It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Coincidents and Probabilities

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
9/11 was a very weird day of very slim probabilities all happening on that day, or relative to that day, both before and after. I list here a number of ones I came up with. Please don't go to the effort to try and "debunk" the list - there's plenty of that on other threads. The point here is an examination of probability and coincidence.


  • Military “war game” being enacted with the same scenario as 9/11 on 9/11

  • Condi Rice stating that it never occurred to the government that planes might be used as weapons – despite the military war games with the same scenario

  • Rescue work called off when the gold was found

  • Biggest crime scene in history cleaned up before forensics and investigation are done

  • FBI knowing where to find all CCTV cameras in the Pentagon area

  • Planes disintegrating upon impact

  • Cheney insisting orders (to do nothing) still stood as incoming craft approached the Pentagon

  • The Pentagon hit – via a very difficult maneuver – in the one area mostly cleared of personnel

  • Buildings “collapsed” exactly like controlled demolition (virtually freefall speeds)

  • Building 7 came down with no plane hit

  • Barges were ready to ship debris to China

  • Most surveiled building in the world (Pentagon) produces only a few frames of inconclusive images

  • Many heard series of explosions before all three buildings came down

  • First time in history fire brought down a steel-frame high rise – brings down three in one day

  • The bomb-sniffing dogs were removed days before the incident

  • The chunky molten metal behavior filmed on one Tower that looks just like a thermite/steel reaction

  • The complete powdering of the concrete

  • Steel beams cut in transportable lengths

  • Explosions experienced in basement area before initial plane impact

  • Untimely death of many witnesses and activists

  • By-stander witnesses interviewed that day were mainly in the media

  • Bush family member closely associated with the security firm at the Towers

  • Chertoff relative writes a major debunking piece

  • Refusal of Bush and Cheney to testify under oath and publicly

  • The avoidance of any investigation giving way over a year later to a very limited glance-over


Any one of these things alone (and there are others I can’t think of off the top of my head) has a low probability of occurring – and alone would mean little – yet when combined, the probability of all of these things taking place as per the official story becomes astronomical relative to that day. If, however, one looks at the probabilities with the assumption that there was a conspiracy within our government, the odds drop to about 1:1.

I would love to have all of you offer other "probability anomalies" and we can see if they support the OS, or the Conspiracy.

EDIT: to add bullets.

[edit on 3/30/2010 by Amaterasu]




posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Wouldn't it be required first that before you calculate the "probability" of these coincidences you should first firmly established that these events and associations actually occured?

I mean I could sit here and make things up too and then act all incredulous that they should occur simultaneously with the events of 9/11 but that would be a fairly meaningless activity.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Wouldn't it be required first that before you calculate the "probability" of these coincidences you should first firmly established that these events and associations actually occured?

I mean I could sit here and make things up too and then act all incredulous that they should occur simultaneously with the events of 9/11 but that would be a fairly meaningless activity.


Well... Let us say that I have done plenty of research, and to the best of my ability, have acertained that all are true. If you have any clear evidence that any one line item is untrue (like Condi's statement, maybe?), please bring it forth. Be that as it may, most are known to be true in the general public, and even if you hack out five or so items, the probabilities are only a small amount less astronomical for the OS, and 1:1 for a conspiracy.

So give that tack a rest.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Any complex event will have outliers and "coincidences". Four simultaneous, highly complex events and the resultant reactions to them are certain to generate outliers and coincidences. However, attempting to define or dissect these highly complex events by examining the outliers is illogical. Specifically when each one has been checked out by conspiracy theorists for nearly nine years now and has yielded absolutely nothing in the way of tangible evidence.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Wouldn't it be required first that before you calculate the "probability" of these coincidences you should first firmly established that these events and associations actually occured?

I mean I could sit here and make things up too and then act all incredulous that they should occur simultaneously with the events of 9/11 but that would be a fairly meaningless activity.


Well... Let us say that I have done plenty of research, and to the best of my ability, have acertained that all are true. If you have any clear evidence that any one line item is untrue (like Condi's statement, maybe?), please bring it forth. Be that as it may, most are known to be true in the general public, and even if you hack out five or so items, the probabilities are only a small amount less astronomical for the OS, and 1:1 for a conspiracy.

So give that tack a rest.


Actually just a quick glance at your list tells me almost none of them are true. They are almost all "truther urban legends", that is to say, rumors that continously circulate in conspiracist circles in the hope that if they are repeat often enough that eventually they will become "factified".

About the only one that isn't is the one about Bush and Cheyney and that isn't a coincidence, that was simply a matter of that administrations policy regarding testimony to an outside agency which most chief executives are very reluctant to do.

Some are true but fall under the category of "half truths" that imply much more than they inform. For instance, the one about Building 7 collapsing even though no plane hit it directly. That's half true. The matter of fact is Building 7 collapsed after being struck with falling debris from the towers and burning fully for hours. The fact that no plane struck that building is wholly irrelevant as a fact in its collapse. Also the one about the planes disintegrating after impact. Why is this a coincidence? In fact, it would be more telling to calculate the odds of a plane hitting a building at close to or over 500 mph and NOT "disintegrating". Now that would be interesting. And the Chertoff one - that just simply isn't true.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Any complex event will have outliers and "coincidences".


There are more "outliers" than they are solid points of data that demonstrate the government version.

Their whole case is built on "outliers."



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   
I've got some to follow in order top down:

a.)Loose Change: The contention that the security was down for 'x' period of time allowing access to the elevators. At first no one for the longest time could figure out how that could be relevant because it meant only two things:

1.) That security was down.
2.) and that if anything were tampered with, someone would have seen something (i.e. tonnes of thermite) being moved throughout the building

b.)However in the international study “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” by Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen which brought up the evidence of nanothermite technology being used we can see a practical application of the concept of thermite being used.

1.) It can be applied by being painted on.
2.) It would look as if routine maintenance or servicing was taking place, arousing 0 suspicion as the mixture was applied to the core columns given access to through elevators?

Other than that premise are the multitude of illogical claims within the official story along with the whistleblowers who helped create the official story within the 9/11 commission. Several members of the commission stated that there was pressure from the Pentagon dictating the "official" information to be used.

1.)Information including terrorist information which seems to have been obtained through the debris. Even though most everything else was literally destroyed including the black boxes of the planes, we did manage to scrape up that passport, because terrorists traveling domestically are going to have that on them at all times, making sure to let it be expelled from the tower to land in the hands of our government (right)
2.)A member of the actual council overseeing the commission verified that there was external pressure to create the report very specifically.
3.)The complete lack of WTC7 being mentioned. Period.

I also find it hairy that Dr. Alan Sabrosky the former Director of Studies at the US Army War College contends Israel's involvment with our governments absolute complicity and CIA coverup.

I find it more hairy that his claims were validated by senior UN diplomat Gordon Duff two weeks later.

I also would like to note the one message board that came out with flight deck data revealing that the cabin deck doors on one of the flights never actually opened post-takeoff which raises the question of whether or not it was highjacked or purposely done. Their data was collected analyzing the binary that I think was transmitted from the plane.

Of UTMOST importance is another development recently discovered in the last two weeks: Our government funded and is funding an intelligence operation with two goals.

1.)Discredit and remove the idea of government involvement in 9/11
2.)Seek out and prosecute government officials or insiders planning to expose information (become whistleblowers) pertaining to alternate knowledge of what happened.

Now for me, I wondered immediately on what grounds anyone would be prosecuted and I guess it goes down to treason? I mean treason of a tyrannical and insane government, but treason by exposing secrets nonetheless will be viewed the same.
I dont believe our government has compassion for the lives of innocents or even citizens, based on what I've seen in the last couple of months and throughout history.

I also know several people who claimed advance knowledge of the attacks were found dead in either suicides or accidents. The accidents were poison, sabotaged planes, crashes. etc.

Needless to say this is my first post on ATS, I've followed the info trail since day one and have been putting pieces together logically ever since. I feel this has honestly come close to being finally put to rest, at least in my head.

Ive read these forums for years from metaphysics to conspiracies, finally decided to speak.

[edit on 30-3-2010 by BladeDraven]



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Some are true but fall under the category of "half truths" that imply much more than they inform. For instance, the one about Building 7 collapsing even though no plane hit it directly. That's half true. The matter of fact is Building 7 collapsed after being struck with falling debris from the towers and burning fully for hours.


"Fully!?!" No, there is no evidence that the total - or even a large percentage of 7 was burning. Many far more spectacular fires, MUCH closer to infernos, have burned for 15-20 hours and not brought down the building they were consuming.


The fact that no plane struck that building is wholly irrelevant as a fact in its collapse.


LOL! You're right. The building lost integrity with a few fires alone (and they go to great lengths to insist that it was the plane impact that initiated the lost of structure in the Towers... [sigh]). And it was, with the Towers, the first time in history that fire brought down a steel frame high rise. THAT is a coincidence, don't you think?


Also the one about the planes disintegrating after impact. Why is this a coincidence? In fact, it would be more telling to calculate the odds of a plane hitting a building at close to or over 500 mph and NOT "disintegrating". Now that would be interesting. And the Chertoff one - that just simply isn't true.


I was speaking of the two planes that did not hit the Towers... But truly, you are picking apart the individual statements - and really can only pick at a very few mentioned, and then claim that Condi didn't say the government never thought of planes as weapons (I guess, since you didn't lump it with the "Bush and Cheney" comment).

And yes, the author of Pop Mech's Debunking 9/11 Myths was found to be a "distant" relative of Michael Chertoff. You're wrong on that.

But this is the last I'm going address remarks that pick apart a line item or two. The point is to put all the parts you know are true and see what probabilities result. You are here, I suspect, to obfuscate and naysay.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by BladeDraven
 


Welcome, BladeDraven. And thank you for your excellent post. You brought up more in the "coincidence" arena, amplifying the fact that government complicity explains the odds far better than the OS.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Thank you kindly, and I honestly find the government story laughable, it's sad because I probably could have done a better job myself. I remember buying the commission report the week it came out, reading it and asking myself little questions here and there. The best term to describe it is inconsistent.

Inconsistent with eyewitness reports, actual events, logical deductions, evidence. etc. etc.

anyway, I used to argue for days on end with the wankers over at screwloosechange.blogspot.com, the arguments would go on and on with same five or six trolls constantly posting in the exact same mannerisms. It was as if one was there to insult my name, one to insult my grammar (which was rare), another to call me a drug user, and the last couple to actually try and argue. When I would eventually corner them (argumentatively speaking) I would find my final post, you know the one you would call the nail in the coffin that totally shows me winning the argument by establishing my claim followed by logical warrants established with clear evidence, and brought together with a precise analysis and flow, would be completely deleted.

I argued multiple topics at once on their blog (by myself as this was way after loose change actually came out and anyone who cared visited the forums) just going at it presenting the latest and best information, and I was flamed out, and erased from the pages of their blogspot. (sad face) So all in all, I'll probably be more welcome providing my input here.


Glad to be here

[edit on 31-3-2010 by BladeDraven]



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Any complex event will have outliers and "coincidences".


There are more "outliers" than they are solid points of data that demonstrate the government version.


Uhhh.... okay

So what "solid points of data" have you presented here? You brought up "coincidences and probabilities" as if they had notable significance.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
So what "solid points of data" have you presented here? You brought up "coincidences and probabilities" as if they had notable significance.


Most of the time they do, and they are not really coincidences at all.

For example when you eat, and you're not hungry anymore, and you notice this pattern over and over, that's not a coincidence.

Similarly when there are air force war games that affect NORAD and FAA radar in the region, FEMA exercises set up around WTC7 the night before 9/11, NRO exercises simulating a plane flying into their HQ near DC, all mimicking the actual attacks and confusing responders, that's very likely not really a coincidence either, just statistically. To believe all those things just happened to line up that day without any relation at all is naive, especially when the NORAD exercises alone only happen once a year and almost always in October (as they originally were scheduled in 2001, but then bumped up to mid September for some reason).

You have to think about this stuff, not just gloss over it with bias and call anyone entertaining it "paranoid."



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
You have to think about this stuff, not just gloss over it with bias and call anyone entertaining it "paranoid."


I have never called anyone paranoid, have I?

I think that, as you claim, "having to think about it" is what makes a coincidence seem as NOT a coincidence to you. If we are to assign that kind of significance to coincidences then any worker who called in sick instead of reporting to the WTC or Pentagon on 9/11 likely should be investigated for foreknowledge, especially if they had higher security clearances or maybe an information-sensitive job.

Most likely, you're assigning real significance to coincidences because you have preconceived notions about events that day and grasp for any oddity to comply with them, especially in light of their being no tangible evidence in favor of any conspiracy. If that is so, bias would detract from any argument presented based of significance of coincidences.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I think that, as you claim, "having to think about it" is what makes a coincidence seem as NOT a coincidence to you.


Right, so the solution to not realizing the massive improbability of it, is to not think about it. That's not really telling me anything I don't already know.


Most likely, you're assigning real significance to coincidences because you have preconceived notions about events that day


That can't be your excuse for me because I originally believed what the media told us, for about two or three years. That was the "pre-conceived notion."



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Right, so the solution to not realizing the massive improbability of it, is to not think about it. That's not really telling me anything I don't already know.


You've determined that a coincidence is "massively improbable" because of the preconceived notions you've developed.


That can't be your excuse for me because I originally believed what the media told us, for about two or three years. That was the "pre-conceived notion."


So now you've decided to believe what... some dubious conspiracy theories backed by no evidence and the importance you place on what you perceive as a preponderance of coincidences? This could only mean that you follow whoever pulls your lanyard harder.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
You've determined that a coincidence is "massively improbable" because of the preconceived notions you've developed.


No, actually these coincidences are among what convinced me we were lied to (ie these facts in themselves turned me away from my pre-conceived ideas about that day), and I know by your own admission above you neglect thinking along these lines intentionally, but it's healthy to challenge your own beliefs to yourself you know.


some dubious conspiracy theories backed by no evidence and the importance you place on what you perceive as a preponderance of coincidences? This could only mean that you follow whoever pulls your lanyard harder.


Take this and look at yourself. What evidence has convinced you that what the government and media have reported is the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Two planes hitting two buildings, and two buildings falling down? Because I believe that happened too. What else do you have? Not much of anything as far as I have seen, though I would love for you to chime in here and tell me what exact evidence has you so damned sure that what you believe is correct. Avoid your own pre-conceptions and lay out the objective, un-opinionated evidence for me, that you think you have.

And who do you think is pulling the "lanyard" harder? Government and mass media, when people have a tendency to take their word for granted anyway out of blind trust and the media actively shapes public opinion by what they report to millions of people, or a totally disorganized "movement" of private citizens, military, and academics who struggle for credibility against government and corporate media? What pulls me the hardest is actual logic and reasoning, which is why I would love to see what specifically has you so confident in your own position in your next post.

[edit on 31-3-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Take this and look at yourself. What evidence has convinced you that what the government and media have reported is the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Two planes hitting two buildings, and two buildings falling down? Because I believe that happened too. What else do you have? Not much of anything as far as I have seen, though I would love for you to chime in here and tell me what exact evidence has you so damned sure that what you believe is correct. Avoid your own pre-conceptions and lay out the evidence for me, that you think you have.


I'm not here to lay out evidence. That's the job of someone presenting alternate claims. If the choice comes down to believing that radical thugs pulled off a suicidal hijack attack or believing it was a conspiracy based on someone's list of coincidences, I'm going with the radical thugs. That actually happens everywhere, happened before 911 and has happened since. I'm not taking my eye off of the proper enemies because a bunch of conspiracy theorists have a list of coincidences and no evidence whatsoever.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I'm not here to lay out evidence. That's the job of someone presenting alternate claims.


Not me. My biggest problem is the fact that you lot can't prove what you believe in the first place, as there has been no legitimate investigation, yet you want others such as myself to prove something to you even though we never had ANY investigative power to probe our concerns.

All I have to prove to you is you have no case. You take evidence for granted and just assume it exists, which is why all you really have is blind faith, no better than the Muslim extremists you have been conditioned to hate for military purposes.

[edit on 31-3-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Most likely, you're assigning real significance to coincidences because you have preconceived notions about events that day and grasp for any oddity to comply with them, especially in light of their being no tangible evidence in favor of any conspiracy. If that is so, bias would detract from any argument presented based of significance of coincidences.


Hi Traditionaldrummer, pleasure to converse with you.

If I may interject, which I am, on what grounds do you dismiss every single fabric of research done into 9/11 as not favoring conspiracy? More specifically the nanothermite material found in the debris all around ground zero. Logically anyone would conclude that not only is that evidence that does NOT coo berate with the official story, but actually provokes ideas that FAVOR a conspiracy.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
You take evidence for granted and just assume it exists, which is why all you really have is blind faith, no better than the Muslim extremists you have been conditioned to hate for military purposes.



Those assumptions are rather offensive. I have not been conditioned to hate for military purposes, operate on blind faith or have any desire to ignore any evidence. I am perfectly capable of despising radical muslim suicidal terrorists on my own and have found no tangible evidence whatsoever despite many claims that there is much of it.

Bottom line: if there's no evidence of conspiracy I can't as a rational person suspect there is one. And after nine years of fanatics searching, each day passing without any makes it even less likely. A collection of coincidences and oddities does nothing to sway the rational individual.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join