Nope. It's almost as though you're making crap up without doing any photogrammetric projection to back it up. Oh wait. You were wrong. The plane wing went briefly behind the building exactly as shown. Your diversion and obfuscation doesn't change that. Strawman but wrong as well, no video shows it coming in flat. I know exactly which one you refer to and it's just more demonstration of poor spatial awareness. My claim is 100% correct and you don't even know what a forensic fact is, let alone present any.
more sleight of hand debate tactics. Think you could have come up with a shittier clip? Cant see anything but fuz the resolution is so bad and when others exist with much better resolution its nearly always indicative of a bogus explanation to follow. Look through these windows, from nists site!
a direct rebuttal to the nonsense I saw in your last post is not a strawman though you clearly wish it was. Nice tactic, you post the strawman and accuse me of posting a strawman. Thats typical DDDT we see out here
That would imply there were such tactics preceding, itself incorrect. Seriously, you can talk with your 10th generation "Ace" clips. Regardless of the quality, the wave of the collapse can clearly be seen. It irrefutably goes all the way down. Just that debunks Hulsey, Szamboti et al. Hmm, sounds like knee-jerk denial. If you cannot see that collapse progressing down all the way, then I suggest you seek out an optician. Well don't be silly, nobody is "looking through" any windows. I think I can see my next task, create a better gif than the one already pre-made.
The plane was diving, was clearly visible exactly as seen from his position. The strawman was suggesting that the plane approached level when it didn't, which didn't address the issue at all. Nearly flat, flat. It's not a strawman. And no videos show it coming in "nearly flat'!
And I stand by my "Biggie-skill" at identifying your circular reasoning. You said it had some good points then refused to name or duscuss them. That's deliberately evasive. Which is why he doesn't entertain such hogwash. Identifying it IS scientific. Well yeah, I know you already did. Let me clarify. You are not his equal in qualification by a very large degree. YOU aren't qualified to dismiss his critique, let alone suggest a doctorate-level physicist doesn't employ the scientific method. You dismissed it the moment it critiqued Hulsey - the bridge builder who failed to use a proper file model. You keep running away from that, I wonder why? Did Hulsey only Model 2 floors - yes, or no? So all his good points are a secret then?! And dismissing his content because he "is a fan" of other people who strongly critique Hulsey is not impressive at all. Complete nonsense! Scientific methodology is like a flowchart. It assesses and processes data to form a conclusion. I don't actually care what career you say you had. It is irrelevant what you did to make money. No, what I mean is that you ignore almost everything presented to you. That which you don't ignore is simply waved away because of your misguided reliance on the work of somebody who failed to actually properly model the fire when he assessed whether fire was the cause! You read and ignored them. Hulsey's "peers" are all "911-truthers". Yes they are. You aren't qualified to determine a single thing you deny. How would YOU know!? That sounds ever so slightly paranoid, but thank you for your opinion. Vague and rather random circular logic. Szamboti got his backside handed to him at Metabunk. Since you would never read any of it, you don't get to deny this. False, it is rejected by conspiracy theorists, who rely on the work of a bridge-builder, with zero experience of high-rise buildings, a man paid for his services by "911-truthers" to provide a conclusion they wanted and his paper had grossly insufficient fire-modeling on a building that had out-of-control fires for many hours on many floors!
