the day before. I put them on at 8 that morning and therefore had been wearing them for 60 minutes out of the last 5,256,000 minutes - so there is a 1 in 87600 "chance" I would have been wearing them at 9:00AM on the morning. And the "chance" that the bombs went off at 9:00AM (during that minute) are just 1 in 5,256,000 therefore the "chances" that I was wearing my brown shoes at the same minute as the bombings was:

1 in 460425600000

Well those odds are very unlikely, so I can't have been wearing my brown shoes. But I was. Obviously this calculation is pure nonsense, but so is the one to calculate the chances of there being a emergency traiuning drill at the same time as a real attack.

The way it was calculated gives a misleading answer.

1) You would not have every single line in London in the calculation, as the number that are likely to be attacked is smaller.

2) You would not have every single hour/minute in the day in the calculation as it is only likely to happen in a rush hour and the morning one makes sense to cause more disruption to the day. This leaves a window of about 1-2 hours. Closer to 1.

I can't remember what other figures they used without bothering to look, but these two points alone show how the person that made the calculation didn't really know what they were doing.

The chances of there being a simulated exercise of an attack on the underground is probably about 50%. If this simulated exercise really was "a bomb at Aldgate, a bomb between Russel Square and KX, and a bomb at Edgware, at exactly 8:50AM, with a further bomb on a bus at 9:47AM" then I might admit that it's suspicious. But I haven't seen ANY evidence for this whatsoever. Just the guy doing the exercise saying the similarities are spooky. Well if I was involved in a simulated terrorist attack on the same days as a terrorist attack, I'd agree it was pretty spooky! BUT, there's no way that .3x10e24 is at all a sensible estimate for the probability. It's ludicrous!

Originally posted by dom
The chances of there being a simulated exercise of an attack on the underground is probably about 50%.

Another 50/50 theorist!

So according to Smith's idea, if you find yourself , during rush hour, anywhere in Smith's 'areas that are likely to be attacked' then there is a 50/50 chance of there being an anti terrorist exercise running which is aimed at your exact location?

In other words during rush hour any potential bombing targets on the underground are the subject of an anti terrorist exercise 50% of the time.

Now that is surely just as ludicrous!

[edit on 20-7-2005 by Roy Robinson Stewart]

groups.yahoo.com...

Oh, and just in case you were wondering about the odds let's have a look at the maths between this stupid probability of coincidence calculation...

The probability calculated on this page is the probabiliy of 3 bombs exploding at 8:50AM on the 7th July at the same time as a drill involving 3 bombs at the exact same stations in the same hour on the same day. The problem is that the probability of there being a bomb attack at 8:50AM on 7th July involving those 3 stations is indeed pretty low. In fact, it's about 6x10^-21. BUT it happened. So actually the probability of this event is now 1. Because we know that the event occured. So we can divide through the final answer by the very large number quoted on that page. That takes the probability right down to 3x10^18:1 against the original 3x10^36:1 against.

This is all approximate BTW.

Anyway, the other big number has a few assumptions involved... The probability of a drill involving an LU station is listed as 817K:1 against for any single hour, which assumes that only 10 drills have occured in the last 5 years. Well we already know from the guy in this case that he'd had a number of scenarios for that mornings walkthrough, he probably does this once a week at least, there may be 50 companies doing the same thing. Which means 62500 drills in 5 years, not 10! Which takes the probability of a drill down to 12 to 1 against in any one hour. But let's also remember that it's much more likely that Al-Q would hit during the morning rush hour, in fact I'd say 9/10 scenarios would probably involve a morning rush hour attack. Therefore the probability of a drill on any one day is about 1.0 . That's a pretty normal probability.

So the probability of the two occuring together is currently 1.0. Not guaranteed to happen, but you'd be unwise to bet against it.

The remaining odds on that page involve the probability of the drill being exactly the same as the attack. But I've seen no evidence that that is the case here. The much quoted interview involves the guy saying that it was a simulated attack on underground AND mainline stations! Which certainly isn't the same! So basically, the whole argument is bollocks.

I thank you.

Originally posted by dom
groups.yahoo.com...

Oh, and just in case you were wondering about the odds let's have a look at the maths between this stupid probability of coincidence calculation...

The probability calculated on this page is the probabiliy of 3 bombs exploding at 8:50AM on the 7th July at the same time as a drill involving 3 bombs at the exact same stations in the same hour on the same day. The problem is that the probability of there being a bomb attack at 8:50AM on 7th July involving those 3 stations is indeed pretty low. In fact, it's about 6x10^-21. BUT it happened. So actually the probability of this event is now 1. Because we know that the event occured.

Agreed

Anyway, the other big number has a few assumptions involved... The probability of a drill involving an LU station is listed as 817K:1 against for any single hour, which assumes that only 10 drills have occured in the last 5 years. Well we already know from the guy in this case that he'd had a number of scenarios for that mornings walkthrough, he probably does this once a week at least, there may be 50 companies doing the same thing. Which means 62500 drills in 5 years, not 10!

"Probably does this once a week?" !!

"there may be 50 companies doing it" !!

Not a very accurate calculation there sorry.

So the probability of the two occuring together is currently 1.0.

OOPs you forgot the 'Probably Maybe' factor which you slipped in back there

So basically, the whole argument is bollocks.

Surely you forgot to say 'Probably maybe' bollocks??. . . . . .

. . . . there's the small point of the 'Probably maybe' factor which you based your calculation on back there!

I thank you.

My pleasure, but don't miss those 'probably maybes' next time!!



[edit on 20-7-2005 by Roy Robinson Stewart]

[edit on 20-7-2005 by Roy Robinson Stewart]

Oh please, the probability isn't necessarily 1.0. But look at it this way, if we assume 1000 events occur constantly at an even gap over 1000 days. Then we can guarantee that an event will occur in any one day, i.e. the probability is one.

In this case that doesn't hold because the events don't occur at an even gap, they're independent random events, but I'm not going into poisson distribution calculations here because I really cannot be bothered, but basically, the probability isn't that low. The query really is how many security companies run drills based around terrorist attacks. As far as I'm aware there are an awful lot of companies in central london that do this, if they didn't do it you'd have to wonder why!!

So one drill per day? I don't think that's unlikely.

So yes, the probability isn't one, but I think the probability of the two occuring on the same day isn't *that* unlikely. It certainly isn't 3x10^36:1 against which is what some people are claiming here!!!

Your assumption back there is actually that there are 50 anti terrorist exercises per week on the underground.

Agent Smith should be keen to check if this is true or not

Yeah, something's gone a bit awry somewhere in my approximations, must have dropped a 0 somewhere. But who can blame me with all those 0's everywhere!!

The point remains the same. The probability isn't 3x10e36 against, it's more likely 50:50, at worst 10:1 against. Not enough to prove government collusion in my opinion...

As I pointed out this whole probability argument is pointless, unless you want to imply that me wearing brown shoes somehow caused the bombing. If you "government did it" types had your way with stats all murderers would get away with it in court. Here's what I mean:

For the sake of argument lets just say I've just killed my wife with a kitchen knife and the police have walked in to find me hovering over her body with her blood over me. Now you might think this would be an open and shut case. However I get to court and make this argument: How many times have I killed my wife with a knife? Never. How many times has my wife been killed with a knife? Never. Therefore, based on these statistics, what are the chances that I killed my wife? Well, they must be zero.

Do you really think the judge and jury are going sit there and go "Hmm, he's got a point, he must be innocent". Well, no. That is because court cases are not based on a perceived probability of some event occuring, but on evidence.

Now, can someone give me one bit of evidence that there is a connection between the emergency planning exercise and the actual bombing? If not then it is pure coincidence, and not a very big one at that considering the amount of training excerises that happen every day in London.

Also no one has addressed my point about how exactly these 4 very religious men were duped into carrying bombs on to the London underground. Now what are the odds against that happening?!?

www.atsnn.com...

BRITISH police are considering the possibility that the four key suspects in last week's London attacks may have been tricked into setting off their bombs, a British newspaper has reported.

"We do not have hard evidence that the men were suicide bombers," a Scotland Yard spokesman told The Sunday Telegraph.
"It is possible that they did not intend to die."

I love it how you guys think you have all the answers and you "close the book" on what really happened before the Police do. That only shows you're close minded.

Interesting point, but:

1) It does still not mean that the men were not intending to plant bombs, it just means they may not have intended to die with them.

2) It does not provide any evidence for the theory that the government planned it, in fact it would not make sense for them to release this info if they had.

3) It does not mean they did not know they were planting bombs.

4) It still does not change the fact that there was no reason for pretend bombers in the exercise, which is what this thread was about.


[edit on 20-7-2005 by AgentSmith]

Also no one has addressed my point about how exactly these 4 very religious men were duped into carrying bombs on to the London underground. Now what are the odds against that happening?!?

Aahh, FatherLukeDuke. It's always nice to see masters of denial get on the threads. Where is Howard by the way? Not still trying to convince people of the official line on 911 by reproducing corny Government documents that nobody in their right minds around these parts believe, surely?

I haave quoted that statistical pobability myself, but it can obviously lead to arguments based on statistical probabilities, which is a diversionist disinfo technique. Anybody who has the slightest intelligence and the willingness to apply a bit of common sense will understand the extreme implausibility of the idea that a bunch of terrorists will have chosen to bomb exactly the same location at the same time and on the same date as an exercise.
The majority of average people giving it a bit of thinking time and no denial through pre-formed concepts and prejudices, would (and do) see the idea of a coincidence being a lame claim. I know, I've talked to lots of so-called sheeple in the last couple of weeks, and people know, you know, they can begin to see what's happening.

Very religious people, huh?, that's what you do when you're very religious is it? Blow people up?

The obvious fact of the matter is that the content of the exercise and the four guys were controlled in some way by a third party

Obvious anyway, to anyone who isn't an idiot or a manipulator

Duplicate post

[edit on 20-7-2005 by AgentSmith]

Your avoiding his question:

How were four intelligent, Muslim men convinced that it would be a good idea to meet up in Luton, take a bunch of rucksacks without even one of them having a good rummage inside (a bomb isn't exactly small) and travel to London, to then split up on the trains.

No-one would do that, especially not a bunch of people that are already at the risk of unfair persecution simply due to their origins.
And especially not intelligent people.
I wouldn't do it, are you saying you would? If you would do anything like that without question then one must question your intelligence generally and therefore the significance of your opinion.

They were probably set up in that they didn't expect the bombs to go off when they did, but they more than likely knew they were setting bombs.

You'd have to find the biggest bunch of naive, numpty morons to be able to carry off a plan like what is being proposed. And they weren't, unless the reports of them being clever are in fact government dis-information as well.

If this was a court of law then I'm afraid you wouldn't stand a chance of 'winning'.
Evidence speaks, not 'co-incidences' and you have none.

And it may not be a co-incidence, but it does not automatically mean the government is involved.
Who was the company that was having the exercise?
Who works for them and the company that organises the training?
Who did they talk to?
Who do they know?
What connections do they have?

Lots of questions to ask but none of it means the government did it and none of it means the terrorists were innocent.

Why not just give it a break and wait for more evidence to support your claim? If your right then it's bound to turn up eventually and then I will apologise and let you have your moment without any hassle.

But until it does you may as well just accept your theory is based on some crackpots interpretation of probability and your own views against this country and it's government..



[edit on 20-7-2005 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by dh
Very religious people, huh?, that's what you do when you're very religious is it? Blow people up?

Err actually some people do look at it that way.. yes. where have you been since, err, the dawn of man?

Look at the conflicts in Ireland and between Ireland and the UK
Look at the extremist white Christians that blow up abortion clinics and kill doctors.
Look at what's going on in the Middle East EVERY DAY!
Just read the Bible! (OK they didn't have bombs then but you get the drift).

Wake up for God's sake (no pun intended).

Originally posted by dh
Aahh, FatherLukeDuke. It's always nice to see masters of denial get on the threads.

Ah, I'm a "master" now? I would be flattered if it wasn't coming from you.

I haave quoted that statistical pobability myself, but it can obviously lead to arguments based on statistical probabilities, which is a diversionist disinfo technique.

Well you are the one who brought up the statistics, so by that logic you must be the "disinfo" agent.

Very religious people, huh?, that's what you do when you're very religious is it? Blow people up?

If you read my post properly you would understand that I neither said nore implied this. What I did say was that it is unbelievable that people with such strong Islamic convictions would ever agree to take part in an excercise organised by the authorities. I also said they would have to wildly naive to have fallen for the proposed plot and agreed to carry on "fake" bombs. We will see what the investigation turns up.

To reply to a previous post about the bombers being "duped" into thinking they would get out alive: yes there does seem to be some good evidence for this. Maybe the "controller" of the plot told them the bombs were due to go off later, knowing full well they would be killed in the blast. This would be a "perfect" crime in some ways as the bombers may well have been the only people who knew his identity and they would take this knowledge with them to the grave. If they had survived they would surely have been caught very quickly.

Obvious anyway, to anyone who isn't an idiot or a manipulator

Well yes, just about everyone else in the UK is an idiot and you are right.

Sorry, my intended reply came out entirely technically weird and I had to get rid
But I was most miffed at being called an extremist
Being dropped loosely into the conversation, that's a bit of an accusation
One that as this issue expands could get you hung
So as the official lies continue to embed themselves into people's brains, let me just say this
People, ordinary not-very-political people are waking up - they are starting to understand how Tony Blair, a dissembling 33 degree mason with a given agenda, an intelligent but controlled puppet, is a mass-murderer without any kind of conscience or empathy for human beings
He ordered this event through his advisors and controllers
It's not difficult to see
The bombers and consultancy were controlled from the same source

Oh yeah - and that 'give it a break' comment
What does that mean? Shut up?



[edit on 20-7-2005 by dh]

[edit on 20-7-2005 by dh]

[edit on 20-7-2005 by dh]

[edit on 20-7-2005 by dh]