| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
DaveyJ
Minor Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 94
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 11:38 pm Post subject: Black Op's |
 |
|
I think a lot of the debates here are like arguing about the science of sci-fi, outside of the context it?s irrelevant.
The military often quote the fact that even the best possible designed operation can only achieve a %50 success rate, so when you have to consider alternative options and the need for the objective to be reached.
The most fundamental logic of politics/military/business/even poker players etc
Potential of success Versus cost of defeat
even the most tame of conspiracy theories require absurd technicalities, which i think we give the operation at best %5 chance or less of success, and when you consider the ramifications if it got into the public domain, would be the biggest scandal ever. Who on earth with authorise this operation?
________
vaporizer forums
Last edited by DaveyJ on Tue Feb 01, 2011 9:28 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 1:00 pm Post subject: Re: Black Op's |
|
|
| DaveyJ wrote: | I think a lot of the debates here are like arguing about the science of sci-fi, outside of the context it’s irrelevant.
The military often quote the fact that even the best possible designed operation can only achieve a %50 success rate, so when you have to consider alternative options and the need for the objective to be reached.
The most fundamental logic of politics/military/business/even poker players etc
Potential of success Versus cost of defeat
even the most tame of conspiracy theories require absurd technicalities, which i think we give the operation at best %5 chance or less of success, and when you consider the ramifications if it got into the public domain, would be the biggest scandal ever. Who on earth with authorise this operation? |
very strange then how the terrorists operation had a 100% success rate on foriegn soil against one of the best defended countries in the world.
and was carried out by men in caves.
which version relys on conspiracy theory? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How was crashing into the ground in Pennsylvania a success?
Do you get to ignore all other failed Al Queda plots in calculating success rates?
Were the highjacked flights the best defended flights in the world? In what sense? How were the Pentagon and the WTC the best defended buildings in the world?
Who was in caves? Are you just repeating this because conspiracy websites tell you to, despite the fact that nobody ever claimed Al Queda leadership lived in caves? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | How was crashing into the ground in Pennsylvania a success?
Do you get to ignore all other failed Al Queda plots in calculating success rates?
Were the highjacked flights the best defended flights in the world? In what sense? How were the Pentagon and the WTC the best defended buildings in the world?
Who was in caves? Are you just repeating this because conspiracy websites tell you to, despite the fact that nobody ever claimed Al Queda leadership lived in caves? |
lol OBL hides in caves and im told this by the news constantly but yes im just a conspiracy theorist so i made that up.
the plane crashing into the ground only failed on one factor, target. it was succesfull in getting hijackers through airport secruity hijacking the plane and crashing it. so lets say a 90% sucess rate then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | lol OBL hides in caves and im told this by the news constantly but yes im just a conspiracy theorist so i made that up. |
Number one, OBL did not plan 911, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the "principal architect" of 9/11. Amazing that after all these years investigating 9/11 you can get such a basic fact wrong.
And after the US invaded Afghanistan OBL was reputed to have hidden in caves in Tora Bora before escaping. But nobody says he planned 9.11 from a cave, except conspiracy websites.
Does this look like a cave?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Operation_Infinite_Reach_2.jpg
| Quote: | | the plane crashing into the ground only failed on one factor, target. it was succesfull in getting hijackers through airport secruity hijacking the plane and crashing it. so lets say a 90% sucess rate then. |
OK, there have been four assassination attempts on Musharraf. So four failed assassination attempts equals what, a 95% success rate since they all got their bombs off before they got killed or arrested?
Can I assume you can't explain how the flights or the Pentagon/WTC were the best defended in the world, this is another one of those things you bring up and then quietly abandon? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | lol OBL hides in caves and im told this by the news constantly but yes im just a conspiracy theorist so i made that up. |
Number one, OBL did not plan 911, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the "principal architect" of 9/11. Amazing that after all these years investigating 9/11 you can get such a basic fact wrong.
And after the US invaded Afghanistan OBL was reputed to have hidden in caves in Tora Bora before escaping. But nobody says he planned 9.11 from a cave, except conspiracy websites.
Does this look like a cave?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Operation_Infinite_Reach_2.jpg
| Quote: | | the plane crashing into the ground only failed on one factor, target. it was succesfull in getting hijackers through airport secruity hijacking the plane and crashing it. so lets say a 90% sucess rate then. |
OK, there have been four assassination attempts on Musharraf. So four failed assassination attempts equals what, a 95% success rate since they all got their bombs off before they got killed or arrested?
Can I assume you can't explain how the flights or the Pentagon/WTC were the best defended in the world, this is another one of those things you bring up and then quietly abandon? |
are you suggesting that 9/11 was not planned by OBL? yet another part of the offical version that has since changed.
are you suggesting the attacks on 9/11 was failure is so explain why?
are you suggesting america does not have the best defence in the world interms of sercurity systems army ect ect.?
it sounds to me like you will go to any lenghts not to accept the facts posted in the first post being compared to the terrorist operation carried out on 9/11. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | are you suggesting that 9/11 was not planned by OBL? yet another part of the offical version that has since changed. |
I'm quoting the 911 commission report, that big white book you constantly ridicule but have never actually read, since you prefer to have conspiracy websites tell you what it says. It refers to KSM as the principal architect of the 9/11 plot. | Quote: | | are you suggesting the attacks on 9/11 was failure is so explain why? |
I'm suggesting that crashing into the ground in Pennsylvania was not the objective, please explain how I am wrong. | Quote: | | are you suggesting america does not have the best defence in the world interms of sercurity systems army ect ect.? |
America has the most powerful military in the world. However, the world's largest nuclear submarine fleet does not help you during a hijacking. When it came to what happened on 9.11, it seems America had very few useful defences, in fact many countries which face real threats on a regular basis would probably have been much better prepared. Then again, who would have though you could land a cessna in red square in 1987? | Quote: | | it sounds to me like you will go to any lenghts not to accept the facts posted in the first post being compared to the terrorist operation carried out on 9/11. |
Lets look back a bit. You think 100% success rate includes one of the planes missing its objective. After years of researching 911, you still think OBL planned 911 from a cave even though the official story calls KSM the planner and never says anybody did it from a cave. You can't explain how America has the "best defences in the world" in sense that would be relevant to 9.11.
Even as you stumble throught that, you can't even begin to explain how the vastly more complicated alternative 9.11 theory would stand a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding.
Lets look at the official theory. Getting into the country? Easy and legal. Training? Easy and legal. Hijacking? Hard to say, since it is so rarely attempted. Doesn't appear too hard given the state of pre-911 security. Flying into the buildings? For a licensed pilot who trains for exactly the same thing over and over again on flight simulators for a long time? Not easy, but not too hard either.
Lets look at your original statement again.
| Quote: | very strange then how the terrorists operation had a 100% success rate on foriegn soil against one of the best defended countries in the world. and was carried out by men in caves.
which version relys on conspiracy theory? |
They didn't have a 100% success rate, numerous terrorist acts have been carried out on foreign soil in the past, "best defended" is something you can't actually explain, and the bit about the caves was some nonsense you repeat because you heard Alex Jones say it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | are you suggesting that 9/11 was not planned by OBL? yet another part of the offical version that has since changed. |
I'm quoting the 911 commission report, that big white book you constantly ridicule but have never actually read, since you prefer to have conspiracy websites tell you what it says. It refers to KSM as the principal architect of the 9/11 plot. | Quote: | | are you suggesting the attacks on 9/11 was failure is so explain why? |
I'm suggesting that crashing into the ground in Pennsylvania was not the objective, please explain how I am wrong. | Quote: | | are you suggesting america does not have the best defence in the world interms of sercurity systems army ect ect.? |
America has the most powerful military in the world. However, the world's largest nuclear submarine fleet does not help you during a hijacking. When it came to what happened on 9.11, it seems America had very few useful defences, in fact many countries which face real threats on a regular basis would probably have been much better prepared. Then again, who would have though you could land a cessna in red square in 1987? | Quote: | | it sounds to me like you will go to any lenghts not to accept the facts posted in the first post being compared to the terrorist operation carried out on 9/11. |
Lets look back a bit. You think 100% success rate includes one of the planes missing its objective. After years of researching 911, you still think OBL planned 911 from a cave even though the official story calls KSM the planner and never says anybody did it from a cave. You can't explain how America has the "best defences in the world" in sense that would be relevant to 9.11.
Even as you stumble throught that, you can't even begin to explain how the vastly more complicated alternative 9.11 theory would stand a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding.
Lets look at the official theory. Getting into the country? Easy and legal. Training? Easy and legal. Hijacking? Hard to say, since it is so rarely attempted. Doesn't appear too hard given the state of pre-911 security. Flying into the buildings? For a licensed pilot who trains for exactly the same thing over and over again on flight simulators for a long time? Not easy, but not too hard either.
Lets look at your original statement again.
| Quote: | very strange then how the terrorists operation had a 100% success rate on foriegn soil against one of the best defended countries in the world. and was carried out by men in caves.
which version relys on conspiracy theory? |
They didn't have a 100% success rate, numerous terrorist acts have been carried out on foreign soil in the past, "best defended" is something you can't actually explain, and the bit about the caves was some nonsense you repeat because you heard Alex Jones say it. |
so bush and blair are lying about OBL's involvment?
i admitted they didnt reach there target above(flight 93) how ever they did were successfull in getting through airport secruity and hijacking the plane and ensuring it crashed, it just crashed in the wrong place so i reduced to a 90% success rate. explained for a second time, do you read posts or just hear what you want to hear?
and you have just debunked the first post with the rest of your questions about operations only being 50% successfull so therefore you are saying it isnt hard to to be successfull if indeed it was a cover -up?
your denial has made the first post look stupid. either way what the first post says is wrong or what you say is wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
either operations if well planned have a chance to to be pulled of or they dont, the guy in the first post is saying operations have a lesser chance of being successful where as your claiming muslims(at a time terrorism exsisted and some where being watched by the fbi) managed to get through all the security unhindered ect and end up with a 80-90% success rate is more than possible proving wrong the original post that these type of operations are hard to pull of.
it dosnt matter who is doing the operations but i would think it easier to pull of on home soil than forgien soil. so from what you agrueing its actually very simple to pull of an operation. therefore easy if it was a cover-up also. or are we suggesting that only hijackers find it easy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
its amazing how two critics contridict eachother, one uses the logic of the goverment could'nt be involved because operations are hard to pull of with a high success rating, where as the other uses the logic that operations especially if on foriegn soil is so easy to pull of there is nothing strange about a high success rating.
you want it both ways? either operations are easy to pull of or they are not. if they are easy then goverment involvment isnt risky if planned well,
if they are hard to pull of then how the hell was it possible for terrorists to be so successfull? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | so bush and blair are lying about OBL's involvment?
|
Where did I say OBL wasn't involved? Bit late for you to get out of this one with a straw man argument. But good for you for trying. | Quote: | | it just crashed in the wrong place so i reduced to a 90% success rate |
You just found out now that it crashed in the wrong place? | Quote: | | you want it both ways? either operations are easy to pull of or they are not. if they are easy then goverment involvment isnt risky if planned well, if they are hard to pull of then how the hell was it possible for terrorists to be so successfull? |
I can't speak for him, but I think you are misrepresenting his argument. He said that "even the most tame of conspiracy theories require absurd technicalities, which i think we give the operation at best %5 chance or less of success". There is no denying that the conspiracy theory version of 911 is vastly more complex than the official explanation, and would require thousands of people to execute. The official version - four planes. The conspiracy version - four planes, a missile firing drone, interceptors, cruise missiles, death ray lasers, explosive planting teams, wreckage removal teams, fake witnesses, media manipulation teams, wreckage planting teams, DNA faking teams, assassins, kidnappers, the CIA, the NIST, coroners, the FBI, the NSA, the police, the FAA, the actors for the Al Queda videos, the airlines, the fire department, investment banks, the SEC, congress, the white house, the senate... on and on and on as you keep extending the conspiracy to cover every single aspect of 911. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="pepik"] | Quote: | so bush and blair are lying about OBL's involvment?
|
Where did I say OBL wasn't involved? Bit late for you to get out of this one with a straw man argument. But good for you for trying. | Quote: | | it just crashed in the wrong place so i reduced to a 90% success rate |
You just found out now that it crashed in the wrong place? | Quote: | | you want it both ways? either operations are easy to pull of or they are not. if they are easy then goverment involvment isnt risky if planned well, if they are hard to pull of then how the hell was it possible for terrorists to be so successfull? |
I can't speak for him, but I think you are misrepresenting his argument. He said that "even the most tame of conspiracy theories require absurd technicalities, which i think we give the operation at best %5 chance or less of success". There is no denying that the conspiracy theory version of 911 is vastly more complex than the official explanation, and would require thousands of people to execute. The official version - four planes. The conspiracy version - four planes, a missile firing drone, interceptors, cruise missiles, death ray lasers, explosive planting teams, wreckage removal teams, fake witnesses, media manipulation teams, wreckage planting teams, DNA faking teams, assassins, kidnappers, the CIA, the NIST, coroners, the FBI, the NSA, the police, the FAA, the actors for the Al Queda videos, the airlines, the fire department, investment banks, the SEC, congress, the white house, the senate... on and on and on as you keep extending the conspiracy to cover every single aspect of 911.
end of debate. you assume to much and put words in my mouth all the time. you keep assuming im a certain type of person who thinks certain things you dont have a clue about, you've made it obvious you are one of the raving looneys who people cannot debate with because no matter what i say or put infront of you i will always be labeled a fruitloop by yourself rather than just a geniune person who thinks 9/11 dosnt add up. your points are your opinon and do not make them fact therefore this could go on for eternity. my opinon is differant, and theres no point explaining why because you are not intrested in what i think, you decided for me as is obvious with almost all your posts. ive been through all this before and your reasoning is bizare to the point of circular argument.
i link you things that seem strange: ie nist enigeer lieing and admitting the building met not resistance after the point of collapse and you cannot comment on it when infact it at least proves i am not a fruitloop or wrong in thinking we were lied to about 9/11.
i think the only way for us to debate is evidence based if your serious, if your here just to keep assuming and presuming and believing your opinon is correct without proof because you are superior then ill no longer converse with you, your a waste of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| basically there is no point in this debate. you believe what you believe and i believe what i believe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | you assume to much and put words in my mouth all the time. you keep assuming im a certain type of person who thinks certain things you dont have a clue about |
I assumed that you are the kind of person who claims, and maybe even thinks, that they independently came up with a whole bunch of questions about 911. But when asked what they are, by MIRACULOUS COINCIDENCE, your questions are EXACTLY THE SAME ones that all the standard conspiracy websites claim. Also, by complete coincidence, you repeat the same errors that these websites routinely make (e.g. claiming the official story says things it doesn't, but which conspiracy websites always claim it does).
So yes, I find you incredibly predictable. When you make errors, you just move on to the next (totally unrelated) question. When you can't answer my questions, you ignore them. | Quote: | | basically there is no point in this debate. you believe what you believe and i believe what i believe. |
Good luck with your growing movement if you give up that easy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
...
Last edited by pepik on Wed Feb 14, 2007 9:14 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | you assume to much and put words in my mouth all the time. you keep assuming im a certain type of person who thinks certain things you dont have a clue about |
I assumed that you are the kind of person who claims, and maybe even thinks, that they independently came up with a whole bunch of questions about 911. But when asked what they are, by MIRACULOUS COINCIDENCE, your questions are EXACTLY THE SAME ones that all the standard conspiracy websites claim. Also, by complete coincidence, you repeat the same errors that these websites routinely make (e.g. claiming the official story says things it doesn't, but which conspiracy websites always claim it does).
So yes, I find you incredibly predictable. When you make errors, you just move on to the next (totally unrelated) question. When you can't answer my questions, you ignore them. | Quote: | | basically there is no point in this debate. you believe what you believe and i believe what i believe. |
Good luck with your growing movement if you give up that easy. |
and yet you fail to explain what the offical version is in regard to why the towers collapsed to ground level after the point of collapse. something NIST didnt look into as proved with the clip i provided in the other thread earlier and as proved by kevin ryan in the clips above.
the only report that explains it suggests pancake theory, so please link me to this offical explaination you claim im getting wrong.
it is not my fault you either choose to ignore them or address them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| So you accept the official version up to the point of collapse, your only remaining issue is why it kept falling? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | So you accept the official version up to the point of collapse, your only remaining issue is why it kept falling? |
no you said pancake theory is not the offical version and keep stalling to show me what the offical version is. you dont know yourself do you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7180303712325092501
here again is what the NIST engineer says about the point after collapse.
just to prove i am NOT a conspiracy theorists.
so nist have not explained this part of the collapse so please point me to where im not understanding the offical storey on this issue.
again the only other explaination i have seen that does explain this issue is a report prior to NIST'S that explains pancaking which this engineer admits is impossible in this video.
he says himself the floors below where not meeting anykind of resistance and the video evidence is clear. his exact words are "it was not stopped by the floors below" pancaking has to hit the floors below in order to dislodge that floor and so on causing pancaking, so my only conclusion is we have no explaination for total collapse apart from pancaking which does not account for the speed of collapse which was freefall and floors below was not slowing the collapse. so pancaking does not explain what we are seeing in the videos nor does account for the speed of the collapse.
pancaking meets resistance from each floor slowing the collapse somewhat making it impossible to collapse at freefall speeds.
if i am wrong that pancaking is the offical explaination please link me to the offical version or explain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 8:10 pm Post subject: Re: Black Op's |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | DaveyJ wrote: | I think a lot of the debates here are like arguing about the science of sci-fi, outside of the context it’s irrelevant.
The military often quote the fact that even the best possible designed operation can only achieve a %50 success rate, so when you have to consider alternative options and the need for the objective to be reached.
The most fundamental logic of politics/military/business/even poker players etc
Potential of success Versus cost of defeat
even the most tame of conspiracy theories require absurd technicalities, which i think we give the operation at best %5 chance or less of success, and when you consider the ramifications if it got into the public domain, would be the biggest scandal ever. Who on earth with authorise this operation? |
very strange then how the terrorists operation had a 100% success rate on foriegn soil against one of the best defended countries in the world.
and was carried out by men in caves.
which version relys on conspiracy theory? |
| marky 54 wrote: | lol OBL hides in caves and im told this by the news constantly but yes im just a conspiracy theorist so i made that up.
the plane crashing into the ground only failed on one factor, target. it was succesfull in getting hijackers through airport secruity hijacking the plane and crashing it. so lets say a 90% sucess rate then. |
Er, so if one plane out of 4 misses its target, that makes the success rate go from 100% to 90%? Surely 3 hits out of 4 is 75% success at best?
I'm not just being picky on maths here, but the way that you perceive things. You seem to try to make things fit your ideas, rather than have your ideas fit around facts.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 8:20 pm Post subject: Re: Black Op's |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | DaveyJ wrote: | I think a lot of the debates here are like arguing about the science of sci-fi, outside of the context it’s irrelevant.
The military often quote the fact that even the best possible designed operation can only achieve a %50 success rate, so when you have to consider alternative options and the need for the objective to be reached.
The most fundamental logic of politics/military/business/even poker players etc
Potential of success Versus cost of defeat
even the most tame of conspiracy theories require absurd technicalities, which i think we give the operation at best %5 chance or less of success, and when you consider the ramifications if it got into the public domain, would be the biggest scandal ever. Who on earth with authorise this operation? |
very strange then how the terrorists operation had a 100% success rate on foriegn soil against one of the best defended countries in the world.
and was carried out by men in caves.
which version relys on conspiracy theory? |
| marky 54 wrote: | lol OBL hides in caves and im told this by the news constantly but yes im just a conspiracy theorist so i made that up.
the plane crashing into the ground only failed on one factor, target. it was succesfull in getting hijackers through airport secruity hijacking the plane and crashing it. so lets say a 90% sucess rate then. |
Er, so if one plane out of 4 misses its target, that makes the success rate go from 100% to 90%? Surely 3 hits out of 4 is 75% success at best?
I'm not just being picky on maths here, but the way that you perceive things. You seem to try to make things fit your ideas, rather than have your ideas fit around facts. |
it relied on more than hitting the target to be successful, it failed in one factor it didnt fail in getting through airport secruity or hijacking the plane and crashing it. so out of that last 25% 3 of 4 factors where achieved, so the esitmate is higher than 75% in terms of differant parts of the operation being successful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
75% hit the targets, if we are talking in operation terms in total then the percentage is much higher.
plane one:
airport successful
hijack successful
hit target successful
plane two:
airport successful
hijack successful
hit target successful
plane three:
airport successful
hijack successful
hit target successful
plane four:
airport successful
hijack successful
hit target failed
targets hit 75%
operation success rate 91%(rough esitimate as 25 cannot be split into 3)
each part could of failed and didnt apart from one plane hitting the target.
overall 12 points of failure that were possible, 100 shared by 12 = 8.3
one point failed out of the 12 so 11 x 8.3 = 91.3% |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | no you said pancake theory is not the offical version and keep stalling to show me what the offical version is. you dont know yourself do you? |
Well, "pancake" is not the official version. You were wrong about to call it the official version.
My point is that since you reject every other aspect of their analysis up to the point of collapse, it is hardly interesting that you reject everything they say after the point of collapse too. So in what sense is it an issue for you? Please feel free to evade the question. | Quote: | overall 12 points of failure that were possible, 100 shared by 12 = 8.3
one point failed out of the 12 so 11 x 8.3 = 91.3% |
This logic is hilarious. You keep subdividing their objectives and then your success rate keeps going up. Whoopee. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | no you said pancake theory is not the offical version and keep stalling to show me what the offical version is. you dont know yourself do you? |
Well, "pancake" is not the official version. You were wrong about to call it the official version.
My point is that since you reject every other aspect of their analysis up to the point of collapse, it is hardly interesting that you reject everything they say after the point of collapse too. So in what sense is it an issue for you? Please feel free to evade the question. | Quote: | overall 12 points of failure that were possible, 100 shared by 12 = 8.3
one point failed out of the 12 so 11 x 8.3 = 91.3% |
This logic is hilarious. You keep subdividing their objectives and then your success rate keeps going up. Whoopee. |
if i would reject anything you put infront of me i would not be asking for it, its just your excuse because you dont have anything.
and my point in that calculation is based on how lucky the terrorists got on 9/11, each point is a point where things could of gone wrong on each flight. your point is targets hit only which isnt the same as the point i was making. 75% of target were hit i agree but they still managed to get through airport security and hijack the plane with maximum success. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | no you said pancake theory is not the offical version and keep stalling to show me what the offical version is. you dont know yourself do you? |
Well, "pancake" is not the official version. You were wrong about to call it the official version.
My point is that since you reject every other aspect of their analysis up to the point of collapse, it is hardly interesting that you reject everything they say after the point of collapse too. So in what sense is it an issue for you? Please feel free to evade the question. | Quote: | overall 12 points of failure that were possible, 100 shared by 12 = 8.3
one point failed out of the 12 so 11 x 8.3 = 91.3% |
This logic is hilarious. You keep subdividing their objectives and then your success rate keeps going up. Whoopee. |
if i would reject anything you put infront of me i would not be asking for it, its just your excuse because you dont have anything.
and my point in that calculation is based on how lucky the terrorists got on 9/11, each point is a point where things could of gone wrong on each flight. your point is targets hit only which isnt the same as the point i was making. 75% of target were hit i agree but they still managed to get through airport security and hijack the plane with maximum success. |
So if all the planes were hijacked but then crashed or were shot down, not a single plane hit its target, then the success rate of the operation would still be 60%? I think that US would then have been celebrating a great victory over terrorism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| or mourn the deaths of all the passengers? how would that be a victory? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Its amazing how easily a shill can entrap posters into pointless debate.
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
