Yes... because I didn’t call your question pathetic, only despaired that you asked it and have little confidence you will understand the answer after having gone over the subject already.
It’s your continual reference to “floors” and “pancaking” whilst ignoring my requests to clearly address and account for the core structures.
I can see the momentum loss by eye, though you are welcome to do some of that frame analysis on the collapse front at the North West corner at 0:22 in the WTC1 Hoboken video we have been viewing. Compare the rate of collapse there to other periods and you will notice the reduced momentum in that second. I’ve also noticed that a split second before 0:22 is where the large debris ejections begin coming from the towers – another sure sign that the lower block is now having increased success in resisting the upper block mass. A further observation is that height of the surviving WTC1 core ‘spire’ matches the location where the reduced collapse rate occurs, further corroborating the upper block was broken at that point. All in the same moment, the seismic record shows a reduced activity reading which I’ve already shown you and further indicating the loss of momentum to be correct.
Regarding the antena displacement, I’ve already explained to you it does not need be attached at that point... how many times?... it’s the fact the antena is found so far outside of it’s own rotational arc that needs to be addressed. What is so “baffling” to you? One highly fitting solution is that rotation of the upper block carried it there, and no other answer has been forthcoming. We have been over all this before.
I have never said that the upper block didn't deteriorate throughout collapse. I've always maintained that the upper block sustained significant damage throughout collapse and I've never recoiled in terror from that position. Are you joking? I think this may fall back to your confusion between the actual collapses, Bazant's limiting case, and my efforts at simplified models to illustrate key concepts.
Bazant's limiting case is not an effort to mimic the actual collapses. Bazant's limiting case is an effort to provide a best case scenario for halting the upper block. He states quite clearly that his case is not realistic and that the actual collapses did not follow the assumptions he intentionally placed in the paper. Those assumptions he placed were for the benefit of building survival, despite what you may misunderstand about them.
It is impossible to stop an intact/rigid block in its tracks. It is possible to gradually stop collapse of a broken block. This is where we start having real problems - how can you possibly not realise the difference between the two? How can you possibly not realise that Bazant relies on the former? How can you possibly not realise that a rigid/intact upper block is not a best case for halting the collapse? How can you possibly not realise that assumptions such as an initial freefall drop that never existed in reality are not beneficial to the tower survival? We have been over all this before.
I’m referring to your backtracking from this (green text)...
The quote you responded with only served to backup what I’d said.
With this approach you have shown - dragging up long ago addressed points and backtracking where the official theory is proven incorrect - at best I can use your comments to make a point, but there will never be a resolution between us. That's why I'd still like to use the time I have to focus on discussion with LG for the moment.