The Dumbest Argument Against the Official Story?
Here's a lamebrained effort by one of the "Scholars for Truth". This article is highlighted on the front page of their website.
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.
(intervening assumptions taken out to summarize):
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.
This is of course an absurd way to look at 9-11, as a simple analogy will prove.
Suppose we have a baseball team. What are the odds that our shortstop will hit .324 and score exactly 127 runs? My guess is that only 1 shortstop in 1,000 has had that exact line.
What are the odds that our second baseman will score 117 runs? Let's peg that one at 1 in 500.
A third baseman that hits .300 with 98 runs batted in? Preposterous, no better than 1 in 800.
That our pitching staff will have one guy who wins 20 games, another with 18 wins, and a third with 16? Probably no better than 1 in 100.
That the team will win 114 games in the regular season? No way, Jose--1 in 1000 at best.
So we multiply all those odds together and what do we get? There is only 1 chance in 40 trillion that this team could actually exist. And yet it did; it's the 1998 New York Yankees.
This is the problem with his analysis. You cannot start with something that has already happened and assign probabilities to each aspect of the event and think that you've proven that it could not have taken place. What are the chances that Bill and Hillary would meet at Yale? You can start out with the slim odds that either of them would be born (millions of sperm cells racing to fertilize the egg), add in the relative rareness of boys from Arkansas being accepted to do undergrad work at Georgetown and then to move on to Yale Law, the chances that they would meet up that one day in the library, the chances that Hillary wouldn't already have a boyfriend, or that Bill wouldn't have fallen for somebody with bigger hair... you get the point.