[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

To be clear, there is no underlying measurement lurking somewhere within the bounds. If this were the case, there would be no need for bounds. Ofc, any value stated that appears exact is not. Such as 4.5678 s. This is (4.5678 +/- 0.00005) s. Only irrational numbers or integers like quantum numbers etc can be considered pure numbers. Or agreed constants as the examples before.

All measurements have uncertainty. If you have ever read a scientific report (including general technical reports) you will know this. The uncertainty is often explicit such as (4.7 +/- 0.1) s. If values do not have specific bounds such as 7 s as per the example I gave then you know 1 sf gives the error. Hence any measurement calculated from this is also 1 sf. So we know a time of 3 s is (3 +/- 0.5) s.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

22 m / 5.6 m/s = 3.9 s. So yes this is within 4 s.

In fact the correct uncertainty interval would be calculated like this. We need to combine the uncertainty for each measurement, usually done by adding the percentage uncertainties for numerator and denominator.

(22 +/- 0.5) m gives +/- 2%.
(5.6 +/- 0.05) m/s gives +/- 1%.
Hence t = (3.9 +/- 3%) s. Or (3.9 +/- 0.1) s. The upper bound is not within 4 seconds.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

There is no "need" for bounds, the same as there is no "need" for me to use flowery adjectives to describe what an idiot you are, it is author's choice. The authors chose to bound their number by the nearest integer away from zero for narrative flow. Whether it's in a scientific paper or not, it is a plain English ****ing statement in prose, el stupido, and nobody except you conspiracy dingbats are concerned with this exact collapse time number, so I doubt the authors assigned it much importance. It's narrative.

Are you seriously, seriously suggesting that if the number they had was 11.6 seconds they would have written "within 12.0 seconds" and if it was 11.95 seconds they would have written "within 12.00 seconds"? And that it's just impossible for their number to have been 11.85 seconds because then Billy's inviolable laws of paper writing would have forced them to write "within 11.9 seconds" and disallowed them from writing their bound as the nearest integer, you ****ing clown?

Notwithstanding the above, I think "within" probably includes the upper bound anyway, so 12 seconds is "within" 12 seconds. I also seriously doubt that the authors gave nearly as much thought to all this as you conspiracy idiots do.

I'm not even going to get to what you mean by idiotic statements like "only irrational numbers can be considered pure numbers", since I don't care, but it's complete nonsense.

Just in case anyone comes across similar phrases elsewhere, I've put together a handy translator for you guys, thanks to Billy:

- Within 29: Less than 28.5
- Within 30: Less than 25
- Within 50: Less than 45
- Within 100: Less than 50

Bet you guys are glad Billy taught us something today, huh? There were we all were, like idiots, assuming that "within 100" actually means up to and possibly including 100, but here is Billy to save us by telling us it's actually less than 50! Because if it was up to and including 100, it would have been written as "within 100.00"... or something.

Billy I know you know this, but we are not talking about the collapse times right now. We are talking about your claim that the building didn't have enough energy to collapse because some of it fell outward or crumbled. See Bazant means to look at his calculation for how much energy is required to collapse the building. You keep deflecting to collapse time which is not relevant to your claim about energy.

Again, I know you know this. You are just being a pansy. You are terrified to confront reality.

Stop being a pansy and address the issues with your theory.

And reminder, here are the outstanding issues with your theory.

Stop deflecting to collapse times like a pansy.

It's clear to me that exactly 12 seconds is "within" 12 seconds.

That is, I would define 'within 12 seconds' as 0-12s, not 0-11.999999...s

Of course, we know that Billy has no interest in confronting difficulties with his theories.

Any question he can't satisfactorily answer he labels as a 'bad faith question.'

Or he deflects by asking you define ordinary terms to suggest there is some nuance that will save his theory.

So billy, you just lied about posting a map. Is that correct?

Also, I'd like to draw your attention to an often missed and therefore underappreciated by-product of Billy's method: "within 90", which as we all know by now means "85 or less" is actually a larger number than "within 100", which as we have learnt means "50 or less". It really is some revolutionary stuff.

Define 'map.'

Furthermore, are you suggesting that posting a pic of the UN flag doesn't count?

You think it possible for them to record a collapse time to one hundredth of a second?

Ad hom attacks weaken your argument. Free advice.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Yet another significant figure error from d2.

The context of your 100 is 1.00 x 10^2.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Yet another d2_sig_fig_error_e4 sig fig error.

Your 90 is ambiguous. Please address this.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

We're talking in about how measurements are stated in general now, remember? Anyway, I'm sure they can tell times related to seismic readings pretty accurately, yes. But it's irrelevant.

You're a massive ****ing idiot - free advice.

You're the one who can infer the exact accuracy from just the stated precision, remember? So infer it.

The context is something that says "within 100". Could be 1.00 * 10E2. Or could be 10 * 10E1. Or could be 100 * 10E0. But I'm just following your logic about how we read the NIST report to its conclusion. It's your "logic", not mine.

Our model fully supports a collapse time "within 12 seconds", though, regardless of your blathering on about exactly what that phrase means (hint: it means within 12 seconds). According to the NIST FAQ, resistance from the floor supports was minimal, so I can fully buy in that it doesn't add more than half a second or so.

You keep claiming to have a more accurate model that predicts the minimum progressive collapse time to be 27 seconds, but since you have repeatedly failed to produce it, 11.5 seconds is the number.

The projection used in the UN flag has a political and artistic purpose related to the ethos and membership of the organisation-- to show all of the world's major land masses except for Antarctica, which is not home to any member states and can't be shown recognisably in a projection centred on the North Pole anyway. It does not imply any UN recognition of the flat-Earth model, or a UN view that Antarctica does not exist. Various nations have territorial claims down there, so the UN knows perfectly well that there is such a continent.

Consider revising to ensure coherence.

So much free advice!

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

I can, from technical reports.

But your 2p2 rambling is not a technical report, and you are struggling. So please clarify.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

I see. You have abused the ambiguity for comic effect.

The nist report is different. They know about uncertainty. They are a recognised authority for weights and measures.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk