johndoeX can't refute the graph, so he attacks the person who did the graph - a tactic people use when they are desparte and have no evidence, no support.
Here we have the same data, from the source, not from Frank; g force on the left, with the last 30 to 40 samples from Flight 77... oops, they match - you have the data too, so I find it odd you attack Frank - are you upset he can plot stuff?
OMG, it is 77 data, twice, from one source, but two different people did a graph - gee whiz, the chemist did a graph too - are you upset he can do math, and a graph, and it is used to show your 34g/11.2g is a false, failed work based on nonsense.
Both graphs source material is what Flight 77 did in the last seconds before impact.
Using original data is not cherry picking, it is called reality. With pilot for truth 11.2g first failure, then 34g, off by over 30g, pilots for truth might not realize what reality is.
Using real data is cherry picking according to pilots for truth, where fantasy rules, in the form of fake Vg diagrams, failed g force math, and the lie of impossible speed.
I checked the data before I used a graph, whereas pilots for truth quote mine a fake Vd definition made up by an Internet journalist because it supported their lie. I think you don't understand what cherry picked means.
Frank believes in thermite, a fantasy? How does his fantasy thermite work make him unable to do a simple graph of data? It looks like Frank thinks your work is nonsense. Does this mean you don't support thermite? Gee, it is part of 911 truth platform, are you not supporting your fellow 911 truth fantasy believers?
Gee, you should have checked the data before you failed to realize Frank did the graph right, and your 34g solution is wrong.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read