I did not know you believed WTC 1, 2, and 7 fell due to fires in a gravity collapse. When did you join reality, you first showed up claiming CD, when and what woke you up to reality? Did femr2's data work change you from delusions to reality, or was it your study of a chaotic collapse due to gravity? When did you stop thinking 911 was an inside job? Was it femr2's work that brought you back to reality to drop the CD and inside job nonsense, or your work?
Yes, you think you are doing serious work, femr2 thinks it is serious, but you can't set goals or produce conclusions. You have failed to answer how your claim of CD relates to femr2's work. Can you discuss how your claim of CD dovetails with femr2's analysis?
They have to ignore the first 8 to 10 seconds of WTC 7 collapse initiation so they can back in CD, plus it is hard to model.
You think wrong. I'm not spamming at all. The post above is a tying together of three separate analysis elements for the first time.
). Perhaps it is because you have made a fool of yourself on this thread for weeks and want it to go away. Perhaps it is because you have run out of things you (incorrectly) feel the need to complain about. Who knows. Who cares.You don't.
But remember one of the attempts to stop your discussions is the many times repeated claim that unless the topic is "conspiracy" it doesn't belong in this sub forum.
A more ridiculous bit of attempted censorship I have not seen. The idea that technical discussions do not belong here is silly enough and totally at odds with the historic practice of this sub forum. No one familiar with the discussions in this forum could seriously suggest that technical stuff has even been discouraged let alone barred.
Likewise look at the amount of thread discussions we would have to curtail if this "conspiracy only" was to become the rule and technical stuff without conspiracy becomes verboten....
...the old saying "cut off your nose to spite your face" comes to mind.
The post is discussing that very thing, my video data analysis. You alright ?
Femr2 -aren't you spamming this thread by reposting? I think so.
Also, this thread is supposed to be about YOUR video data analysis, as suggested by the OP.
Suggest you start another thread to discuss the NIST datapoints, and that you link to previous graphs instead of reposting the same material over and over.
I fully expect you to ignore these suggestions btw. That's just who you are.
Nonsense. I repeatedly prod this thread towards early motion.
Surely you're not a hollow shell believer beachnut ?
Shed light ? Crikey. Are you perhaps referring to the descent of the East penthouse, or perhaps motion I have been highlighting for a few months far beforehand... ?
If you have one, sure. The more the merry. What do you have ?
Do you like to avoid answering questions by putting forth simplified system silly questions, did this work at your engineering school?Nonsense. I repeatedly prod this thread towards early motion.
Surely you're not a hollow shell believer beachnut ?
Surely you haven't taken the ridiculous notion of core and floor elements across the width of the building becoming disconnected before descent of the facade walls literally have you ?
It is quite easy to determine many internal behaviours via analysis of external behaviours. The simplest of which being the period of over-g descent of the NW corner, which strongly suggests attachment to internal floor structures also still attached to the core.
Incorrect. I have looked at a multitude of external points.
I make no such claim, in fact the opposite. And you ?
As I've told you many times beachnut, there is no official theory, as well you know. You keep spamming this thread with the same tired off topic nonsense.
Nope, totally different. There are indeed two 175 ID flights on the FlightExplorer radar traces, as well you know, and the latest discussion can be found here...
