9/11 Comprehensive Concise Evidence---please contribute

reply to post by GenRadek

People like you built Las Vegas. Don't let the mobsters take credit. Yeah they had a great idea, but it's people like you who made it all possible. Your post is making my point for me.

Odds are determined by occurrences, not BS. BS is how you get stupid people to bet against astronomical odds, or to think that the rediculously improbable is plausible. That's what happened on 9/11.

reply to post by ipsedixit


So your contention is that highly unlikely things never happen?

When I was last in Vegas someone won a linked jackpot on the slots that apparently carried odds of something like 3 million to one.

Anyway, the comparison is a bit off. The set of circumstances that contributed to the unprecedented outcome on 9/11 was in itself unprecedented. So it's hardly surprising that the result was so unusual.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Large jackpot winnings in a casino are not as improbable as what happened on 9/11.

Casino bosses realize that even though most gamblers are dumb, they are still smarter about gambling than most Americans are about political BS. The BSers have an incredible track record in politics and not just in the US.

High rise collapses due to damage from fire are unprecedented. High rise collisions with airliners are extremely rare. Collapse caused by fire and airliner collision have only happened twice, in one day. That combination of events (up to 9/11) was more rare statistically speaking than either of the separate events.

That puts the odds against it even higher.

Many debunkers say, "Well terrorists meant to do these things. That reduces the odds."

Sorry, back in the 70s of the last century, the heyday of airliner hijackings, it never happened.

That makes the odds even longer.

Even the lightly damaged WTC7 was so shocked by it, that it too collapsed. (That's a joke. For some reason I feel I have to point that out.)


[edit on 27-7-2010 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by ipsedixit

High rise collapses due to damage from fire are unprecedented.

So? First what are you considering a "high rise"? Is there any precedent for letting buildings burn for hours and being struck by fast moving commercial jetliners?

High rise collisions with airliners are extremely rare.

That's because, generally speaking, persons piloting aircraft actively avoid tyring to hit buildings. But not on 9/11.

Collapse caused by fire and airliner collision have only happened twice, in one day.

Yeah, I think everyone in the world realizes that but is able to put it in the context of people purposely flying planes into buildings is also pretty rare.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

Large jackpot winnings in a casino are not as improbable as what happened on 9/11.

Casino bosses realize that even though most gamblers are dumb, they are still smarter about gambling than most Americans are about political BS. The BSers have an incredible track record in politics and not just in the US.

High rise collapses due to damage from fire are unprecedented. High rise collisions with airliners are extremely rare. Collapse caused by fire and airliner collision have only happened twice, in one day. That combination of events (up to 9/11) was more rare statistically speaking than either of the separate events.

That puts the odds against it even higher.

Your thinking here is confused, but in an understandable way.

You're saying that because a very rare thing happened then the unprecedented event that followed it is even more unlikely. But this is false.

Since you like the gambling analogy I'll try to explain through that medium. Basically the two occurrences are what bookmakers call contingent possibilities.

Let's say for example that a basketball player scores 100 points in a game and his team wins the game by a record margin. The second outcome - itself highly unlikely, in fact unprecedented - is contingent upon the first. Once the first happens it becomes actually relatively likely.

A bookmaker will not allow you to bet on this event in the same way as you would with a standard multiple (I think in the US these are called a parlay). The probability of such an event is not arrived at by multiplying the two.

In the same way once the planes have hit the building what happens becomes more, not less likely. Again, you don't arrive at the likelihood of the towers collapsing by multiplying the two together, because one is contingent on the other.

Many debunkers say, "Well terrorists meant to do these things. That reduces the odds."

Sorry, back in the 70s of the last century, the heyday of airliner hijackings, it never happened.

That's a different point, really. It suggests that the attack in itself was unlikely because terrorists have never tried anything like it before. You might find that persuasive. Personally I don't.

What about the first airline hijacking? At that point no one had done that before either. But it still occurred. Things have to, at some point, have happened for the first time. And people are great innovators.

reply to post by hooper

Everytime you are using the word "rare" you are making my point. Probability is strictly about occurrences, not about explanations, excuses, reasons, hypothese, etc.

Statistics is a very austere science. No room for anything but occurrences.

Con artists bring in this other stuff to try and paper over the statistics.

reply to post by ipsedixit

Everytime you are using the word "rare" you are making my point. Probability is strictly about occurrences, not about explanations, excuses, reasons, hypothese, etc.

I am sorry but your attempt to handwave away the context of 9/11 by saying that probability is ignorant of circumstances has failed.

The probability of a plane crashing into a building accidently and the probability of a plane crasing into a building intentionally are not equal because the events, however similar they may appear, are not the same.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
What about the first airline hijacking? At that point no one had done that before either. But it still occurred. Things have to, at some point, have happened for the first time. And people are great innovators.

What you are saying is true. Huge numbers of things have happened for the first time and strictly speaking there is no way to calculate the odds of some unknown thing happening for the first time.

The calculation of probabilities is done based on some definition of a series of events in which there is a potential for the event in question to take place.

There are many ways to define such a series. If you simply consider the series as "the total number of days in which the steel framed high rise buildings have existed" (and I am using the word "framed" loosely here.), then the odds against such an event occurring are "astronomically high". Every further qualification to the definition of the series either lowers or increases the odds.

I am not a statistician and not really qualified to discuss how "contingent possibilities" should be handled in this situation.

If you were to look at the odds of high rise towers collapsing from airliner collision and fire, where terrorists piloted the planes and explosives were used to detonate the buildings, post 9/11, they would be 100%. In all cases in which this has happened, the tower has collapsed.

What I am trying to say by that is that the question of what series we are dealing with here is open (not to me, but to some people).

Defining the series as two events in which a building is impacted by terrorists piloting airliners and in which they are hit on the upper stories and catch fire, can be done if one wants to skew the sample to achieve a desired result. The probability of collapses in those cases is 100%.

If I shoot an arrow at a target and hit the bull's eye twice and then say that my chances of hitting the bull's eye when I shoot arrows is 100%, based on a definition of a relevant series being my two shots at the target, I'm right, but no statistician is going to take me very seriously.

When the series is redefined in the case of 9/11, to include analogous cases of fire and damage to high rises and the duration of the fires, etc., excluding the addition of explosives, the odds of such collapses taking place are astronomically against.

Where the BS factor comes in is with the airliners. Firemen know, and people generally know that a high rise building of this type, on fire at the top is not going to collapse. They never have. They also could guess that one damaged at the top would not collapse. They never have. The part of the building supporting the top wasn't damaged. There has never been a pancake collapse of a steel framed high rise building.

The airliners were the gimmick. They were used to make people ignore the statistical facts.

Strictly speaking, this is a discussion about statistics alone. I'm interested in the question of contingent probabilities. I think real statisticians could go into a lot of detail on this in the case of 9/11.

In reality, the insurance industry threw up it's hands and said "We don't know what to do. This is something new. We are going to have to figure this out." A new branch of the insurance industry was born.

But, the government was so confident about what would happen in this new terrorism insurance industry that they told the insurance industry that they would underwrite all claims for a period of a couple of years I believe, if memory serves. That should tell you a lot about the odds involved in the 9/11 collapses.

The Bush administration knew they were astronomical against such collapses occurring, under any circumstances (except the addition of explosives, of course).


[edit on 27-7-2010 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by hooper

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Originally posted by rival
I don't think we have a win.

From the beginning of the Truth movement there have been
exaggerated claims, theories, and hyperbole surrounding the truth
of 9/11. Every documentary on the subject undermines its own
integrity with exaggeration, bombast, and clever semantics.

The purpose of this thread is to list our most cogent, credible arguments.

Excellent. You're on a road to the realization that the entire engine driving the truther movement is just that- exaggerated claims, innuendo, quotes taken out of context, and outright lies. You see for yourself that I am making a conscious effort to stay away from the debunking-fest and provide actual facts here as you requested, but when someone posts thoroughly garbage information here and tries to pass it off as fact (I.E. no interceptors were scrambled on 9/11, no wreckage could be traced back to identify any of the planes, etc) I have no choice but to intercede.

The question therefore isn't over what information supporting these 9/11 conspiracy claims is false, but rather what information supporting these 9/11 conspiracy claims is actually even true. My philosophy is that if someone needs to resort to outright lying to convince others of something, it's a de facto admission that they know what they're saying is wrong. This should be eveyone's philosophy.

There exists a prejudice in circumstances such as this. People do
not want to mistrust their government. I do not want to mistrust
my government. But with the historical evidence at hand (The Maine, the
Reichstag, the Gulf of Tonkin, the complicity of Pearl Harbor) mistrust
is the only safe option.

Nah, that's not it. The problem is that if you people disagree with the 9/11 commission's account of things, fine, but it then becomes your responsibility to provide us with a better scenario which better fits the facts, and so far, all I've seen is the most mind numbing, nonsensical stories that would make Rube Golderberg proud, from "The gov't staged a false flag operation to invade Iraq...by framing Afghanistan" to "they staged a fake crash site in Shanksville to fool us...before launching a coverup of the fake crash site they staged to fool us". Don't even get me started on the "secret world order controlled by a cult of Satan worshipping numerologists" bit.

This crap isn't coming from the "honest researchers of the events of 9/11 crowd". It's coming from the "gov't secret agents are sneaking in and dusting our underwear with mind control chemicals" crowd, which is why these people go to those damned fool conspiracy web sites for all their information to begin with.

Just to reaffirm that the 911 conspiracy investigators are in good company, while the so-called "debunkers" are in the company of people like Dick Cheney, I provide this:

www.wanttoknow.info...

Here we have a former U.S. Senator,
a Past Director of FBI,
a Retired U.S. Army General,
a Retired U.S. Air Force Colonel,
a Former Chairman, National Intelligence Estimates, CIA,
a Past President of Italy,
another Retired U.S. Air Force Colonel (Crash Investigator),
a Retired U.S. Marine Colonel,
a former U.S. Congressman,
many more high ranking military experts,
an Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury,
a former Chief Economist, U.S. Dept. of Labor,
a former U.S. Secretary of H.U.D.,
a former Minister of National Defense, Canada,
a former State Secretary of Ministry of Defense, West Germany,
a former Under Secretary of Industry, Under Secretary for Health and Social Security, U.K.,
a General, Joint Chiefs of Staff of Russian Armies,
a Former Foreign Minister of Egypt,
and MANY MANY more, too numerous to list, TOP RANKING Officials in government, U.S. and abroad, that have come to the conclusion that there is a vast conspiracy to cover up the truth.

I am glad to be in such good company.

Rather than have me list all of the distinguished PHD's, Professors, and others in Academia, just have a look see for yourself.

And, feel good if you are in THIS company where the brain is an ASSET.

www.wanttoknow.info...

Of course, you debunkers should be prepared to show your credentials, so we can compare...

reply to post by Stewie


And that list proves what exactly? That there will always be nuts in the bunch no matter WHAT profession.

I know professors at my university that are dumber than dirt, that are radical, inept, etc. But they have PhDs. Oh my then that should mean that they are super intelligent. BS. Humans are humans. We have shown time and again, that no matter what the profession, there will always be crackpots, tinfoil hatters, weirdos, and just plain nutbars everywhere. So your little list means nothing. There are stupid people at ALL LEVELS of our society. That is all.

And, I might add to my previous post, that they risk having their reputation dragged through the mud by the entrenched powers that are heavily invested in the O.S.
Thanks, Radek, for making it clear that this is precisely the case.

reply to post by Stewie


Looked at your little link there - do you really think Max Cleland and Loius Freeh are "truthers"? Do you really think they believe the US government conspired to killed thousands of its own citizens? Don't think so.

They believe that, like some members of the 9/11 commision, that the intelligence, law enforcement and defense communtities did not give a full accounting of the deep flaws in their organizations that allowed something like 9/11 to happen.

reply to post by Stewie


Hold on a sec. I went through that "list" and had to chuckle. A lot of these people have virtually ZERO knowledge, expertise, or anything when it comes to ANYTHING involved in engineering or anything on 9/11. What right does a theologian have to comment on structural engineering. Lets see of that "100 professionals" I counted maybe three, four, maybe five, maybe 10 tops with any relevance to understanding the events and technical parts on 9/11.

What does a PhD in History have to do with controlled demolition? What does a Professor on Justice and Peace know about structural engineering or military matters? What does a sociology professor know about engineering? Oh yes a psychologist has a lot to say about structural engineering, or metallurgy, or architecture. I'm sure a religion professor is far more knowledgeable than NIST in engineering.

Can I ask you Stewie something? Do you ask a rocket scientist to be in charge of giving you open heart surgery? Even if he has a PhD with three awards in rocketry, a grant for space flight engineering, etc etc etc? I mean, he is very knowledgeable and professional. He's got a PhD! Ask him to do your heart surgery. Or how someone with a PhD in sociology? They can do your open heart surgery. Or better yet, lets have heart surgeons build rockets, and rocket scientists do open heart surgery. After all they are "professionals". :loL:

Ah yes theologians, history professors, english teachers, sociologists, psychologists, are far more credible professionals than the actual teams at NIST, MIT, FEMA. My God! The ignorance! IT BURNS!!!

reply to post by hooper

Looked at your little link there - do you really think Max Cleland and Loius Freeh are "truthers"? Do you really think they believe the US government conspired to killed thousands of its own citizens? Don't think so.

I don't know for sure. I bet they aren't Dick Cheney water boys though like most of the Trusters on this thread.

I wonder if you Trusters have a list of highly educated individuals that actually will admit to believing the OS? I doubt it.

reply to post by hooper

Do you really think they believe the US government conspired to killed thousands of its own citizens? Don't think so.

Yes I do!

Operation Northwoods

Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a false-flag plan that originated within the United States government in 1962. The plan called for Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other operatives to commit genuine acts of terrorism in U.S. cities and elsewhere. These acts of terrorism were to be blamed on Cuba in order to create public support for a war against that nation, which had recently become communist under Fidel Castro. One part of the Operation Northwoods plan was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington."
Operation Northwoods included proposals for hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government. The plan stated:

en.wikipedia.org...

Perhaps, you have never researched false flags, it is nothing new, many countries have carried out false flags on their own people and blamed a foreign country to wage their illegal wars.
Do you really believe our government is “not capable” of carrying out a false flag, to wage a war?

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
reply to post by hooper

 

Looked at your little link there - do you really think Max Cleland and Loius Freeh are "truthers"? Do you really think they believe the US government conspired to killed thousands of its own citizens? Don't think so.

I don't know for sure. I bet they aren't Dick Cheney water boys though like most of the Trusters on this thread.

I wonder if you Trusters have a list of highly educated individuals that actually will admit to believing the OS? I doubt it.

Bet you can't give me a list of "highly educated" people who have signed something saying they believe the second world war happened.

Because it's self evident. The vast, overwhelming majority of intelligent people do believe what you call the "OS". This is because they have some basic ability to assess evidence and aren't trapped by a gigantic bias that they need to make themselves feel clever.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Because it's self evident. The vast, overwhelming majority of intelligent people do believe what you call the "OS" This is because they have some basic ability to assess evidence and aren't trapped by a gigantic bias that they need to make themselves feel clever.

The only reason why so many people believe in the OS is:

1. Most people do not have the luxury of time to research 911.
2. Many people still depend on television for their information.
3. Some people do not want to know the truth.
4. Many people are patriotic and believe our government has their best interest at hart.


Most of these people have not seen or heard any of the evidence; millions of Americans do not know a third WTC fell on 911, WTC 7.

Mainstream media has done a fine job of pushing & parroting the OS fairytales. The media is not interested in any other views, opinions, or evidence against the OS. That is why there are so many ignorant people still believing in the OS.