Coincidents and Probabilities

That the story unfolded as depicted in the NIST report or 911 comission report is of an insignificantly low degree of probability to take it even in consideration.

Originally posted by Cassius666
That the story unfolded as depicted in the NIST report or 911 comission report is of an insignificantly low degree of probability to take it even in consideration.

Well I'm glad thats all cleared up. So what's next?

You don't mind if some us maybe disagree with your probability assesments, do you? I mean hijackings and planes crashing are not exactly on the "low degree of probability" in as much as they have happened hundreds of times before.

That airplanes and damage by fire can do something that takes carefull planning trice on a day is of such a low degree of probability you cant even call it a freak accident. Its like throwing paint at the wall and see the Mona Lisa appear. Only theoretically possible, surely there is a trick involved. Then you have 3 steel framed buildings collapse due to fire and damage. Another 3 world premiers. Then there are the other coincidences, like war games that depicted the scenario of 911 being carried out while 911 unfolded.

As with so many other details, you and the circle of 2-4 hard core deniers are the only ones to not see it.

Originally posted by Cassius666
That airplanes and damage by fire can do something that takes carefull planning trice on a day is of such a low degree of probability you cant even call it a freak accident. Its like throwing paint at the wall and see the Mona Lisa appear. Only theoretically possible, surely there is a trick involved. Then you have 3 steel framed buildings collapse due to fire and damage. Another 3 world premiers. Then there are the other coincidences, like war games that depicted the scenario of 911 being carried out while 911 unfolded.

As with so many other details, you and the circle of 2-4 hard core deniers are the only ones to not see it.

Again, I can see where you may be confused about probablilites in as much as you believe that things happened that really didn't. Three "steel framed" buildings didn't collapse. The towers were not steel framed buildings. Secondly, all three buildings were the subjected to conditions that were the direct result of a criminal act. Also, there were no war games that depicted the 9/11 scenario being carried out. Just didn't happen.

Hooper, having trouble keeping your lies straight ?

Originally posted by hooper
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.

Originally posted by hooper

Planes disintegrating upon impact

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

So are you just a liar or do you really have no grip on reality?

Originally posted by Amaterasu

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.

edit on 3/10/2011 by Amaterasu because: typo

Minor fires and damage to #7? So when highly trained members of the FDNY talk about 20 story high HOLES in a building....thats minor. When they discuss the fact that they placed a transom to keep track of the lean of WTC 7 to help give them warning because they were POSITIVE the building was going to collapse...is MINOR. When the fire mains are severed because of the collapse of two buildings...thats MINOR. Oh yes, I forgot. FDNY, NYPD and the PAPD were all "in" on it.

Quit clinging to the lies of the truth movement and develop some thinking skills of your own.

reply to post by Jezus


No, hes pointing out the stupidity in the statement made by another poster. There is a difference.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Jezus

 

No, hes pointing out the stupidity in the statement made by another poster. There is a difference.

He said two completely opposite things...and both times very aggressively.

Originally posted by Jezus
Hooper, having trouble keeping your lies straight ?

Originally posted by hooper
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.

Originally posted by hooper

Planes disintegrating upon impact

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

So are you just a liar or do you really have no grip on reality?

edit on 12-3-2011 by Jezus because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by vipertech0596

Minor fires and damage to #7? So when highly trained members of the FDNY talk about 20 story high HOLES in a building....thats minor. When they discuss the fact that they placed a transom to keep track of the lean of WTC 7 to help give them warning because they were POSITIVE the building was going to collapse...is MINOR. When the fire mains are severed because of the collapse of two buildings...thats MINOR. Oh yes, I forgot. FDNY, NYPD and the PAPD were all "in" on it.

Quit clinging to the lies of the truth movement and develop some thinking skills of your own.

A building collapsing INTO ITS FOOTPRINT via any mechanism other than CD is ridiculously improbable. If the building was leaning...I would expect it to fall over. NOT drop into its footprint. There's an anomalous point for the day if the OS is true right there.

reply to post by Amaterasu


And again, a stunning display of the lack of knowledge you have about WTC 7. It did not collapse into its own footprint. Had it done so, there would not have been sections of the NORTH side of the building ON WTC1's debris (clue..it was the south side of WTC 7 that faced WTC 1) Also, had it fallen into its own footprint, it wouldnt have damaged all of the buildings surrounding it. 30 West Broadway was damaged so heavily by WTC 7 that it had to be torn down.

NONE of the buildings that day "fell into their footprints"

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Jezus

 

No, hes pointing out the stupidity in the statement made by another poster. There is a difference.

He said two completely opposite things...and both times very aggressively.

Originally posted by Jezus
Hooper, having trouble keeping your lies straight ?

Originally posted by hooper
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.

Originally posted by hooper

Planes disintegrating upon impact

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

So are you just a liar or do you really have no grip on reality?

edit on 12-3-2011 by Jezus because: (no reason given)

Good catch, Jezus. Yeah, Hoop has a tendency to say what is immediately convenient to his/her point and lacks consistency greatly. Makes one wonder what motivates him/her.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

And again, a stunning display of the lack of knowledge you have about WTC 7. It did not collapse into its own footprint. Had it done so, there would not have been sections of the NORTH side of the building ON WTC1's debris (clue..it was the south side of WTC 7 that faced WTC 1) Also, had it fallen into its own footprint, it wouldnt have damaged all of the buildings surrounding it. 30 West Broadway was damaged so heavily by WTC 7 that it had to be torn down.

NONE of the buildings that day "fell into their footprints"

Oh, good grief. For all intents and purposes they did. Sure, some debris was thrown clear, but none of them toppled.

reply to post by Amaterasu


You might want to do some more research into that...especially in regards to WTC 7 before you run off at the fingers and make yourself look even more foolish. Just saying.....

No, hes pointing out the stupidity in the statement made by another poster. There is a difference.

Are you hooper's attorney or something? Why not the alleged (cough, cough) non-turther liar speak for himself and explain why he is unable to keep his stories straight?

C'mon hooper, check the official debunking script and get back to us with an answer already. No sense in hiding now, since we all know you're on here 24/7 spreading your delusional perception of reality.

You might want to do some more research into that...especially in regards to WTC 7 before you run off at the fingers and make yourself look even more foolish.

Even more foolish than having this extraordinary need to defend a compulsive liar?

Originally posted by vipertech0596
torn down.NONE of the buildings that day "fell into their footprints"

WRONG!





Pics don't lie mate, only people do.

No implosion demolition is perfect. WTC 7 would have been the tallest building ever implosion demolished. Under normal circumstances surrounding buildings would have been protected from flying debris.

No building is going to land 100% in its footprint, unless the footprint is bigger than the building. Some debris outside the footprint is normal. The object is to get the MAJORITY of the building to land in its footprint.

And guess what?

This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

science.howstuffworks.com...

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by Cassius666
That the story unfolded as depicted in the NIST report or 911 comission report is of an insignificantly low degree of probability to take it even in consideration.

Well I'm glad thats all cleared up. So what's next?

You don't mind if some us maybe disagree with your probability assesments, do you? I mean hijackings and planes crashing are not exactly on the "low degree of probability" in as much as they have happened hundreds of times before.

So now your last resort is "it didnt happen"?

911research.wtc7.net...

You obviously went off the deep end, you desperately want your version of reality to be true. In the face of facts that can be hard to come to therms with for an American, especially an patriotic American, it is an understandable reaction. Not to mention PAC called for an new "Pearl Harbor" event. Roughly 3000 people died at the pearl harbor attack.

reply to post by Cassius666

You obviously went off the deep end, you desperately want your version of reality to be true. In the face of facts that can be hard to come to therms with for an American, especially an patriotic American, it is an understandable reaction. Not to mention PAC called for an new "Pearl Harbor" event. Roughly 3000 people died at the pearl harbor attack.

2400 died at Pearl Harbor, including 1100 entombed when USS ARIZONIA exploded and sank and 415 when
USS OKLAHOMA was torpedoed and capsized

Almost 3000 died at WTC, Pentagon and United 93

Casualties on 9/11 were even worse than pearl harbor.....

reply to post by ANOK


I thought the Towers were the tallest buildings imploded? Tell you what, check your script and get back to us.

Originally posted by Cassius666
That the story unfolded as depicted in the NIST report or 911 comission report is of an insignificantly low degree of probability to take it even in consideration.

Yes, because holograms, shaped charges, and controlled demolition is MORE likely.


Also, I'd like to see your criticisms of the NIST report, along with your credentials as a structural engineer. What school did you go to? How many documents, videos, photos, and debris have you examined?

Let me know, I'm very interested in seeing a well-researched report that counters the findings in the NIST report.