Monday, September 3, 2007

CAT 101: Introduction to Coincidence and Anomaly Theory

This really happened:

[R]obert w[h]at evidence point[s] to an inside job[?] [P]lease speak up.
Winter Patriot
I'm not Robert but I can speak up a bit.

If you really want evidence of an inside job you might want to start here:

Meet Jerome Hauer, 9/11 Suspect Awaiting Indictment

Of course there are a thousand other places you could start ... if you really want the evidence.
[W]inter [P]atriot, the link you showed me is pathetic, is that what you [base your] inside job claims on, coi[n]cidences on 9/11[?] stop trying to turn anomalies into hard fact. [S]how me real evidence of a conspiracy.
Winter Patriot
Here's the interesting thing about Coincidences and Anomalies: If you're a good Coincidence and Anomaly Theorist (CAT) you never have to admit anything.

I say 2 + 2 = 4.

CAT says no it isn't.

I take two balls and put them on the table. Then I take two more balls and put them on the table. Then I count the balls. 1, 2, 3, 4. Here's my proof, I say: 2 + 2 = 4.

CAT says no it isn't.

But I just laid it out on the table, says I. That's the proof.

CAT says no that's just a coincidence.

So I do it again. Get the same answer. Is that a coincidence too? I ask.

CAT says no that's an anomaly.

Turns out you can pile up as many coincidences as you like and CAT says that's just an anomaly. Or you can pile up a bunch of anomalies and CAT says that's just a coincidence.


In real life the notable thing about coincidences is that they hardly ever happen. That's why they're remarkable. And the notable thing about anomalies is that they happen even less often than coincidences. An anomaly is an indication that something very strange is going on, and in science it's usually considered a good cause for rigorous (not to mention vigorous) investigation.

I'm not one of the people who say "in politics there are no coincidences" because clearly there are, sometimes. But normal rational people expect coincidences to occur relatively rarely.

So if we see a coincidence here and there we don't think much of it. But if we see several coincidences and several anomalies happening on a single date or centered around a single event, that's enough to raise serious suspicion.

When we see hundreds of coincidences and hundreds of anomalies all happening on a single date or centered around a single event, that's more than suspicion.

In other words, there's a point where the accumulated coincidences can no longer be explained away as an anomaly, and we've passed that point long ago.

In light of all the hundreds of "coincidences" and "anomalies" connected to this event, anyone who still claims there's no evidence for saying it was an inside job should be able to answer a few very simple questions ... like:

Who scheduled all the wargames that took the Air Force away from the Eastern Seaboard that day? Did Osama bin Laden schedule the wargames?

118 first responders (fire and medical personnel) who were at Ground Zero on the mor[n]ing of 9/11, reported seeing or hearing bombs or explosions in the bui[ld]ings before they crumbled. Why is that? Is this a conspiracy o[f] eyewitnesses?

Why did Bush and Cheney insist on testifying together, and not under oath, and why did they insist that no notes of their testimony could be kept? If they weren't trying to hide anything, why would they act like they were trying to hide something?

The FEMA report says that its best hypothesis about the "collapse" of WTC7 has a "low probability" of occurrence. In other words the report itself admits that its conclusion is incorrect. Six years after the event NIST still hasn't even issued their report about it. And while we were waiting we found out that BBC broadcast a report of the fall of WTC7 before it even happened. I say these are massive indicators of coverup and foreknowledge, respectively. What do you think they are? Coincidences? Or anomalies?
While we're waiting for an answer, we might as well sit back and watch a movie.

Who Killed John O'Neill?

See also: Endnotes For The Charge Of 'Conspiracy To Commit Mass Murder' | Delivered On April 14, 2007 By The San Diego Citizens' Grand Jury On The Crimes Of September 11, 2001 In New York City