[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
I've noticed that Billy is incapable of responding to multiple points made in the same post. That's why I started basically just putting each paragraph in a separate post, so his tiny brain doesn't get overwhelmed.
I also occasionally answer bad faith questions. As is the case here.I will repeat: within 12 seconds is 11.5 seconds or less. The reason being that the interval 11.5 < x < 12 rounds to 12 seconds. 12 seconds is excluded by the statement "within 12 seconds".A calculated value of say 11.6 seconds is not a measurement. The measurement is 12 seconds. Unless the uncertainty is
They couldn't have measured or calculated it to 3 s.f. because they quoted to 2 s.f. in prose.
According to Billy, if the authors of the NIST report had a number of 11.9 seconds in mind, they would have written "within 12.0 seconds" instead of "within 12 seconds". The fact that they did not write this in fact guarantees that the underlying number could not have been greater than 11.5 seconds. Let's just all take a second to appreciate the hidden genius behind the clown make up here.
When did billy give us a map?
According to Billy, if the authors of the NIST report had a number of 11.9 seconds in mind, they would have written "within 12.0 seconds" instead of "within 12 seconds". The fact that they did not write this in fact guarantees that the underlying number could not have been greater than 11.5 seconds. Let's just all take a second to appreciate the hidden genius behind the clown m
Does this work for all measures? If I say in a contract that I will do something within one year, does that mean that I actually have to do it in less than 182.5 days, because if I had meant 365 days, I would have put "365 days" in the contract?
According to Billy, if the authors of the NIST report had a number of 11.9 seconds in mind, they would have written "within 12.0 seconds" instead of "within 12 seconds". The fact that they did not write this in fact guarantees that the underlying number could not have been greater than 11.5 seconds. Let's just all take a second to appreciate the hidden genius behind the clown m
You appeared to have redeemed yourself by knowing that 22 m / 7 m/s is 3 s. Presumably because you know the uncertainty is limited to 1 sf. Perhaps an unfair assumption. Must have been a lucky guess for you.
But how do we know this? Because the uncertainty is implied. Nist know this. You do not know this.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
You appeared to have redeemed yourself by knowing that 22 m / 7 m/s is 3 s. Presumably because you know the uncertainty is limited to 1 sf. Perhaps an unfair assumption. Must have been a lucky guess for you.
But how do we know this? Because the uncertainty is implied. Nist know this. You do not know this.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
No, the fact that they chose to write "within 12 seconds" rather than "within 12.0 seconds" in prose in their report does not give any information about the uncertainty. This is the one and only serious response you get from me on this. Stop being a moron.
Ok, that was a bit unfair, you can't stop that. Fine. Just stop being a moron about this.
No, the fact that they chose to write "within 12 seconds" rather than "within 12.0 seconds" in prose in their report does not give any information about the uncertainty. This is the one and only serious response you get from me on this. Stop being a moron.
Ok, that was a bit unfair, you can't stop that. Fine. Just stop being a moron about this.
Again demonstrating your ignorance as to how technical reports are done. Figures are quoted with correct uncertainties always.
But run away, as you frequently do when your contradictions are exposed.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Again demonstrating your ignorance as to how technical reports are done. Figures are quoted with correct uncertainties always.
But run away, as you frequently do when your contradictions are exposed.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Not figures which are not material to the substance of the report. If the authors were concerned with using the correct uncertainty for this figure, they certainly wouldn't have used the construct "within x seconds". They would have give an exact number with an optional +/- uncertainty. Nobody in their right mind would think that "within 12 seconds" conveys the uncertainty of the underlying figure.
It's an upper bound. Bounds do not need to be given to the same degree of precision as the underlying measurement, and common sense would dicate that they rarely are. That is why they are bounds.
Anyway, speaking of being evasive and deflecting and running away, why don't you answer Gorgo's points instead of trying to argue this nonsense. Or tell Rococo which post # has your map. I'm done with this.
Not figures which are not material to the substance of the report. If the authors were concerned with using the correct uncertainty for this figure, they certainly wouldn't have used the construct "within x seconds". They would have give an exact number with an optional +/- uncertainty. Nobody in their right mind would think that "within 12 seconds" conveys the uncertainty of t
"Exact number". Facepalm.
"Underlying figure". Double facepalm.
"Underlying measurement". Toe curling embarassment.
Address gorgo's points...
Oh yes, Bezant and his 9 second claim. The tower was observed to collapse in 9 seconds.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Look at billy the pansy run from me again
Reminder: unaddressed problems with billy's theory:
Explain how this description matches the evidence better than my description.
The evidence is that in every frame from just after 2:13, the central column structure is visible moving downwards towards the ground, until it disappears from view. In order to match your description better, what details that are visually apparent in the video can you point out to us that indicate it turned to dust rather than just falling down?
Some of the tower did since some if it is made of concrete and drywall. This explains the clouds of dust seen in the videos. This is completely expected in a collapse of this type.
There is no lack of debris that needs an explanation. This is something you just made up.
"Exact number". Facepalm.
"Underlying figure". Double facepalm.
"Underlying measurement". Toe curling embarassment.
Address gorgo's points...
Oh yes, Bezant and his 9 second claim. The tower was observed to collapse in 9 seconds.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Ah, I see you noticed that there hadn't been enough insufferable twattery from you yet today. Thanks for rectifying the shortfall.
Billy, you'd be a lot more entertaining and tolerable if you weren't such a tit. Can you work on that?
I've never seen someone so afraid of my posts. He deflects and runs every single time. Absolutely pathetic.
Recap of Billy highlights:
- Earth is flat
- Sun is close by and electric
- "Within 12 seconds" means 11.5 seconds or less
- Twin towers disintegrated into dust on 9/11
- Supposedly doing a masters in physics
- Ass clown
Look at billy the pansy run from me again
Reminder: unaddressed problems with billy's theory:
"Pansy"?
"Theory"?
Let's see if I can help you with this..
I have found Bezant's statement.
The tower was observed to collapse in 9 seconds.
Ah you mean the exterior panel.
No. The tower. The tower collapsed in 9 seconds.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
