Loose Change

[kookbreaker]

And I suppose this is the point where our CT brethren gently point out to me that I'm forgetting about the army of Illuminati-bred hamsters that, wearing these really, really, really cute camo Nomex firesuits, fanned out into the still-smoldering debris and used these really, really, really tiny little wire brushes to scrape away all trace of HE and copper before the forensics lads showed up. And oh yeah, gnawed with their titanium tooth implants on the cut ends of the steel until it didn't look cut.

Oh, sure, blame the hamsters.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You recall correctly. However, I contend that 1/6 is not "roughly the same" as 1:5. If NASA engineers used this type of logic, then we would have space shuttles exploding in the sky.

They only diverge when you are calculating for more than one dice roll. For a single roll the odds and probability for throwing a 2 (on a six-sided dice) are for all intents, and purposes equal. Only if you being to deal with things like rolling two consecutive 2's, do you need to look at them as being significantly different.

That aside, you are playing a semantics game.

 

[ferd burfle]

Oh, glad you're back Alek. Can you please supply the list of eyewitnesses who saw something other than an AA 757 hit the Pentagon?

Alek, may I suggest you go to Google Advanced Search and search on "crickets" combined with the exact phrase "Sylvia Brown"?

Ferd

 

[ferd burfle]

Oh, sure, blame the hamsters.

Matey, I'm tellin' ye, they's evil little bastiges!! And it takes way too many of em after ye sautee's em to make a decent samwidge!

 

[Alek]

Oh, glad you're back Alek. Can you please supply the list of eyewitnesses who saw something other than an AA 757 hit the Pentagon?

As I recall, you admitted watching Loose Change. The information is in the movie. So you're either lying about watching the movie, you have a short attention span, or you have a poor memory.

I'm not going to get trolled by you. Try someone else.

 

[Euromutt]

No they don't mean roughly the same thing.

Uh, yes they do. Roughly, and within the context of this discussion. Probability is the chance that a particular event will occur. Odds are "the ratio of the probability of one event to that of an alternative event." When you're discussing the likelihood of a given event occurring, as opposed to it not occurring, probability and odds are for all practical purposes the same thing. The two terms diverge when you start to consider more than two possible outcomes.

For example, the probability of rolling any given number present on a six-sided die is 1/6 (or 16.667%). The odds of rolling that given side (say 2), as opposed to not rolling it (not 2), is [1/6 : 5/6], which is more conveniently expressed as 1:5.

By contrast, the odds of rolling 2 as opposed to rolling, say, 1 is [1/6 : 1/6] i.e. 1:1. The odds are different, even though the probabilities aren't. But that's not what we're talking about, since diggingdeeper and delphi_ote were explicitly talking about the probability of a given event occurring as opposed to it not occurring.

 

[Ducky]

As I recall, you admitted watching Loose Change. The information is in the movie. So you're either lying about watching the movie, you have a short attention span, or you have a poor memory.

I'm not going to get trolled by you. Try someone else.

When the troll says they won't be trolled because they refuse to answer a question repeatedly asked of them, the thread has officially jumped the shark.

 

[Alek]

Sorry you’re right. I forget sometimes that I live in Vegas where "odds" means something totally different

Regardless: rolling a dice you have 1 chance in 6 of getting any certain side. No matter which way you use to annotate it. You are playing semantics.

LLH

I live in California. I play poker and blackjack in Vegas quite often. "Odds" mean the same thing in Vegas as they do here in San Diego, or anywhere else. I understand that most people don't bother to make the distinction, but I do.

 

[Ducky]

I live in California. I play poker and blackjack in Vegas quite often. "Odds" mean the same thing in Vegas as they do here in San Diego, or anywhere else. I understand that most people don't bother to make the distinction, but I do.

Not very good with sarcasm, are you?

 

[WildCat]

As I recall, you admitted watching Loose Change. The information is in the movie. So you're either lying about watching the movie, you have a short attention span, or you have a poor memory.

I'm not going to get trolled by you. Try someone else.

IIRC, the movie uses quotes out of context to make it appear there were witnesses who said that. I'm calling BS on that.

Prove me wrong, Alek.

And I'm not going to sit here debating you by you saying "look at 1:06:24 of the movie". I'd really much prefer a link so I can find the actual quote and the context it was in, and leave the director playing the propaganda game out of the loop. You dig?

Now, see if you can do that.

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

I play poker and blackjack in Vegas quite often.

That just means your not very smart.

LLH

 

[Alek]

I would happily defer to Huntsman as I'm not a demolitions expert. But I do have experience in engineering failure analysis and can make a couple of categorical statements on that aspect. A controlled demolition would leave an unmistakeable signature on the steel.

You mean like this?

Note the smoking beams in the lower left. Must be kerosene.

Explosives, and it would have to have been tons, would leave residue all over the debris. And if they used shaped-charge column cutters on the steel columns, which I think is the most likely method if I bought into this part of the CT, the debris and especially the steel would have no end of copper residue on it since the cutters work by using a jet of hypersonic copper to cut the steel. I'm no structural engineer either but demolition would result in steel that exhibited cut ends; many, many cut ends from all the demolition charges. As opposed to lots of bent, torn or stretch-like-taffy-till-it-broke ends.

I agree, except that if we are to assume that resourceful people were responsible for this demolition, and I think that's a reasonable assumption to make, they would only use just enough explosives to allow gravity to take over and do the work:

“If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure.”

- http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html

Of course, that doesn't explain the massive pyroclastic-like dust clouds and the horizontal ejection of debris near the top of the towers as they collapsed. But then again, neither does the official conspiracy theory.

And I suppose this is the point where our CT brethren gently point out to me that I'm forgetting about the army of Illuminati-bred hamsters that, wearing these really, really, really cute camo Nomex firesuits, fanned out into the still-smoldering debris and used these really, really, really tiny little wire brushes to scrape away all trace of HE and copper before the forensics lads showed up. And oh yeah, gnawed with their titanium tooth implants on the cut ends of the steel until it didn't look cut.

What forensic investigation? Controlled Demolition was the only entity allowed on the scene following the disaster, and the evidence was shipped off to China for recycling. After all, we didn't really need an investigation. Terrorists led by Osama Bin Laden did it! I know this because he admitted it on tape. Lets Roll!

Interesting how Controlled Demolition was the same company that cleaned up the Alfred P. Murrah building - under armed guard - in the government sponsored Oklahoma City bombing.

You don't have to commit the perfect crime. You just have to control the investigation that follows.

 

[Alek]

IIRC, the movie uses quotes out of context to make it appear there were witnesses who said that. I'm calling BS on that.

You recall incorrectly. Watch the movie again. Pay attention to the eyewitness video interviews. But don't get back to me, please.

Prove me wrong, Alek.

Not interested.

And I'm not going to sit here debating you by you saying "look at 1:06:24 of the

Is that a promise?

movie". I'd really much prefer a link so I can find the actual quote and the context it was in, and leave the director playing the propaganda game out of the loop. You dig?

Now, see if you can do that.

 

[Alek]

That just means your not very smart.

LLH

...

 

[DavidJames]

..in the government sponsored Oklahoma City bombing...

well that clinched it for me, you are three complete suits short of a full deck.

 

[Alek]

well that clinched it for me, you are three complete suits short of a full deck.

Yes, the World Trade Center building 7 imploded symmetrically in 6.6 seconds due to fire, the magic bullet theory is valid, and Timothy McVeigh acted alone. Join me in a rousing chorus of "Proud to be an American". At least I know I'm free.

I'm sorry I lost you, David. If anyone would like to talk about Oklahoma City, we can start another thread. I would, however, suggest you first watch the film 9/11 The Road to Tyranny.

 

[WildCat]

Note the smoking beams in the lower left. Must be kerosene.

Steel doesn't smoke when its heated Alek! You're looking at dust.

I agree, except that if we are to assume that resourceful people were responsible for this demolition, and I think that's a reasonable assumption to make, they would only use just enough explosives to allow gravity to take over and do the work:

No need to assume, because there's not a single structural engineer in the US who thinks that the impact of the planes and resulting fires was insufficient to bring down the WTC.

“If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure.”

- http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html

What a joke that link is. Nice the way they take Lerner-Lamm's comments out of context to make it appear he agrees w/ the nonsense. It's already been pointed out in this thread that that's not so. And just how does "steel" stay molten after all that time Alek? Perhaps, if the contractor did indeed see a pool of something, it was not steel?

Of course, that doesn't explain the massive pyroclastic-like dust clouds and the horizontal ejection of debris near the top of the towers as they collapsed. But then again, neither does the official conspiracy theory.

Pyroclastic-like dust, did the gov't plant a volcano in the WTC as well as explosives?

A building of that size will not collapse w/o ejecting material horizontally, it's pretty much impossible.

What forensic investigation? Controlled Demolition was the only entity allowed on the scene following the disaster, and the evidence was shipped off to China for recycling. After all, we didn't really need an investigation. Terrorists led by Osama Bin Laden did it! I know this because he admitted it on tape. Lets Roll!

Interesting how Controlled Demolition was the same company that cleaned up the Alfred P. Murrah building - under armed guard - in the government sponsored Oklahoma City bombing.

You don't have to commit the perfect crime. You just have to control the investigation that follows.

Cue Twighlight Zone music...

 

[WildCat]

You recall incorrectly. Watch the movie again. Pay attention to the eyewitness video interviews. But don't get back to me, please.

So, there are no eyewitnesses to a non-757 hitting the Pentagon. Now that that's settled, I won't ask again.

 

[gtc]

What forensic investigation? Controlled Demolition was the only entity allowed on the scene following the disaster, and the evidence was shipped off to China for recycling. After all, we didn't really need an investigation. Terrorists led by Osama Bin Laden did it! I know this because he admitted it on tape. Lets Roll!

Your use of the phase 'Lets Roll' in this contexts shows that you either do not believe that the person who said that phrase ever existed or you are making fun of the victims of 911.

It doesn't say much for you as a person either way.

 

[delphi_ote]

It's worth re-quoting what I said earlier:

"Odds" and "probability" mean roughly the same thing. We report them differently, and there are subtle technical differences, but they're basically the same concept.

I've added some emphasis to my original post. While I'm as prone as anyone else to make a mistake, I'm also pretty damn cautious about respecting the depth and complexity of the field of probability and statistics. I chose my language very carefully.

It's also worth quoting Mathworld:

Betting odds are written in the form r:s ("r to s") and correspond to the probability of winning P==s/(r+s). Therefore, given a probability P, the odds of winning are (1/P)-1:1.

I've added some emphasis to this quote as well. The odds of an event are derived from its probability. From one you can calculate the other. In essence, we're talking about the same thing. It's just a different way of representing it (like polar vs. Cartesian coordinates.)

If you're interested in the subtle technicalities I was refering to:

There are several competing interpretations of the actual "meaning" of probabilities. Frequentists view probability simply as a measure of the frequency of outcomes (the more conventional interpretation), while Bayesians treat probability more subjectively as a statistical procedure that endeavors to estimate parameters of an underlying distribution based on the observed distribution.

Usually, someone talking about odds is a frequentist. It's just more a part of their vocabulary than it is for the Bayesians. The equations both schools derive for probability come out the same, but they approach the concepts in a different way. If you wanted a layman's synopsis, the frequentists are basically more conservative and Bayesians are a little more loose with what they'll call "probability."

P.S. Arguing with me about the theory of probability and statistics is suicide. Please don't do it. Think of your loved ones.