Coincidents and Probabilities

reply to post by Amaterasu

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

Didn't happen. Please proove that there was a military exercise that involved four hijacked planes being crashed into the Pentagon, the World Trade Center Towers and a reclaimed strip mine in Pennsylvania.

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

To the "government"? Please reference where she used those words.

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

Actually I would argue that the Holocaust was the biggest crime scene in history.
Please prove 9/11 was cleaned up before the investigation was done.

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

Uh, that's kind of their job. They're "investigators", from Washington, DC. Why is it amazing that an army of FBI agents were capable of finding video cameras. In fact, if it took more than a few hours they should be fired.

Planes disintegrating upon impact

They didn't. Saying it over and over won't make it so.

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

No basis in fact.

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

Thats because "control demolition" causes buildings to, well, collapse.

Building 7 came down with no plane hit

Buildings do occasionally collapse without planes hitting them.

Many heard series of explosions before all three buildings came down

No, many heard loud noises at random intervals before, during and after the collapse.

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

Actually only one was a "steel frame" building.

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

Or buring hot material falling from a burning building. Now how could that have happened.

The complete powdering of the concrete

Huh? This is just not true, its not even close.

Steel beams cut in transportable lengths

Yeah, so they could be transported.

Explosions experienced in basement area before initial plane impact

Nope, didn't happen.

Untimely death of many witnesses and activists

Bull.

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

Not true.

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

And?

Chertoff relative writes a major debunking piece

Ironically, this has been debunked. No known relation, just same last name.

Refusal of Bush and Cheney to testify under oath and publicly

National security and separation of powers, The legisalative branch doesn't depose the executive branch.

reply to post by Amaterasu


You keep using falsehoods or unprovable statements to back yourself up. And yes, I did not address all of the points in your post like....

First time in history that three steel buildings collapsed from fire..........its also the first time that airliners have slammed into high rise office towers and the first time an office building has had another building collapse into it, but for some reason, you dont mention that part...now why is that?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

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

Didn't happen. Please proove that there was a military exercise that involved four hijacked planes being crashed into the Pentagon, the World Trade Center Towers and a reclaimed strip mine in Pennsylvania.

Again, it was an exercise about hijacked planes. Maybe you should read what I posted to the previous poster.

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

To the "government"? Please reference where she used those words.

Let's not play semantics here, hoop. Really. It just makes you look bad. You may note that I did not place quotes around anything there. Here is her exact quote:

"I don't think anyone could have predicted that they would have tried to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."

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

Please prove 9/11 was cleaned up before the investigation was done.

Interesting... I watched a video of a member of the initial forensics team complaining that they has been given a small load of "evidence" taken from the scene and were not allowed to examine the scene itself. That was in 2001 or 2002. I can no longer locate it. But from that I am certain that the initial forensics were at best, sloppy. And not really crime scene forensics.

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

Uh, that's kind of their job. They're "investigators", from Washington, DC. Why is it amazing that an army of FBI agents were capable of finding video cameras. In fact, if it took more than a few hours they should be fired.

All of them?!? In three hours!?! Come now. Only if they knew in advance...

Planes disintegrating upon impact

They didn't. Saying it over and over won't make it so.

Close enough as makes no difference.

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

No basis in fact.

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

Thats because "control demolition" causes buildings to, well, collapse.

Ah. So you're saying that the towers and 7 collapsed because they were taken down with controlled demolition? Well, that's what it looks like to me.

Building 7 came down with no plane hit

Buildings do occasionally collapse without planes hitting them.

Not highrises without controlled demolition.

Many heard series of explosions before all three buildings came down

No, many heard loud noises at random intervals before, during and after the collapse.

That's not what some said.

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

Actually only one was a "steel frame" building.

Really? I do believe the towers were framed in steel. And 7. Where do you get this from?

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

Or buring hot material falling from a burning building. Now how could that have happened.

Oh, no, dear. Thermite/steel is VERY distinctive.

The complete powdering of the concrete

Huh? This is just not true, its not even close.

The vast majority of concrete went to powder and hung in the air and was breathed by many. Sorry I used the word "complete."

Steel beams cut in transportable lengths

Yeah, so they could be transported.

Don't be a smartass. The lengths were "ready-cut" just right for shipping.

Explosions experienced in basement area before initial plane impact

Nope, didn't happen.

According to witnesses (some of whom have died in questionable circumstances) there were...

Untimely death of many witnesses and activists

Bull.

Oh, now there's a clear and logical refutation.

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

Not true.

Well, I can't find it now. But there was a breakdown of who was interviewed on 9/11 in the media, and the fact that most of them were affiliated with the media.

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

And?

And it seems very unlikely. If that was the only unlikely thing, I'd pass it off as coincidence. It is the cumulative

Chertoff relative writes a major debunking piece

Ironically, this has been debunked. No known relation, just same last name.

I do believe the fact that they were "distant" cousins was established... I could be wrong. But it surely is unlikely that there was the name thing.

Refusal of Bush and Cheney to testify under oath and publicly

National security and separation of powers, The legisalative branch doesn't depose the executive branch.

But to refuse to GO UNDER OATH!?! Come on, Jack.

EDIT to add: You may note that things are VERY unlikely to have all happened like this unless it was an inside job.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

You keep using falsehoods or unprovable statements to back yourself up. And yes, I did not address all of the points in your post like....

First time in history that three steel buildings collapsed from fire..........its also the first time that airliners have slammed into high rise office towers and the first time an office building has had another building collapse into it, but for some reason, you dont mention that part...now why is that?

Oh, give it up on the buildings. The minor fires and damage to #7 was in no way capable of dropping that building into its footprint, let alone at freefall speed. You people who persist, even against all the evidence to cling so seemingly desperately to the OS... Perhaps critical thinking skills are not your best suit.

reply to post by Amaterasu

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

Again, it was an exercise about hijacked planes. Maybe you should read what I posted to the previous poster.

Well, we've gone from "same scenario" to something to do with hijacking. And you said it is improbable. Why? Isn't this just one of the most basic functions of our air defenses? To ascertain what kinds of possible threats may come from above and practise defenses accordingly?

I (and everyone else for that matter) just don't see anything "improbable" about the Air Force doing basically what the Air Force does.

And, ironically, the "inside job" crowd often argues that 9/11 could never happened because American air space is the most gaurded in the world, yet seem suprised that the Air Force is practising gaurding it.

reply to post by Amaterasu

Refusal of Bush and Cheney to testify under oath and publicly

National security and separation of powers, The legisalative branch doesn't depose the executive branch.

But to refuse to GO UNDER OATH!?! Come on, Jack.

Yeah, I think you need to read up a little about political and legal theory. Going under oath and being deposed is a very big deal. The idea that the legislative branch can have the authority to demand it of another branch of government (and remember Cheney and Bush were the Executive Branch) is very important. Precedent could be established that could make the Executive subserviant to the Legislative. We don't want that.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

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

Again, it was an exercise about hijacked planes. Maybe you should read what I posted to the previous poster.

Well, we've gone from "same scenario" to something to do with hijacking. And you said it is improbable. Why? Isn't this just one of the most basic functions of our air defenses? To ascertain what kinds of possible threats may come from above and practise defenses accordingly?

Not exactly... Hijacking a plane and flying it into a building. I think that a "war game" being enacted on 9/11 that included a plane being hijacked and flown into a building is extremely anomalous, wouldn't you agree? On that one day...there it was. If it had been a week before even, it would still have been quite improbable. On the same day? The very same day??? Hmmmm.

I (and everyone else for that matter) just don't see anything "improbable" about the Air Force doing basically what the Air Force does.

Oh, oh, oh! You had me clutching my gut in laughter over THAT statement! Well, the parenthetical phrase, actually. "Everyone?" Oh, come now.

And, ironically, the "inside job" crowd often argues that 9/11 could never happened because American air space is the most gaurded in the world, yet seem suprised that the Air Force is practising gaurding it.

No.... We are surprised that they DIDN'T protect it. (With over an hour's time to be fully alert and looking, in one case.) We are surprised at the "plane hijacked and flown into building" scenario on the day planes are said to have been hijacked and flown into buildings.

And if you are down to these two points only... If I give them to you, there is still the other points that, when added in unlikelihood, leave the OS out there in the cosmos and an inside job still 1:1.

There are other items I could add to the list (like bin Laden having been Tim Osman (sp?), CIA agent), but I really don't need to go there. This is enough to show that either the most freakishly improbable alignments all happened to occur on and around that one day, or no probability anomalies took place because it was an inside job.

reply to post by Amaterasu

Not exactly... Hijacking a plane and flying it into a building. I think that a "war game" being enacted on 9/11 that included a plane being hijacked and flown into a building is extremely anomalous, wouldn't you agree? On that one day...there it was. If it had been a week before even, it would still have been quite improbable. On the same day? The very same day??? Hmmmm.

You think? Isn't it pretty important to know? I can find no record of the Air Force conducting war games wherein the scenario of a hijacked plane being crashed into a building.

Maybe we should get over that hurdle first before we start arguing about the "probability".

Do you have or is there any evidence that the Air Force was conducting drills on 9/11 that involved hijacked commercial jet craft being piloted into buildings?

reply to post by Amaterasu

Oh, oh, oh! You had me clutching my gut in laughter over THAT statement! Well, the parenthetical phrase, actually. "Everyone?" Oh, come now.

Yeah, everyone. I know it kinda burst some of your bubbles but the half a handful of persons in the "truth movement" is not significant enough to use anything but the word everyone.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Refusal of Bush and Cheney to testify under oath and publicly

National security and separation of powers, The legisalative branch doesn't depose the executive branch.

But to refuse to GO UNDER OATH!?! Come on, Jack.

Yeah, I think you need to read up a little about political and legal theory. Going under oath and being deposed is a very big deal. The idea that the legislative branch can have the authority to demand it of another branch of government (and remember Cheney and Bush were the Executive Branch) is very important. Precedent could be established that could make the Executive subserviant to the Legislative. We don't want that.

There is nothing that deposes these men by speaking under oath. They were called and asked to give oath to their testimony - and they did not say, "Well, that would make us subservient" (which a willingness to swear to the truth of their words would not do). They adamantly refused to give oath to their words. If there was nothing to hide, why would anyone refuse to give oath to their words?

Still, even if I gave you this one... Yeah. Cosmos vs. 1:1.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Not exactly... Hijacking a plane and flying it into a building. I think that a "war game" being enacted on 9/11 that included a plane being hijacked and flown into a building is extremely anomalous, wouldn't you agree? On that one day...there it was. If it had been a week before even, it would still have been quite improbable. On the same day? The very same day??? Hmmmm.

You think? Isn't it pretty important to know? I can find no record of the Air Force conducting war games wherein the scenario of a hijacked plane being crashed into a building.

Maybe we should get over that hurdle first before we start arguing about the "probability".

Do you have or is there any evidence that the Air Force was conducting drills on 9/11 that involved hijacked commercial jet craft being piloted into buildings?

No, no. I'll give you this one. I'm not going to the effort. But if you continue I will start adding other things. A LOT of them. (The Silverstein thing, to begin with - alone, though highly improbable, could be written off, but in combination with all the rest...)

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Oh, oh, oh! You had me clutching my gut in laughter over THAT statement! Well, the parenthetical phrase, actually. "Everyone?" Oh, come now.

Yeah, everyone. I know it kinda burst some of your bubbles but the half a handful of persons in the "truth movement" is not significant enough to use anything but the word everyone.

Well, amongst the people I have talked to - working at the Red Cross, meeting on the bus, discussing at free concerts, things like that - I find that about 70% think the way I do... That's a pretty large handful. But you keep that image that people who have examined all this anomalous data have arrived at your point of view if it helps you sleep at night.

reply to post by Amaterasu

There is nothing that deposes these men by speaking under oath. They were called and asked to give oath to their testimony - and they did not say, "Well, that would make us subservient" (which a willingness to swear to the truth of their words would not do). They adamantly refused to give oath to their words. If there was nothing to hide, why would anyone refuse to give oath to their words?

Still, even if I gave you this one... Yeah. Cosmos vs. 1:1.

Well, that pretty much is the meaning of being deposed, being questioned under oath.

As for having something to hide, they may have but not in the manner that you are thinking. What if issues regarding National Security were breached and they only way to protect sources or methods was to not tell the truth? And sometimes you don't have the option of simply refusing to answer, not answering can be as revealing as answering when it comes to security issues.

But in the end it is a simple matter of separation of powers.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

There is nothing that deposes these men by speaking under oath. They were called and asked to give oath to their testimony - and they did not say, "Well, that would make us subservient" (which a willingness to swear to the truth of their words would not do). They adamantly refused to give oath to their words. If there was nothing to hide, why would anyone refuse to give oath to their words?

Still, even if I gave you this one... Yeah. Cosmos vs. 1:1.

Well, that pretty much is the meaning of being deposed, being questioned under oath.

As for having something to hide, they may have but not in the manner that you are thinking. What if issues regarding National Security were breached and they only way to protect sources or methods was to not tell the truth? And sometimes you don't have the option of simply refusing to answer, not answering can be as revealing as answering when it comes to security issues.

But in the end it is a simple matter of separation of powers.

Then why not a response of "I can't answer that because of national security?" That would be an answer. And if it was not public, the answers' implications could easily be contained. So I don't buy the whole refusal. And I do think that if it was deposition and precedent, they would have just said, "No, we won't give oath because it would depose us and establish precedent." Not the scrambling and shifty behavior we saw.

Still can't give you this one. And you still don't address the probabilities as a whole. You pick single issues to nit-pick, never saying, "Well, ALL these anomalies combined make sense because..." or "The fact that these anomalies look like they give a 1:1 probability of inside job is incorrect because..."

Would love to hear your reasoning there.

reply to post by Amaterasu

Then why not a response of "I can't answer that because of national security?" That would be an answer. And if it was not public, the answers' implications could easily be contained.

I'll have to let you think about that yourself. When you are not positive about the nature of the questions up front, then you may find yourself in a real bind. Particularly with regard to intelligence capabilities and performance. Which was a focal point with the 9/11 commission. Also, the separation of powers issue is really the key here.

And you still don't address the probabilities as a whole. You pick single issues to nit-pick, never saying, "Well, ALL these anomalies combined make sense because..." or "The fact that these anomalies look like they give a 1:1 probability of inside job is incorrect because..."

Would love to hear your reasoning there.

Generally, because "anamolies" and "coincidences" are often in the eye of the beholder and until we can even consider the picture as a whole we must decide if the parts even exist. Not to mention the fact that until 9/11 nothing like 9/11 had ever happened before so finding smaller things that never happened before in a larger one-off event isn't really an earth shattering discovery.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Then why not a response of "I can't answer that because of national security?" That would be an answer. And if it was not public, the answers' implications could easily be contained.

I'll have to let you think about that yourself. When you are not positive about the nature of the questions up front, then you may find yourself in a real bind. Particularly with regard to intelligence capabilities and performance. Which was a focal point with the 9/11 commission. Also, the separation of powers issue is really the key here.

I think "I can't answer that because of national security" would cover any "surprise" question. No bind at all. And as I said, if they were concerned about deposition and precedent, why did they become furtive, uneasy, and stubborn, rather than just stating that forthrightly?

And you still don't address the probabilities as a whole. You pick single issues to nit-pick, never saying, "Well, ALL these anomalies combined make sense because..." or "The fact that these anomalies look like they give a 1:1 probability of inside job is incorrect because..."

Would love to hear your reasoning there.

Generally, because "anamolies" and "coincidences" are often in the eye of the beholder and until we can even consider the picture as a whole we must decide if the parts even exist. Not to mention the fact that until 9/11 nothing like 9/11 had ever happened before so finding smaller things that never happened before in a larger one-off event isn't really an earth shattering discovery.

I believe, based on how many points I made (some of which your only refutation was comments like "bull" and I gave you the footage to clearly show it was not "bull") that have been established, we have an added sum of a phenomenally unlikely whole. And given that 9/11 was unique, I can make a case for its being all the more likely that it was engineered by powers wanting to justify war. And buildings falling at freefall speed is hardly a "smaller thing." It is a MAJOR part of what happened. As is Cheney's stand down order. As is mysterious death at such a high rate amongst witnesses.

Your attempts to paint these issues with a dismissive brush again makes me question your skills in critical thinking. Either that or... Well, you know what I suspect.

reply to post by Amaterasu

I think "I can't answer that because of national security" would cover any "surprise" question. No bind at all.

No, it really wouldn't. Think of a question like "Do we (USA) have adequate human resources in Afghanistan"? Now if you give the cover answer "national security" then you may be hinting that you don't, and in fact, you may want to take the oppurtunity to send a little misdirection. Be that as it may, its still primarily a political and legal issue, separation of powers.

And as I said, if they were concerned about deposition and precedent, why did they become furtive, uneasy, and stubborn, rather than just stating that forthrightly?

Thats your subjective opinion about their behavior, your entitled to it but I feel no obligation to explain your opinions.

I believe, based on how many points I made (some of which your only refutation was comments like "bull" and I gave you the footage to clearly show it was not "bull") that have been established, we have an added sum of a phenomenally unlikely whole.

Uh, thats kind of the point. None of that has been "established". You can't added up imaginery numbers and get a real sum.

And given that 9/11 was unique, I can make a case for its being all the more likely that it was engineered by powers wanting to justify war.

Yeah, you may be right, just not pointing your finger at the right powers.

And buildings falling at freefall speed is hardly a "smaller thing." It is a MAJOR part of what happened.

Again, you are assuming that it happened. The issue has been covered and debunked. First, there is no such thing as "free-fall speed", the actual perfect time of the collapses cannot not be known, only estimated.

As is Cheney's stand down order.

A truther myth for which there is no factual basis.

As is mysterious death at such a high rate amongst witnesses.

Conjecture and myth without factual basis.

Your attempts to paint these issues with a dismissive brush again makes me question your skills in critical thinking. Either that or... Well, you know what I suspect.

I do not "dismiss" them because they are not "issues". It is because of the application of critical thinking that I can determine that your opinions are not my facts.

reply to post by hooper


Hooper, Hooper, Hooper. If you say so. I will leave it to other reading this thread to come up with their own assessments. But if you applied the idea to each of my points - the ones I proved and ask what the probabilities are that things would look like they did randomly, each has very low probability. If you ask if they would look like that from an inside job presumption... The answer is always 1:1. You go and believe what you wish, and I will believe what I wish, and let's leave it to the reader to believe as the reader wishes.

reply to post by Amaterasu

But if you applied the idea to each of my points - the ones I proved and ask what the probabilities are that things would look like they did randomly, each has very low probability.

Well, thats the problem, you haven't proved any of them. You've repeated them, yes, but thats not "proof". And even if we disregard the lack of factual basis for your "points" you've still haven't explained how you went about assigning a specific order of probabilty.

If you ask if they would look like that from an inside job presumption... The answer is always 1:1.

Again, how did you come up with this ratio?

You go and believe what you wish, and I will believe what I wish, and let's leave it to the reader to believe as the reader wishes.

Well, no. This isn't a matter of opinion. You either have some testable proof of your assertions or you don't, in which case its not a subjective exercise.

reply to post by hooper


No... I'm not going to sit and argue and address (again and again) the same points. If you cannot see the huge number of statistical anomalies, that all culminated or surrounded that day specifically, so be it.

But I won't be spending any more energy staying on your merry-go-round.

Have a nice life.