|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
27th December 2013, 09:52 AM | #41 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
27th December 2013, 09:53 AM | #42 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
Remember, you spread lies about 911 for no reason because you think murderers can't do murder.
What is improbable is you understanding physics, or that you made up the "path of least resistance law" a law so stupid it is improbable someone could make it up, or repeat something so darn stupid. Improbable. http://www.opednews.com/Diary/9-11-H...80324-705.html It is improbable someone would spread so many lies like you do about 911, but gee, you did it, and now you expose your faulty logic on why it is improbable something that happened was improbable, and you list... Yes, you list... Zero evidence - except faulty logic. The path of least resistance was improbable, but you spread it due to what? Lack of knowledge? Or faulty logic?
Quote:
When aircraft crash, there is stuff that remains untouched. I have investigated accidents, and you claim to be a pilot, but you don't know anything practical about aircraft accidents, or aircraft accident investigations because you don't care to learn, or do simple research. Good job. Great work, 12 years of solid failure, a legacy of woo at Op Ed News, where the big lie is called... the truth. Improbable? I thought it was improbable so many people made up lies about 911, but look, here you are spreading lies. Things make it through accidents, and you now know it is true. Can you learn, or what? |
27th December 2013, 10:09 AM | #43 | ||
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
|
I came across a story about this recently, I think it's highly relevant. The debris from the Columbia disaster was spread out over several states, including Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas. Yet somehow a roll of undeveloped film was found which included the following picture. What are the odds of that happening? Are we now to propose that this was 'planted' by some nefarious conspiracy as well? I suppose there are nutjobs out there who will do just that...
http://i.space.com/images/i/000/007/...jpg?1296494876
|
||
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!' 000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.' mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon' |
|||
27th December 2013, 10:25 AM | #44 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
Add probability to the long list of things 911 truth followers and spreaders of woo don't do. It is improbable a group so small can all share the same failed logic and lack of knowledge, but here you are.
Wow, means 911 was not improbable? Cause it happened. Means 911 truth followers can't understand things. I still love the "path of least resistance" junk, where did you get that? Bet it was from Gage, he makes money spreading lies, a professional liar. What are you, as you spread lies about 911? http://www.opednews.com/Diary/9-11-H...80324-705.html
Quote:
The FDR is exactly the path 77 hit the Pentagon, backed up by RADAR, and all the witnesses back it up too, but then you believed CIT, a few drugged up nuts who lied about 911. What is the probability you got your lies from drugged up nuts? 100 percent. What is the probability you failed to check RADAR data before you posted this lie? 100 percent? lol Here you go, a pilot who can't comprehend RADAR data. Improbable?
Quote:
|
27th December 2013, 10:52 AM | #45 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,448
|
Proof the Columbia was Shot Down by a Secret Air Force Laser
http://venjanztruth.blogspot.com/200...-revealed.html |
__________________
www.curedfoundation.org Learn more about EOE here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eosinophilic_esophagitis |
|
27th December 2013, 10:59 AM | #46 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,712
|
No really David, how were you thinking this was going to go?
|
27th December 2013, 11:25 AM | #47 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
|
27th December 2013, 11:55 AM | #48 |
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 501
|
|
__________________
There is no escape from truth.
|
|
27th December 2013, 11:58 AM | #49 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
|
27th December 2013, 12:07 PM | #50 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
27th December 2013, 12:16 PM | #51 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
We all understand almost anything is possible, but what were the odds?
|
27th December 2013, 12:18 PM | #52 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
911 truth has no idea what happened on 911; they prefer to make up lies and fantasy, dumb ones, like this lie.
Quote:
Odds? From 911 truth? The math free movement. Give us a break - 12 years and not a single thing right - a perfect record of woo |
27th December 2013, 12:18 PM | #53 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
27th December 2013, 12:22 PM | #54 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
To that end. The odds that the events of 9/11 would happen were really good. It's hard to put a number on it but, we had gotten so complacent with security that this was inevitable. I'd say the odds of a terrorist attack on the US was near 100%.
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
27th December 2013, 12:23 PM | #55 |
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 501
|
|
__________________
There is no escape from truth.
|
|
27th December 2013, 12:27 PM | #56 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
ozeco, Does not your logic end up here? -
One hijacker's passport found -- 100% probability. Therefore, the probability of finding zero or two hijacker's passports -- zero%. They found one. |
27th December 2013, 12:28 PM | #57 |
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 501
|
|
__________________
There is no escape from truth.
|
|
27th December 2013, 12:29 PM | #58 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
|
I'm pretty sure that's the intention, given the number of 9's he says he puts after the dot. It would be nice to educate david.watts on why that would be a bad idea.
David, let me tell you an anecdote. The day of the attacks I was having lunch at a bar near my job, as nearly every day (it was 3pm here). I was eating cold meats with cheese and salad, because that day they ran out of everything else. What are the odds? That happened about twice a year during the three years I was working there. The probability of that happening on the day of the 9/11 attacks was thus about 2 in 365 or slightly above 0.5%. Can you now take that 0.5% and multiply it to the previous odds to obtain an even less likely probability of 9/11 happening? I hope you agree with me that you can't do that. If we put together everything that happened around the world that very day, and multiply the odds, the only conclusion would be that it was impossible. But then the very same argument could be done about every other day, not just 9/11. Highly unlikely things happen every day, everywhere. Why, then, do you multiply the rest of stuff so happily? That anecdote happened on 9/11, so it has a relationship with 9/11. If you don't agree it had to do with 9/11, you'll have to explain what relationship the drills you mention bore with 9/11 at all, and what do they count for. I have the hunch that you're uneducated in that matter too. Since I don't know what drills you mean, I'll assume you mean military drills. What are the odds, you say, that military drills were happening that very day? Well, pretty high. Still not 100%, I hear you saying, therefore they will still reduce the total odds when multiplied to the rest, right? Wrong. I mean, yes, they would reduce the odds when multiplied, but it doesn't matter, because it isn't correct to multiply it. You don't define exactly what probability you're calculating. The probability of what, exactly? That 19 hijackers crashed the 4 planes that day? And what role do the drills play in that, exactly? Before answering that, let me ask you something. Let's assume, by hypothesis, that the existence of the drills favor that the terrorists crashed the planes. Would you multiply the odds to the total in that case? And now, let's assume, again by hypothesis, that the existence of the drills goes against the odds that the terrorists crashed the planes. Would you multiply the odds to the total in that case? My hope here is that you realize how confused you are on this matter. Not that I have a high hope after the wishful thinking you've shown in another thread related to what the "null hypothesis" actually is (which alienentity has shredded to pieces masterfully with his own list of highly unlikely events), but I've decided to give it a second try, as you seem kind of receptive to some reasoned arguments. And that's not even the main reason of why it's a bad idea to multiply the odds together. For one, they are not independent events (as required by probability theory to let us do the math that way). Probability is highly counter-intuitive, as demonstrated for example by the Monty Hall problem. But there's yet an even more powerful reason to not do the math that way. As a saying I've seen attributed to Scott D. Sagan goes, things that have never happened before happen all the time. Unexpected things are expected in many events. In one of the magnitude of 9/11, you expect lots. Why is that significant? Well, a priori we don't know what the unlikely events are going to be. Let me illustrate that with a double example. Let's assume, by hypothesis, that someone could predict that an attack involving hijackers and planes would happen before 9/11 and their objectives. If that person predicted things exactly as they happened on the day of the attacks (Atta's luggage would be left on the airport, there would be no clear camera filming the Pentagon crash, the passports of two hijackers in AA-11 and two in UA-93 would be recovered, the towers falling in the time they did, etc.) would that be significant? HELL YEAH! What are the odds of predicting everything exactly as it happened? You can then take your calculator and do the math. But now, what if that person's series of predictions of highly unlikely events didn't get anything significant right? Say for example the predictions included that six planes would carry 3 hijackers each, that one of the planes would succeed crashing against the Capitol, being filmed by just two cameras in there and many other details regarding the Capitol crash (that never actually occurred); that the Pentagon crash was filmed by 3 amateurs and 5 security cameras, one of them with high resolution; that one of the hijackers would be a woman, married to the pilot of one of the planes she was not in; that a small bag carrying anthrax would be found in one of the sites, miraculously undamaged, saving the lives of many... You can go on for me figuring out your own series of highly unlikely events. Now, keeping in mind that we're assuming by hypothesis, and just for the sake of argument, that the attacks were somehow known and therefore not counting that part in the odds, what would the significance of these predictions be? Really moot, right? Unless... that's what actually happened! In that case, the significance would be really big, and that person would be the winner of many lotteries, as in Mikey's story. And you would be calculating the odds against that series of events instead. Well, imagine yourself making a list of every possible way that the attacks could have happened. Don't bother trying; there are probably trillions of them. The odds of any of these trillions happening is really really small. Yet one of them happened. So what? After the fact, it doesn't make any sense to calculate these odds, because one of the zillion possibilities had to happen anyway, including some unexpected events that never happened before, because it would be much, much more unlikely that there was no unexpected event at all that day. if you go ahead and calculate the odds as if there were independent events, what you obtain would actually be an estimate of how many possible ways things could have happened that day, NOT the odds that it happened. That's the big flaw in your reasoning. |
27th December 2013, 12:34 PM | #59 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 5,164
|
Are you asking what the actual mathematical odds are? Because that would next to impossible to actually calculate since we don't have all of the data required to make the calculation...including where the passport was, what path it took, what other objects were around it...etc. The collision was so chaotic, that that passport probable made over 1000 interactions or non-interactions with the surrounding events. But if you must know it was 1024.3253 to 1.
Or is this some truther "gotcha" question where if we can't answer, you think "I win!! Inside job!!" ? |
__________________
"Fixin' crap that ain't broke." |
|
27th December 2013, 12:38 PM | #60 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
27th December 2013, 12:41 PM | #61 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
I have worked aircraft accidents, lots of stuff is ejected and is not burnt or crushed. The airspeed indicator, ejected 400 feet in perfect condition. I worked the accident, and you, make up lies about 911. I did work, you do fantasy, making up silly statements which prove you have no experience in reality.
Better luck with Bigfoot, you can use the same evidence, made up nonsense. Bigfoot is a better fantasy, it is not making fun of thousands of murdered humans, you don't care about. http://www.opednews.com/Diary/9-11-H...80324-705.html When will you retract all these silly lies? |
27th December 2013, 12:45 PM | #62 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
Coincidences and highly unlikely things do happen. But, how unlikely were they? How many very unlikely things happened? How many coincidences are required to explain away many very unlikely things? The answer would be many.
How likely is it that many very unlikely things happened during one event? I mean, what were the odds that one hijacker's passport would be found AND only one filing cabinet would be found? I wonder. |
27th December 2013, 12:47 PM | #63 |
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 501
|
|
__________________
There is no escape from truth.
|
|
27th December 2013, 12:49 PM | #64 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
27th December 2013, 12:50 PM | #65 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
|
27th December 2013, 12:53 PM | #66 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
27th December 2013, 12:56 PM | #67 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
|
|
27th December 2013, 01:00 PM | #68 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
No. Score True; True; Undefined context and True -- respectively
My logic is accurate and has a purpose. However you are nearly correct - you change scenario with the "two hijacker's passports" which you need to define before I can answer. And, if you define it in your own mind the problem will no longer exist. So forget logic and forget rigorous definition of probability - you have multiple examples of members playing along with your style of loose definition. That game can go on for ever. What is your purpose? What are you trying to lead up to? Because I'll bet understanding probability is not relevant. And I'll also bet the real issue is your reluctance to accept certain aspects of evidence which are true facts. |
27th December 2013, 01:03 PM | #69 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
|
Wonder if you like. Read my message to the end, you'll see why what you're calculating is how likely it was to predict 9/11 as it happened, and why that is of zero significance after the fact. You've been told already; I've just made it more obvious to you through examples.
I was wrong, you aren't that open to reason. You've just ignored the core of my explanation to favor your preconceptions. |
27th December 2013, 01:04 PM | #70 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
|
|
27th December 2013, 01:05 PM | #71 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
27th December 2013, 01:08 PM | #72 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
|
|
27th December 2013, 01:09 PM | #73 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
100% certain for the things that did happen - by your own reasoning:
BUT I call FOUL on this claim:
You rewrote the definition of probability with this statement: You didn't like it when I told you some simple facts about probability ("odds" if you prefer the term.) So don't deny me the use of a principle THEN turn round and use it yourself. |
27th December 2013, 01:14 PM | #74 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
|
27th December 2013, 01:23 PM | #75 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
|
When the event itself is as unlikely and indeed unique as the 9/11 attacks I would say all of them. The importance you place on these things is entirely subjective.
Where exactly are you going with this? OK, unlikely things happened in an unlikely event. You can name one (which I would personally not even describe as unlikely). And this proves,...? |
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts. |
|
27th December 2013, 01:30 PM | #76 |
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 501
|
|
__________________
There is no escape from truth.
|
|
27th December 2013, 01:31 PM | #77 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,712
|
Why do you care David? The hijackers did take the planes and did crash them into buildings. Your assessment of the probability of the events taking place doesn't matter because the events did take place. I understand you have some need for this to be something other than it was but that need is unimportant. Stop trying to manufacture a justification to ignore reality.
|
27th December 2013, 01:33 PM | #78 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
27th December 2013, 01:33 PM | #79 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
That is the core issue of this thread.
And the word "unlikely" is redundant - you could say this: ...and the effective meaning is the same. All the "unlikelies"; "odds"; "probabilities" stuff is d.w's EITHER evasions or confusions. He won't say what "...this proves". Until he does the discussion will keep circling. |
27th December 2013, 01:47 PM | #80 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
I have thought about your many comments. They have been a big help in seeing that my case was stated ... not so well. Thank you.
Clarification: If a tails-up penny was found in the street and it was determined it came from UA 175, that would mean it was part of that day's event. What is the probability that it landed tails up? One in two. Would I include that in trying to determine how unlikely/improbable it is that the "official story" explains what happened on 9/11? No. Why? It is very plausible. Probability is for future events. Plausibility is for past events. What is the probability something might occur? What is the plausibility it occurred? I should have made the statement differently. I should have defined things in terms of what is the probability that a particular implausibility would occur. Sorry. So, the probability would be based on how implausible was the outcome. I will see how I can restate more properly my case. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|