A challenge for those "truthers" who...

[SDuderstadt]

accuse debunkers of being "coincidence theorists".

Your claim is we are ignoring all the "coincidences" that the "OCT" involves, right?

I've got a far better explanation. Like many people, you have a poor grasp of probability.

Let's try a little exercise. Let's say that two people share the same birthday if they were born on the same month and day, but it need not be the same year. Got it?
So, here's my question. How many people do you have to get in a room before you have a 50/50 chance that two or more people share the same birthday?

Ready? Set? Go!

[whatchamacallit]

1. 23 more or less

what does this have to do with the coincidences you ignore?

[SDuderstadt]

2. 1st of all...

I'm certain you didn't arrive at that answer on your own and had to research it. Secondly, please point me to any "coincidences" I am "ignoring".

Thirdly, if you're just interested in picking your typical fight, I'm not interested. Got it, dude?

[whatchamacallit]

3. Wow, what the hell?

You ask for an answer - I give it - then in the same breath you insultingly claim I didn't derive the answer myself and accuse *me* of picking a fight. :wtf:

[SDuderstadt]

4. Dude...

I also asked you for examples of "coincidences" I supposedly "ignored".

One of my points is that the average person, given the fact that there are 365 days in non-leap years, would be incredulous that 23 days could possibly be the correct answer, and I expect some will reject it until shown the mathematical proof. As far as my comment about you wanting to pick a fight, please note that I put it in the form of a question. Given your past performance, I'd say the odds are quite good.

[whatchamacallit]

5. Uh huh...

How can a guy who spends virtually every day in here picking fights, make a statement about my "past performance"? The statement is itself a provocation. :shrug:
As far as "coincidences" are concerned, the OCT chalk every bizarre 9/11 anomaly and inconsistency up to coincidence. But let's get back to the point of your OP (if there is one). What are you trying to say?

[SDuderstadt]

6. I am saying that conspiracy theorists...

like most people, have a very poor grasp of probability. Trying to reason with you on this point reminds me of that great scene in "Father's Day", in which an exasperated Billy Crystal is trying to explain to Robin Williams who Lou Gehrig was:


Crystal: "Lou Gehrig. Lou Gehrig! He died of Lou Gehrig's Disease!".

Robin Williams (looking very incredulous): "Boy, what are the odds of that?".

Dude, I've asked you twice now what "coincidences" I am supposedly "ignoring" but you just keep babbling vaguely about "coincidences". If you don't get real specific, real soon, my guess is you ARE here solely to pick a fight.

[whatchamacallit]

7. I simply answered your pointless question, dude

I think the unqualified statement "conspiracy theorists, like most people, have a very poor grasp of probability", says a lot about *your* grasp of probability. BTW I'm not "babbling vaguely about coincidences". You asked why we call the OCT, coincidence theorists, and I answered it's because whenever you are asked about the myriad anomalous events of 9/11, you call it coincidence. If this is still confusing you, you are beyond my help. Now, instead of using my supposed inability to understand as an excuse not to elaborate, why don't you explain your silly fucking OP.

[SDuderstadt]

8. Do you deny that most people have a poor grasp of probability?

Really?

THIRD time I have asked for specific examples of "coincidences" I am supposedly "ignoring". I'd also love for you to point out where I have labeled anything a "coincidence". Maybe you should study the Logical fallacy known as "found significance". Also, you might want to study the difference between correlation and causality. The myth of "coincidence theorists" is wholly contrived by conspiracists who keep getting their asses kicked in debate based on fact.

[whatchamacallit]

9. You might wanna study the mirror

to see if you can understand why it only displays a pompous blowhard.

[SDuderstadt]

10. See what i mean?

Quit pretending you weren't here to pick a fight, dude.

[whatchamacallit]

11. Listen man

you start most threads by insinuating or claiming "truthers" are uneducated, illogical, silly... and somehow in your mind that should be regarded as honest discourse and *not picking a fight*. FAIL. Yo genius, what's the point of an OP that challenges truthers to respond to something that same OP claims they can't understand? Logic much?

[SDuderstadt]

13. "Yo genius, what's the point of an OP that challenges truthers to respond to something that same...

OP claims they can't understand?"

Umm, it proves the premise. Duh.

[Subdivisions]

16. Yep, nothing has changed in here. Back to GD. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

17. You're welcome here...

anytime, sub.

[Subdivisions]

18. Thanks, but no thanks =). Good to see you though. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

19. Anytime, dude...

how is Cleburne? Healing?

[Subdivisions]

20. We're good. Time heals. Thanks for asking. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

21. You're more than welcome...

my friend.

[MarkChief]

12. I had a hard time comprehending the point of the whole thing too

I am puzzled.

[BeFree]

14. Basically

The hijackers had to get lucky a hundred times.

And CIA-FBI-NSC-bushco only had to bust the known Saudi Arabians who were here to "hijack airplanes".

What is the probability?

[SDuderstadt]

15. "The hijackers had to get lucky a hundred times"

More of your stupid hyperbole.

You do know they planned extensively, right?

[Sancho]

22. You expose your own lack of understanding with this example...

...even though "correlation does not imply causality" is an old adage in the application of statistics; there are plenty of times that "coincidence" is a useful demonstration of previously unknown facts in the world of statistical modeling. Hurricane prediction is a good example where la nina was evident as an old tale before the scientist even knew where to look.

John Snow was the classic example of someone who used coincidence to determine the cause of disease in London wells. Simple probabilities such as your example don't take the place of logical thinking.

Even though some CTer's may leap to unwarranted conclusions, you usually leap to unwarranted denials of possible reality. Throughout human history, truth has often been stranger than fiction, and demanding accountability is reasonable.

For example, on this site there have been a number of debunked coincidences related to 911; but some things are still hard to explain without a "conspiracy": unusual stock market exchanges prior to 911 for example.

I witnessed voter machine problems in 2000 and 2004 personally, and years later the American Statistical Association published a few articles that concluded that the "wrong person" was likely placed in office in some Florida elections even though there is still no proof who or how an election was manipulated. Along with programmers who claim to be the hacker, and disappearing witnesses, etc. - it is easy to put together a possible/probable history in hindsight and certainly a way to prevent election manipulation is called for...the coincidences are worth exploring!

Computation of the probability of an event is almost always easier than explaining what happened or why. You can't hold up the computation itself as "proof" or "non-proof"; no matter one's skill at number games - one's ability to find a convincing conspiracy is dependent on logical reasoning; not dice or coin flips.

[SDuderstadt]

23. Ummm....

what?