911

The Princeton Random Generator that “predicted” 9/11

(Sept 6, 2011)  Now with the Ten-Year Anniversary of 9/11 only a few days away, stories and facts have yet re-emerged like a hungry bear from it’s den after a long winters hibernation.

Therefore, while perusing the internet, I came across The Telegraphs “21 Awful Truths About 9/11“…

OMG!….  Here is number eight on the list:

“Three hours before the attacks, a machine called a Random Event Generator at Princeton University predicted a cataclysmic event was about to unfold.”

Since this one was new to me, I decided to do a bit of searching around on the internet to find the Princeton postings….

First of all, I would like to preface this that I DO NOT LIKE statistical analysis.  Perhaps it is from my early college years when I was a computer programming major.  CS majors were required to take a stats class in which we had to write with Pascal code (I know… I’m dating myself) to solve the statistical problem at hand.  Talk about a double-whammy.  I hated that class….  I believe it was shortly thereafter I realized that programming was not my cup-of-tea.

Following my change of major to a much more enjoyable computer graphics, graduation, then back to college (I was on the long-term plan… if there was such a beast as “Student” as a major, that would have been mine) to study geology and the earth sciences, I can still hear one of my geology professors carrying on about statistics…

“Statistical numbers must be used carefully.  They can provide you with factual data, or a bunch of $#!&@!.  It is no secret that the same set of statistics can be provided to several different groups.  And each group, working independently of the others, are able to achieve different results dependent upon what outcome they are striving to achieve.”

In returning back to the topic at hand you will better understand why I rambled about my Geo Prof… (by the way, have I mentioned I DO NOT LIKE statistics?)…

Here is what I found on one of the Princeton sites:

1.  download daily raw datafile for June 16 through September 20, 2001
2.  calculate daily empirical mean and sd per egg
3.  exclude any raw egg values less than or equal to 50 or more than or equal to 150, and eggs with daily empirical means > 103 or < 97, or sd > 6 or sd < 8 (these thresholds are used as indicators that the eggs malfunctioned; well over 99% of the egg data were usable)
4.  use resulting mean & sd to calculate a t-score (199df) per egg, per day
5.  t (199df) is approximately equal to z, calculate z-squared per egg
6.  sum up all z-squares across eggs, per day, keeping track of the number of eggs
7.  create 5-minute consolidations of the per-second data, as sums of z-squares
8.  analyze data using 6 hour sliding window
9.  calculate z score equivalent for the resulting chi-squares & df
10. calculate odds associated with the z scores
11. plot results

Then this site shows several different plots (I am only posting a few, but feel free to check them out yourself here.)

By the way, have I mentioned I DO NOT LIKE statistics?

Now, I am no dummy.  In fact, I am a member of the Mensa Society with a tested IQ of 160.  Having said this… what the hell is an egg?

I pondered doing a bit more studying so I could better understand what I just read, but my overwhelming dislike for statistics has taken control.  So I look around the internet little further to see if I can find a Princeton site translating all this mumbo-jumbo.  And I do find another site which is written in more proper English. So I read:

“The following material shows the behavior of the Global Consciousness Project’s network of 37 REG devices called “eggs” placed around the world as they responded during the periods of time specified in formal predictions for the events of September 11 2001.”

Well, there is my answer to the famous riddle, which came first… the chicken or the egg.  I will take mine over-easy please.  I now have my answer as to what an “egg” is.

After reading about Z-scores, Deviation of Means, and such (amid the flashbacks I was having of Pascal-Statistics), I finally come to:

“The graph of data [below] from the formal prediction for September 11 shows a fluctuating deviation throughout the moments of the five major events, during which ever-increasing numbers of people around the world are hearing the news and watching in stunned disbelief. Times of the major events are marked by boxes on the line of zero deviation. The uncertain fluctuation of the EGG data continues for almost half an hour after the fall of the second WTC tower. Then, at about 11:00, the cumulative deviation takes on a strong trend that continues through the aftermath period and ultimately exceeds the significance criterion. There were 37 eggs reporting on September 11, and over the 4 hours and 10 minutes of the prediction period, their accumlated Chisquare was 15332 on 15000 degrees of freedom. The final probability for the formal hypothesis test was 0.028, which is equivalent to an odds ratio of 35 to one against chance.”

And then it goes into Deviation of Variance.  By this time, I’ve had enough.  The flashbacks are too overwhelming.  (By the way, have I mentioned I DO NOT LIKE statistics?)  Now, if you have made it this far in reading this… congratulations!  There is a reason to my rambling, and here are MY thoughts and  questions back to these Random Generator-ist-people….

Yes, I believe in randomness of the universe.  I also believe in coincidence.  Your generator coincided with a MAJOR catastrophic event.  Okay… well, two events.  Apparently it also predicted the bombing of the American Embassy in Africa in August 1998.  What about all the OTHER catastrophic events it did NOT predict?  Hurricane Katrina?  Oslo killings?  The earthquake and tsunami in Japan?  Virginia Tech?  Steve Jobs stepping as CEO of Apple?  These are only a few of a long long list which has been occurring since your Frankenstein creation.

Can your generator… or better yet… YOU explain why these events were NOT predicted?  If it has, please… send this my way.  I’m dying to see all events having been predicted.  Can it predict the next winning set of lottery numbers?  If so… THEN you have something useful.

Just like my Geology Professor discussed, you took data and tied it to 911 simply because you wanted that correlation.   I firmly believe this was coincidence.  I do not believe any machine can predict the unknown, especially human action.  It may be able to provide PROBABILITIES, but not on the randomness of human behavior.  For the sake of your argument, though, let’s say a machine is able to predict human randomness … how do you know the flux in data was not intended to predict that a dog would be hit by a semi at that exact moment (well, 5 exact moments) it spiked?  Shame on you, Princeton. I had thought much better of you than this.  Okay… I’m getting too serious now.  This whole idea has had me laughing so hard my deaf dog has been able to hear me. (you think I’m joking???)

The Random Generator did NOT PREDICT 9/11… it COINCIDED with it.

By the way… have a mentioned I HATE statistics????????????

UPDATE:  Sat. Sept. 10, 2011… I have done a bit more research on this topic.
Please click here to see my newest post with more details.


Advertisements

14 replies »

  1. I just stumbled across all this stuff myself. I’m just a housewife from Orange County with average IQ and from the proposal I read in 1998, it was being “predicted” a lot earlier than 10 minutes prior to the event. But I second the questions, here what about all those other events, I’d think the weather (Hurricaine Katrina) would be more likely be predicted than planes taking down buildings!

    • with the random generator, you can only predict “thoughts” but with others aspects of modern science, it may be possible to predict things like hurricane katrina

  2. As a wild speculation, perhaps there was some kind of quantum signalling moving backward in time from the increased electronic activity–radio, TV, Internet, telephones, etc.–that occurred as 9/11 unfolded? That’s something that “big data” researchers might be able to test.

    • Hello Ralph, quantum signalling yes, but moving backward in time from the aftermath? I think that is extremely unlikely. However, 911 was a very big operation involving a lot of people (those who prepared and/or committed the crime) with a helluva lot of forward planning, execution logistics and aftermath spin control. As it came closer to the time of the attack, the number of people directly involved must naturally have increased, thus synchronising in their thoughts and intent. This would increasingly de-randomise the REG outputs. Consider that the REGs didn’t literally predict anything. They merely got a handle on collective thought patterns.

  3. When I first heard of this, I figured the Global Consciousness Project was continually receiving a feed from every one of their “eggs” (i.e. random number generator sites) and running a statistical analysis of that data feed. Instead, what it sounds like is that they went back to the approximate time window (of any given incident) and ran a statistical analysis on that chunk of the data feed. Naughty, naughty – that invalidates the integrity of the feed because you are cherry picking the time window.

    That being said, never the less such a statistical abnormality is significant, although it ought to be compared to the deviations within the data feed over time. Without knowing the statistical treatment the entire data feed has been given, and without knowing the exhaustive nature of the statistical analysis of that cherry picked time window section of the data feed, it would be irresponsible of me to say anything (of meaning) more.

    Let me add a private entity ought to also set up “egg data feeds” with real time statistical analysis, given the potential profit such a venture could deliver. My understanding is that the random number feeds started delivering off base results before the 911 events occurred. There is every reason to suspect that the future affects the present (I know this sound preposterous but it is a QM truth).

    BTW, I am a member of Mensa also, and a USCF National Master at chess, plus have particular talents when it comes to the comprehending of (charitably characterized as) obscure paradigms. Incidentally, The Singularity is coming.

  4. it probably did not calculate the other catastrophic events of the world because people did not plan it. in the terrorist attacks, many people probably planned it, as well as the bombings. everything else, nobody planned it or only one person had to do with it

  5. They were not predicted because 9/11 was organized by our government to be one of the largest global catastrophes. The conscious energy of those orchestrating it was so powerful that it was picked up in the RNG.

  6. All the planes stopped in the air , I know where I was standing when it happened- northern Alberta Canada..I suggest you look into your statistics a bit more to see how many people worldwide were AFFECTED by the other events.

    • “All the planes stopped in the air?” Seriously? You really think that? Then why weren’t there thousands of plane crashes as that’s what would have happened if they just stopped in the air. Which, btw, is not possible due to the physics behind the speed and acceleration. For a plane to stop in midair, it would have to crash into a very large and very strong solid object. And the sound as the energy transfers from the plane to the object would be loud!

  7. The Global Consciousness Project is a real thing, which has produced real results. We cannot explain these results, and answers that lean towards pessimism fall flat when extraordinary results- such as those produced before, during, and after 9/11, are cross-referenced with controls, such as normal time windows. Princeton uses enough “control” time windows to rule out the possibility of either coincidence or bias.
    Pessimists cannot believe that this is a real thing. But by stating that “Well, the project didn’t predict other events- such as that plane crash, or that tsunami, or that volcanic eruption,” they are not invalidating the 9/11 results. They are unintentionally confirming the project’s success- which measures not events, but the worldwide reaction to these events. They are two separate and distinct things, and although Princeton, and The Global Consciousness Project,” cannot say for certain what the “cutoff” point is at which results will or will not be measurable, the results from 9/11 cannot be ignored, and to do so is to contaminate the results, the conclusion being not that the results are not real, but that one’s own skeptical bias is.
    This very specific type of consciousness, this “impossible knowing,” has a precedent in another experiment conducted called “remote viewing.” Remote viewing, in which a person or group of people are told to mentally locate a person or object without any information provided as to the who, what, or where, is an extreme example of an experiment that makes a strong case for the “connectedness” of everyone, and everything, in that results are bafflingly accurate and conclusive. Attempts at uncovering either bias or “helpful hints,” intentional or otherwise, have proven futile, leaving even the most skeptical scientists and quantum theorists to grudgingly conclude that “Yes, the results seem to point in an impossible direction, but until we know why, it remains outside the realm of science.”
    This “outside the realm of science” is mistaken by pessimists to mean “outside the realm of reality.”
    But what scientists really mean is that science is measured based on the “scientific method” in which to become scientific fact, an experimental process must continually produce predictable results. The truth is, sometimes remote viewing works, and sometimes it doesn’t. But when it does work, there is no explanation, and no “coincidence” that can be pointed to, as landmarks and geographical features sketched out by the remote viewing participants are accurate and specific.
    So The Global Conciousness Project’s results are similar, in that sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn’t. But the data from 9/11 is compelling, and has precedence when considered alongside other experiments, such as remote viewing.
    The answer I would give as to why this is so, and why we can’t predict outcomes, comes from all places, the Bible- ironic, since I’m non-religious (but spiritual!). But even so: “The Ways of God Are Mysterious, And Are Known To No Man.”

    That says it all, doesn’t it?”

  8. The Global Consciousness Project is a real thing, which has produced real results. We cannot explain these results, and answers that lean towards pessimism fall flat when extraordinary results- such as those produced before, during, and after 9/11, are cross-referenced with controls, such as normal time windows. Princeton uses enough “control” time windows to rule out the possibility of either coincidence or bias.
    Pessimists cannot believe that this is a real thing. But by stating that “Well, the project didn’t predict other events- such as that plane crash, or that tsunami, or that volcanic eruption,” they are not invalidating the 9/11 results. They are unintentionally confirming the project’s success- which measures not events, but the worldwide reaction to these events. They are two separate and distinct things, and although Princeton, and The Global Consciousness Project,” cannot say for certain what the “cutoff” point is at which results will or will not be measurable, the results from 9/11 cannot be ignored, and to do so is to contaminate the results, the conclusion being not that the results are not real, but that one’s own skeptical bias is.
    This very specific type of consciousness, this “impossible knowing,” has a precedent in another experiment conducted called “remote viewing.” Remote viewing, in which a person or group of people are told to mentally locate a person or object without any information provided as to the who, what, or where, is an extreme example of an experiment that makes a strong case for the “connectedness” of everyone, and everything, in that results are bafflingly accurate and conclusive. Attempts at uncovering either bias or “helpful hints,” intentional or otherwise, have proven futile, leaving even the most skeptical scientists and quantum theorists to grudgingly conclude that “Yes, the results seem to point in an impossible direction, but until we know why, it remains outside the realm of science.”
    This “outside the realm of science” is mistaken by pessimists to mean “outside the realm of reality.”
    But what scientists really mean is that science is measured based on the “scientific theory,” in which to become scientific fact, a process must continually produce predictable results. The truth is, sometimes remote viewing works, and sometimes it doesn’t. But when it does work, there is no explanation, and no “coincidence” that can be pointed to, as landmarks and geographical features sketched out by the remote viewing participants are accurate and specific.
    So The Global Consciousness Project’s results are similar, in that sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn’t. But the data from 9/11 is compelling, and has precedence when considered alongside other experiments, such as remote viewing.
    The answer I would give, as to why this is so, and why we can’t predict it comes, from all places, the Bible- ironic, since I’m non-religious (but spiritual!). But even so: “The Ways of God Are Mysterious, and Are Known To No Man.”
    That says it all, doesn’t it?

    • Hi, Daniel. Sorry I didn’t approve your comment more quickly. Work has me pulled away from blogging much more than I like. Both comments look to nearly identical with a few differences. Is there a preference to which one you’d like to keep in the comments as I’ll remove the other one. Doesn’t make sense to have them both. If you want them both to show, though, I’ll leave them as they are.

  9. Michelle – i would just like to mention the CIA’s intelligence briefings that DID predict 9/11 – and were completely ignored by the blood lusting bush/cheney/rumsfeld criminal troika of evil. “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” headlined the CIA PDB…i’m still saying” wow”.over it. continue…

Go ahead... I can hear your thoughts. Please share with the rest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s