Who Disrespects NYPD & NYFD

Russell Pickering said:
It's not possible for 3 steel frame buildings to have non symmetrical damage and fall symmetrically straight down on the same day within 3 blocks of each other with fire as a primary cause for the first time in history.

It's mutually exclusive with physics and probability.
Click to expand...

Hi Russ,

This is a strange argument. If I'm not mistaken, its called "argument from incredulity". The argument also dramatically simplifies a very complex situation. The opposing argument could well be something like..

"What is the probability that 3 steel framed skyscrappers collapse as a result of the damage and fire that ensued a cataclysmic collsions ?...1:1. Its a fact."

The buildings didnt just fall down for no reason - what happened to them was unprecedented in all of history. And the fact the they were steel framed actually made them more vulnerable to a collapse - not less. The Madrid Tower only stayed standing because of its concrete core, all of the steel fell away.
 
Last edited:
jessicarabbit said:
They aren't my calculation. I admit they are guess work.

I want credentials before I read papers
Click to expand...
Funny, earlier you said you would read it. So you don't want to read page after page of first responder accounts of the condition of WTC 7?

Why?

And you don't want to read firsthand accounts of leaders of the truth movement lying about WTC 7?

Why?

And you don't want to learn more about fire protection of steel-framed buildings?

Why? What are you afraid of, Jessica? The information doesn't bite. If you disagree with the first responders or with me, just say why.

Will you do that, Jessica? Will you read up on this subject as I've been asking you to do. I'm a tour guide who gives a crap about the truth. I took the time to compile what I've learned. Those are my credentials. Satisfactory? Or do you have any more excuses?
 
LashL said:
I asked above and you didn't answer so I'll ask again: It's a good indicator of what, exactly? And source, please.
Click to expand...

I didn't note the source since its purely someones guesswork.

Its an indicator of how unlikely it is. Builing seven alone had a very low probability of collapse as admitted by FEMA.
 
EDIT (Add):
Statistically speaking, the probability of the alleged perpetrators enjoying such a run of luck is vanishingly small. The probability that a mission would succeed can be calculated by estimating the probabilities of achieving each individual task required to fulfill the mission, and then multiplying those probabilities together. (This method of computing probabilities assumes that the individual events are causally independent. Since the success of each task was not strictly independent, the following computation is not statistically rigorous, but is provided only to illustrate a point.)
________________________________________________________________________________

The following table lists estimates of probabilities for each of several tasks critical to the success of the mission. In all cases we chose much higher probabilities than the facts would warrant, in order to give the official story the benefit of the doubt.

task ---------------------------- probability
hijacking Flight 11 ---------------- 1/2
hijacking Flight 175 --------------- 1/3
hijacking Flight 77 ---------------- 1/4
hijacking Flight 93 ---------------- 1/4
evasion of intercepts by Flight 11 -1/2
evasion of intercepts by Flight 175 -1/3
evasion of intercepts by Flight 77 - 1/8
evasion of intercepts by Flight 93 - 1/8
hitting the North Tower ----------- 1/2
hitting the South Tower ----------- 1/2
hitting the Pentagon -------------- 1/4

Assuming these individual probabilities, the aggregate probability for success in the attack would be:

1/2 * 1/3 * 1/4 * 1/4 * 1/2 * 1/3 * 1/8 * 1/8 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/4 = 1/589824

This computation ignores the many other improbable events that worked in favor of the attackers, such as the unprecedented (alleged) crumbling of the steel-framed skyscrapers of the World Trade Center.
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
Funny, earlier you said you would read it. So you don't want to read page after page of first responder accounts of the condition of WTC 7?

Why?

And you don't want to read firsthand accounts of leaders of the truth movement lying about WTC 7?

Why?

And you don't want to learn more about fire protection of steel-framed buildings?

Why? What are you afraid of, Jessica? The information doesn't bite. If you disagree with the first responders or with me, just say why.

Will you do that, Jessica? Will you read up on this subject as I've been asking you to do. I'm a tour guide who gives a crap about the truth. I took the time to compile what I've learned. Those are my credentials. Satisfactory? Or do you have any more excuses?
Click to expand...

But by your own admission you're biased. You hate truthers by the look of it so your paper will not be a balanced view.
 
jessicarabbit said:
I didn't note the source since its purely someones guesswork.
Click to expand...

Whose? Don't be shy.

Its an indicator of how unlikely it is.
Click to expand...

How can it be a "good indicator" of anything if it's purely guesswork?

Builing seven alone had a very low probability of collapse as admitted by FEMA.
Click to expand...

I think you're wrong about that. Source, please.
 
Last edited:
jessicarabbit said:
I didn't note the source since its purely someones guesswork.

Its an indicator of how unlikely it is. Builing seven alone had a very low probability of collapse as admitted by FEMA.
Click to expand...
False. FEMA was talking about the diesel fuel scenario. All the experts on the scene agreed that building 7 would collapse. Do you have a refutation?
 
Gravy said:
False. FEMA was talking about the diesel fuel scenario. All the experts on the scene agreed that building 7 would collapse. Do you have a refutation?
Click to expand...

How could they know if its collapse still hasn.t been explained? As russell said earlier, collapse zones around such things are standard practise.
 
jessicarabbit said:
I didn't note the source since its purely someones guesswork.

Its an indicator of how unlikely it is. Builing seven alone had a very low probability of collapse as admitted by FEMA.
Click to expand...

Actually... that's not quite it.
They admitted that their best hypothesis had only a low probability of occurence.
 
jessicarabbit said:
But by your own admission you're biased. You hate truthers by the look of it so your paper will not be a balanced view.
Click to expand...
Did I make up the reports from the people on the scene, Jessica? Did I make up the quotes from the leaders of the truth movement? I did not.

Why are you so willing to opine on this subject but unwilling to learn about it? Have you read NIST's interim report on 7? I'll bet you haven't. I'll bet you have no idea what's in it.

One last time: will you read my paper, particularly the first responder accounts? I wrote it specifically for people like you. Yes or no?
 
jessicarabbit said:
But multiply the probability of three collapses with the probability of the other mutually exclusive events. It produces a highly unlikely scenario.
Click to expand...

That is just silly. You cannot assign probability to something after its already happened. We all win the lottery many times a day in ways that dont matter.
What are the odds that I woke up at exactly 7:36, took a 9 minute 2 second shower, read email for exactly 22 minutes, 11 seconds. Watched football for 8 hours, 55 minutes, 44 seconds while drinking 7 2/3 beers and 3 1/4 Cokes? I'd say a million to one...but it happened.
 
Gravy said:
It works exactly that way. Ever taken a statistics course?
Click to expand...

I did a quick phone-survey of all my mates and have concluded the following:

1. All of them were born.

So, therefore, the odds of being born are 1:1.

I didn't really do a phone survey.
 
Dazed said:
Actually... that's not quite it.
They admitted that their best hypothesis had only a low probability of occurence.
Click to expand...
Best hypothesis regarding the diesel fuel scenario. As you know, the NIST is conducting a much more extensive investigation. What specific issues do you have with their interim report?
 
Gravy said:
Did I make up the reports from the people on the scene, Jessica? Did I make up the quotes from the leaders of the truth movement? I did not.

Why are you so willing to opine on this subject but unwilling to learn about it? Have you read NIST's interim report on 7? I'll bet you haven't. I'll bet you have no idea what's in it.

One last time: will you read my paper, particularly the first responder accounts? I wrote it specifically for people like you. Yes or no?
Click to expand...

Ok i will read it. Accounts from responders and truth movement attitudes still don't explain the collapse.
 
Gravy said:
One last time: will you read my paper, particularly the first responder accounts? I wrote it specifically for people like you. Yes or no?
Click to expand...

**qarnos raises his hand excitedly.

Ooh ooh ooh!!! I know the answer to this one!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom