1
   

911 and the Precautionary Principle:

 
 
LionTamerX
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 12:06 pm
Laughing
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 12:17 pm
not2know

I think you should explain your logic here. Are you saying the govts non production of traceable aircraft pieces allows conspiracy theories to abound?

Or are you seriously tell us that the no bits argument proves the planes didnt hit?
0 Replies
 
not2know
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 12:32 pm
What i am trying to say is that the US gov is hiding something from us, he lied about WMD in Iraq, so dont you think he could be lying about 911 ? ?
0 Replies
 
not2know
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 12:40 pm
If the events on September 11, 2001 changed the world forever, isn't it essential to understand what really happened ?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 12:51 pm
Is it just me... or does this thread read like one of Gungas evolution threads?
0 Replies
 
not2know
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 01:12 pm
Simple Math demonstrate that the Official 9/11 Account is a Fabrication

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
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 04:07 pm
We have had a number of other threads with all these consiracy theories aired.

Have a look at them.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 May, 2005 07:58 am
not2know wrote:
Confused where the heck have you guys been ?
did someone say "without any proof", ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
chek this out :

...
Michael Moore
...

I COULD GIVE A ABOUT 10,000 MORE BUT JUST DO A GOOGLE SEARCH!


That's all you really needed to say right there. If Michael Moore says it's true, that's all I need to know.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 May, 2005 08:24 am
Rafick...is that you?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 May, 2005 11:03 am
I don't like using the term 'conspiracy theory' when people start talking about what happened on 9/11.

Why?

Because the facts, that you all know, are this:

4 planes crashed that day. Three of them hit a building, the fourth was either crashed intentionally by the pilots or shot down.

And that's it.

Everything else, every other bit of 'proof' as to what happened and who was behind it, was told to you by the gov't.

Am I saying that the gov't planned and carried out 9/11? Not neccessarily.

Did they know it was going to happen and do nothing about it intentionally? Maybe.

Did they spin the event to profit the NeoCons as much as possible? Probably.

I can understand the Conservatives on here laughing this off, but the rest of you know the Bush admin are liars! Yet you believe everything they say about 9/11. Why?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 May, 2005 11:09 am
ebrown_p wrote:
Is it just me... or does this thread read like one of Gungas evolution threads?

At least not2know's avatar admits the orifice out of which he's talking.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 May, 2005 11:13 am
DrewDad wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
Is it just me... or does this thread read like one of Gungas evolution threads?

At least not2know's avatar admits the orifice out of which he's talking.


And not2know has more noncredible websites to quote from... :wink:
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 May, 2005 11:14 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Everything else, every other bit of 'proof' as to what happened and who was behind it, was told to you by the gov't.

Am I saying that the gov't planned and carried out 9/11? Not neccessarily.

Did they know it was going to happen and do nothing about it intentionally? Maybe.

Did they spin the event to profit the NeoCons as much as possible? Probably.

I definitely think the Bush regime has used 9/11 to further their own agenda. But deliberately allowing all of those folks to be murdered? That's way too big to cover up, IMO.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 May, 2005 11:15 am
Why?

Why just say that, Drew?

Is isn't as if the entire Federal gov't had to know about it. Just a few key people.

Tell me some good reasons why a coverup couldn't have happened; and I'd be more than happy to provide you with reasons it could.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 May, 2005 11:31 am
"A few key people"?

Lot's of folks involved in processing the data, generating the reports that are sent to the higher-ups. Look at what happened with Abu Ghraib. All it takes is one person with a conscience and the whole scam blows up....

As I said, that's my opinion. Feel free to disagree.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 May, 2005 11:34 am
Quote:
Simple Math demonstrate that the Official 9/11 Account is a Fabrication

Your simple math doesn't prove much of anything.
A and B does NOT prove that C doesn't exist.
C is not contingent on both A and B being true.

A and B are your list of various things you don't find to be true. C is the fact that several members of Al Qaeda took over planes on 9/11 and crashed them. You have shown no way for C to be false because A and B are false. Simple math here.
A And B = C 5 + 10 = 15 Just because A doesn't exist does NOT mean that you cant get to 15. I can add D and E to get there. 6 + 9 DOES equal 15. Or I can add F + G +B 1+4+10 to get to C. Your attempt at bolean logic is not valid since you use A and B to prove something that is neither A or B


Your probablity theory is as silly as your math theory...
Quote:
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.
Oh? based on what? you assigned NO NUMBERS to any of your 22 previous claims of improbable happenstances of which some of them are NOT improbable at all.

For instance, yesterday and every day several groups of muslim men boarded planes all across the US. It is not only likely, it is almost 100% likely for it to happen daily with no large concern even after 9/11. 99.99% not 1 like you claimed

Another not improbable instance was flight training in US. Much of the world's flight training happens here for the very specific reason that English is the langauge used by all commercial pilots. Not improbable but instead it is very likely. 80-90% not the 1% you claim.


Quote:
17. Five individuals with only packing knives can be expected to overwhelm fifty adults in a plane.
Based on the evidence of 4 times out of 4 this would also be 100% probability. Unless you have evidence of an attempt that didn't lead to this exact result.

Your probability is based on nothing but made up numbers.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 May, 2005 11:49 am
Quote:
"A few key people"?

Lot's of folks involved in processing the data, generating the reports that are sent to the higher-ups. Look at what happened with Abu Ghraib. All it takes is one person with a conscience and the whole scam blows up....

As I said, that's my opinion. Feel free to disagree.


Thanks, I do feel free to disagree.

The 'reports' aspect doesn't matter, especially if we are talking about prior knowledge and no action taken. It would have been an very few intelligence agents who would need to know about it in the first place for a plan to be formed, and they know better than to talk; that's a good way to end up dead these days.

A few intelligence agents take notice.

They pass the info along and are told to hush up about it on fear of their lives.

The attack happens, Bush swoops in and gets his trifecta.

Now, anyone who questions what happened is labelled a 'conspiracy theorist.' This discounts the very real evidence that we have that gov'ts and leaders engage in secret acts and conspiracies all the time. Yet we ignore this, because the thought that this would be allowed to happen is unthinkable.

Of course, so is torture and lying about WMD and disappearing people, but THAT happened.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 May, 2005 12:03 pm
I agree with Cyclop. There's no denying 4 planes went down that day. there's no way to claim all those people were killed if they weren't. The planes DID crash into the buildings and field.

However, who knew it was gonna happen and did nothing and how the event was used by the current administration (Think PNAC) is a whole nother thing.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 May, 2005 12:55 pm
What do you mean no plane wreckage.

http://www.news.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=2445
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 May, 2005 01:02 pm
I think you give Bush & Co. way too much credit....
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/13/2025 at 10:36:44