PDA

View Full Version : The "Simple" Math of the CTers.

rikzilla
17th August 2006, 08:55 AM
This will make you chuckle: (http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=3267)

The term “official 9/11 account” refers to the account of the events of Sept. 11, 2001, as presented in June 2004 by the Commission of Inquiry appointed by President George W. Bush, and complemented by other official documents issued by US government agencies. This account includes various details, such as identities of the alleged hijackers, identities of aircraft, timelines and other data used to prove that the crime of 9/11 was perpetrated by the named individuals under the orders or the inspiration of Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders.

It can be demonstrated by two straightforward mathematical techniques that the official acccount on 9/11 is simply not true.

The first method uses boolean algebra. The other method is based on probability theory.

Boolean algebra used to invalidate the official 9/11 account

Boolean algebra deals not with numbers but with truth values. In Boolean mathematics we have only two values: True and false. One of the primary operations in boolean algebra is the operator AND. In the equation A AND B we have:

Given A = true and B = true, then A AND B = true
Given A = true and B = false, then A AND B = false
Given A = false and B = true, then A AND B = false
Given A = false and B = false, then A AND B = false

The AND relationship can be illustrated by three bulbs connected in series. The truth value for each bulb is ON or OFF. In order for bulb C to be ON, both A and B must be ON. If either A or B or both are OFF, C will not obtain electrical current and be OFF. The same would apply to a longer series of bulbs connected in series.

Applying the AND relationship to the official 9/11 account, we posit that

in order for the official account to be true, a number N of fundamental allegations must be proved as true. If any one of these fundamental allegations are false, the entire official account is false.

Thus, it is only necessary to demonstrate that a single fundamental allegation in the official account is false for the entire account to be deemed false. Fundamental allegations include the following (a non-exhaustive list), all of which are part of the official version on 9/11:

1. No plans existed prior to 9/11 to protect the Pentagon and the White House against approaching aircraft (if such plans actually existed, questions would arise why they were not implemented and who prevented their implementation).
2. The idea that the World Trade Center could be attacked from air, did not occur to any US government agency before 9/11 (if it is shown that the idea actually was discussed by US military agencies, the question would arise why it was not taken into consideration to protect these assets).
3. All persons named by the FBI as hijackers actually boarded the four aircraft which crashed on 11 Sep. 2001 (if they did not board the aircraft, the hijackings could not have taken place).
4. The planes which crashed on 11 Sep. 2001 were flight number AA11 (tail number N334AA), flight number AA77 (tail number N644AA), flight number UA93 (tail number N591UA) and flight number UA175 (tail number N612UA) (if the flight and tail number are not those listed here, the question arises whether the planes that allegedly crashed at the known locations were the same ones which departed from the listed airports).
5. Flight AA11, a Boeing 767, left from Logan Airport, Boston, and crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York (some critical assumptions made in the official story rely on the identity of this flight number, the airport of departure and on the type of aircraft).
6. Flight AA77, a Boeing 757, left from Dulles Airport, Washington, D.C., and crashed into the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. (some critical assumptions made in the official story rely on the identity of this flight number, the airport of departure, the type of aircraft and the claim that this aircraft crashed on the Pengaton).
7. Flight UA175, a Boeing 767, left from Logan Airport, Boston, and crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center in New York (some critical assumptions made in the official story rely on the identity of this flight number, the airport of departure and on the type of aircraft.
8. Flight UA93, a Boeing 757, left from Newark Airport and crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania (some critical assumptions made in the official story rely on the identity of this flight number, the airport of departure and on the type of aircraft).
9. The US military were not notified in time to scramble military jets and prevent the crashes of the hijacked aircraft (had they been notified in time, questions would arise why they did not scramble military jets in time and who was negligent).
10. President George W. Bush did not know that “America was under attack” before entering the primary school in Florida on the morning of 9/11 (should it transpire that President Bush actually knew what was going on in New York as he entered the school, questions would arise as to his foreknowledge of the crime).
11. The South and North towers of the World Trade Center as well as WTC no. 7 collapsed due to fire (if evidence can be produced that steel buildings cannot be made to collapse by fire, it would suggest that they were made to collapse by explosives, as actually suggested by a number of witnesses).
12. Numerous calls from hijacked passengers were made to family members and airline personnel with cell phones (if it can be shown that at the particular moment of the phone calls the planes were flying above 8,000 feet and/or at the speed of 500 miles per hour or more, it would suggest that the cellphone stories are a fabrication, because of the technical high improbability of succeeding such calls from high altitude and/or high speed).

If any one of the above allegations is found to be false, the official account must be put in doubt or rejected and the suggestion of official deception or criminal complicity must be considered as justified.

Probability theory used to invalidate the official 9/11 account

It is also possible to “disprove” the official 9/11 account by using probability theory. If it is shown that the probability of the official account is so low as to approach zero, it can be safely maintained that the official account is untrue.

The probability of a compound event to have occurred is the product of all sub-events necessary to accomplish the compound event. The underlying assumption is that the probability of each sub-event is independent of the probability of another sub-event. The following sub-events appear independent of each other. All of them have a low to extremly low probability. In order to simplify the demonstration, we arbitrarily assigned a probability of 0.1 (or 10 percent) to each of the following selected propositions which underpin the official account. Skeptics may try other combinations of probabilities, higher or lower, in order to test the methodology.

1. Four young, healthy and educated Muslims who possess large chunks of cash and like to party, can be expected to prepare for many months to sacrifice their lives in a murderous hijacking operation.

2. Four groups of Muslims can be expected to board four different aircraft in the United States on the same day without raising suspicion.

3. Young muslim men, known to have been in Afghanistan, would be expected to receive a visa to the United States in order to learn to fly.

4. Foreign Muslims who plan to hijack planes in the United States, can be expected to choose to train in US, rather than Arab, flight schools in order to prepare their hijackings.

5. A person planning a hijack operation in the US could be expected to tell an official US employee about his criminal motives, as Mohamed Atta had reportedly done in his encounter with Johnelle Bryant of the Agricultural Department in Florida.

6. Muslims who meticulously plan a hijacking operation in the United States, could be expected to "forget" a Kor’an on a bar stool on the eve of their operation and a flight manual in Arabic on the morning of their operation, in a rented car left near the airport from which they intended to hijack a plane.

7. Hijackers can be expected to fly from another town to the airport from which they intend to commit the hijacking operation merely two hours before their intended hijacking should start.

8. US military authorities can be expected to schedule, for exactly the date of the murderous events, war games and exercises including simulated plane hijackings and planes crashing on government buildings.

9. Conversations from cell phones made from passenger aircraft can be expected to function at any altitude and speed.

10. Passports of hijackers could be expected to be found on the crash sites, regardless of the lack of bodies and wreckage.

11. The US air force could be expected to bungle its attempts to intercept the hijacked planes.

12. No plans could have existed at the Pentagon to protect US government buildings against the risk of an accidental or malicious plane crash.

13. Neither the CIA nor the FBI could have any prior knowledge of the identities and whereabouts of the alleged hijackers before 9/11.

14. A law enforcement authority, such as the FBI, could be expected to show little interest in investigating mass murder.

15. A government would be expected to oppose an investigation of a terrorist attack against its own country.

16. Terrorists can be expected to commit mass murder without making any demands.

17. Five individuals with only packing knives can be expected to overwhelm fifty adults in a plane.

18. Hijackers in three different planes can be expected to successfully enter the pilot cabin without raising alarm.

19. A person who had never flown a Boeing passanger jet could be expected after a little simulator training to plunge the aircraft successfully between the first and second floor of the side of the Pentagon, even under conditions of extreme stress.

20. A crashed plane can be expected to leave any visible trace.

21. A high rise steel building can be expected to collapse on its own footprint after a raging fire.

22. Debris from a crashed plane can be expected to be found many miles from the crash site.

The compound probability of the above events is the product of the individual probabilities or 0.1**22 (0.1 in the 22 exponential). The actual figure is so small that it practically nears zero.

If one accepts the above propositions (even by increasing their probability of occurrence to 0,5), it follows that their compound probability is near zero. In fact, it suffices that a subset of the above propositions be shown to have a compound probability of near zero, to invalidate the official account on 9/11.

While both methods demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the U.S. authorities have fabricated the official account, the question arises why they have done so, what are they covering up, who perpetrated the mass murder of 9/11 and how was it accomplished. These questions are not pursued further here. As long as the above statements of fact are not fully investigated, the U.S. administration must be considered as covering up the crime and thus as the prime suspect in this crime against humanity.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/DAV504A.html

:what:

Darth Rotor
17th August 2006, 09:08 AM
This will make you chuckle: (http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=3267)
:what:
The 9-11 Commission report isn't the whole story, however, so he's already looking at a tusk to decide if he sees an baby elephant or an adult walrus.

PS: "what are they covering up" does not require that all elements of the report are cover ups, and thus his follow on assertion of "must" is lacking the necessary and sufficient condition of defining what is being covered up.

I think that any number of screw ups were covered up, or were attempted to be covered up. He attributes, as an assumption, malice where human tendency to fail, or to screw up, is just as valid an assumption.

DR

ghost707
17th August 2006, 09:25 AM
"in order for the official account to be true, a number N of fundamental allegations must be proved as true. If any one of these fundamental allegations are false, the entire official account is false.

Thus, it is only necessary to demonstrate that a single fundamental allegation in the official account is false for the entire account to be deemed false. Fundamental allegations include the following (a non-exhaustive list), all of which are part of the official version on 9/11:"

This part had me rolling on the floor. These CT folks are a riot..how do they come up with this?

rikzilla
17th August 2006, 09:30 AM
"in order for the official account to be true, a number N of fundamental allegations must be proved as true. If any one of these fundamental allegations are false, the entire official account is false.

Thus, it is only necessary to demonstrate that a single fundamental allegation in the official account is false for the entire account to be deemed false. Fundamental allegations include the following (a non-exhaustive list), all of which are part of the official version on 9/11:"

This part had me rolling on the floor. These CT folks are a riot..how do they come up with this?

Well I tried to turn it around on him and apply it to the CT...but I couldn't find a true statement to compare all the false ones to!

-z

:)

Belz...
17th August 2006, 09:34 AM
This will make you chuckle: (http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=3267)

The compound probability of the above events is the product of the individual probabilities or 0.1**22 (0.1 in the 22 exponential). The actual figure is so small that it practically nears zero.

:what:

If you look at it that way, every event in the history of the universe also has a practical probability of zero... :rolleyes:

jhunter1163
17th August 2006, 09:40 AM
So, according to Boolean algebra, if I take a lengthy list of CT assertions, and in the middle of them slip in something about Dylan Avery sleeping in women's underwear*, the entire CT construct would come crashing down? Is that how I am to understand this?

(edit) *that is, assuming he DOESN'T sleep in women's underwear

Bronze Dog
17th August 2006, 09:40 AM
I only skimmed, but it faintly reminded me of something. (http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/07/why_i_hate_religious_bayesians.php) ;)

juryjone
17th August 2006, 10:46 AM
It's interesting. Although it has always been my understanding and observation that people who have math skills generally have logic skills as well, here is a glaring example of someone who is perfectly capable of moving numbers around while still having no concept of what they are doing.

Accordingly, I will not be hiring this guy to do my taxes.

17th August 2006, 10:53 AM
If one accepts the above propositions (even by increasing their probability of occurrence to 0,5), it follows that their compound probability is near zero. In fact, it suffices that a subset of the above propositions be shown to have a compound probability of near zero, to invalidate the official account on 9/11.

Idiots. Every event is a low probability event. Today, driving to work, I saw a car with the license plate DAU419 followed by a car with the license plate AGA188 followed by the vanity plate MOMNPOP. Now, there are 100,000 cars in my county. So the probability of seeing exactly those three cars in exactly that order is 0.00001*0.00001*0.00001 or 1*10^-15 . That's a compound probability near zero!

I guess the government conspired to put those cars on the road. The only question is why.

RenaissanceBiker
17th August 2006, 11:16 AM
Before I flip a coin, the probability of it landing "heads" is 0.5, after I flip a coin and it lands "heads" the probability is 1.

KingMerv00
17th August 2006, 11:29 AM
For the Boolean part:

Let's say the US government did have plans to deal with a 9/11 type situation (claim #1). That means all of the other claims are false? How does it follow that no planes hit the towers? (claims 6,7, and 8) :boggled:

Probability theory:

The author of that tripe must realize he has two parents. The odds of his parents meeting are vanishingly small. The odds of his 4 grandparents meeting are even smaller. The odds of his 8 great-grandparents meeting...IMPOSSIBLE. etc etc Therefore he does not exist and he never wrote that dreadful thing.

What a relief. :relieved:

Bronze Dog
17th August 2006, 11:37 AM
And that's why the universe has a population of zero.

Sword_Of_Truth
17th August 2006, 11:49 AM
So, according to Boolean algebra, if I take a lengthy list of CT assertions, and in the middle of them slip in something about Dylan Avery sleeping in women's underwear*, the entire CT construct would come crashing down? Is that how I am to understand this?

(edit) *that is, assuming he DOESN'T sleep in women's underwear

Sometimes a man just needs to feel pretty.

CurtC
17th August 2006, 12:06 PM
"If any detail in Loose Change can be shown to be false, then the whole thing is a stinkin' pile of dung."

Wonder if they'd agree with that?

KingMerv00
17th August 2006, 12:07 PM
And that's why the universe has a population of zero.

Who said that?

Bronze Dog
17th August 2006, 12:16 PM
Who said that?
It's from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. It mentions logic similar to your parent/grandparent/etc. argument, thus making the probability of anyone being born vanishingly small. I should probably look it up...

It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination. - c. 19

Different from what I remember. Similar, though.

defaultdotxbe
17th August 2006, 12:26 PM
In Milgram's first set of experiments, 67.5 percent (27 out of 40) of experimental participants administered the experiment's final 450-volt shock

so thus it can be concluded 67.5% of the population would follow the "plan" to its conclusions

that means in a conspiracy of 7 people theres only a 6% chance of no one coming forward

anything larger and the odds become so minuscule as to be considered impossible

("simple" math is fun :) )

KingMerv00
17th August 2006, 12:31 PM
It's from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. It mentions logic similar to your parent/grandparent/etc. argument, thus making the probability of anyone being born vanishingly small. I should probably look it up...

Different from what I remember. Similar, though.

I was kidding. You don't exist, so I couldn't see you, so I said "Who said that?"

Bad joke. Even worse now that I explained it.

rikzilla
17th August 2006, 12:33 PM
For the Boolean part:

Let's say the US government did have plans to deal with a 9/11 type situation (claim #1). That means all of the other claims are false? How does it follow that no planes hit the towers? (claims 6,7, and 8) :boggled:

Probability theory:

The author of that tripe must realize he has two parents. The odds of his parents meeting are vanishingly small. The odds of his 4 grandparents meeting are even smaller. The odds of his 8 great-grandparents meeting...IMPOSSIBLE. etc etc Therefore he does not exist and he never wrote that dreadful thing.

What a relief. :relieved:

Stolen and reposted @ the Brit911 CTard site.

Thanks there junior. ;)
-z

BTW: there's just no bloody way you are older than 18!! :) But thanks for letting me party with you @ TAM anyway!

KingMerv00
17th August 2006, 12:46 PM
Stolen and reposted @ the Brit911 CTard site.

Thanks there junior. ;)
-z

BTW: there's just no bloody way you are older than 18!! :) But thanks for letting me party with you @ TAM anyway!

No problem gramps.

Bronze Dog
17th August 2006, 12:50 PM
I was kidding. You don't exist, so I couldn't see you, so I said "Who said that?"

Bad joke. Even worse now that I explained it.
If I had time to think about it, I'd probably go for, "Ignore the above poster. He is obviously a figment of my deranged imagination."

Brainster
18th August 2006, 11:10 AM
These guys all seem to me to have taken about 3 weeks worth of a logic course and then dropped the class before some of the obvious logical fallacies were pointed out. For example, there are some Deniers who are claiming that the Hijackers had doubles because some of the timelines seem very tight. But they jump from there to "If we can prove just one hijacker had a double, we will have established that the US government was behind it, because al Qaeda would have no reason to have doubles of the hijackers."

Of course, the government itself would have no reason to have doubles of the hijackers either.:rolleyes:

ktesibios
19th August 2006, 11:29 AM
Conspiracists seem to love misapplying falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus to whatever they regard as the "official story" while refusing to judge their own productions by the same standard. YECs routinely claim that if there's a detail which current evolutionary biology can't explain, evolution as a theory is dead while Holocaust deniers commonly act as if finding one wrong detail or contradiction between witnessess statements in the commonly-held history means that the Nazis are off the hook.

It's a misapplication because the proper use of that principle is in judging the credibility of individual witnesses, not in evaluating inferences drawn from an entire body of evidence.

For example, there's evidence that the NORAD representatives who testified to the 9/11 Commission gave false testimony for the purpose of bureaucratic CYA. Under the falsus principle, we're justified in rejecting the whole of their testimony except where it's independently corroborated. As far as the whole of the commission's findings are concerned, what is undermined is only those conclusions which are dependent on the testimony of those individuals. That there's now good reason to think that the Commission's conclusions about the performance of our air defenses are unreliable doesn't logically preclude their having got other parts of the history right. Nor does it have any bearing at all on the results of other investigations such as NIST's work on the causes of the towers' collapse.

It's kind of a pity that the way conspiracists use falsus is so off-base. Given the CT industry's habit of endlessly repeating claims that have been proven false, applying the same standard to CTs would brew up a nice big pot of STFU for the conspiracists to enjoy.:hit: