Go back to our village.
With just us two, to get the 50% drop in passengers, 1 of us knows.
50% knowledge = 50% passenger drop
For our purposes perhaps reading the equation the other way helps?
50% passenger drop = 50% knowledge

Now imagine our village has 10 people in it - all bus travellers.
This time 2 of us know.
Number catching ill-fated bus would then be 8. 80% of normal - a drop of 20%
20% knowledge = 20% passenger drop
or
20% passenger drop = 20% knowledge

That correlation works for any number.

eg. 52 passengers normally.
13 of them get to hear of impending disaster.
25% passenger drop.
25% knowledge


Greater Boston, where we will assume passengers using Logan are from, has a population of 7,500,000
20% drop in passenger number IFthe result of a conspiracy being known = 20% of 7,500,000 in the know.

Even if you say 19% of the number drop was statistical variance and only 1% due to knowledge of conspiracy that is still 75,000 people.

These are the figures for 1 plane.
3 of the 4 planes were under the average loading figure; 1 was slightly above, 1 slightly below, and 2 well below.

Therefore if conspiracy is the cause you have to do the same maths for 2 other planes. AND then ask yourself why a conspiracy so well known doesn't affect numbers on the 4th flight.

Then,(you still haven't finished), you have to look at New York itself and if the numbers actually in the towers are down, for which I still await evidence, do the same maths there.
Let's say numbers in the tower are 5% down on the norm.
Remember, each % drop = % of population in the know.
New York has a population of going on for 20 million people.
5% of 20,000,000 = 1 million conspirators in the city.

This maths breaks down only under 2 criteria, I think:

1. People are turned away from the flights by someone who knows of the disaster to come - not a single person has come forward to say that happened to them.

or

2. The "normal" passengers for the flights just happened to contain a very large number of your 1000 conspirators. But that doesn't work because they would have to be WTC workers -  you need more than that number to  make up the shortfall in the towers.

So you can do all those calculations if you want.
Or you can look at the whole thing through the eyes of statistical variance.
Imagine those 4 planes, not as a group of 4, but as 4 out of 1000. ie. the planes that took off at their times for their destinations for the previous X number of yrs, X number of Septembers if you like.

Now look at them as poker hands rather than plane loading numbers.

The average poker hand is Q7.
In a run of 4 hands in a 1000 you've been dealt 83, 94, Q5 and K6. Now ask a poker player if that is a remarkable event.

As evidence of conspiracy, reduced numbers of people on planes or in towers doesn't even get off the start line.

Gene Hackman Joined: 07 Feb 02
   
Pandorica
Just to clear this probablity thing up:
My town has a population of 200,000.
1000 of those people regularly bet on a particular horse every Saturday afternoon.
50 of those people get to hear that this horse WILL NOT WIN next Saturday.
Therefore 10,000 people in the town would have got to hear about this horse?
Is that the logic you are talking about?

They're your own figures. Tell me how, when 50 people get to hear the horse will lose, that this figure jumps to 10,000.
I think your own question has confused you.

im telling you people, they killed kennedy

Any idea why LHO was allowed to return from the USSR after renouncing the USA and at the height of the Cold War, Pandorica?

Angel Gabriel Joined: 09 May 05
Replies: 544 11 Sep 10 14:39   


All you have to do Barny is do some more research away from youtube and then the penny will drop that these people have credentials.You can find out about their education and there careers. Many of them are putting their reputations on the line. If you have any doubt about these people you can easily find out if they are real.

So do the people that agree with the official view and their are a lot more of them. You of course choose to ignore them.This is where you are going wrong.

The Net is a library of information. Like every library we have papers on fiction and papers on truth.

i think the yanks just skimped a bit on the building supplies, i know how the yanks build stuff, they look good but a good swift kick at anything they build will fall down , they did the same in oklahoma , turns out they forget to put the main guirder in the building that would have held it up , same with hurricane andrew , and i was there , they did,nt even bolt the houses down to the foundations , they had 4 drywall screws in every sheet of drywall instead of 5 0 and on and on , basically they build rubbish

I think suggesting Richard Gage is peddling a lie for profit is absolutely laughable. He would be conning the victims famililes and making false charges against NIST and the US government


He is.


. More likely is that every architect and engineers registered with the movement are putting their reputations on the line for a new inquirey because they know the official one is fraudulent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWZuwgSg198



How are they putting their reputations on the line?

Facts?

That might well be a first.

I'm thinking of constructing a conspiracy theory based on the Omaha Beach landings on D-Day. It fits the bill perfectly:

A complex event involving thousands of people - ripe for some very suspicious coincidences.
Multi-government involvement.
The military.
Dead people.
Missing files.
Promised logistical support not pitching up as expected.
And despite the 1000s dead, Tom Hanks survives.

Yes.
Did you ever explain those numbers?

Did you explain your reasoning behind the military shooting a plane down and how it ties in with calls to relatives and cockpit recordings?

In fact, in 48 pages, have you explained anything?

If you want the answer to the BBC thing again - a coincidence, yes...an error that actually proved correct. I don't know, but my guess would be a report of 'partial collapse' became 'collapse' in the confusion of the day - but that's just speculation.

Watch this and count the errors reporters make in the heat of the moment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVhhu5OjMf8

What's the alternative? The BBC are involved in a conspiracy to kill thousands of people including 67 British citizens. And you think that is more likely than an error?

If you weren't allowed to vote and sit on a jury, that would be quite funny.
As it is, I want that head in hands man.

I wonder how many Americans emigrated from the US to the USSR at that time (a small number I would guess) and subsequently returned (and with a Soviet wife in tow, too). I would guess that subset would be a very small number. 

A couple of facts:

LHO was a known FBI informant.

He was taught Russian at the US Military Language School in Monterey.

The KGB kept him under constant surveillance when in the USSR, apparently suspecting him to be a spy and not a genuine emigre (a suspicion that may have been backed up by his short residency).

He was an average to poor shot, just passing the last of his shooting tests as a marine by two points (191 v a pass mark of 190) and getting the lowest of three grades. He did do better in an earlier test when he got a low mid-grade score. Those who went hunting with him in the USSR also said he was a poor marksman. Yet none of the expert marksmen tasked by the House Select Committee on Assassinations with repeating the feat alleged by the Warren Commission regarding 22/11/63 could do so. 

O'Donnell and Powers, two of JFK's aides who were present, both former soldiers, told the FBI and WC that two shots came from the grassy knoll.

There's loads more.

IMO JFK's killing was a military coup d'etat that has dominated the course of US politics ever since.

Gene Hackman
-there was very little damage to the building.

Another blatant lie. And if there isn't enough precise detail for you here then frankly you are seriously off your trolley.

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

And still you haven't explained anything:

1. Those pesky numbers- not your strong suit but they need explaining.

2. 50 eyewitnesses saw a plane and you think it was a missile - I can't wait for that one.

3. Military shooting a plane down and how it ties in with calls to relatives and cockpit recordings - tricky to cover that isn't it?

4. Stockbrokers aware - like how and why and when?

5. Seismic evidence from independent sources show no explosions but in Gene's world there was. Explain.

6. Total and complete lack of evidence for any of your warped beliefs - yet you hang onto them. Why? Money? Ego?

Come on Gene - I've answered every single question you've put to me with substantiating evidence and testimony. You've provided nothing. Absolutely nothing. So come on. Put up or shut up.

Ironically, the only link between Kennedy and 9/11 isn't conspiracy - it's theory. A number of very cynical people made alot of money propagating a fantastic story for Kennedy's assassination - so successful was it, it's become the blueprint for the immoral to make still more money from the not over-bright and rather paranoid.

Read the stuff that started the whole Kennedy charade and "magic bullet" is the ever-present. Stone, cynically, went more for "back and to the left". Now you lot have "free-fall" and "passport mystery".
You do like your catchy phrases, don't you?
Just not so hot on explanation and evidence.

Questions of Witness Fraud
One of the most frequent arguments used to dismiss the body of eyewitness evidence in order to deny that a jetliner attacked the Pentagon is that the majority of witnesses have connections to the military or the press, and therefore their accounts are suspect. However, given the proximity of most of the witnesses to the Pentagon and nearby military-related facilities, it's only natural that most of the witnesses would be involved with the military in some capacity. Several reporters for USA TODAY witnessed the event because offices in the USA TODAY building in Arlington, VA had a view of the Pentagon's west side.

Regardless of the number of witnesses with connections to the military or press, there are a substantial number of witnesses with no apparent connections, and the accounts of both groups are substantially in agreement. If one studies the breakdown of witnesses by observation detail, there is no obvious correlation between observation and witness type.

Even if one assumes that scores of witnesses were coached to lie or for some other reason lied to support the official story, one would have to assume the absurdity that all the other people who happened to glimpse the aircraft due to their being slow-moving traffic on the highways west of the Pentagon -- at least hundreds of people -- saw fit to remain silent about having seen something other than a jetliner.

Questions of Witness Contamination
A more compelling question raised in regard to the veracity of witness reports of a jetliner is the observation that witnesses could have either adjusted their accounts to fit later reports regarding the Pentagon attack, or that their first perceptions were biased by prior reports of a jetliner crashing into the South Tower. However, there is a limit to the degree to which perceptions can be biased by context. With the exception of the two accounts of a commuter jet -- both by witnesses distant from the event, every account that mentions the attack plane is either consistent with or describes specific features of a twin-engine jetliner such as a Boeing 757. But the most common types of aircraft mentioned by the non-jetliner theorists are a missile, a cruise missile, a Global Hawk, a fighter jet, or A-30 type military jet. It is not reasonable to suppose that all of these witnesses could have been influenced by reports to re-interpret the sighting of such an entirely different type of aircraft as a jetliner, for a number of reasons:

No witness reports sighting a military plane or missile, or a plane with features inconsistent with a 757, such as no wings, wings attached to the top or middle of the fuselage, one engine instead of two, or engines attached to the tail section.
Most broadcast media did not begin reporting that a jetliner crashed into the Pentagon until about two hours after the attack. Several of the accounts may have been collected from witnesses before those reports were broadcast or before witnesses heard reports.
Of the eyewitnesses who identified the model of the aircraft, as many named a Boeing 737 or Airbus A-320 as named a Boeing 757, the type of plane that AA 77 was. The media-contamination theory does not explain the naming of a plane that is not a 757 but looks like one.
There is broad agreement among witnesses on specific details of the approach of the aircraft, such as its clipping lampposts, banking to the left, adding power at the last second, and flying with its flaps up. Such a level of observational detail would seem irreconcilable with witnesses grossly altering their recollections about the type of aircraft to fit the official story.
Some of those details, which are not explained by the much less specific news reports, are inconsistent with the types of aircraft proposed by non-jetliner theorists. For example, missiles, cruise missiles, and Global Hawks do not have flaps.
No Pentagon witnesses admit to reinterpreting their original impressions to fit the official narrative. This starkly contrasts with numerous examples from oral histories of emergency responders to the WTC attack admitting to retracting their initial conclusions of explosives and demolition to fit the official gravity collapse explanation.

Somebody has the chance to make a lot of money by acting on a tip-off,and you expect them to report it to the authorities?

FFS we are talking about a major conspiracy/disaster/murder/cover up/ not a bit of insider trading
cmon get real

Let's cut to the chase Gene.
You have no evidence to support your beliefs and yet you hold onto them.
That's fine, but at least have the good grace to say it and then I can stop pestering you for explanations.

Gene Hackman
   
You didn't explain anywhere about the BBC and WTC7.

I missed that.

Pandorica Joined: 10 Jul 10
Replies: 84 24 Sep 10 19:55   
Coincidence, fog of war, call it what you like


I did then and I've done it again since.
But just in case, here it is again:  Error leading to unfortunate coincidence.

I don't want you thinking I duck explanations.

To be fair, Pandorica, the beliefs of the vast majority of people  are unexamined, accidentally acquired, emotionally based and ill thought-through.

Imagine if I had been in the area of the Pentagon on 9/11:If I was to have come forward,together with 50 others,and say I thought it was a missile,what would have happened?
Do you think the TV and press would report it?
You and your cohorts would have called me/us traitors/paranoid/mad/in it for the money.