[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff
KSM got a plea deal. The guy who supposedly masterminded the 9/11 attacks is not getting the death penalty.
If you still
Let me just get this straight, you are seriously making the case that the plain English phrase "within 12 seconds" actually means "11.5 seconds or less", is this definitely correct? I feel the need to double check because I am surprised that anyone, even you, can be this ****ing stupid.
Correct, within 12 seconds does not include 12 seconds. It does include say 11.9 seconds but since nist quote to 2 sf, the upper bound is 11.5 s.
No, it isn't, you dumb twat. If the measured time was 11.712345678 seconds and they wanted to quote the upper bound to 2 s.f. they would say within 12 seconds you total clown. Same for 11.999999999 seconds. That is literally how significant figures work.
So update:
NIST says the first exterior panels took about 11 seconds to hit the ground. Billy's theory doesn't say anything about how long it should take the first exterior panels to hit the ground so I'm not sure why we should care about that.
The complete collapse, which NIST doesn't comment on anywhere that I have found, visibly and demonstrably took 15 and 22 seconds. This is not arguable.
So, ready to proceed?
What I want to know is how often Billy inexplicably gets punched in the face while going about his daily business.
So what would they say if they wanted to use the "within x seconds" construct but their number was 11.8 seconds. Would they then say "within 13 seconds"?No, we would not expect the report to match the FAQs because the FAQs refer to times for exterior panels and the report refers to a time for total collapse. This has now been explained to you 946,435 times but you are unable to
Resorting to ad hom, noted.
Their number cannot be 11.8 s. This implies an error of +/- 0.05 s. They say 9 s, meaning (9 +/- 0.5) s and 11 s, meaning (11 +/- 0.5) s.
You do not know this. Nist know this. They are a recognised authority for standards of measurement.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Resorting to ad hom, noted.
Their number cannot be 11.8 s. This implies an error of +/- 0.05 s. They say 9 s, meaning (9 +/- 0.5) s and 11 s, meaning (11 +/- 0.5) s.
You do not know this. Nist know this. They are a recognised authority for standards of measurement.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
The "within 12 seconds" number has nothing to do with the 9 second and 11 second numbers. They are for different things, as has been now explained to you 946,436 times. Honestly, how did you get this stupid and obstinate? Did you bump your head? Lobotomy?
I went to school somewhere where 1.7 seconds is considered "within 2 seconds". You? It's a trick question, it's pretty obvious you didn't go to school.
Yes. And so is 1.9999 seconds, error is +/- 0.00005 s. Now there are tools available to potentially measure this. But, when you report a measurement your error is implied by how you report the measurement. So when nist state 11 seconds and/or 9 seconds, we know, as people familiar with rudimentary science, their error is +/- 0.5 seconds. Stating 11.7 s is meaningless.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
The "within 12 seconds" number has nothing to do with the 9 second and 11 second numbers. They are for different things, as has been now explained to you 946,436 times. Honestly, how did you get this stupid and obstinate? Did you bump your head? Lobotomy?
What are the different things these times are for?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
What are the different things these times are for?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Omg.
It's literally in the passages you yourself highlighted. The 9 and 11 second times are for exterior panels to hit the ground and initial seismic readings to register. The 12 second time is for "the structure to turn to rubble" or "total collapse", whatever the exact phrasing was. 946,437 times.
Correct, within 12 seconds does not include 12 seconds. It does include say 11.9 seconds but since nist quote to 2 sf, the upper bound is 11.5 s.Oh look, they also say in their faqs that the collapse occurred in 9 s and 11 s. The upper bound of 11 s is 11.5 s. Consistent with the figure in their own report. As if by magic, within 12 s also includes their 9 s claim. And shock ho
'Within 12 seconds' absolutely, positively, without a doubt includes 12.0 seconds.
It's both astounding and comical how often you don't know what words mean.
No, it isn't, you dumb twat. If the measured time was 11.712345678 seconds and they wanted to quote the upper bound to 2 s.f. they would say within 12 seconds you total clown. Same for 11.999999999 seconds. That is literally how significant figures work.
Thereby exposing your utter failure to science.
You quite literally failed year 7 science. In any just world you would have repeated that year, got it right the second time, and not exposed us to this claptrap. And saved me a few minutes.
Even gorgo knows this, see his times. The measured time is never "11.712345678 s". What kind of device measures time to this accuracy? Well certainly nothing to record the collapse of a building anyway.
Just go and learn this for goodness sake.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Omg.
It's literally in the passages you yourself highlighted. The 9 and 11 second times are for exterior panels to hit the ground and initial seismic readings to register. The 12 second time is for "the structure to turn to rubble" or "total collapse", whatever the exact phrasing was. 946,437 times.
You mean "within" 12 seconds.
Total collapse. There we have it.
Do you agree with nist then, or..?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Thereby exposing your utter failure to science.You quite literally failed year 7 science. In any just world you would have repeated that year, got it right the second time, and not exposed us to this claptrap. And saved me a few minutes.Even gorgo knows this, see his times. The measured time is never "11.712345678 s". What kind of device measures time to this accuracy? Well cer
I was using it as a hypothetical you absolute moron. My god. The point is, regardless of accuracy, any time measured between 11.5 seconds and 12 seconds is "within 12 seconds" to 2 significant figures. There is something seriously wrong with your brain if you do not understand this very basic fact.
You mean "within" 12 seconds.
Total collapse. There we have it.
Do you agree with nist then, or..?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
If you asked me this before you spent over a week pretending to not understand what basic words mean, I would have engaged with you. As it is, you can **** off.
So update:NIST says the first exterior panels took about 11 seconds to hit the ground. Billy's theory doesn't say anything about how long it should take the first exterior panels to hit the ground so I'm not sure why we should care about that.The complete collapse, which NIST doesn't comment on anywhere that I have found, visibly and demonstrably took 15 and 22 seconds. This is
That does appear to be the time mark, from the initiation of collapse, at which NIST found that only the core of each tower, up to 40 stories in one case and 60 in the other, was still standing, albeit not for long.
Thereby exposing your utter failure to science.
You quite literally failed year 7 science. In any just world you would have repeated that year, got it right the second time, and not exposed us to this claptrap. And saved me a few minutes.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Billy... You're a flat-Earther.
That does appear to be the time mark, from the initiation of collapse, at which NIST found that only the core of each tower, up to 40 stories in one case and 60 in the other, was still standing, albeit not for long.
Video evidence shows more than just the core standing after 12 seconds, especially for WTC1. The collapse wave has not reached the ground yet at that time.
I was using it as a hypothetical you absolute moron. My god. The point is, regardless of accuracy, any time measured between 11.5 seconds and 12 seconds is "within 12 seconds" to 2 significant figures. There is something seriously wrong with your brain if you do not understand this very basic fact.
Further ad hom noted. Much weakening of argument. And it's pish poor as it is.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
billy,
Can you answer my question about magnetic poles?
