Who Disrespects NYPD & NYFD

jessicarabbit said:
Ok i will read it. Accounts from responders and truth movement attitudes still don't explain the collapse.
Click to expand...
Thank you! I would kiss you, but I'm legally enjoindered from physical contact with cartoons. Just read the accounts and make up your mind about the building's condition after. Isn't that the way it should be?
 
Russell Pickering said:
Damn GED!
Click to expand...

Ah. So rather than refute my points, you make a flippant comment to justify your failure to appreciate or apply proper research parameters, and for your failure to be able to respond meaningfully to the issues of context and perspective.

I noticed that you quoted your grandfather on some thread here a while ago. Your current behaviour reminds me of something my grandfather used to say:

"It's a poor workman who blames his tools."
 
Gravy said:
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?
Click to expand...

The fact that it is interim. The fact that the different hypotheses it puts forward are all considered unlikely. The fact that blast scenarios are now under consideration
 
Russell Pickering said:
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.
Click to expand...

You simply cannot keep stringing together moderately probable events and multiplying their odds to prove they cannot happen . As I mentioned above, your average day sees many such moderately probable events, if you multiply them all together - you'll find that your day was a mathematical impossiblity.
 
Gravy said:
Thank you! I would kiss you, but I'm legally enjoindered from physical contact with cartoons. Just read the accounts and make up your mind about the building's condition after. Isn't that the way it should be?
Click to expand...

Ive seen many people all at the same site tell me they saw a ufo. I dont believe in ufos. Many people seeing damage does not mean it collapsed due to damage.
 
apathoid said:
You simply cannot keep stringing together moderately probable events and multiplying their odds to prove they cannot happen . As I mentioned above, your average day sees many such moderately probable events, if you multiply them all together - you'll find that your day was a mathematical impossiblity.
Click to expand...

You are correct.

I added a EDIT to it after you quoted.

"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.)"
 
apathoid said:
You simply cannot keep stringing together moderately probable events and multiplying their odds to prove they cannot happen .
Click to expand...

Indeed. Doing so is right up there with adding feet to miles per hour to get a result in feet....
 
Last edited:
qarnos said:
Probability doesn't have any effect on things which have already happened.

Are you sure you studied statistics?
Click to expand...

Have you read the interim report on 7?

Its just full of "if", "could", "postulate". No conclusion. And a final paragraph on how all the ifs are unlikely
 
jessicarabbit said:
Probability does not depend on what a body of people think afterwards.
Click to expand...

True. But what are the odds that 499,998 SEs are completely incompetent?

If each one has a 50/50 chance of being too incompetent, the odds increase to 250,000,000,000 : 1. :D
 
apathoid said:
True. But what are the odds that 499,998 SEs are completely incompetent?

If each one has a 50/50 chance of being too incompetent, the odds increase to 250,000,000,000 : 1. :D
Click to expand...

Have you asked all these 500,000 SEs? Could I see your correspondence with them?
 
jessicarabbit said:
Totally sure. Binomial, poisson, hypothesis testing
Click to expand...

Well, then. Do you appreciate the fact that calculating probabilities for event which have already occurred is meaningless?

What are the odds the Titanic would have hit that iceberg at that moment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom