All three towers collapsed by controlled demolition on 9/11 .

[the other mike]

"You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd Dulles chimes in again, always lurking in the shadows.

Is everybody who points out your idiocy named Dulles?

 

[the other mike]

Todd Dulles chimes in again, always lurking in the shadows.

Is everybody who points out your idiocy named Dulles?

First time using it. Wouldn't know.

 

[Soupnazi630]

There's a chain of custody issue with some evidence, but once that's all settled,
it will be a game changer. (I'm guessing )

I can hardly wait.
View attachment 513434

There is not any evidence to have a chain of custory for.

 

[KokomoJojo]

the question remains, what are you trying to prove?

I'm not trying to prove anything. Poor Angelo claimed free-fall and his own source
said 64% of free-fall. Do you understand the error in his claim? Are you retarded?

thanks for answering the question!
so then gam and you believe that 64% of freefall in a vacuum means that no explosives were used and it was not a demolition?

I thought nobody uses free fall in a vacuum to determine things here on earth Koko? Why did Chandler use "free fall in a vacuum" to compare a building falling on Earth?

Koko, you missed this...

what are you referring to?

 

[KokomoJojo]

I already told you several times, resistance variables need to be added in.

What are you waiting for? Post it.

Proof of Santa Claus ?

You're back?

I thought your 64% versus 100% error made you flee.

Maybe you can post the real acceleration formula at 1 atm?

I didnt make an error

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I already told you several times, resistance variables need to be added in.

What are you waiting for? Post it.

Proof of Santa Claus ?

You're back?

I thought your 64% versus 100% error made you flee.

Maybe you can post the real acceleration formula at 1 atm?

I didnt make an error

If you believed Angelo's claim that 64% of free-fall is free-fall.

If you think he's wrong.....just say so.

 

[KokomoJojo]

I already told you several times, resistance variables need to be added in.

What are you waiting for? Post it.

Proof of Santa Claus ?

You're back?

I thought your 64% versus 100% error made you flee.

Maybe you can post the real acceleration formula at 1 atm?

I didnt make an error

If you believed Angelo's claim that 64% of free-fall is free-fall.

If you think he's wrong.....just say so.

he gave you the graph, if you think its wrong feel free to fall all over it with your reason, or unreason

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

he gave you the graph,

He posted a graph that showed 64% of free-fall.....and called it free-fall.

Was he correct?

 

[KokomoJojo]

he gave you the graph,

He posted a graph that showed 64% of free-fall.....and called it free-fall.

Was he correct?

depends on the context and grammar used.

 

[the other mike]

If you believed Angelo's claim that 64% of free-fall is free-fall.

If you think he's wrong.....just say so.

You can't win the debate without dirty tricks like putting words in people's mouths right ?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you believed Angelo's claim that 64% of free-fall is free-fall.

If you think he's wrong.....just say so.

You can't win the debate without dirty tricks like putting words in people's mouths right ?

If you believed Angelo's claim that 64% of free-fall is "near" free-fall.

 

[the other mike]

If you believed Angelo's claim that 64% of free-fall is free-fall.

If you think he's wrong.....just say so.

You can't win the debate without dirty tricks like putting words in people's mouths right ?

If you believed Angelo's claim that 64% of free-fall is "near" free-fall.

Little Todd is lying as usual , because I never said that. Total loser.

 

[the other mike]

Next he'll say "what you don't backup the videos you post?"....watch

 

[KokomoJojo]

If you believed Angelo's claim that 64% of free-fall is free-fall.

If you think he's wrong.....just say so.

You can't win the debate without dirty tricks like putting words in people's mouths right ?

If you believed Angelo's claim that 64% of free-fall is "near" free-fall.

so you were just trying to scam me eh.....

glad angelo brought that to my attention.

 

[the other mike]

If you believed Angelo's claim that 64% of free-fall is free-fall.

If you think he's wrong.....just say so.

You can't win the debate without dirty tricks like putting words in people's mouths right ?

If you believed Angelo's claim that 64% of free-fall is "near" free-fall.

so you were just trying to scam me eh.....

glad angelo brought that to my attention.

He's just avoiding the main point which is neither tower should have collapsed all the way to the ground at all ......much less anywhere near freefall speed.

 

[Soupnazi630]

If you believed Angelo's claim that 64% of free-fall is free-fall.

If you think he's wrong.....just say so.

You can't win the debate without dirty tricks like putting words in people's mouths right ?

If you believed Angelo's claim that 64% of free-fall is "near" free-fall.

so you were just trying to scam me eh.....

glad angelo brought that to my attention.

He's just avoiding the main point which is neither tower should have collapsed all the way to the ground at all ......much less anywhere near freefall speed.

Yes they shoukld have fallen all the way to the ground and no evidence shows otherswise.

They did not fall at near free fall spedd as your grapg shows.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you believed Angelo's claim that 64% of free-fall is free-fall.

If you think he's wrong.....just say so.

You can't win the debate without dirty tricks like putting words in people's mouths right ?

If you believed Angelo's claim that 64% of free-fall is "near" free-fall.

Little Todd is lying as usual , because I never said that. Total loser.

Near-Free-Fall Acceleration | Twin Towers​

NIST’s theory of the collapses hinges on the idea that the upper section of each tower could continuously accelerate through the lower stories at nearly the rate of gravity, while in the process completely dismembering the steel frames and pulverizing nearly all of the concrete to a fine powder.

All three towers collapsed by controlled demolition on 9/11 .

Explosive nano-thermite paint. Like the blood of the creature from Alien.......just dissolves metal. One study done by a guy who's dead now. I'm not buying it. Which guy?

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[the other mike]

Every bloke and his dog knows what happened, once they open their eyes.

 

[Colin norris]

Those beams were all perfectly cut at 45 degrees, which is why the demo was so successful. The south tower plane was supposed to hit in the center. It missed, and it sped up the need to chop steel beams/girders because there was not enough time for the planted thermite to melt the joints. Indeed, it was the miss wide by the plane which put the flaming jet fuel on thermite ready to go, and that is what produced the river of molten steel 2200F

There was no need to chop steel in the north tower, since the variable of the "plane" was never there.... There were planted charges inside to blow out what looked like the shape of a plane.....

Out of curiosity how old are you?

I'll put it to you this way; the first presidential election I could vote in had Reagan running.

There, I answered honestly.

Of course I don't expect you to since you're a lousy piece of garbage but here is the question.

Do you agree that no plane hit the north tower?

No. I don't agree with that.
I saw it.