Who Disrespects NYPD & NYFD

[Moving On]

Russell,

Could that be why NIST is tasked with investigating it?

Once the official report is presented it will have to answer precisely how the collpase of WTC7 was initiated and to do that they need to model it, investigate the damage and fire and then explain the mechanism for collapse.

I'm waiting.

 

[Pardalis]

So Russell, what about our investigation?

 

[Moving On]

So Russell? Ready to do some digging?

What companies are most likely to have rigged the Twin Towers and WTC7?

Let's start with them and work our way up to the government. I'm pretty sure we won't find direct evidence of USG involvement in the actual controlled demolition of the towers, I wouldn't think the government would be that stupid.

Are you with me on this?

My beliefs about this run into areas that are possibly upsetting to some people and easily misconstrued.

Basically I don't feel if CD was used it was a civilian company. Also in regards to the towers it was not conventional in the sense of being from the bottom up.

 

[WildCat]

"As part of the act, no part of any report resulting from investigations can be admitted as evidence or used in any suit or action for damages ....."

Russell, that's there to protect the gov't from lawsuits if they find that part of the reason for the collapse was faulty construction or material standards. It also frees the investigation to be thorough w/o the hindrance of any involved to go in CYA mode.

You'll find that governments at all levels are fond of exempting themselves from civil liability.

 

[WildCat]

Also in regards to the towers it was not conventional in the sense of being from the bottom up.

So, for the record, the WTC collapses did not look like a controlled demolition.

 

[Pardalis]

As part of the act, no part of any report resulting from investigations can be admitted as evidence or used in any suit or action for damages.

Maybe it's because I'm a francophone, but this is how I understand what it means:

"no part of any report resulting from investigations can:

a) be admitted as evidence

or

b) used (more general)

in any:

a) suit

or

b) action

for damages"

All options proposed seem to be about legal actions concerning damages.

 

[Moving On]

So, for the record, the WTC collapses did not look like a controlled demolition.

Conventional controlled demolition.

 

[uk_dave]

Russell,

Do you believe that two passenger jets crashed into the WTC towers?

 

[Pardalis]

My beliefs about this run into areas that are possibly upsetting to some people and easily misconstrued.

How? Your claim is that the towers were brought down by CD, is it not?

This means people with controlled demolition expertise rigged these towers, right?

This means that controlled demotition companies should be investigated, right?

What in this you feel miscontrued?

I'm looking at this from your angle.

Basically I don't feel if CD was used it was a civilian company.

Why? How did you come up with this assumption?

Also in regards to the towers it was not conventional in the sense of being from the bottom up.

Why? How did you come up with this assumption?

 

[Moving On]

Maybe it's because I'm a francophone, but this is how I understand what it means:

"no part of any report resulting from investigations can:

a) be admitted as evidence

or

b) used (more general)

in any:

a) suit

or

b) action

for damages"

All options proposed seem to be about legal actions concerning damages.

You say tomato I say tomato.

Spin it as you wish. I see it this way.

As part of the act, no part of any report resulting from investigations can be admitted as evidence


or


used in any suit or action for damages.

 

[Pardalis]

Conventional controlled demolition.

1)What is a conventional controlled demolition?

2)How does the alledged WTC demolition differ from 1)?

3)How were you able to determine that the WTC was brought down by CD since it is not a conventional CD?

I'd like to see your research about controlled demolition for that.

 

[Pardalis]

You say tomato I say tomato.

Actually, I say "tomate".

 

[Skibum]

1)What is a conventional controlled demolition?

I've wondered the same thing. I've seen several shows dealing with CD, and each one seems to be different depending on the circumstances.

One building they might want to fall to the north to keep it from hitting a building to the south, another they may want the east and west ends to be pulled towards the midline.

 

[beachnut]

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.

how ever you would have lost your shirt on 9/11

The fact I have four daughters does not become a CT

the fact the probability of you fixing your web site is 1/1000000000

when you do it, you have done it so it is 1

Flight 175 missed the center of the building, he failed to hit his target, but it did not matter he was going the fastest to hit that day

Flight 93, have to score those hijackers 0, they missed

Flight 77 hit the pentagon, not many people to kill hitting a building like the Pentagon!

If you base your ideas on statistics of hijacking, you are nuts. Your conclusions on stats is faulty.

I assume you are kidding


Evasion of intercept probability based on time? you have to base it on time! and facts, transponder on or off, did the pilot tell ATC he was hijacked, so we never knew they were hijacked, no one ever reported it so you whole idea is based on what we think.


This has to be a joke, you have so many holes on your probabilities for each event.

This is a joke.

 

[WildCat]

You say tomato I say tomato.

Spin it as you wish. I see it this way.

OK Russell, you see this as more evidence of a conspiracy, correct? So now you have just implicated both houses of Congress for complicity in your 9/11 conspiracy. You have just added 535 more people who have managed to keep quiet, not to mention their support staff.

Does this really seem plausible to you?

 

[WildCat]

Actually, I say "tomate".

Weirdo.

 

[stateofgrace]

Russell I did a post rather like your a while ago

Originally Posted by stateofgrace

Well lets look at it another way.

What are the odds of teams of demolition experts planting explosives inside not one, not two but three buildings before 911 and not being noticed?
Then add the odds of a plane flying at high speed into a tower and missing pre planted explosives.
Then add the odds of a second plane doing it.
Then add the odds of both sets of pre planted explosives still being in working order, all primers and detonators left unaffected.
Then add the odds of them surviving the fires.
Then add the odds of them both working perfectly.
Then add the odds of WTC7 still standing after a 500,000 tons structure collapsed beside it.
Then add the odds of the pre planted explosives inside WTC 7 not being damaged.
Then add the odds of them surviving fires for some six hours
Then add the odds of the firemen not noticing them
Then add the odds of them working perfectly.
Then add the odds of somebody researching all the passengers onboard flight 93 ensuring perfect fake calls were made to their relatives
Then add the odds of somebody shooting down Flight 93 and everybody involved denying it
Then add the odds of nobody noticing a missile being fired at the Pentagon in broad day light, as Flight 77 flew over it.
Then add the odds of this missile hitting a number of lamp posts on the way.
Then add the odds of every witness saying they saw a large fixed wing aircraft and not a missile.
Then add the odds of fooling all the aircraft investigators
Then add the odds of all the forensic scientists being fooling
Then add the odds of over 200 independent experts employed by NIST to investigate the Towers being fooled or bribed
Then add the odds of the 911 commission being totally corrupt and covering it all up.

I know I have missed a lot but could somebody actually come up with odds of this conspiracy working or does it simply go off the scale?

Finally what are the odds of somebody aurthorising this?

What do you reckon ?

 

[uk_dave]

Russell I did a post rather like your a while ago

Originally Posted by stateofgrace http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1986970#post1986970http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/buttons/viewpost.gif

What do you reckon ?

300,000,000 to 1 ?

 

[qarnos]

For the record, I just flipped a coin 20 times and it came up:

HHHTTHTTHHTHTTHTTH

What is the probability that this exact sequence would occur?

0.00000095367431640625 (or 1/1048576).

Make of that what you will.

 

[beachnut]

Probability does not depend on what a body of people think afterwards.

non of your probabilities were correct, or made with correct assumptions.

how many engineers in the united states believe 9/11 CT truth movement?

.000067 percent -- WOW, that means the CT ideas are null and void due to lack of sheer numbers.

This logic is backed up by JR and RP use of useless numbers, does US jump on this probabilities bomb?

if they can pull numbers from that special place, I can present a real number and use it as I wish. Was it .00067 or .000067, not sure but the CT guys can take their pick, even though it is an order of magnitude edge I would be giving them.