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

[Gamolon]

gam still hasnt figured out thats freefall. LMAO

64% of free fall is free fall?

Interesting...

 

[iamwhatiseem]

YES!!! THE OP IS CORRECT!!!!!!!!!... but not like he thinks

The "controlled demolition" was terrorist piloting the planes.

 

[Likkmee]

YES!!! THE OP IS CORRECT!!!!!!!!!... but not like he thinks

The "controlled demolition" was terrorist piloting the planes.

Good Boi !

 

[the other mike]

YES!!! THE OP IS CORRECT!!!!!!!!!... but not like he thinks

The "controlled demolition" was terrorist piloting the planes.

The planes may have had thermite in them too.
Good point.

 

[KokomoJojo]

gam still hasnt figured out thats freefall. LMAO

64% of free fall is free fall?

Interesting...

I posted the gif, it was only a few floors behind the demolition front.

wow what a 'collapse', they even have fireworks to celebrate!
Beams bursting in air!
quick put your glasses on before you go blind!

Fabulous fireworks all the way down!

Hey gam what caused all that rfi interference in the camera?

any ideas? I simply cant imagine!

 

[the other mike]

gam still hasnt figured out thats freefall. LMAO

64% of free fall is free fall?

Interesting...

I posted the gif, it was only a few floors behind the demolition front.

The Solomon Brothers building should never have collapsed at all, first of all, and the twins' core columns would have stopped both towers from collapsing. The ones who crashed those planes knew this, and also knew it would be a nightmare to clean up- maybe impossible.

So it looks like "they" planned to use explosives and to cover it up, even with hundreds of witnesses. Then they methodically haul off and destroy the evidence without an investigation, and ff 2 years to "Shock And Awe" on CNN. Are they beautiful or what ?

 

[KokomoJojo]

crashed those planes

 

[the other mike]

crashed those planes

Amateur footage of the second plane coming in.

 

[the other mike]

crashed those planes

This is a hoax that gets debunked all the time.
They may have been military remote-controlled aircraft, but several witnesses
say they saw the planes.

 

[Soupnazi630]

yep they are working for the banks so we are forced to line their pockets, dont you wish you were rothschild? the reason there is so much hate toward hitler is because hitler arrested the fuckers and made them pay reparations for what they cost germany in ww1! its a very small world at the top.

And this is just one of the reasons that you and your truther brethren will never be taken seriously.

No reason to join your phantasy fizics club

How they want to hold folks accountable, when the truth comes out.

The truth is already out

So the families want a "truthful" report from NIST. "Truthful" meaning that NIST admits demolition? Or what does "truthful" mean?

No they want more lies pretending it wasnt a demo.

Why are you so angry ---lying rips up your soul doesn't it...?

those types dont have souls.

It's been 20 years and you dopes haven't been able to prove anyone is lying? T

face it you are in denial

Furthermore, in science, evidence is not ignored on the basis that it is not conclusive by itself.

all evidence is ignored by those guys

Finally, with the expression “Any molten steel in the wreckage,” NIST neither confirmed nor denied the existence of molten metal. In an investigation that followed NFPA 921, NIST would have sought to establish whether molten metal was present and, if so, what its source was.

are you kidding, thats self incrimination, those thugs would never do that.

gam still hasnt figured out thats freefall. LMAO

There shouldn't have been ANY free fall unless the South Tower had toppled over, which by normal physics it more than likely would have

Nope thius is about gam physics and nazi delusions, not normal physics

The laws of physics dictate that both towers and building seven fell AS THEY DID.

When did this dictator say these things? citation?

A free-falling object has an acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s, downward. This is with no resistance. Why did the upper section of the tower, which you claim had all the support cut from beneath it so it met no resistance, not fall at free fall or 9.8 m/s/s, downward? Why did it only accelerate at 64% of free fall? What was stopping the upper section from falling at 9.8 m/s/s?

because all you seen was dust, the sections as they were blown off did fall at freefall by everyones standards but yours.

You have a model to demonstrate your claims right gam?

and dont forget your personal freefall rulebook

There was no free fall whatsoever all the evidence and physics proves you are a liar.

There was no controlled demo and you cannot provide any evidence to the contrary

 

[KokomoJojo]

crashed those planes

This is a hoax that gets debunked all the time.
They may have been military remote-controlled aircraft, but several witnesses
say they saw the planes.

and if you look up the names of all those first reporting witnesses, that claimed to see a plane, they were all working for or associated with the news media.

 

[KokomoJojo]

that gets debunked all the time

depends what you know

Take nazi for instance, a cheap seat cheerleader, no physics education and totally unqualified, never has anything of value to add to the thread.

Im told that this was taken from a kids camera before he turned it into the fbi LOL. Converted to a gif for show and tell of course.

amazing!

check out who the first people to report that they SAW planes to set the backdrop for the stage and prep your mind to accept the massive bullshit that followed! LOL

 

[Gamolon]

The first possibility is that the red-gray chips were in fact paint chips. The researchers explored this possibility — first by soaking the chips in methyl ethyl ketone (a solvent known to dissolve paint chips, which did not succeed in dissolving the red- gray chips), and second by exposing the red-gray chips and known paint chips to a hot flame. The paint chips dissolved into ash, while the red-gray chips did not.

Angelo,

Can you quote the section in Harrit's paper where they separately tested/examined both suspected red/gray thermitic chips and red/gray paint chips taken from the debris/dust?

They had both in their hot little hands.

Thanks.

 

[Gamolon]

gam still hasnt figured out thats freefall. LMAO

64% of free fall is free fall?

Interesting...

I posted the gif, it was only a few floors behind the demolition front.
View attachment 513285

Did you even read Angelo's post? Ipost the relevent part of it:

Based on Newton’s Third Law of Motion, which states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, we know there would have been a deceleration of WTC 1’s upper section if it had impacted and crushed the intact structure below it. The absence of deceleration is incontrovertible proof that another force (i.e., explosives) must have been responsible for destroying the lower structure before the upper section reached it.

Figure 1: This graph from David Chandler’s “Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics” (Journal of 9/11 Studies, February 2010) shows that the North Tower’s upper section traveled at nearly uniform downward acceleration of -6.31 m/s2 (with an R2 value of 0.997), or 64% of free fall.

Koko, do you see any mention of free fall mentioned? No? The problem being stated is that there was no deceleration. Angelo says that demolition charges removed all supports in the lower section before the upper section reached it, all the way down the tower.

ZERO RESISTANCE all the way down.

So my questions to Angelo is, if all the support from the lower section was removed by demolition charges as Angelo claims, how did the upper section only travel at 64% of free fall? What was stopping it from falling AT free fall?

 

[Gamolon]

Based on Newton’s Third Law of Motion, which states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, we know there would have been a deceleration of WTC 1’s upper section if it had impacted and crushed the intact structure below it.

Does your application of Newton's Third Law apply to ANY structure? You're saying that the upper section should have decelerated and then stopped due to Newton's Third Law correct?

 

[KokomoJojo]

Angelo says that demolition charges removed all supports in the lower section before the upper section reached it, all the way down the tower.

Angelo is correct!

unlike blasting out the bottom where the all the pieces of the building begin to accelerate at the same time, in a top down demo each section is progressively blown out and each section accelerates starting from zero which causes a slight delay, very simple mathematics. The delay is dependent on the precise timing of of the charges.

Building 2 decelerated to a near stop causing it to tip at which time they totally disintegrated the top section and continued the top down demo. (that little factoid was brushed under the table because murka needed to waste a couple million brown skin people)

there is nothing complicated about it

 

[Gamolon]

Angelo says that demolition charges removed all supports in the lower section before the upper section reached it, all the way down the tower.

Angelo is correct!

unlike blasting out the bottom where the all the pieces of the building begin to accelerate at the same time, in a top down demo each section is progressively blown out and each section accelerates starting from zero which causes a slight delay, very simple mathematics. The delay is dependent on the precise timing of of the charges.

Building 2 decelerated to a near stop causing it to tip at which time they totally disintegrated the top section and continued the top down demo. (that little factoid was brushed under the table because murka needed to waste a couple million brown skin people)

there is nothing complicated about it

WRONG!!!

Angelo states that the lower sections were blown out BEFORE the top section reached them. That means ZERO resistance when the upper section reached that level. If there was no resistance present when the upper section got there , how did it not fall at free fall all the way down?

 

[Gamolon]

Angelo says that demolition charges removed all supports in the lower section before the upper section reached it, all the way down the tower.

Angelo is correct!

unlike blasting out the bottom where the all the pieces of the building begin to accelerate at the same time, in a top down demo each section is progressively blown out and each section accelerates starting from zero which causes a slight delay, very simple mathematics. The delay is dependent on the precise timing of of the charges.

Building 2 decelerated to a near stop causing it to tip at which time they totally disintegrated the top section and continued the top down demo. (that little factoid was brushed under the table because murka needed to waste a couple million brown skin people)

there is nothing complicated about it

Hey Koko.

Just curious.

Did you send Angelo a PM to tell him not to answer any questions and that you'll do it for him because you're afraid he might say something stupid? Is that why he's not answering, and you're answering for him?

 

[KokomoJojo]

Angelo says that demolition charges removed all supports in the lower section before the upper section reached it, all the way down the tower.

Angelo is correct!

unlike blasting out the bottom where the all the pieces of the building begin to accelerate at the same time, in a top down demo each section is progressively blown out and each section accelerates starting from zero which causes a slight delay, very simple mathematics. The delay is dependent on the precise timing of of the charges.

Building 2 decelerated to a near stop causing it to tip at which time they totally disintegrated the top section and continued the top down demo. (that little factoid was brushed under the table because murka needed to waste a couple million brown skin people)

there is nothing complicated about it

WRONG!!!

Angelo states that the lower sections were blown out BEFORE the top section reached them. That means ZERO resistance when the upper section reached that level. If there was no resistance present when the upper section got there , how did it not fall at free fall all the way down?

try to use your head, we dont live in a vacuum, well at least not the rest of us. You cant use freefall in a vacuum and substitute it for real life here on earth.

The Physics Classroom Website

The Physics Classroom serves students, teachers and classrooms by providing classroom-ready resources that utilize an easy-to-understand language that makes learning interactive and multi-dimensional. Written by teachers for teachers and students, The Physics Classroom provides a wealth of...

www.physicsclassroom.com

you never learn

 

[Gamolon]

try to use your head, we dont live in a vacuum, well at least not the rest of us. You cant use freefall in a vacuum and substitute it for real life here on earth.

Oh I see. Since we don't live in a vacuum then we should be using downward acceleration of -6.31 m/s2 (per the article Angelo posted) for free fall acceleration here on earth?