Breaking news! Truther Ignored by Senator!

[Comrade Raptor]

First, just at a glance, the probability of 2 planes crashing into the WTC and 3 buildings coming down in virtually perfect uniformity is very low in my estimation. There is simply too much chaos involved for there to be such a neat outcome.

Probability scales with time. Globally, if we take probability before any of the events of 9/11 began to take place that day, then the entirety of the event is extremely improbable.

However, each subsequent event chains to increase the probability of a specific outcome, eventually reaching 1:1 (event occured).

So that, were we to timescale back to before the hiackers boarded the first plane, then the odds of the full completion of events as happened are quite low. Many factors have yet to be determined.

But as we scale through the day, each event occurence chains. The hijackers make it through security - they hijack a plane - they change course and make it to the target area - they fly into a building - eventually the building collapses.

The odds of four such successful attacks are slim if we scale from the start of the day (indeed, one actually failed).

So when you express incredulity at the probabilities, you ignore the chain and the timescale. It's important to figure out what led to what, and how each event contributed to the outcome.


To use an analogy, the odds of me being in a car crash tomorrow are low. However, if I do wind up in a car crash then I can look over the chain of events that led to the odds becoming progessively closer to 1:1 (just before impact).

This is why when people point out the details of what happened it's important to pay attention. It all adds up in the end.


What you're doing right now is the equivalent of arguing that you can never be in a car crash unless it's a planned conspiracy because the probablity before the event is low. Can you see how this makes little sense?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Good post, Raptor.

 

[tempesta29]

Your snarky comment notwithstanding, I find it a continual source of amusement (and sadness for our education system) that a collection of individuals have, for years, gone bleating about some form of "inside job." Something that, in order to devise, plot, fund, implement, and cover up for all time, would be so near impossible to carry off successfully it's a distinction without a difference. Too, the complete lack of follow-through re: planting WMD in Iraq, or even maybe one or two follow-up incidents in the US (including anything leading up to the 2004 and 2006 elections). So...

It. Could not. Be done.

No higher math involved. No great understanding of principles of physics. No knowledge of fire or building construction or even consideration of witness testimony.

What this means (if you've made it this far, terrific) is that each Truth Movement member falls into one of three categories: 1) Ignorant of the basics, though teachable if interested; 2) Willfully ignorant, usually with an inflated self-regard; and 3) Agenda-driven, for which conspiracy ideas, no matter their likelihood, are cover.

Which are you?

Your opinion is noted, and I disagree with it. All you need to do to carry out such a plan successfully is have a powerful propaganda program in place to tell the story you want to tell. If you create an atmosphere in which people are afraid to question that story and in which people ridicule others for questioning that story, then it basically is self-regulating.

You lack the objectivity to discover truth under all circumstances. Your ego is far too involved for that.

 

[TJM]

<snip> but to pull out the "you're insulting the 9/11 families" card is just low.

To assume we're reducing them to a talking point is lower still.

 

[triforcharity]

You're being condescending. Seeing the steel beam itself in a molten state is confirmation steel melted.

No, it's absolutely not. Please provide evidence for this claim. I would love to see the picture.

The fires were very far from the ground level, below which many eyewitnesses felt massive explosions.

So sound only travels one direction? Why are there no seismic signatures for these explosions that were so powerful, that they lifted people off the ground, but is not recorded on any cameras, and you can show no injuries from such an explosion.

I've heard this argument before. You have no record of whether or not barotrauma occurred. The whole argument is rooted in logical fallacy as well.

Really? How so? Please explain your logic.


ETA: Here is one link you should look at.
http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&...vWHuBzK9oNpUvH40rLZTZYQio#v=onepage&q&f=false

Here is another study of the injuries that were reported after 9/11 in Manhattan.

http://archsurg.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/140/11/1068

Not a sigle barotraumatic injury. Barotrauma injuries are VERY VERY painful, and can cause permanant damage to internal organs.
And yet, not a single report of them.

First, just at a glance, the probability of 2 planes crashing into the WTC and 3 buildings coming down in virtually perfect uniformity

Which didn't happen.

is very low in my estimation.

Show us the math. I love math. So do many more around here.

There is simply too much chaos involved for there to be such a neat outcome.

Neat? You call this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Wtc-photo.jpg neat? Holy ****, I hope you don't consider this neat. If you do, I would hate to see your house.

The Twin Towers were designed to withstand 707 crashes and analyzed to withstand such crashes at 600 mph, a comparable kinetic output to the 9/11 crashes. The head structural engineer of the Twin Towers said the fires wouldn't be a problem either, that fires wouldn't cause collapse.

Incorrect. The study IIRC was incorrect. I don't remember the study exactly, but I know it's been discussed here many times before.

Continuing at a glance, WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane. It had some noticeable debris damage, limited to the south face of course. The predominance of its fires were also isolated to the south face. Small isolated fires were seen elsewhere, however in collapse videos I've never seen a fire.

You haven't seen the many hundreds of pictures, have you?

Would you expect to see them during the collapse? If so, why?

This was a large building comprised of 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns, yet it fell like a house of cards, like someone pulled a rug out from underneath it.

Incorrect. The Penthouse proves this to be incorrect.

It certainly appears as if the overwhelming majority of its columns never experienced any weakening from fire,

Didn't need to. Read the NIST report.

but the building still came down in perfect uniformity

Absolutely incorrect.

See the lean?

See the lean?

How about Fitterman Hall?

Can you explain how that happened?

very close to free fall acceleration, and for some time, at free fall.

For a section of the North face. And no, IIRC it was about 60% of FFA.

My instincts alone send up a red flag, but since I like to learn, I instigate discussion on the science behind it.

Maybe you should learn from neutral sources, and not from AE911T.

And these are just the facts surrounding the collapses. There are countless other anomalies and improbabilities. There's also a motive.

I hardly saw a single fact listed.

There's a history of false flag planning in the US. Frankly, looking at it objectively, I think the likelihood of the US being involved is very high.

Really? Let me guess, Operation Northwoods? (Which, BTW, was never enacted, and went to great lengths to avoid injuries to real people.)

I haven't seen much to dissuade me from this opinion. Dick Cheney shot his friend with a shotgun and never apologized to him. I put nothing past such breed of man.

So, because YOU didn't see him apologize, he didn't? That is laughable at best.

And really, that the members have heard this information before is irrelevant to me. Perhaps they should hear it again.

We've already heard this tripe hundreds of times. The problem is, you and your ilk continue to point out the same things we have heard, and proven incorrect.

Men more qualified than they have outlined detailed arguments as to why they're wrong, so to be so rude and dismissive is rather juvenile. There's the distinct possibility that they're wrong.

And many more than those, who have actual qualifications (myself included) have shown them time and time again, that they are wrong. To date, not a single truther has published anything outside of Bentham and Jo911S. Not even one.

 

[beachnut]

I absolutely agree. We need to investigate the collapse of these structures to make sure the building codes for large skyscrapers prevent catastrophic cascade failure of this kind.

That's the REAL conspiracy here -- the architects and engineers for the WTC got off scot-free.

You missed it! It was done. Guess simple research and reading thousand of pages is not in your mission statement of woo. The study was done, you failed to find it. It is thousands of pages, so it might not be something you will enjoy since you failed to do the research to find the very thing you want.

BTW, there are many who studied the collapse and will give you the information to help prevent future disasters, but the studies cost money. Engineering firms don't work for free. What level of terrorist activity do you want to defend against? Nukes? 2000 pound bombs? It is funny, some of the studies which proved the WTC was up to standards, are used by the idiots in 911 truth as evidence for their moronic delusions.

 

[tempesta29]

Excuse me for jumping in at this point, but I just love this post.
No background in engineering or physics but you know what you know?
Is that painful?

I'm sorry if my post sounded redundant, but it was meant to express humility. Your condescending response is befitting of your kind.

Probability scales with time. Globally, if we take probability before any of the events of 9/11 began to take place that day, then the entirety of the event is extremely improbable.

However, each subsequent event chains to increase the probability of a specific outcome, eventually reaching 1:1 (event occured).

So that, were we to timescale back to before the hiackers boarded the first plane, then the odds of the full completion of events as happened are quite low. Many factors have yet to be determined.

But as we scale through the day, each event occurence chains. The hijackers make it through security - they hijack a plane - they change course and make it to the target area - they fly into a building - eventually the building collapses.

The odds of four such successful attacks are slim if we scale from the start of the day (indeed, one actually failed).

So when you express incredulity at the probabilities, you ignore the chain and the timescale. It's important to figure out what led to what, and how each event contributed to the outcome.

To use an analogy, the odds of me being in a car crash tomorrow are low. However, if I do wind up in a car crash then I can look over the chain of events that led to the odds becoming progessively closer to 1:1 (just before impact).

But we're talking about multiple concomitant events with regard to 9/11 with no distinctly clear causes. It would be like 5 people on your street getting in car crashes at almost the same time and their accidents being blamed initially on user error. I would see the likelihood of 5 people committing driving errors simultaneously on the same street very low. I would want to know what the condition of the road was, for instance.

This is why when people point out the details of what happened it's important to pay attention. It all adds up in the end.

What you're doing right now is the equivalent of arguing that you can never be in a car crash unless it's a planned conspiracy because the probablity before the event is low. Can you see how this makes little sense?

But the specificities of the chain of events can't be determined. What we have are images, vagaries, and outcomes. You can't look at the chain of events in these collapses with any real precision.

 

[Comrade Raptor]

But we're talking about multiple concomitant events with regard to 9/11 with no distinctly clear causes. It would be like 5 people on your street getting in car crashes at almost the same time and their accidents being blamed initially on user error. I would see the likelihood of 5 people committing driving errors simultaneously on the same street very low. I would want to know what the condition of the road was, for instance.



But the specificities of the chain of events can't be determined. What we have are images, vagaries, and outcomes. You can't look at the chain of events in these collapses with any real precision.

That's where you go terribly wrong. There are distinct causes all along the way, and we can reconstruct with enough precision to evaluate events along the timescale.

You're just ignoring them. That's not a problem with the data, it's a problem with your interpretation of it. Only you can correct that, but you choose not to. You insist that because the probabilities in the beginning are low, the events could not have happened as explained.

This is like arguing that you cannot exist because if we timescale back to your great-great-great-grandparents then the probablity of all subsequent events leading up to your birth and survival to adulthood are too low to be explained except by an overly exotic theory.

Since I assume you exist, and I assume there was nothing exotic involved in your formation, then I can infer that you exist as a result of distinct events that chained together - whatever the initial probability. To then argue that you either do not exist, or that you are an alien clone, would be quite silly.

But that's pretty much the kind of thing you're doing. So I now invite you to prove to me that your defiance of the odds of probability by existing are not the result of alien cloning from Ceti alpha 5.

The floor is yours.

 

[twinstead]

But that's pretty much the kind of thing you're doing. So I now invite you to prove to me that your defiance of the odds of probability by existing are not the result of alien cloning from Ceti alpha 5.

Ceti Alpha 5? That place is a backwater. Luyten 726-8 is MUCH more like it.

 

[kerikiwi]

I'm sorry if my post sounded redundant, but it was meant to express humility. Your condescending response is befitting of your kind.

No, your post was not redundant,it was internally contradictory.
My kind?

 

[Thunder]

delete

 

[Thunder]

I'm sorry if my post sounded redundant, but it was meant to express humility. Your condescending response is befitting of your kind.

and you earlier complained of being treated rudely.

Tempesta29: "Men more qualified than they have outlined detailed arguments as to why they're wrong, so to be so rude and dismissive is rather juvenile."

pretty funny, huh.

 

[kerikiwi]

But we're talking about multiple concomitant events with regard to 9/11 with no distinctly clear causes. It would be like 5 people on your street getting in car crashes at almost the same time and their accidents being blamed initially on user error. I would see the likelihood of 5 people committing driving errors simultaneously on the same street very low. I would want to know what the condition of the road was, for instance.

Your analogy does not involve concomitant events, 9/11 did.

 

[Craig4]

That's your opinion. There are plenty of victims' family members who encourage what I'm doing. You and I have different takes on an event. Get over it.

No, lets not pretend that your view and mine are on equal footing. They are not. My view of these events is based on evidence. You spout off nonsense about which you are ill-informed and have no evidence. This is not a difference of opinion this is the difference of what is supported by evidence and what is not. Your view is not supported. You use the deaths of three thousand people as a hobby and accuse people of committing mass murder with nothing but freakish claims you can't back up. That is disrespectful.

 

[Thunder]

Tempesta29- if you have any integrity and honesty, you must admit that many of the 9-11 truth ideas were developed merely hours after 9-11.

They have had a pre-conceived notion of truth, since 9-11. Before ANY investigation was ever done. All 9-11 truthers have done, is slightly adjust their pre-conceived notions of truth to coincide with some of the evidence that has come out since then.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Frankly, the two above posts The 9/11 Families are rather laughable.....pull out the "you're insulting the 9/11 families" card.....

Fixed that for you!

I believe this is what you actually meant to say Temp.

 

[dc1971]

First, just at a glance, the probability of 2 planes crashing into the WTC and 3 buildings coming down in virtually perfect uniformity is very low in my estimation. There is simply too much chaos involved for there to be such a neat outcome. The Twin Towers were designed to withstand 707 crashes and analyzed to withstand such crashes at 600 mph, a comparable kinetic output to the 9/11 crashes. The head structural engineer of the Twin Towers said the fires wouldn't be a problem either, that fires wouldn't cause collapse.

Continuing at a glance, WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane. It had some noticeable debris damage, limited to the south face of course. The predominance of its fires were also isolated to the south face. Small isolated fires were seen elsewhere, however in collapse videos I've never seen a fire. This was a large building comprised of 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns, yet it fell like a house of cards, like someone pulled a rug out from underneath it. It certainly appears as if the overwhelming majority of its columns never experienced any weakening from fire, but the building still came down in perfect uniformity very close to free fall acceleration, and for some time, at free fall. My instincts alone send up a red flag, but since I like to learn, I instigate discussion on the science behind it.

And these are just the facts surrounding the collapses. There are countless other anomalies and improbabilities. There's also a motive. There's a history of false flag planning in the US. Frankly, looking at it objectively, I think the likelihood of the US being involved is very high. I haven't seen much to dissuade me from this opinion. Dick Cheney shot his friend with a shotgun and never apologized to him. I put nothing past such breed of man.

And really, that the members have heard this information before is irrelevant to me. Perhaps they should hear it again. Men more qualified than they have outlined detailed arguments as to why they're wrong, so to be so rude and dismissive is rather juvenile. There's the distinct possibility that they're wrong.

These issues and more have been discussed many times before. It's getting rather boring!

 

[tempesta29]

That's where you go terribly wrong. There are distinct causes all along the way, and we can reconstruct with enough precision to evaluate events along the timescale.

There are always distinct causes for every reaction. That doesn't mean there is evidence of those causes in this particular case.

You're just ignoring them. That's not a problem with the data, it's a problem with your interpretation of it. Only you can correct that, but you choose not to. You insist that because the probabilities in the beginning are low, the events could not have happened as explained.

This is like arguing that you cannot exist because if we timescale back to your great-great-great-grandparents then the probablity of all subsequent events leading up to your birth and survival to adulthood are too low to be explained except by an overly exotic theory.

Since I assume you exist, and I assume there was nothing exotic involved in your formation, then I can infer that you exist as a result of distinct events that chained together - whatever the initial probability. To then argue that you either do not exist, or that you are an alien clone, would be quite silly.

But that's pretty much the kind of thing you're doing. So I now invite you to prove to me that your defiance of the odds of probability by existing are not the result of alien cloning from Ceti alpha 5.

The floor is yours.

Once again, steel will offer a minimum amount of resistance to collapse. For 2.25 seconds, no components of WTC 7 offered any resistance. What exactly am I misinterpreting here? Your assistance in such confusion would be greatly appreciated.

 

[tempesta29]

These issues and more have been discussed many times before. It's getting rather boring!

What issues would you rather discuss in the 9/11 sub-forum, how "stupid" 9/11 truthers are? Please continue. I didn't mean to interrupt.

 

[dc1971]

Your opinion is noted, and I disagree with it. All you need to do to carry out such a plan successfully is have a powerful propaganda program in place to tell the story you want to tell. If you create an atmosphere in which people are afraid to question that story and in which people ridicule others for questioning that story, then it basically is self-regulating.

You lack the objectivity to discover truth under all circumstances. Your ego is far too involved for that.

And how many people would have to be involved with what you call a "powerful propaganda program"?