[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

[DGM]

Nudging americans away from lines of thought, certainly seems to be a growth industry nowadays.

Truthers certainly are making a buck aren't they?

 

[SpitfireIX]

With respect, I am not convinced that you have answered my question.
What has it got to do with you, what an independent democracy decides to do.
This is important because ot goes to the root of the hypocrisy that I have witnessed on here.
Any objections to what Iran may or may not do, can only be based on speculation. Any potential action against Iran can only be justified by the doctrine of a pre - emptive strike. That doctrine is based as far away from absolute proof as you can get.

This entire issue is a red herring that you have thrown out in an attempt both to change the subject and to lower your burden of proof--it is OT and belongs in the politics section.

On the one hand 9/11 deniers insist on absolute proof on each and every small point.

No. You are the one who continually insists on absolute proof. You keep parroting "Give me one piece of evidence that United 175 hit WTC 2" or words to that effect, and then you summarily reject the overwhelming evidence put forward by implying that it could have been faked or is impossible.

They deny suspicion, excessive coincidence, subjective cause, objective cause and probable cause.

Suspicion is not evidence of any sort.

The coincidences almost invariably turn out to be "excessive" only in the minds of conspiracists, due to lack of understanding of probability and statistics and/or to totally unsupportable assumptions (such as 150,000,000 American workers' all having an equal chance of having been aboard an airliner flying from the East Coast to California on September 11, 2001).

Subjective cause is effectively unknowable, so how can it be evidence?

Please give examples of someone's having ignored objective cause.

You have not presented any evidence whatsoever that comes even within shouting distance of "probable cause."

It is therefore the height of hypocrisy to rely upon suspicion of Iran's intentions.

Begging the question that anyone who posts here is in favor of a preemptive strike against Iran.

 

[SOMERLED]

Reasons:

1) A very comprehensive examination and report has already been undertaken.

2) Those are just the question you would like to ask, not 45% of the population.

3) Very few people, even among the hard-core truthers, subscribe to the no-plane thesis.

Finally, what is your evidence that anybody is keeping that information secret?

Hans

Who said anything about no planes?
I said a pair of strengthened bad boys for the twins and a flyover for the Pentagon.
Any photo of the twins will show the outline of the attack plane as clear as a bell. Yet the facade of the Pentagon shows absolutely no trace of a pair of wings, no furrows that engines would have to have dug - nothing.
Just answer this one question,
How come we have clean and crisp wing outlines on the twins and nothing on the facade of the Pentagon ?

 

[8den]

With respect, I am not convinced that you have answered my question.
What has it got to do with you, what an independent democracy decides to do.
This is important because ot goes to the root of the hypocrisy that I have witnessed on here.
Any objections to what Iran may or may not do, can only be based on speculation. Any potential action against Iran can only be justified by the doctrine of a pre - emptive strike.
That doctrine is based as far away from absolute proof as you can get.
On the one hand 9/11 deniers insist on absolute proof on each and every small point. They deny suspicion, excessive coincidence, subjective cause, objective cause and probable cause.
It is therefore the height of hypocrisy to rely upon suspicion of Iran's intentions.

malcom, whats your point. I've never suggested for a minute that invading or attacking Iran on the possibilty they have a nuclear program.

The simple fact is, America doesn't have the resources for an Iranian war, America's military is overstretched in Iraq, the American public have no stomach for it, and Bush's popularity has slumped. There's no evidence whatsoever that the US has any serious plans to engage in any military action against Iran.

 

[SOMERLED]

Reasons:

1) A very comprehensive examination and report has already been undertaken.

2) Those are just the question you would like to ask, not 45% of the population.

3) Very few people, even among the hard-core truthers, subscribe to the no-plane thesis.

Finally, what is your evidence that anybody is keeping that information secret?

Hans

Does that include telling us how Homer got listed as a casualty at the Pentagon ?
How could that possibly happen ?
The Department of Defence put together the list of victims at the Pentagon.
They would put together a list of those who were at the Pentagon and a list from American Airlines of the passengers on flight 77.
There would be absolutely no need to call United Airlines and ask them for a list of passengers on flight 175.
So how did a 'passenger' on flight 175 get to be named as a victim at the Pentagon ?
I keep asking these questions.
Furthermore, Homer's name appeared on the Pentagon list on Sept 14th.
Where on earth did his name come from ?

 

[beachnut]

Who said anything about no planes?
I said a pair of strengthened bad boys for the twins and a flyover for the Pentagon.

This is an idea with no support. Wrong on two counts, these are proven to be ondinary planes. -2

Yet the facade of the Pentagon shows absolutely no trace of a pair of wings, no furrows that engines would have to have dug - nothing.

Sorry, the energy and impact damage is eactly that of flight 77. No fly over! -2 again for a total of -4

Just answer this one question,
How come we have clean and crisp wing outlines on the twins and nothing on the facade of the Pentagon ?

Easy question. The Pentagon was not made like the WTC, this questions was easy, and it earns -1 for being wrong again and -1 for being a dumb question. That brings us up to -6.

Perfect record of wrong.

 

[Belz...]

The odds on seven are more than 7,000,000 to one.

Those are pretty good odds, in fact.

Oh, you meant 1 in 7 million ? Well, that's still pointless because IT HAPPENED. Therefore the odds are 1 in 1.

The evidence is there to settle this dispute conclusively.

No, there is not. All you have is your refusal to believe the evidence that we do have.

Think about it. We have pictures and videos of the plane entering the tower, and people that saw it, a missing 767 and a missing crew and passengers. All you're doing is simply claiming that this is not evidence that 175 hit the tower, and amounts to an argument from incredulity, nothing else.

The 146 people are not required to keep a 'secret' by keeping 'quiet'. Merely intimidated away from a particular line of thought.
Nudging americans away from lines of thought, certainly seems to be a growth industry nowadays.

That's the lengthy version of "yeah, I read your post with numbers, but so what ?"

On the one hand 9/11 deniers insist on absolute proof on each and every small point.

Such as asking for absolute proof of 175 hitting the south tower ?

I said a pair of strengthened bad boys for the twins and a flyover for the Pentagon.

And that doesn't require proof ? Aside from the fact that our proof does not convince you, what do you have to support this opinion of yours ?

 

[SOMERLED]

malcom, whats your point. I've never suggested for a minute that invading or attacking Iran on the possibilty they have a nuclear program.

The simple fact is, America doesn't have the resources for an Iranian war, America's military is overstretched in Iraq, the American public have no stomach for it, and Bush's popularity has slumped. There's no evidence whatsoever that the US has any serious plans to engage in any military action against Iran.

Oh yes there is,
Congress has warned Bush that any attack on Iraq will result in immediate action from them. Israel has reputedly tried to overfly Iraq three times to get at Iran. Re-fuelling of Israeli planeshas been refused by the US - so the stories go. There's more, mainly MSM attempts to stoke even more fires of death.
It is a moot popint that Iran is off topic, although my contention viz a vix absolute proof and suspicion of nuclear weapons is not.
Further, this list of passenger victims on 9/11 is reaching farcical proportions.
Kindly consider the following site,
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/07/article_tro_flight77.htm
On top of the seven I've already mentioned,
We have three from Boeing, Dong Lee, Ruben Ornedo and Chad keller.
John Sammartin, Leonard Taylor, Robert Penniger and Vickey Yancy whose death was described as 'planned murder' by her father.
Then Mary Jane Botth, who is described as being in a position to know what went on at Dulles.
So next, I'll have a look at Dulles, a miserable shed which I have personal experience of.
Then we have William Caswell and Charles Droz.
Knowing how easily I get 'moderated', any more comment from me will have to be left to your imagination.

 

[SOMERLED]

This is an idea with no support. Wrong on two counts, these are proven to be ondinary planes. -2

Sorry, the energy and impact damage is eactly that of flight 77. No fly over! -2 again for a total of -4

Easy question. The Pentagon was not made like the WTC, this questions was easy, and it earns -1 for being wrong again and -1 for being a dumb question. That brings us up to -6.

Perfect record of wrong.

I quote,
"Proven to be ordinary planes".
Kindly exhibit that proof.

 

[SOMERLED]

Truthers certainly are making a buck aren't they?

Do truthers have a piece of the $100 billion per year the US taxpayer is borrowing from Rockefeler and Co ?

 

[chillzero]

Knowing how easily I get 'moderated', any more comment from me will have to be left to your imagination.

If you have any comment or complaint about moderation, please take it to the forum mgt section.

 

[SpitfireIX]

You seem to be well informed, you omitted to mention that Homer was first liated as a casualty at the pentagon. <snip>

Yes, confused initial reports--extremely suspicious. Homer was a civilian Defense Department employee; in all probability, when the request was sent to each agency to list those missing after the attack, someone failed to consider that some employees or service members might have been aboard the hijacked planes. The same thing happened with DoD budget analyst Bryan C. Jack:

For days, friends thought Bryan C. Jack, a budget analyst for the Defense Department, was missing in the ruins of the Pentagon. By a strange twist of fate, it turned out that he was among the passengers aboard American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed at the place where Mr. Jack, on most days, would have been crunching numbers at his desk. On Sept. 11, he was on his way to California on business.

Was Jack murdered because he knew too much, or was this just a case of coincidence and confused initial reports?

The American workforce is around 150,000,000.
http://careers.stateuniversity.com/pages/838/American-Workforce-2004-14.html

Granted.

The people who worked on Global Hawk in any senior manadement/serious capacity will be, say 150.

Granted for the sake of argument.

That's one in a million. It's a million to one that you'll have somebody from Global Hawk in any group.

No, it's about a million to one that any given American worker would have been a key Global Hawk employee. The chances of finding at least one in any group depends on the size of the group.

TJX don't count, because they were travelling as a single unit.

The Raytheon employees were all traveling to a meeting (though Gay would have been flying anyway as part of his weekly commute) so their deaths are still corelated events, even if they weren't all on the same plane.

We've got five up to now.
That doesn't mean that we're now looking at 5,000,000 to one because the increase is exponential or whatever.
At this moment in time, all I remember is that the increase in odds isn't linear.
I've only just found all this out, see what I say, the truth just keeps on coming.

Begging the question of whether any of the five were involved in the Global Hawk program. That aside, using your assumptions, the chances that five Global Hawk "insiders" would randomly have been aboard the hijacked planes would have been astronomical.

First, we have the chance that at least one of the 150 was aboard the plane. In order to determine this, we have to determine the probability that none were aboard, and subtract that from one, because the probability that something will happen plus the probability that it won't happen always equals one. That's 208 one in a million chances, so we have (1 - 1/1,000,000)²⁰⁸ = 0.999792, or over 99% likely that there won't be at least one aboard. Therfore, the probability that there will be at least one aboard is 0.000208. Next we need to determine the chances that one of the 207 remaining passengers isn't a Global Hawk insider. For simplicity, we'll assume that the probability of any given passenger's being an insider remains one in a million. (1 - 1/1,000,000)²⁰⁷ = 0.999793. 1 - 0.999793 = 0.000207. Continuing gives us 1 - (1 - 1/1,000,000)²⁰⁶ = 0.000206; 1 - (1 - 1/1,000,000)²⁰⁵ = 0.000205; and 1 - (1 - 1/1,000,000)²⁰⁴ = 0.000204. To find the total probability, we have to multiply all of these together. (0.000208)(0.000207)(0.000206)(0.000205)(0.000204) = 3.07 * 10-19, or about one chance in 2.7 * 10¹⁸ To give an idea of how large 2.7 quintillion (in US parlance) is, it's roughly the number of seconds in 85 billion years. So yes, Malcolm, using your assumptions, this would be an astounding coincidence. However, let me ask you something. Don't you imagine that any mathematics professor or secondary-school math teacher in the world could figure this out? Why aren't a significant number of them sounding the alarm about the "Raytheon connection?" I see two possibilities. Either they're all being bought off or intimidated by the Men in Black, or your assumptions are hopelessly flawed. Which is far more likely, Malcolm?

There are two more yet, Charles S Falkenberg Carl Max Hammond Jr. That's seven. The odds on seven are more than 7,000,000 to one.

Actually roughly 6.6 * 10²⁵ to one, using your assumptions. However, it's a moot point, as Charles Falkenberg worked for ECOLogic Corporation on global climate-modeling and mapping software, data from which is widely used for a variety of civilian and military applications (mostly civilian scientific research, but possibly including the Global Hawk). He had about as much connection to the Global Hawk as Giuglielmo Marconi, inventor of radio, which is also used by the Global Hawk. You and a few other conspiracists are simply clutching at straws in your search for tenuous connections that you can claim are evidence of a conspiracy. Carl Hammond only worked for MITRE Corporation as a physicist for a few months before his death. Please provide any evidence that he worked on any Global Hawk projects, which, from what I can tell, mostly involve processing data sent from the UAV.

But I'll leave you with that figure for now, together with the reflection that time will show who is doing what on people's graves.

Malcolm, what will your excuse be in five years when there's been no new investigation, no indictments or convictions of any Bush Administration officials for conspiracy to commit treason, and the "truth" movement has even fewer members than it does now?

 

[RBG]

Just answer this one question,
How come we have clean and crisp wing outlines on the twins and nothing on the facade of the Pentagon ?

Can't make this too easy for you.

Here's a hint:

One building is the US military's HQ and has been hardened against attack.

The other has lots of windows for a nice view.

RBG

 

[SOMERLED]

Yes, confused initial reports--extremely suspicious. Homer was a civilian Defense Department employee; in all probability, when the request was sent to each agency to list those missing after the attack, someone failed to consider that some employees or service members might have been aboard the hijacked planes. The same thing happened with DoD budget analyst Bryan C. Jack:




Was Jack murdered because he knew too much, or was this just a case of coincidence and confused initial reports?




Granted.




Granted for the sake of argument.




No, it's about a million to one that any given American worker would have been a key Global Hawk employee. The chances of finding at least one in any group depends on the size of the group.




The Raytheon employees were all traveling to a meeting (though Gay would have been flying anyway as part of his weekly commute) so their deaths are still corelated events, even if they weren't all on the same plane.




Begging the question of whether any of the five were involved in the Global Hawk program. That aside, using your assumptions, the chances that five Global Hawk "insiders" would randomly have been aboard the hijacked planes would have been astronomical.

First, we have the chance that at least one of the 150 was aboard the plane. In order to determine this, we have to determine the probability that none were aboard, and subtract that from one, because the probability that something will happen plus the probability that it won't happen always equals one. That's 208 one in a million chances, so we have (1 - 1/1,000,000)²⁰⁸ = 0.999792, or over 99% likely that there won't be at least one aboard. Therfore, the probability that there will be at least one aboard is 0.000208. Next we need to determine the chances that one of the 207 remaining passengers isn't a Global Hawk insider. For simplicity, we'll assume that the probability of any given passenger's being an insider remains one in a million. (1 - 1/1,000,000)²⁰⁷ = 0.999793. 1 - 0.999793 = 0.000207. Continuing gives us 1 - (1 - 1/1,000,000)²⁰⁶ = 0.000206; 1 - (1 - 1/1,000,000)²⁰⁵ = 0.000205; and 1 - (1 - 1/1,000,000)²⁰⁴ = 0.000204. To find the total probability, we have to multiply all of these together. (0.000208)(0.000207)(0.000206)(0.000205)(0.000204) = 3.07 * 10^{-19, or about one chance in 2.7 * 1018 To give an idea of how large 2.7 quintillion (in US parlance) is, it's roughly the number of seconds in 85 billion years. So yes, Malcolm, using your assumptions, this would be an astounding coincidence. However, let me ask you something. Don't you imagine that any mathematics professor or secondary-school math teacher in the world could figure this out? Why aren't a significant number of them sounding the alarm about the "Raytheon connection?" I see two possibilities. Either they're all being bought off or intimidated by the Men in Black, or your assumptions are hopelessly flawed. Which is far more likely, Malcolm? Actually roughly 6.6 * 1025 to one, using your assumptions. However, it's a moot point, as Charles Falkenberg worked for ECOLogic Corporation on global climate-modeling and mapping software, data from which is widely used for a variety of civilian and military applications (mostly civilian scientific research, but possibly including the Global Hawk). He had about as much connection to the Global Hawk as Giuglielmo Marconi, inventor of radio, which is also used by the Global Hawk. You and a few other conspiracists are simply clutching at straws in your search for tenuous connections that you can claim are evidence of a conspiracy. Carl Hammond only worked for MITRE Corporation as a physicist for a few months before his death. Please provide any evidence that he worked on any Global Hawk projects, which, from what I can tell, mostly involve processing data sent from the UAV. Malcolm, what will your excuse be in five years when there's been no new investigation, no indictments or convictions of any Bush Administration officials for conspiracy to commit treason, and the "truth" movement has even fewer members than it does now?}

^{I'm most impressed by the maths. Can we stay with that for a moment. How many people on the flights, were connected to Raytheon, Global hawk, Boeing and the intelligence community and if you would be so kind, the 10 to the whatever. Thanking you in advance.}

 

[SOMERLED]

Can't make this too easy for you.

Here's a hint:

One building is the US military's HQ and has been hardened against attack.

The other has lots of windows for a nice view.

RBG

Thank you for that. Perhaps you could continue in the same vein with regard to how come the pentagon jet went through 12 or so such walls and left an opened book on a stool and the book was not even charred. Whilst the WTC plane burnt everything to ash?
I am handicapped by being unable to put up a photo. I keep trying but obviously, I'm doing something wrong. You wouldn't happen to have a photo of the Pentagon facade before the collapse would you ?
It's just that I'm interested in what happened to the engines and the wings.

 

[SOMERLED]

This entire issue is a red herring that you have thrown out in an attempt both to change the subject and to lower your burden of proof--it is OT and belongs in the politics section.




No. You are the one who continually insists on absolute proof. You keep parroting "Give me one piece of evidence that United 175 hit WTC 2" or words to that effect, and then you summarily reject the overwhelming evidence put forward by implying that it could have been faked or is impossible.





Suspicion is not evidence of any sort.

The coincidences almost invariably turn out to be "excessive" only in the minds of conspiracists, due to lack of understanding of probability and statistics and/or to totally unsupportable assumptions (such as 150,000,000 American workers' all having an equal chance of having been aboard an airliner flying from the East Coast to California on September 11, 2001).

Subjective cause is effectively unknowable, so how can it be evidence?

Please give examples of someone's having ignored objective cause.

You have not presented any evidence whatsoever that comes even within shouting distance of "probable cause."




Begging the question that anyone who posts here is in favor of a preemptive strike against Iran.

You are mistaken about subjective cause.
People gets suspicions every day about all kinds of things. The human animal is unique at being able to take offence (a potential threat) where none exists, especially when he or she has had too much to drink. Suspicion therefore is no more than a part of everyday life. Next comes subjective cause, where an individual amasses enough suspicions to believe there is substance in the matter. After that comes objective cause, where he now needs to persuade someone else and so on.

 

[SOMERLED]

Yes, confused initial reports--extremely suspicious. Homer was a civilian Defense Department employee; in all probability, when the request was sent to each agency to list those missing after the attack, someone failed to consider that some employees or service members might have been aboard the hijacked planes. The same thing happened with DoD budget analyst Bryan C. Jack:




Was Jack murdered because he knew too much, or was this just a case of coincidence and confused initial reports?




Granted.




Granted for the sake of argument.




No, it's about a million to one that any given American worker would have been a key Global Hawk employee. The chances of finding at least one in any group depends on the size of the group.




The Raytheon employees were all traveling to a meeting (though Gay would have been flying anyway as part of his weekly commute) so their deaths are still corelated events, even if they weren't all on the same plane.




Begging the question of whether any of the five were involved in the Global Hawk program. That aside, using your assumptions, the chances that five Global Hawk "insiders" would randomly have been aboard the hijacked planes would have been astronomical.

First, we have the chance that at least one of the 150 was aboard the plane. In order to determine this, we have to determine the probability that none were aboard, and subtract that from one, because the probability that something will happen plus the probability that it won't happen always equals one. That's 208 one in a million chances, so we have (1 - 1/1,000,000)²⁰⁸ = 0.999792, or over 99% likely that there won't be at least one aboard. Therfore, the probability that there will be at least one aboard is 0.000208. Next we need to determine the chances that one of the 207 remaining passengers isn't a Global Hawk insider. For simplicity, we'll assume that the probability of any given passenger's being an insider remains one in a million. (1 - 1/1,000,000)²⁰⁷ = 0.999793. 1 - 0.999793 = 0.000207. Continuing gives us 1 - (1 - 1/1,000,000)²⁰⁶ = 0.000206; 1 - (1 - 1/1,000,000)²⁰⁵ = 0.000205; and 1 - (1 - 1/1,000,000)²⁰⁴ = 0.000204. To find the total probability, we have to multiply all of these together. (0.000208)(0.000207)(0.000206)(0.000205)(0.000204) = 3.07 * 10^{-19, or about one chance in 2.7 * 1018 To give an idea of how large 2.7 quintillion (in US parlance) is, it's roughly the number of seconds in 85 billion years. So yes, Malcolm, using your assumptions, this would be an astounding coincidence. However, let me ask you something. Don't you imagine that any mathematics professor or secondary-school math teacher in the world could figure this out? Why aren't a significant number of them sounding the alarm about the "Raytheon connection?" I see two possibilities. Either they're all being bought off or intimidated by the Men in Black, or your assumptions are hopelessly flawed. Which is far more likely, Malcolm? Actually roughly 6.6 * 1025 to one, using your assumptions. However, it's a moot point, as Charles Falkenberg worked for ECOLogic Corporation on global climate-modeling and mapping software, data from which is widely used for a variety of civilian and military applications (mostly civilian scientific research, but possibly including the Global Hawk). He had about as much connection to the Global Hawk as Giuglielmo Marconi, inventor of radio, which is also used by the Global Hawk. You and a few other conspiracists are simply clutching at straws in your search for tenuous connections that you can claim are evidence of a conspiracy. Carl Hammond only worked for MITRE Corporation as a physicist for a few months before his death. Please provide any evidence that he worked on any Global Hawk projects, which, from what I can tell, mostly involve processing data sent from the UAV. Malcolm, what will your excuse be in five years when there's been no new investigation, no indictments or convictions of any Bush Administration officials for conspiracy to commit treason, and the "truth" movement has even fewer members than it does now?}

^{I have already responded to the maths part of this post and I would like to keep that bit separate. With regard to the rest of your post, isn't what you're really saying, "We know you're speaking the truth Malcolm and we know you won't be dissuaded, but so what? 9/11 truth is going nowhere". Isn't that what you are really saying ?}

 

[A W Smith]

Can't make this too easy for you.

Here's a hint:

One building is the US military's HQ and has been hardened against attack.

The other has lots of windows for a nice view.

RBG

RBG welcome to JREF and beating me to the point. Kirkman we are beating you up black and blue on this thread!

 

[SOMERLED]

RBG welcome to JREF and beating me to the point. Kirkman we are beating you up black and blue on this thread!

I hardly think repeating my post to you is beating me up , do you ?

 

[SOMERLED]

Yes, confused initial reports--extremely suspicious. Homer was a civilian Defense Department employee; in all probability, when the request was sent to each agency to list those missing after the attack, someone failed to consider that some employees or service members might have been aboard the hijacked planes. The same thing happened with DoD budget analyst Bryan C. Jack:




Was Jack murdered because he knew too much, or was this just a case of coincidence and confused initial reports?




Granted.




Granted for the sake of argument.




No, it's about a million to one that any given American worker would have been a key Global Hawk employee. The chances of finding at least one in any group depends on the size of the group.




The Raytheon employees were all traveling to a meeting (though Gay would have been flying anyway as part of his weekly commute) so their deaths are still corelated events, even if they weren't all on the same plane.




Begging the question of whether any of the five were involved in the Global Hawk program. That aside, using your assumptions, the chances that five Global Hawk "insiders" would randomly have been aboard the hijacked planes would have been astronomical.

First, we have the chance that at least one of the 150 was aboard the plane. In order to determine this, we have to determine the probability that none were aboard, and subtract that from one, because the probability that something will happen plus the probability that it won't happen always equals one. That's 208 one in a million chances, so we have (1 - 1/1,000,000)²⁰⁸ = 0.999792, or over 99% likely that there won't be at least one aboard. Therfore, the probability that there will be at least one aboard is 0.000208. Next we need to determine the chances that one of the 207 remaining passengers isn't a Global Hawk insider. For simplicity, we'll assume that the probability of any given passenger's being an insider remains one in a million. (1 - 1/1,000,000)²⁰⁷ = 0.999793. 1 - 0.999793 = 0.000207. Continuing gives us 1 - (1 - 1/1,000,000)²⁰⁶ = 0.000206; 1 - (1 - 1/1,000,000)²⁰⁵ = 0.000205; and 1 - (1 - 1/1,000,000)²⁰⁴ = 0.000204. To find the total probability, we have to multiply all of these together. (0.000208)(0.000207)(0.000206)(0.000205)(0.000204) = 3.07 * 10^{-19, or about one chance in 2.7 * 1018 To give an idea of how large 2.7 quintillion (in US parlance) is, it's roughly the number of seconds in 85 billion years. So yes, Malcolm, using your assumptions, this would be an astounding coincidence. However, let me ask you something. Don't you imagine that any mathematics professor or secondary-school math teacher in the world could figure this out? Why aren't a significant number of them sounding the alarm about the "Raytheon connection?" I see two possibilities. Either they're all being bought off or intimidated by the Men in Black, or your assumptions are hopelessly flawed. Which is far more likely, Malcolm? Actually roughly 6.6 * 1025 to one, using your assumptions. However, it's a moot point, as Charles Falkenberg worked for ECOLogic Corporation on global climate-modeling and mapping software, data from which is widely used for a variety of civilian and military applications (mostly civilian scientific research, but possibly including the Global Hawk). He had about as much connection to the Global Hawk as Giuglielmo Marconi, inventor of radio, which is also used by the Global Hawk. You and a few other conspiracists are simply clutching at straws in your search for tenuous connections that you can claim are evidence of a conspiracy. Carl Hammond only worked for MITRE Corporation as a physicist for a few months before his death. Please provide any evidence that he worked on any Global Hawk projects, which, from what I can tell, mostly involve processing data sent from the UAV. Malcolm, what will your excuse be in five years when there's been no new investigation, no indictments or convictions of any Bush Administration officials for conspiracy to commit treason, and the "truth" movement has even fewer members than it does now?}

^{A response with regard to Mr Jack is no answer to my question with regard to Mr Homer. How could a person who was ostensibly murdered on United flight 175 in New York, be listed as a victim at the Pentagon, when the plane that alledgedly hit the Pentagon was an American Airlines flight ?}