Coincidents and Probabilities

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


How do you take the "official" story of what happened and not scrutinize the evidence it presents? I'm sure you've at least read the entire report.

Think about this, four planes out of an assload of planes are hijacked by TURRURISTS and now we somehow know it was an organization we created back in '86 to fight off Russia from the border at S. Ossetia? We also know everyone involved and tons of information about them and how they did it...?

Where the crap did that come from?? OH RIGHT the passport and lists of names on a piece of paper. I forgot.

And if you read my original post on this board, I have more than just coincidences, I have actually claims substantiated by fact.

[edit on 31-3-2010 by BladeDraven]

I really wish they taught statistics in high school.

Let's assume that these urban legends were true for the sake of this thread.

Then, in that case it MUST be aknowledged that each event is MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, in such that none of them are dependent on each other in that case, the odds are quite different.

For example, many say that the odds are better to be killed by lightning than to win 1 million dollars in the lottery. That would be an incorrect assumption.

90 people per year die in the United States every year from lightning or a chance of 1 in 3,500,000 approx! (www.unitedjustice.com...)

Your chance to win the Powerball is 1 in 195,000,000! (www.durangobill.com...).

Spend a little time educating yourself before posting please!

"It is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it" - quote

reply to post by ArcAngel


Nice to hear your input!

However I'm afraid you're absolutely wrong.

Unless I'm misreading into this, most of these points work in direct cooperation with one another piece by piece to put together a grand picture of the actual events. My original post does exactly that, and I don't why people are poorly debating semantics instead of content.

[edit on 31-3-2010 by BladeDraven]

Originally posted by ArcAngel
I really wish they taught statistics in high school.

Let's assume that these urban legends were true for the sake of this thread.

Which are you referring to as "urban legends" exactly?

And yes, I wish they taught statistics too, because your stats on winning the lottery or being struck by lightning have nothing to do with anything posted in this thread, and are called "straw men."

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
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.

You are making a very basic confusion of logic here. Proving the official story does not depend upon a lack of evidence for anything else. It requires its own positive proof, which no one is ever capable of producing. So you're right that there is no evidence whatsoever but you're changing the subject when you direct it to conspiracy theories instead of what you yourself believe.

And I'm sure you are capable of despising Muslims even without the government and media, but in reality you know that's exactly why you do. I know it doesn't run in your genetics and I really doubt they have made it their mission to annoy you individually in your personal life.

Bottom line: if there's no evidence of conspiracy I can't as a rational person suspect there is one.

You just claimed on the last page that the solution to issue of all the "coincidental" war games and federal exercises mimicking the attacks that morning is to just not think about them at all. You're not even looking for evidence and it's obvious that you're not. If you don't WANT to know anything other than 9/11 was perpetrated by Muslims, then that's fine, but I don't understand how you can't see your own hypocrisy when you say I'm just going by pre-conceived ideas when you actively avoid thinking about certain things for that exact same reason.

You forgot to mention CNN and the BBC "predicting" the collapse of Building 7 earlier in the day. What are the chances of two media outlets correctly predicting the collapse of a building which was not struck by an airliner. They either jumped the gun on the "Official Media Script" or were conditioning the gullible TV viewers to think there was nothing odd about this highly unlikely event.

The Laws of Physics, coincidentally were suspended on 9/11......changing instead to some magical day of trickery, sleight of hand and maybe a dash of alchemy......

Enormous office buildings, for example, suddenly and inexplicably acquired the ability to drop into their own footprints with no assistance from demolitions experts. Five-story masonry buildings suddenly acquired the extraordinary ability to swallow enormous airliners without leaving behind an appropriate entry hole or any trace of aircraft wreckage. And now we find, perhaps most amazingly of all, that the ground itself somehow also acquired the ability to swallow commercial aircraft. On that fateful day, and only on that day, a 100+ ton airplane measuring 155 feet long, 125 feet wide and 45 feet tall disappeared into a crater measuring, at most, "about 30 to 40 feet long, 15 to 20 feet wide and 18 feet deep."

Any skilled magician, I suppose, could make an airplane disappear into a building. But making an entire airplane disappear without a trace in an empty field? I have to admit that that is pretty impressive.
And, coincidentally, all took place on September 11 2001.....never before..


Coincidence???

Originally posted by ArcAngel
I really wish they taught statistics in high school.

Let's assume that these urban legends were true for the sake of this thread.

Then, in that case it MUST be aknowledged that each event is MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, in such that none of them are dependent on each other in that case, the odds are quite different.

For example, many say that the odds are better to be killed by lightning than to win 1 million dollars in the lottery. That would be an incorrect assumption.

90 people per year die in the United States every year from lightning or a chance of 1 in 3,500,000 approx! (www.unitedjustice.com...)

Your chance to win the Powerball is 1 in 195,000,000! (www.durangobill.com...).

Spend a little time educating yourself before posting please!

"It is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it" - quote

I thought that a 1 in 3,500,000 chance was better odds than 1 in 195,000,000 thus making the odds of getting struck my lighting better than winning the lottery???

Well spotted there afterall ...!!

Hahaha......

Great Final Quote too in your last sentence ArcAngel.....the one about fools....

ow, and the 'getting educated' bit was a close second.....!!

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
You forgot to mention CNN and the BBC "predicting" the collapse of Building 7 earlier in the day. What are the chances of two media outlets correctly predicting the collapse of a building which was not struck by an airliner. They either jumped the gun on the "Official Media Script" or were conditioning the gullible TV viewers to think there was nothing odd about this highly unlikely event.

Thanks for this coincidence. I had forgotten about it.

And thanks to you and all others who have chimed in here.

Originally posted by bsbray11

You are making a very basic confusion of logic here. Proving the official story does not depend upon a lack of evidence for anything else. It requires its own positive proof, which no one is ever capable of producing.

The only "official story" that exists is the massive, multiple lines of evidence converging on the conclusions of what happened on 9/11. No one has actually refuted that evidence nor has anyone produced any valid reasons for yet another investigation. To assert that no positive proof and evidence has been produced is just an attempt to deny that evidence and shift the burden of proof. It has never worked and will never work.

As always, you are welcome to refute that evidence and bring positive evidence for your own claims to the table. I would welcome the opportunity to see your evidence.


[edit on 5-4-2010 by jthomas]

Originally posted by jthomas
The only "official story" that exists is the massive, multiple lines of evidence converging on the conclusions of what happened on 9/11.

That is a lie and you know it, because every time I ask you what this evidence is you immediately divert away, and cannot provide it, and then try to put the burden onto someone else.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
The only "official story" that exists is the massive, multiple lines of evidence converging on the conclusions of what happened on 9/11.

That is a lie and you know it, because every time I ask you what this evidence is you immediately divert away, and cannot provide it, and then try to put the burden onto someone else.

Actually, I ask you to demonstrate the validity of your claims.

I have nothing to prove, after all. YOU do. They're your claims.

reply to post by jthomas


Most here have retreated from the point where they actually pretend to "know" anything, or put forward any counter theories, because they realise they are untenable.

Instead they're just "asking questions", or "showing the flaws" in some gigantic straw man they've constructed. There will never be a counter theory because the evidence doesn't exist for one.

reply to post by jthomas


I know you already understand the situation, it's just that your last and only hope to keep your game face is to keep trying to force the burden of proof back onto us, we who never even claimed to do any investigation to begin with.

Meanwhile, you will claim endlessly that there is so much evidence, infinite irrefutable evidence, that you can't even show us any of it despite being asked hundreds of times.


So now and forever, carved in stone.

I never did an investigation.

The feds did a small handful, that proved little and nothing significant, and there are still many unanswered questions.

You can't answer them. It's not my burden to prove they have not been answered, as this is obvious by the fact that you or no one else CAN answer them factually.


Whenever you are done playing dumb, and realize the burden of proof is yours now since you want to defend the investigations done so far, will be fine with me.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas

 

I know you already understand the situation, it's just that your last and only hope to keep your game face is to keep trying to force the burden of proof back onto us, we who never even claimed to do any investigation to begin with.

The investigations have been done. The conclusions have been reached. The reports have been published. The burden of proof is on those who challenge them. There's no mystery there.

Meanwhile, you will claim endlessly that there is so much evidence, infinite irrefutable evidence, that you can't even show us any of it despite being asked hundreds of times.

The NIST and ASCE investigations are what you claim contain no evidence. Good luck with that one.



[edit on 6-4-2010 by jthomas]

Originally posted by jthomas
The investigations have been done. The conclsuions have bee reached. The reports have been published. The burden of proof is on those who challenge them. There's no mystery there.

There is an endless mystery here.

Every time I ask what exactly they have concluded and how, you bottle up and start saying that's my job to figure out.

Will be waiting on you to demonstrate that scientific conclusions have been reached. That's much simpler than asking me to debunk and entire 10,000+ report page by page.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
The investigations have been done. The conclusions have bee reached. The reports have been published. The burden of proof is on those who challenge them. There's no mystery there.

Every time I ask what exactly they have concluded and how, you bottle up and start saying that's my job to figure out.

On the contrary. You are quite capable of reading them yourself and pointing out that with which you disagree and why.

If you haven't read them and don't know with what to disagree then you really can't make the claims you have been making.

Yes, indeed, the burden of proof is just as much on those who challenge the evidence and conclusions of the investigations as it is on Creationists challenging evolutionary biology.

Originally posted by jthomas
Yes, indeed, the burden of proof is just as much on those who challenge the evidence and conclusions of the investigations as it is on Creationists challenging evolutionary biology.

The difference is when creationists ask what evidence evolution is based on, they can get responses showing them exactly what evidence it is based on.


Every time I ask you what evidence the NIST report is based on, for example, you can't answer. Because they didn't prove anything, they just tried to support a hypothesis with computer models whose parameters they kept manipulating and even admitted as much.

But if I'm missing something I'm all ears jthomas. Show me what NIST proves.


If you can't start manning up and putting up when you should just be shutting up, I'm going to just put you on ignore. These endless circles are wasting my time, go nowhere, and if your posts just go unanswered I don't think anyone other than you is really going to care. You never argue anything reasonable or EVER offer to justify your own claims. Your whole shtick is making everyone else prove everything and then obfuscating and diverting whenever the burden rolls your way for a change.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
Yes, indeed, the burden of proof is just as much on those who challenge the evidence and conclusions of the investigations as it is on Creationists challenging evolutionary biology.

The difference is when creationists ask what evidence evolution is based on, they can get responses showing them exactly what evidence it is based on.

Every time I ask you what evidence the NIST report is based on, for example, you can't answer. Because they didn't prove anything, they just tried to support a hypothesis with computer models whose parameters they kept manipulating and even admitted as much.

So you just made a claim about the NIST report. Now all you have to do is support your claim and demonstrate that the conclusions are invalid.

You see why the burden of proof is on your shoulders, I would hope.