Q24, on 07 December 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

I ask you a simple question - to put an estimated probability on the occurrence of that planned CIA exercise coinciding as it did with real world events, even said I would not argue with the figure you produced. And that is your answer... random namings, lottery millionaires, anything but a straightforward answer to the question. Take a guess – it doesn’t have to be precise, it doesn’t have to be factual, I’m only trying to determine what you think is reasonable. 100 plane crashes, how many do you guess would correspond to the time and place of a comparable exercie? Use the list of exercises we have on record to help. Perhaps you think 50%, 75% or 100%; such “incredible coincidences” occur in

*every*instant? Then say so. I’m not even saying this is important on its own - this was intended to be only the first part of what I was building to – and it would eventually demonstrate 1) the unlikelihood of the Pentagon event in context of the official story and 2) the certainty of the Pentagon event in context of a false flag operation.

Here's my totally bs calculation, heavily biased in your favor, I'll try to look at it from your 'could be' perspective here. Let's look at what are the chances of this exercise being at the specific time and involving these characteristics, if it was random. Let's say the exercise could have been planned for any day in two years, excluding Sundays and the plethora of federal holidays, and round to an even 600 random days to choose from. Let's say that the exercise could happen at any time within 12 hours of each day, I hope excluding a night exercise is reasonable. I'm a little shaky on this step, but let's say you'll count anything within 5 minutes of the exercise start time, so this gives us a 10 minute window around the attack time, so for simplicity and total invalidity's sake, we'll say there's a one in 6 chance of being 'precise' on the minute of the time if the attack nailed the day and hour. Now they were testing the emergency response with this exercise I believe; despite your 'maybes' there doesn't appear to be really much relevance to it being specifically a plane crash, it doesn't look like air traffic control or again whatever functions NRO was doing or was supposed to be doing on 9/11 was the goal of the exercise, it seems to be mostly dealing with building evacuation. This is a bad thing for you in that it reduces the significance of this coincidence as any disruption, actual or reasonably expected, to relevant NRO functions is speculation based on what has been provided, but it's a good thing in this analysis as it's another coincidence. So this adds another variable, so let's say there are a total of 5 'catastrophes' (fire, bomb, asteroid, etc) that could have been used as background. And since you mentioned it, since they chose plane crash, let's say they could have chosen one of five major eastern US airports randomly for this scenario.

So based on that abomination of a probability calculation, with almost every single variable tilted in favor of the 'false flag' scenario and including all kinds of errors and bad assumptions about variable independence, I come up with 1 in 1.08 million of the event planner just randomly coming up with a scenario that mirrored the actual Pentagon attack. With a measurement error varying from many hundreds to thousands of a percent, and is a number that is for entertainment purposes only, I do not have faith in the accuracy of my calculation. 1 in a million, 1 in a 100 thousand, 1 in 10 thousand, regardless, it's your turn (actually, it's been your turn, this is your argument, but hey, happy early holidays!), you can start building now. You can start by explaining why given the vast number of connections available, let alone the latitude you allow when designating a 'hit', that you are startled that something, or somethings even, that had a chance of one in a million at very best of occurring actually occurred.