Troofer Statistics

[JamesB]

Ack, the troofer abuse of statistics, math, and probability is a constant source of annoyance. And here they are doing it again, trying to assign a probability to an event which already occured. From the LCF:

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9779

I was wondering if any 9/11 truther had access to statistical data on the events of 9/11. Specifically in the events of the towers, plane crashes, NORAD drills coinciding with the event, and stock market trading. The data I would be curious in obtaining would be a conclusive study of:

1) The three buildings and the various anomalies involved in their structural failure.

2) NORAD drills coinciding with the event with respect to randomness.

3) Stock market trading prior to the event

4) NORAD in regards to 4 separate tracking and intercept failures that day.

5) The skill of the pilots versus the success rate of their attack on intended targets.

6) Early reports of Building 7 falling in the Media and their subsequent accuracy.


The data in question can be studied independently or in relation to each other. A summation of the event and its likelihood of a WHOLE would also be interesting. I have not seen any published findings on this in my 5 years of research and would be interested if anyone has any.

Admittedly, this data would not necessarily be evidence of a "MIHOP" situation, but noteworthy. Statistics as a Science is still relevant to crimes and admissible in a court of law is it not?

More suggestions about relevant data would be appreciated. If anyone has any links to studies I'm not aware of, it would be helpful.

Someone needs to give him a remedial assignment to write on the board "The probability of a past event having occured is 1" 500 times.

[slyjoe]

Followed by "correlation is not causation". :)

[knot]

I did see a video of a news show announcing building 7 has collapsed but still standing in the background in the studio. No doubt a truther would run with this - no question asked so I'm asking - were they running a recorded clip in the background as they announced building 7 collapsed?

[qarnos]

I did see a video of a news show announcing building 7 has collapsed but still standing in the background in the studio. No doubt a truther would run with this - no question asked so I'm asking - were they running a recorded clip in the background as they announced building 7 collapsed?

I think you're talking about the BBC announcing the WTC7 collapse before it happened. The troofers were all over it.

ETA: It wasn't a recorded clip - they just stuffed up.

[Hourglassmemory]

I think you're talking about the BBC announcing the WTC7 collapse before it happened. The troofers were all over it.

ETA: It wasn't a recorded clip - they just stuffed up.

Exactly. Human error. Period.
Somehow, to troofers, human errors in extreme events seem too unlikely and it's more probable that a plot to get oil just happened to be uncovered thanks to an incompetent news person who had been threatened by Men in Black.

[defaultdotxbe]

Exactly. Human error. Period.
Somehow, to troofers, human errors in extreme events seem too unlikely and it's more probable that a plot to get oil just happened to be uncovered thanks to an incompetent news person who had been threatened by Men in Black.
i thought the theory was they told the BBC they were goign to demo the building (god knows why) but they had to report that it collapsed, but they accidently reported it early, much to the chagrin of the sorry fellow who decided to let them in on the plan

[knot]

No doubt the truther's first thought was CONSPIRACY. Perhaps the woo-fer's first thought was PREMONITION.

[jaydeehess]

1) The three buildings and the various anomalies involved in their structural failure.

Would require that what is classed as an anomalie be defined and why it is anomalous.

2) NORAD drills coinciding with the event with respect to randomness.

Now that one can be calculated. All one need do is take note of all of the NORAD exercises that have taken place over the previous ten years and how many days this involved and divide by 3650. If one wished to be more specific then one could take only those exercises that took place in Aug, Sept., and Oct. of those years and divide by 92.

3) Stock market trading prior to the event

The stock market has trading going on every work day. This would require a tad more specificity. I would suppose that he refers to put options on major airlines. It seems to me that was done at 911myths. However, it again needs only that one look at the trading on those stocks over a ten year average over the course of the last week of August and the first two of Sept. If this is a common occurance then the probability of it occuring again on Sept 11/01 would be close to 1:1

4) NORAD in regards to 4 separate tracking and intercept failures that day.

Given that it was not common practice for NORAD to intercept domestic flights I don't know how one would go about determining the probability of NORAD being unable to intercept 4 aircraft on the same day , within 45 minutes of the first indications to ATC that they were hijacked.

5) The skill of the pilots versus the success rate of their attack on intended targets.

A large scale test on a simulator of people with some training flying a simulator into the towers and the Pentagon would suffice for this. That will require a bit of money though. Given that reports that this was very easy to accomplish on home PC sims I would suspect that this probability is also close to 1:1

6) Early reports of Building 7 falling in the Media and their subsequent accuracy.
Gee, take the number of false reports on a sample number of networks that occured during breaking news live coverage of major events and divide by the number of those events. Again I suspect that this will be a probability close to 1:1


So of 6 items , I see 3 that are likely to have a high probability of occurance, 1 that would be very susceptible to subjectivity, 1 that is easy to calculate and 1 more that would be difficult to assess given that it had never occured before in history. .

[JamesB]

Would require that what is classed as an anomalie be defined and why it is anomalous.




The stock market has trading going on every work day. This would require a tad more specificity. I would suppose that he refers to put options on major airlines. It seems to me that was done at 911myths. However, it again needs only that one look at the trading on those stocks over a ten year average over the course of the last week of August and the first two of Sept. If this is a common occurance then the probability of it occuring again on Sept 11/01 would be close to 1:1





Actually this is one area where this has been done, by Alan Poteshman a finance professor. Studying just UAL and AMR he placed the trading at the 96th percentile (I had some issues with his methodology) and concluded there was a probability that insider trading took place. Ironically a recent troofer video misunderstood this and started attacking him.

[uk_dave]

That thread on LCF is a classic.

The 'truthers' accuse the OP of being JamesB simply because of this thread.

Paranoia runs rampant.

Still, I suppose it helps them to avoid the inconvenient truth about 911.

[The Doc]

No doubt the truther's first thought was CONSPIRACY. Perhaps the woo-fer's first thought was PREMONITION.

Bolding mine.

Just to point out, they still do think this despite all attempts at reasoning with them.

[JamesB]

That thread on LCF is a classic.

The 'truthers' accuse the OP of being JamesB simply because of this thread.

Paranoia runs rampant.

Still, I suppose it helps them to avoid the inconvenient truth about 911.

I saw that, that cracked me up. The guy is threatening to quit the forum because these idiots are all accusing me of being him. Or is that him of being me? I am confused now.... Why exactly I would start threads just to make fun of them is beyond me. Believe me, I have way more troofer material to work with than I have time for, I don't need to make it up.

[gumboot]

Given how much warning NORAD was given for each of the four flights on 9/11, the statistical probability of them managing to intercept any of them was 0.

-Gumboot

[qarnos]

i thought the theory was they told the BBC they were goign to demo the building (god knows why) but they had to report that it collapsed, but they accidently reported it early, much to the chagrin of the sorry fellow who decided to let them in on the plan

This one does have me a bit miffed. I've been racking my brain and can't work out for the life of me why the BBC would need to be "in" on this conspiracy.

If your trying to pull something like this off, I'm guessing information would be handed out on a need to know basis. There is nothing else WRT the supposed 9/11 conspiracy that the BBC would need to be in on - so why tell them about WTC7? It just makes no sense! AT ALL!

[jackchit]

The BBC anouncing wtc7 demise 20 minutes before it has happened and you guys write this off as human error?
The BBC doesn't have to be in on any 'conspiracy' but we should be asking for the source of the information, you guys are usually source mad..

[Firestone]

The BBC anouncing wtc7 demise 20 minutes before it has happened and you guys write this off as human error?
The BBC doesn't have to be in on any 'conspiracy' but we should be asking for the source of the information, you guys are usually source mad..All day long there was talk about the possible collapse of WTC 7.
That's the very reason the FDNY pulled their people away from WTC 7.

Now, where did the BBC get the information from? What a deep mystery, really ...

Of course, it's difficult for LC-fans to grasp the concept of a mistake.
The LC guys had years to check their facts, yet produced a movie (sorry, three movies, fourth is coming ... or not) full of mistakes.
But that the BBC made a mistake on the most hectic day in years, that's impossible! Surely Silverstein sent them a memo announcing the controlled demolition of WTC 7. :rolleyes:

[The Doc]

Wasn't their source CNN? I'm not sure who CNN's source was though.

[Mashuna]

The BBC anouncing wtc7 demise 20 minutes before it has happened and you guys write this off as human error?
The BBC doesn't have to be in on any 'conspiracy' but we should be asking for the source of the information, you guys are usually source mad..

Ah yes, the idea that although the BBC weren't in on the conspiracy, the NWO had pre-prepared press releases ready to go once WTC7 collapsed, and accidentally released them early.

No reason given as to why they would need to create these press releases, as the press would probably notice a skyscraper collapsing behind them.

[brodski]

No reason given as to why they would need to create these press releases, as the press would probably notice a skyscraper collapsing behind them.

Is there any reason to think this? The BBC didn't notice one not collapsing behind them. ;)

[Firestone]

Wasn't their source CNN? I'm not sure who CNN's source was though.Yes, on CNN, Aaron Brown said something like: "The Solomon building has collapsed or is collapsing" more than one hour before the actual collapse.

[jackchit]

So Gravy goes through tons of quotes from willie rodriguez trying to find any anomoly in order to point the finger and call him a liar, but anything that does pose a question like the early reporting of a building collapse is human error and deserves no scrutiny at all? why? could it be because then you may have to come to a conclusion you're not comfortable with?

[The Doc]

Conclusions are based on evidence jack.

There is no evidence available to indicate the BBC error was anything other than a human error based on a misinterpretation of witness reports and other reports by CNN.

The BBC also confirmed that a truck bomb exploded outside the state department. Why did they do this, jack? Something evil and sinister, a plot to scare the crap out of relatives of people who worked in the state department? Or human error?

You see, I have just as much evidence that the state department report was a plot to scare the family members of state department workers as you do that the WTC7 collapse was a premature release of a pre-planned report. None.

Please present your evidence that the BBC report was anything sinister. Speculation based on a cospiracist fantasy is no good here.

[Mashuna]

Is there any reason to think this? The BBC didn't notice one not collapsing behind them. ;)

Well that's because the holographic greenscreen technology wasn't. . .

Oops, forget I said anything. Nothing to see here :whistling

[Architect]

You have to admit, Jack, that the NWO would have to be dumb beyond belief to make a cock-up such as announcing the collapse of the building whilst its actually still visible on the live feed.

News agencies make mistakes all the time, and on far less controversial subjects. In any big event if we sift through the papers, we often find various contradictions and the like.

You'd be far better concentrating on more substantive issues such as the cause of the collapse.

[MG1962]

So Gravy goes through tons of quotes from willie rodriguez trying to find any anomoly in order to point the finger and call him a liar, but anything that does pose a question like the early reporting of a building collapse is human error and deserves no scrutiny at all? why? could it be because then you may have to come to a conclusion you're not comfortable with?

So then are we entitled to level the same question to Loose Change, which is currently in the final stages of producing the third version of the same story?

[jackchit]

You have to admit, Jack, that the NWO would have to be dumb beyond belief to make a cock-up such as announcing the collapse of the building whilst its actually still visible on the live feed.


Agreed but still it raises questions, questions which are never addressed in any depth by anyone this side of the fence.

On a different note i have a question from your favourite mod IVXX over at LC forum
You may want to ask Ron why he lied on the HardFire debate between Roberts and Fetzer. Ron said the buildings fell down exactly how NIST said they fell down. However as we all know, NIST didn't explain or investigate the collapse. The report stops at collapse initiation and say global collapse was inevitable.

anyone? remember just the messenger:cool:

[Architect]

Surely that's a question for Ron, not for me?

And why doesnt IVXX simply join JREF and ask himself?

[jaydeehess]

The BBC anouncing wtc7 demise 20 minutes before it has happened and you guys write this off as human error?
The BBC doesn't have to be in on any 'conspiracy' but we should be asking for the source of the information, you guys are usually source mad..

I find it extremely likely that the BBC was told that WTC 7 coming down and be the yet another causalty of the day and that in the passing of this information up the chain to the reporters themselves that the tense of the statement got changed to the past tense.

The term "coming" can indicate present tense soley , or conversly, future tense.

ETA: I see Firestone addressed this:"Yes, on CNN, Aaron Brown said something like: "The Solomon building has collapsed or is collapsing" more than one hour before the actual collapse."

So it is then CNN who got word that the building was coming down.
I listened to a radio broadcast as a bank robber with a bomb strapped to him exited the bank accross the street from the radio station. the bomb actually goes off and the announcer states
" the bomb's gone back", not "off". Explain that one jack, why would an announcer say "back".

Given that I was listening on a portable radio while watching the scene in person I can tell you why. Because the police on the street are shouting "get back" to the crowd while the announcer makes his call. However, only people present AND listening on the radio would realize this. Misstatements and erroneous reports are the nature of live news announcing. Believe me, it was a given that there would be erroneous reports throughout that day, CNN's and the BBC's report of WTC 7's premature demise is simply ONE of those.

[T.A.M.]

jackchit...

if WTC7 had no damage to it, had no fires, and noone was watching it for its impending collapse, than yes, we would have to take the BBC comments as being suspicious...to a degree.

This was not the case however. Numerous firemen have said the building was heavily leaning, had its structural integrity severely compromised, had multi-floor fires raging in it, unchecked, and had a huge gash of some 20-30 storeys on its southern face. Now with all that, and video recordings from firemen stating the building was likely going to collapse, do you think that someone misspeaking before the event actually occured to be so sinister? IF you do, it says a fair bit about your state of paranoia.

TAM:)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The BBC anouncing wtc7 demise 20 minutes before it has happened and you guys write this off as human error?
The BBC doesn't have to be in on any 'conspiracy' but we should be asking for the source of the information, you guys are usually source mad..
You really should read the damned thread already discussing that topic.

[CHF]

Just curious, Jack...

If the BBC's 20 minute advance knowledge of WTC7s collapse is so suspicious...what do you make of the FDNY's advance knowledge of several hours?

[Unsecured Coins]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Jaye77/rickjamesowned.gif

[jackchit]

Just curious, Jack...

If the BBC's 20 minute advance knowledge of WTC7s collapse is so suspicious...what do you make of the FDNY's advance knowledge of several hours?

I didn't say it was suspicious, I think its strange.
Now you are trying to make me say something so that you can follow me around the forum asking "why do you hate the FDNY" I have seen the same tactic before.
I will say this in 2004 I had dealings with the police and officers were at my house on numerous occasions at that time (this was before I questioned the 911 OCT). I spoke to an officer who had just returned from NY where he had represented the uk force at the 2004 memorial.
The story he told was of a rift between the NYPD and NYFD because during the recovery at GZ no one was allowed to touch the bodies of FDNY victims except FDNY officers because their pockets were stuffed with gold bars.

Now I find that story ridiculous and don't believe it for a second but it shows the amount of rumour and mis-information that has been about those tragic events.

So if no-one has nothing to hide then a full independant inquiry would be in the interest of everyone.

So why are you all against one?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

<snip>
So if no-one has nothing to hide then a full independant inquiry would be in the interest of everyone.

So why are you all against one?
Who would make up the "independent inquiry"?
Who would fund the investigation?

[jackchit]

Who would make up the "independent inquiry"?
Who would fund the investigation?

1.Independent people
2.there seems to be enough money to fund an illeagal war in Iraq

[jackchit]

Surely that's a question for Ron, not for me?

And why doesnt IVXX simply join JREF and ask himself?

Ok Ron, would you like to answer?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

1.Independent people
Such as?
2.there seems to be enough money to fund an illeagal war in Iraq
Would not the funding of the investigation by the gov't "taint" the investigation in your eyes?

[JamesB]

The idiocy on that thread continues.

I think the stat Ruppert quotes in his book "... Rubicon" is that from October of 2000 until the first week of Sept. of 2001 there were more than 60 scramble-intercepts by NORAD/NEADS; in all of them the jets involved reached their target within 15 minutes. In the case of when Payne Stewart's plane it was intercepted within 10 minutes after it had deviated from its charted course and in that instance we are talking about a small, privately-owned craft with only a handful of occupants. On 9/11, F77 flew more than 1 hour and 20 minutes after F11 had deviated from its course; and F77 allegedly crashed into the Pentagon before any of the jets that had been scrambled had made even a cursory "visual" of it.
How can you deal with people who are too stupid to understand the concept of time zones. Geez, my 9 year old can figure this stuff out.

[Hellbound]

2.there seems to be enough money to fund an illeagal war in Iraq

Really?

What war is that? I know about the current, legal war. I'm not aware of an illegal one.

Perhaps you can elucidate on precisely which international laws concerning war were violated? Or which U.S. national laws? Or you can, of course, continue to speak out of ignorance for no other reason than to push your own agenda...much as you acuse those here of doing.

[Belz...]

Wasn't their source CNN? I'm not sure who CNN's source was though.

Satan, obviously.

[jaydeehess]

I didn't say it was suspicious, I think its strange.

So if no-one has nothing to hide then a full independant inquiry would be in the interest of everyone.

So why are you all against one?

I am not against you in this thread.

However, I simply find it not strange or suspicious in the least that the BBC and apparently, CNN erroneously reported upon the early demise of a building that had been talked about by many as one that was in danger of collapse.

The CNN/BBC report is a non-starter as far as any conspiracy goes in-my-strong-opinion.

As far as a full independant inquiry goes, this is bandied about a lot but I have yet to see an agenda of topics that such a committee would be tasked to look into. If one is to take the topics in the OP of this thread as such an agenda, we can eliminate the CNN/BBC report right off the bat.

[jaydeehess]

Payne Stewart's plane was intercepted over an hour after it was reported as being NORDO, by an unarmed fighter on a training flight(IIRC).

There was never any question of a shoot down, a moot point given the unarmed status of the intercept aircraft.
There was NO "scramble" of any fighter aircraft in this event.

[JamesB]

You are correct.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm

At 0927:10 EDT, N47BA called the Jacksonville ARTCC controller and stated that the flight was climbing through an altitude of FL 230. At 0927:13 EDT, the controller instructed N47BA to climb and maintain FL 390. At 0927:18 EDT, N47BA acknowledged the clearance by stating, "three nine zero bravo alpha." This was the last known radio transmission from the airplane.4 The sound of the cabin altitude aural warning5 was not heard on the ATC recording of this transmission.6

At 0933:38 EDT (6 minutes and 20 seconds after N47BA acknowledged the previous clearance), the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next 4 1/2 minutes but received no response.

About 0952 CDT,7 a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA.8 About 0954 CDT, at a range of 2,000 feet from the accident airplane and an altitude of about 46,400 feet,9 the test pilot made two radio calls to N47BA but did not receive a response. About 1000 CDT, the test pilot began a visual inspection of N47BA. There was no visible damage to the airplane, and he did not see ice accumulation on the exterior of the airplane. Both engines were running, and the rotating beacon was on. He stated that he could not see inside the passenger section of the airplane because the windows seemed to be dark. Further, he stated that the entire right cockpit windshield was opaque, as if condensation or ice covered the inside. He also indicated that the left cockpit windshield was opaque, although several sections of the center of the windshield seemed to be only thinly covered by condensation or ice; a small rectangular section of the windshield was clear, with only a small section of the glare shield visible through this area. He did not see any flight control movement. About 1012 CDT, he concluded his inspection of N47BA and proceeded to Scott AFB, Illinois.

Regardless of how many times this is pointed out, it will not keep troofers from making this false claim. Troofer world is like Groundhog Day, every day is the same.

[Belz...]

I didn't say it was suspicious, I think its strange.

Reminds me of an old boss. See, on a Friday I asked for a day off for the following monday, but my request was denied. That Friday evening I broke my big toe, and had to go to the hospital when I realised it was broken. I took Monday off for medical reasons, but when I phoned work, the boss told me she found it a "strange" coincidence. I answered "You don't believe me ?" and she said "I'm not saying that. I just think it's strange". In other words she had called me a liar and was backpedaling.

So if no-one has nothing to hide then a full independant inquiry would be in the interest of everyone.

I have nothing to hide. Should I be investigated, too ?

So why are you all against one?

Aw, you poor thing.

[Unsecured Coins]

I have nothing to hide. Should I be investigated, too?

I pulled your NWO file. You might wanna try explaning this

2000 dollars for a suit, 200 dollars for a tie, a requisition order for a Ferrari?

[Belz...]

It's for a evil good cause, Coins. Let it go!

[gumboot]

The idiocy on that thread continues.


How can you deal with people who are too stupid to understand the concept of time zones. Geez, my 9 year old can figure this stuff out.



It's not even that. Even making the timezone mistake, you still wouldn't get 10 minutes. This is classic example of CTers just blatantly making stuff up. Like the "60 intercept all happened within 15 minutes" claim.

And then there's the comment about the time between AA11 deviating off its flight path, and AA77 crashing. How these two times relate to each other in terms of intercept, I have no idea.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

Payne Stewart's plane was intercepted over an hour after it was reported as being NORDO, by an unarmed fighter on a training flight(IIRC).

There was never any question of a shoot down, a moot point given the unarmed status of the intercept aircraft.
There was NO "scramble" of any fighter aircraft in this event.



Actually the flight was also later intercepted by a pair of F-16s from Oklahoma (1113CDT - 2hrs 40min after loss of contact), and then joined by a pair of F-16s from North Dakota (1150CDT - 3hrs 17mins after loss of contact).

-Gumboot

[jackchit]

Reminds me of an old boss. See, on a Friday I asked for a day off for the following monday, but my request was denied. That Friday evening I broke my big toe, and had to go to the hospital when I realised it was broken. I took Monday off for medical reasons, but when I phoned work, the boss told me she found it a "strange" coincidence. I answered "You don't believe me ?" and she said "I'm not saying that. I just think it's strange". In other words she had called me a liar and was backpedaling.



I have nothing to hide. Should I be investigated, too ?



Aw, you poor thing.

congratulations on the most idiotic and pointless reply to date....

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

congratulations on the most idiotic and pointless reply to date....
Nope. You just trumped it.

[jackchit]

Nope. You just trumped it.

I see the level of debate hasn't improved.
Arkan why not just go back to your dungeons and dragons game?
You clearly have nothing to offer

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I see the level of debate hasn't improved.
Arkan why not just go back to your dungeons and dragons game?
You clearly have nothing to offer
You've stepped up. You actually managed a logically fallacy in that post. Keep trying, you'll make a reasonable argument eventually.

[jackchit]

You've stepped up. You actually managed a logically fallacy in that post. Keep trying, you'll make a reasonable argument eventually.

Do you never tire of being "owned" by me??? thats 3 times tonight.
Keep watching kid, you may learn something.:cool:

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Do you never tire of being "owned" by me??? thats 3 times tonight.
Keep watching kid, you may learn something.:cool:
You really don't grasp what a logically consistent, rational argument, is, do you?