On 9⁄10, WTC 7 was an occupied skyscraper barely distinguished from any other by being near to a skyscraper which had previously been the subject of a terrorist bombing.
On 9/11, WTC 7 was struck by rubble from an adjacent skyscraper that collapsed in an uncontrolled fashion, burned for several hours, then collapsed in turn.
None of this is made substantially more likely by the addition of explosives to the story.
None of this is made substantially more likely by the addition of explosives to the story.
Sorry, we are discussing if the existence of the explosives is more likely(in contraposition to a skyscraper that has not been the subject of a terrorist attack) given the evidence, not the other way round.
A is explosives. B is 9/11. I already told you P(A) is small, I assume P(B) was small, and I just said that P(B|A) is small. What is small times small over small?
On 9⁄10, WTC 7 was an occupied skyscraper barely distinguished from any other by being near to a skyscraper which had previously been the subject of a terrorist bombing.
On 9/11, WTC 7 was struck by rubble from an adjacent skyscraper that collapsed in an uncontrolled fashion, burned for several hours, then collapsed in turn.
None of this is made substantially more likely by the addition of explosives to the story.
Sorry, we are discussing if the existence of the explosives is more likely(in contraposition to a skyscraper that has not been the subject of a terrorist attack) given the evidence, not the other way round.
Bayes’ Theorem:
A is explosives. B is 9/11. I already told you P(A) is small, I assume P(B) was small, and I just said that P(B|A) is small. What is small times small over small?
Sorry I really had to LOL over this and I don’t see any sense in exerting more effort trying to explain my point again.
You’re wiser than I, if that is your reaction—I’m about done, too.