You using Dr Meadows' calculator?

*Doctor*???? It is Professor Sir, to you, disgusting whelp.

Plus, you have clearly misunderstood the nature of statistical analysis.

#Fan wallah! Come here, I wish to take some tiffin!#

I mean how bloody stupid would they have to be: I know we'll have a dry run 12 months before we really do. And then everyone who knows about the dry run will know is was a government conspiracy... furthermore, we'll get one of the people involved to declare that info publically.

Get real. It's too crap even for Murder She Wrote.

He's certainly not a doctor any more. The GMC's just struck him off!!

Given that Visor were involved in "several" excercises. If we interpret "several" as at least 3, then the odds are at least 122-1. In likelihood, even lower.

Suddenly it stops sounding SO "impossible"... if they had 60 excercises that year. it would be 6-1. etc.

I know which figures I'm betting on.

Now try the problem over again.

There are ~3563 days in ten years (depends on how many leap years will fall in ten years)

There are more than one "terrorist event" and more than one "drill" taking place in a ten year period. In order to come up with a probablility of coincidence you need first to estimate how many. For the sake of this excercise say about 3 1/2 of each (in ten years). I pick that to make the chance per day ~ 1/1000 (for either event on any GIVEN day).

Wrong answer #2 --- No, that does NOT make the probablity 1:1,000,000 That's just the probablility of some particular day. You would have thought it just as much a coincidence if both occurred on ANY day within the 10 years.

Wrong answer #3 --- No, that does not make ithe probablity ~1:300 (multiply the previous by the ~3650 days represented by 10 years. You would also have gotten the "Birthday Paradox" problem worng two (eg: If there are 36 people in a room what is the probablity that two have the same birthday? It's not 1:10 but close to certainty).

The way you to proceed is to ask what are the chances of NO coincincidence on any day and that is about .999999 and then the probability of no coincidence in 3650 days is .999999 to the 3650 power. Subtract from 1 for your final answer >

Skyver Bill: bloody good riddance... perhaps Alex Jones has a job for him?

Heehee!

..asks Infowars.


Simple.

The media has no desire to help bring down the "establishment". You really think they'd swap their cushy journo lives for lawless anarchy and no job?

Let's face it- only a few people want to know the real truth, and lets admit it- how many of them would be able to cope with the aftermath?

Nah. Best brush it all under the carpet, blame a few Muzzies, life goes on. Corrie's on soon...

Maybe he will start referring to himself as 'Mister', and be mistaken for a surgeon. Or a street-sweeper.

Plus, I am glad to see the level of disdain for Alex Jones. Now, how do I get unsubscribed from the little twerp's newsletter? (do not ask, please do not ask).

"Let's face it- only a few people want to know the real truth, and lets admit it- how many of them would be able to cope with the aftermath? "


There's healthy cynicism. Then there's a line. And see that wee, wee dot miles the other side of the line? That's Eastender.

if i pat you on the bum and slowly blink will u agree with me?

It is quite believable that Peter Power or whatever the Visor guy's name is would go on record and openly admit the 'exercise'. Much better than being caught out later - you just admit it and say how 'spooky' the coincidence is and that's the end of it. A double bluff you might say. And hey, the guy is in PR, he would know how best to play it for the public, wouldn't he.

As has been shown, the majority always believe the official version and anyone who dares to say something seems decidedly dodgy - even a remarkably uncanny coincidence as this - is dismissed as a loon. How nice for all those shadowy figures working behind the scenes!

I have to tell you mr magoo you brought a wee smile to my face tonight and I almost fancy you!---- In this world you really have to laugh or ye'll greet as my granny used to say!

Maggie: I'm blushing. You read any Christopher Brookmyre by any chance?

Right the real Mr Mgu is staring at the back of my head (i.e. ordering me to feed him)

"It is quite believable that Peter Power or whatever the Visor guy's name is would go on record and openly admit the 'exercise'."

Correction he admitted "several", but that doesn't suit the whacko theory.

"Much better than being caught out later - you just admit it and say how 'spooky' the coincidence is and that's the end of it. A double bluff you might say. And hey, the guy is in PR, he would know how best to play it for the public, wouldn't he."

So, let me get this right. They plan a bombing attack and they openly train for an MO that involves getting 10lbs of C4 or similar onto a target that has no security whatsoever. Why???

Surely if they were looking for a scare they'd hardly go bloody training the people to cope with the VERY SAME attack effectively. Or is that another double bluff?

If I were some sick scheming bastard, I'd hit a different target. No training is required. You have a bomb, you place it, you detonate it. You are not talking about raiding a high security compound. You are not talking about having to shoot anyone. On second thoughts, perhaps the skill of getting on a tube train at rush hour would need some training.

"As has been shown, the majority always believe the official version"

Really. Were the majority convinced at the legal & moral compulsion for the Iraq war? I'll save you time: no they weren't. Are they convinced on ID cards: no.

" and anyone who dares to say something seems decidedly dodgy - even a remarkably uncanny coincidence as this - is dismissed as a loon."

No not ANYONE, just the loons who try to knit a theory out of tosh! Come up with something that adds up and you may find people calling you a loon less often.

"How nice for all those shadowy figures working behind the scenes!"

So everyone who disagrees with you is in league with the "enemy". Hahahaha! I could be as silly as you and accuse you of being an Al Qaeda agitator, trying to unite everyone against "The New World Order". But that would just be bloody foolish.

This is freedom of speech. Like it or lump it. I happen to like the fact our sprawling mass of talking apes'll never agree on anything. Though the thought of Trisha being out of a job is tempting.

"This your life and it'll never get any better than this!"

>> As has been shown, the majority always believe the official version and anyone who dares to say something seems decidedly dodgy - even a remarkably uncanny coincidence as this - is dismissed as a loon. How nice for all those shadowy figures working behind the scenes!

Yep, I believe everything our Beloved Leader tells us. I am convinced that Percy Thrower had paraquat missiles in the Blue Peter shed, ready to launch in 45 minutes. If just one point is disproven, the whole ediface of my belief would come crashing down and I would be obliged to believe that MI5, CIA, Mossad, SIS, FIS, NSA, GSCE and the SQA were behind the bombs.[1] I believe also that I am Alec Baldwin. I would draw the line at half-fat hummous, though.

>> I have to tell you mr magoo you brought a wee smile to my face tonight and I almost fancy you!---- In this world you really have to laugh or ye'll greet as my granny used to say!

Maggie, to 'greet' is to say "hi, how are you?". I think you meant 'greit'. Plus, you had a talking chimney-cowl? Ah'm richt stammygastered.

[1] That is sarcasm, by the way. You are Dagenham, complete Dagenham.

First of all I'd like to say that if you dont want to listen to the interviews and comment on what Peter Power actually said then why post a comment at all. No need for negativity and it doesn't detract from what people are saying. The dodgy maths and innacurate statements above are a dishonour to us all.

This is part of the wikipedia discussion regarding inclusion of Power and Visor into the London Bombing entry.

==Visor Consultants self-promotion/conspiracy theorising==

Some anon (or anons) keep adding references to a PR firm called Visor Consultants which supposedly predicted the bombings. This is self-promotional rubbish which seems to be being forwarded by conspiracy theorists and fringe websites [ http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&ned=uk&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&q=%22Visor+Consultants%22&btnG=Search+News], and it doesn't belong in this article. Could people please keep an eye out for this and delete it if it pops up again? -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 22:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
:See below - apparently publicity the company does not want and an activity that was merely coincidental. Since people have heard about it, it may be prudent to explain it in the article to avoid people putting incorrect information in there. --[[User:Habap|Habap]] 15:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
The story was aired on BBC radio and is relevant. It was documented. Why do you want to censor it? If you disagree with the story, add a sentence which outlines the alternative view. DELETING CONTENT BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH IT IS PATHETIC. It also negatively impacts on peoples' confidence in wikipedia as an "unbiased" encyclopedia. -- anon, 14 Jul 2005.

:I don't think it was deleted because anyone disagrees that it happened. But it was clearly just this guy trying to fluff himself up by feeding on tragedy. The fact that someone in a metropolitan area of about 10 million people (one that has regular bomb threats) was having an emergency planning meeting at the time of a bombing is a chilling bit of synchronicity for those involved but entirely non-notable for the rest of the world. --[[User:LeeHunter|Lee Hunter]] 18:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Peter Power's interviewed statement on BBC Radio 5 at 15.01, 07/07/2005. The widespread transcript of this interview, published on the web, has some inaccuracies, which lead to semantic misinterpretation. To get a clear idea of what Power actually said and more importantly his intonation, please listen to the recording, which has also been distributed widely across the web in mp3 format. While Power does use this opportunity for self-promotional purposes, he also implies that this was a full simulation involving real life interaction of people on the ground, at or near the location of the explosions and at the time the explosions occurred. He further confirms this statement in a defensive and hostile standardized email response to enquiries. His original statement on Radio 5 that Visor's simulated exercise took place at the precise stations which the attacks then occurred and that his simulation involved multiple simultaneous explosions, was expressed partly out of shock (he admits to a fear induced "fight or flight" physical response of his neck hair standing on end) as well as a marketing tool to imply that his company can accurately predict and deal with realistic scenarios. As time passed and he appeared in further public interviews he seems to be distancing himself from this statement, possibly because he realized, or was advised that the proven statistical probability of what he claimed on Radio 5 is so mathematically improbable so as to only be interpreted as evidence of foreknowledge or culpable involvement by any independent observer or investigation. In a later ITN news interview, 20.11, 07/07/2005 Power states that Visor's client was instrumental in selecting the scenario and locations involved. This can be interpreted as further distancing himself and his company from investigation. In his email response he contradicts his original Radio 5 statement further, by claiming that only one of the scenario aspects bore a "very similar" relation to the actual events of 07/07/2005. One independent investigator has released a statistical analysis, which asserts that the probability of the Visor simulation coinciding with one of the real events at the correct location, within a time-scale of one hour (averaged by a 5-year mean) is 18,949,840 to 1. Therefore this highly unlikely simultaneous occurrence of Visor's artificial terrorism simulation and the actual bombings in London should be fully, transparently and publicly investigated to disprove related conspiracy theories and to broaden human understanding of statistical probability, quantum/chaos physics and their relation to real world events and coincidences.
:I am a long way from being a statistician (I'm not sure I can even spell the word) but the 19 million to 1 figure seems a bit improbable, given that the likely time for such an event is during rush hour from Monday to Friday, the likely location would be somewhere central and the bombs went off at four different locations (which increases the possibility that one would coincide). One would also have to know how frequently it happens that a mid to large company in London conducts an emergency planning exercise involving the transportation system (probably an impossible figure to determine). I'd be interested to know how this independent investigator came up with his figures. --[[User:LeeHunter|Lee Hunter]] 14:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The probability was arrived at by using all 19 hours a day on days which the underground is open in a year and all 274 stations. If, as you suggest, we use a model of 3 hrs a working day (rush hour) then select 10 - 15 most likely target stations in the centre and also research an average yearly figure for professionally run, well pre-planned crisis management exercises involving actual walkthrough rehearsals taking place on the underground (post Madrid 3/11) I'm not sure the probability increases so much as to make this a non-issue. Perhaps someone could do the math for us all. If you want to travel down the road of Bayesian probability even further you could rationalise that a terror event was highly probable while the G8 was in the country, it was probable that major London underground station/s would be targeted and it was probable that 'suicide/remote bombers' would perpetrate the crime. You could argue that the probability was less than 20 to 1 if you rationalise far enough and surmise that it was only natural that Visor consultants should take this opportunity to test their system with a London client. In which case how was the bombing allowed to occur? Surely Power could have warned his friends in Scotland Yard about Visor's calculations? Surely they would have worked it out for themselves already? Unfortunately neither frequency probability derived from calculations alone nor Bayesian probability which takes other factors into account are entirely accurate systems. Even with the changes you have suggested I suspect that the statistical probabilty in question is still over a million to one and I would be happy if someone could calculate the figure for us. These coincidences occur too frequently and a full investigation into this case would reveal to us all whether they are the result of limited perception and pattern recognition, unavoidable synchronicities within the physics of the universe or of course evidence of a sinister worldwide bogey man conspiracy.

:I also read somewhere that this guy Power specializes in emergency planning and that he had a particular interest in bomb attacks in the Underground after he himself was caught in an attack a while back. That suggests to me that he's probably talking about this sort of thing at least every week, if not every day. I'm sure there were any number of people in the police, fire dept, emergency planners, hr who came home that night and told their spouse "Why just five minutes/one hour/one day earlier we were talking about this very thing!"--[[User:LeeHunter|Lee Hunter]] 17:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Lee may well be correct. However what he is saying is vague supposition, exactly what conspiracy theorists feed on and contrary to the point of an encyclopædia. The conspiracy minded types out there have gathered empirical evidence which can be shown as proof to their theories and many of them can take this model of reality which they have built and explain it very succinctly to reinforce and spread their own beliefs. Peter Power should not have stated so confidently what he did so publicly. He has caused problems and he has not publicly offered proof that what he said was inaccurate. He has not tried directly to prove the conspiracy allegations wrong. This will only add weight to those allegations as will removing them from a public encylopædia. Now we have a chance to prove absolutely that the conspiracy theorists are wrong. With a full investigation which has conclusive findings and proven detailed scientific data. We may even learn to use statistical probability, synchronicity and coincidence to our advantage in order to predict and prevent terrorist attacks.

===========++++++++++

In my best Father Jack voice: I'm SOOOO SOOOO scared.

Here's my e-mail:  prinzerle@hotmail.com

And I know who Dr Meadows was...
And I've noticed clear patterns in your patter...
And I certainly wouldn't waste my time emailing you personally to prove that you're not the clever clogs you want to be. You prove that quite well enough without any help to a small audience that doesn't care what you think.

Just a thought, why not use your obvious intellect, wit and general knowlege to try and prove the conspiracy instead of demeaning the conspiravy theorists. I'm sure any sustained attempt by your wise self to prove Alex Jones et-al correct would only add to the mounting evidence that they are incorrect.

If not, why don't ye wheist yer yap.

Alex (Lexicon Smith):

Not that I need your permission or guidance. But if you had been observing me as closely as you promised, then you notice I do a *large* amount of countering the conspiracy tosh.

I believe that the first sign of an idiot is someone who thinks they are clever. I view myself as a mere talking ape on the rotting dungball called Earth. I believe in the relativity of truth.. so factor that into how universally wise I hold myself to be.

Moreover, I could give a wank in the bath what you think of me.

I can see patterns in anything I study for long enough. After all, human intelligence is pattern recognition gone crazy.

You really want to have some fun then go find the CIA interrogation manual and figure out my personality type and how to manipulate me.

;-)

Magoo my friend-:-----I 'm gobsmacked----- not----THE Christopher Brookmyre?---
well, no actually-- but looks like a bloody good read if I ever get the chance-- thanks. Oh and big sloppy kisses to your pufferfish (anything to make Alec jealous!)
Yo Baldwin: Lay down your wackypaedia for a minute and check out your Scots dictionary----
or even your mirror -----and you'll find a proper greetin'face!
For the record; Oi'd ave t'be Bahking t' be in Dagenham mate----oi couldn't andle em apples'n pehhs-----So haud yer wheesht ye cheeky wee shite!!!( oi can talk proppa wen oi ave ter!)

Sorry mate, but ye've lost me on the Brookmyre reference there (not who he is, obviously I know that). Please elucidate.

And lang may yer lum reek and all that stuff, seeing as I'm in deepest rural Ayshire at the mo.

Paranoid Pete:

Just thought Brookmyre would be appreciated by the more cynical (but not gullible) of us when it came to conspiracy.

I've been down in peaceful, rural Wiltshure (well on the edge of the School of the Royal Artillery Range) for a year now after getting sick of living Scarymill (Maryhill) in my native Glasgow. Funny you should emntion lums; we had a 6 month problem with a chimney that was pishing oot watery, soot/smut as the builder had bodged the oil-fired heating.

I'm really missing being able to walk the Wesy Highland Way a few times a year though :-( There are no hills quite big enough round here to force march with a 5 stone rucksack... But me and a couple of ex-squaddies are planning to walk from Glasgow to Inver and back for charity (mine might be a contract killing for Alex Jones: joke).

I'm off out today on hike (so loons get your tosh posted up while I'm AFK) Should be doing the bodyfiller on the van but hey...

Aw ra best naht naw!

Hey Pentos.

Nice point there, but I don't think Mr Magoo will be talked around or silenced so easily.
I very much doubt that it is his day job. There are clearly more than one Mr Magoos posting. The one who I will refer to as the REAL Mr Magoo (please stand up) has some emotional involvement in trying to silence the questions raised by 'theorists'. He gets frustrated easily and clearly has some anger issue regarding Alex Jones/Prison Planet and how easily people fall for their particualr conspiracy spin. He tries to group all intellectual investigation down any path related to these subjects as paranoid dementia or lunacy. This shows that he has some personal issue regarding what he sees as realty or 'relative truth' leading to a negative reaction whenever he sees that challenged.It is Mr Magoo himself who brings up CIA,MI5,Mossad,Aliens etc. albeit in a humourous and ironic way to show the contempt that he himself feels for ANY questions raised and the people he sees raising them. In a lot of ways I can't say I blame him because far too many of these postings stretch credibility to breaking point with theories based on supposition which can not be tested with factual evidence. Also a lot of the questions people are raising are more due to poor and contradictory media coverage than actual investigation. However that does not mean that all of the questions raised are without grounding or merit.

However Mr Magoo's confrontational attitude and his occasional attempts to rationalise rather than ridicule where he doesn't have strong enough data or research to back his points up actually detract from his own stance instead of strenghthening it and therefore he is counterproductive to his own agenda.

I'd say that he is not a Troll nor a Mole nor a Worm, in my extensive experience of the civil service I've found they employ competent people in the positions they belong.

In my opinion Mr Magoo is a frustrated rock guitarist who has turned to comedy as an outlet for his creativity and I can't wait to see his 'Make Conspiracy History' show at the Edinburgh festival.

Or is that just a long winded way of calling him a joker?

He also thinks calling himself Mr Magoo is somehow ironic or sarcastic which shows us all that he has either a shaky definition of sarcasm or doesn't quite understand the traits his fictional namesake. Perhaps he wasn't allowed to watch Glen Michael's Cartoon Cavalcade, eh Paladin?

>> Lay down your wackypaedia for a minute and check out your Scots dictionary----

Okay, mea maxima culpa. The transliteration as "greit" still represents more faithfully the
pronounciation than "greet".

Ye're gonna gie' me a swedgin' now?

>> or even your mirror -----and you'll find a proper greetin'face!

Aw, wha' knitted ma face an' dropped a stitch?

>> For the record; Oi'd ave t'be Bahking t' be in Dagenham mate----oi couldn't andle em apples'n pehhs-----So haud yer wheesht ye cheeky wee shite!!!( oi can talk proppa wen oi ave ter!)

Eh? Ye're no maakin' sense, whit ye're bletherin' 'bout? Hev ye hed yer tea?

(The accusation of sarcasm was directed at King Numpty of the Numpty People; I have forgotten his name. I wish I never knew it.)