[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
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.
Who needs the national institute of standards and technology to measure things.
Gorgo and cletus the slack have it covered.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Further ad hom noted. Much weakening of argument. And it's pish poor as it is.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
An insult is not an "ad hom", you broke-brain dumbass, it's an insult. You are in dire need of a dictionary.
I don't need to strengthen my "argument" that any number less than 12 is "within 12" which is self-evident to every single person on our planet, but evidently not yours.
Billy, could you please answer Rocco's question about poles?
An insult is not an "ad hom", dumbass, it's an insult.
I don't need to strengthen my "argument" that any number less than 12 is "within 12" which is self-evident to every single person on our planet, but evidently not yours.
Please give Billy a break. It wasn't his fault his Dad kicked him down three flights of stairs and then landed on his head as a toddler.
Rocco doesn't ask 'bad faith' questions.
Almost all of YOUR posts are bad faith, though.
That said, I DO find you to be entertaining in a 'man falls out of his lawn chair and lands in his daughter's kiddie pool' kind of way.
An insult is not an "ad hom", you broke-brain dumbass, it's an insult. You are in dire need of a dictionary.
I don't need to strengthen my "argument" that any number less than 12 is "within 12" which is self-evident to every single person on our planet, but evidently not yours.
Further ad hom, noted. Weakens your argument.
Further science fail, noted. Measurements are not pure numbers. They have inherent uncertainty. The explicit way to report say 11 s is (11 +/- 0.5) s. Reporting 11 s implies this. This is how sig figs work. There is no 11.2467 s lurking inside somewhere.
Continued deflection, noted also.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Further ad hom, noted. Weakens your argument.
Further science fail, noted. Measurements are not pure numbers. They have inherent uncertainty. The explicit way to report say 11 s is (11 +/- 0.5) s. Reporting 11 s implies this. This is how sig figs work. There is no 11.2467 s lurking inside somewhere.
Continued deflection, noted also.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Yes there is. 11.2467 reported to 2 s.f. is 11s. This is literally how significant figures ****ing work. They are not decimal places. Go look it up.
What you are suggesting is if the number had been measured to a higher accuracy it would have been reported to a higher accuracy. That is often not the case, and there's no evidence that it's the case here. The context is some prose within a report where the precise collapse time is tangential to the subject of the report, because the report is not there to pre-empt dumbass conspiracy theories about space lasers. In this context it's entirely reasonable that the number would be to 2 significant figures regardless of measurement accuracy.
Now, what does "within 12 seconds mean"? Give me the explicit range of values that this covers. Ignore the other numbers, they are for something else as has been explained to you 946,437 times.
Literally right from the Wikipedia article:
How was it in bad faith? I am being very transparent. I don't think you can explain the behavior of compasses in a way that is consistent with there being two magnetic poles on a flat Earth. But if you think you can, I would like to hear the explanation. Part of the explanation necessarily would involve you telling us where the poles are in your flat earth model in relation to things like continents, oceans, etc. In the alternative, if you believe the idea of magnetic poles is made up and that compasses are some sort of trickery or the moral equivalent of divining rods, please explain how you reached that conclusion.
A question doesn't become bad faith just because it is being put to you in order to disprove your theory.
Billy, the king of literally making up definitions and pretending to not understand basic words, claiming that others are posting in bad faith is quite... something.
Lol.
Actually went to wikipedia to cite this.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Yes, because you have an annoying talent for being extremely sure about basic things that you're completely wrong about. It's a horrible quality for a human being btw, and makes you very dislikeable. Not that you seem to be too bothered about coming across as an insufferable twat.
Yes there is. 11.2467 reported to 2 s.f. is 11s. This is literally how significant figures ****ing work. They are not decimal places. Go look it up. What you are suggesting is if the number had been measured to a higher accuracy it would have been reported to a higher accuracy. That is often not the case, and there's no evidence that it's the case here. The context is some pros
There is no such thing as a measurement of 11.2467 s reported as 11 s to 2sf. The measurement is (11 +/- 0.5) s implied by 11 s. This is how observations are reported, period.
"Often not the case"? Always is the case. Unless dealing with some dunning-kruger dipshit. Where might we find one of those..?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
There is no such thing as a measurement of 11.2467 s reported as 11 s to 2sf. The measurement is (11 +/- 0.5) s implied by 11 s. This is how observations are reported, period.
"Often not the case"? Always is the case. Unless dealing with some dunning-kruger dipshit. Where might we find one of those..?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Lol ok you dunce. We'll just write this off as another flat earth type belief of yours.
There is no such thing as a measurement of 11.2467 s reported as 11 s to 2sf. The measurement is (11 +/- 0.5) s implied by 11 s. This is how observations are reported, period.
"Often not the case"? Always is the case. Unless dealing with some dunning-kruger dipshit. Where might we find one of those..?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
The speed of light is often stated, even in scientific contexts, as 300,000km/s, when the exact value is not of import. You think that means it's measured to within +/- 50,000km/s of that? Boy, have I got news for you.
There is no such thing as a measurement of 11.2467 s reported as 11 s to 2sf. The measurement is (11 +/- 0.5) s implied by 11 s. This is how observations are reported, period.
"Often not the case"? Always is the case. Unless dealing with some dunning-kruger dipshit. Where might we find one of those..?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
g is often stated as 9.8, even in scientific contexts, when the exact value is not of import. You think that means we don't know if it's 9.75 or 9.85?
There is no such thing as a measurement of 11.2467 s reported as 11 s to 2sf. The measurement is (11 +/- 0.5) s implied by 11 s. This is how observations are reported, period.
"Often not the case"? Always is the case. Unless dealing with some dunning-kruger dipshit. Where might we find one of those..?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
pi is usually given as 3.14 and we know it to billions of decimal places. e is 2.72. I could go on, but hopefully you get the point.
And of course pi^2 = 4e = g = 10, as we all know. Well, for engineers anyway.
