Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Answer the question Koko. If I told physicist that I observed a bowling bowl fall at an acceleration of -6.31 m/s2 and asked him if that bowling ball fell at free fall acceleration, what would he say?you arent making any sense to a physicist gam, no physicist uses freefall in a vacuum as a measuring stick to prove anything on earth so you seem to think the wtc is in alpha centauri, your whole premise is nonsense.No, you didn't.I did, you refuse to accept the answer, and you dont even know what you are trying to prove.
If an object is falling at a consistent downward acceleration of -6.31 m/s2, is that considered unrestricted free fall or not? Why are you avoiding this?
It's a simple yes or no question Koko.
Ok, what would the formula look like?No, you didn't.I did, you refuse to accept the answer, and you dont even know what you are trying to prove.
If an object is falling at a consistent downward acceleration of -6.31 m/s2, is that considered unrestricted free fall or not? Why are you avoiding this?
It's a simple yes or no question Koko.
it has to have a resistance variable gamIf I wanted to calculate how long it would take a bowling ball to reach the ground if I dropped it from 1000 feet in the air, with no visible resistance below, what would the formula look like?you arent making any sense to a physicist gam, no physicist uses freefall in a vacuum as a measuring stick to prove anything on earth so you seem to think the wtc is in alpha centauri, your whole premise is nonsense.No, you didn't.I did, you refuse to accept the answer, and you dont even know what you are trying to prove.
If an object is falling at a consistent downward acceleration of -6.31 m/s2, is that considered unrestricted free fall or not? Why are you avoiding this?
It's a simple yes or no question Koko.
oh? What makes them wrong?Free-fall claims are wrong. Wrong, the opposite of right.
we arent talking about a bowling ball gam, you cant top down demolish a bowling ball.Answer the question Koko. If I told physicist that I observed a bowling bowl fall at an acceleration of -6.31 m/s2 and asked him if that bowling ball fell at free fall acceleration, what would he say?you arent making any sense to a physicist gam, no physicist uses freefall in a vacuum as a measuring stick to prove anything on earth so you seem to think the wtc is in alpha centauri, your whole premise is nonsense.No, you didn't.I did, you refuse to accept the answer, and you dont even know what you are trying to prove.
If an object is falling at a consistent downward acceleration of -6.31 m/s2, is that considered unrestricted free fall or not? Why are you avoiding this?
It's a simple yes or no question Koko.
If an object is falling at a consistent downward acceleration of -6.31 m/s2, is that considered unrestricted free fall or not?
What would the formula look like Koko. Yet another unanswered question?we arent talking about a bowling ball gam, you cant top down demolish a bowling ball.Answer the question Koko. If I told physicist that I observed a bowling bowl fall at an acceleration of -6.31 m/s2 and asked him if that bowling ball fell at free fall acceleration, what would he say?you arent making any sense to a physicist gam, no physicist uses freefall in a vacuum as a measuring stick to prove anything on earth so you seem to think the wtc is in alpha centauri, your whole premise is nonsense.No, you didn't.I did, you refuse to accept the answer, and you dont even know what you are trying to prove.
If an object is falling at a consistent downward acceleration of -6.31 m/s2, is that considered unrestricted free fall or not? Why are you avoiding this?
It's a simple yes or no question Koko.
If an object is falling at a consistent downward acceleration of -6.31 m/s2, is that considered unrestricted free fall or not?
I already told you, dont you comprehend simple english either?What would the formula look like Koko. Yet another unanswered question?we arent talking about a bowling ball gam, you cant top down demolish a bowling ball.Answer the question Koko. If I told physicist that I observed a bowling bowl fall at an acceleration of -6.31 m/s2 and asked him if that bowling ball fell at free fall acceleration, what would he say?you arent making any sense to a physicist gam, no physicist uses freefall in a vacuum as a measuring stick to prove anything on earth so you seem to think the wtc is in alpha centauri, your whole premise is nonsense.No, you didn't.I did, you refuse to accept the answer, and you dont even know what you are trying to prove.
If an object is falling at a consistent downward acceleration of -6.31 m/s2, is that considered unrestricted free fall or not? Why are you avoiding this?
It's a simple yes or no question Koko.
If an object is falling at a consistent downward acceleration of -6.31 m/s2, is that considered unrestricted free fall or not?
I want to see the FORMULA Koko. Show me where in this thread you posted the proper formula (with resistance) to determine how long it would take a bowling ball to reach the ground from 1000 feet.I already told you, dont you comprehend simple english either?What would the formula look like Koko. Yet another unanswered question?we arent talking about a bowling ball gam, you cant top down demolish a bowling ball.Answer the question Koko. If I told physicist that I observed a bowling bowl fall at an acceleration of -6.31 m/s2 and asked him if that bowling ball fell at free fall acceleration, what would he say?you arent making any sense to a physicist gam, no physicist uses freefall in a vacuum as a measuring stick to prove anything on earth so you seem to think the wtc is in alpha centauri, your whole premise is nonsense.No, you didn't.I did, you refuse to accept the answer, and you dont even know what you are trying to prove.
If an object is falling at a consistent downward acceleration of -6.31 m/s2, is that considered unrestricted free fall or not? Why are you avoiding this?
It's a simple yes or no question Koko.
If an object is falling at a consistent downward acceleration of -6.31 m/s2, is that considered unrestricted free fall or not?
LOL, gam this is for a building not a bowling ball,I want to see the FORMULA Koko. Show me where in this thread you posted the proper formula (with resistance) to determine how long it would take a bowling ball to reach the ground from 1000 feet.I already told you, dont you comprehend simple english either?What would the formula look like Koko. Yet another unanswered question?we arent talking about a bowling ball gam, you cant top down demolish a bowling ball.Answer the question Koko. If I told physicist that I observed a bowling bowl fall at an acceleration of -6.31 m/s2 and asked him if that bowling ball fell at free fall acceleration, what would he say?you arent making any sense to a physicist gam, no physicist uses freefall in a vacuum as a measuring stick to prove anything on earth so you seem to think the wtc is in alpha centauri, your whole premise is nonsense.No, you didn't.I did, you refuse to accept the answer, and you dont even know what you are trying to prove.
If an object is falling at a consistent downward acceleration of -6.31 m/s2, is that considered unrestricted free fall or not? Why are you avoiding this?
It's a simple yes or no question Koko.
If an object is falling at a consistent downward acceleration of -6.31 m/s2, is that considered unrestricted free fall or not?
So you can't provide the answer. Yet another unanswered question. You're batting ZERO so far.LOL, gam this is for a building not a bowling ball,I want to see the FORMULA Koko. Show me where in this thread you posted the proper formula (with resistance) to determine how long it would take a bowling ball to reach the ground from 1000 feet.I already told you, dont you comprehend simple english either?What would the formula look like Koko. Yet another unanswered question?we arent talking about a bowling ball gam, you cant top down demolish a bowling ball.Answer the question Koko. If I told physicist that I observed a bowling bowl fall at an acceleration of -6.31 m/s2 and asked him if that bowling ball fell at free fall acceleration, what would he say?you arent making any sense to a physicist gam, no physicist uses freefall in a vacuum as a measuring stick to prove anything on earth so you seem to think the wtc is in alpha centauri, your whole premise is nonsense.No, you didn't.I did, you refuse to accept the answer, and you dont even know what you are trying to prove.
If an object is falling at a consistent downward acceleration of -6.31 m/s2, is that considered unrestricted free fall or not? Why are you avoiding this?
It's a simple yes or no question Koko.
If an object is falling at a consistent downward acceleration of -6.31 m/s2, is that considered unrestricted free fall or not?
you cant even tell us what the hell you are trying to prove and refuse to answer my question!
LOLSo you can't provide the answer. Yet another unanswered question. You're batting ZERO so far.LOL, gam this is for a building not a bowling ball,I want to see the FORMULA Koko. Show me where in this thread you posted the proper formula (with resistance) to determine how long it would take a bowling ball to reach the ground from 1000 feet.I already told you, dont you comprehend simple english either?What would the formula look like Koko. Yet another unanswered question?we arent talking about a bowling ball gam, you cant top down demolish a bowling ball.Answer the question Koko. If I told physicist that I observed a bowling bowl fall at an acceleration of -6.31 m/s2 and asked him if that bowling ball fell at free fall acceleration, what would he say?you arent making any sense to a physicist gam, no physicist uses freefall in a vacuum as a measuring stick to prove anything on earth so you seem to think the wtc is in alpha centauri, your whole premise is nonsense.No, you didn't.I did, you refuse to accept the answer, and you dont even know what you are trying to prove.
If an object is falling at a consistent downward acceleration of -6.31 m/s2, is that considered unrestricted free fall or not? Why are you avoiding this?
It's a simple yes or no question Koko.
If an object is falling at a consistent downward acceleration of -6.31 m/s2, is that considered unrestricted free fall or not?
you cant even tell us what the hell you are trying to prove and refuse to answer my question!
Back to you Angelo since Koko doesn't want to answer questions.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.
According to Angelo, all supports were cut below the descending upper section. What stopped that upper section from falling faster than a uniform downward acceleration of -6.31 m/s2? According to you, there has to be resistance factored in. Supports were all cut so it can't be those.LOLSo you can't provide the answer. Yet another unanswered question. You're batting ZERO so far.LOL, gam this is for a building not a bowling ball,I want to see the FORMULA Koko. Show me where in this thread you posted the proper formula (with resistance) to determine how long it would take a bowling ball to reach the ground from 1000 feet.I already told you, dont you comprehend simple english either?What would the formula look like Koko. Yet another unanswered question?we arent talking about a bowling ball gam, you cant top down demolish a bowling ball.Answer the question Koko. If I told physicist that I observed a bowling bowl fall at an acceleration of -6.31 m/s2 and asked him if that bowling ball fell at free fall acceleration, what would he say?you arent making any sense to a physicist gam, no physicist uses freefall in a vacuum as a measuring stick to prove anything on earth so you seem to think the wtc is in alpha centauri, your whole premise is nonsense.No, you didn't.I did, you refuse to accept the answer, and you dont even know what you are trying to prove.
If an object is falling at a consistent downward acceleration of -6.31 m/s2, is that considered unrestricted free fall or not? Why are you avoiding this?
It's a simple yes or no question Koko.
If an object is falling at a consistent downward acceleration of -6.31 m/s2, is that considered unrestricted free fall or not?
you cant even tell us what the hell you are trying to prove and refuse to answer my question!
gam you are just taking us down another one of your dead end rabbit holes, I mean damn when you dont even know wth you are trying to prove thats pretty worthless debate objectives
What makes them wrong?
the question remains, what are you trying to prove?What makes them wrong?
The fact that 64% of free-fall is not free-fall.
not calculated in a vacuum?
If you want to post the formula for WTC beams, including air-resistance......go for it.
We'll see how close to free-fall it really was.
the question remains, what are you trying to prove?
thanks for answering the question!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?
He is proving you are uneducated and a liar.the question remains, what are you trying to prove?What makes them wrong?
The fact that 64% of free-fall is not free-fall.
not calculated in a vacuum?
If you want to post the formula for WTC beams, including air-resistance......go for it.
We'll see how close to free-fall it really was.
gam doesnt know, and went back to angelo hoping angelo will accept his half assed meaningless argument, do you know what gam and you are trying to prove with that nonsense argument?
Angelo consistently states that the speded of the towers collapse PROVES controlled demolition but it does not prove any such thing.thanks for answering the question!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?
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 want you to explain Angelo's theory and explanation. If no supports were present below the upper block, how did it only fall at a uniform downward acceleration of -6.31 m/s2.thanks for answering the question!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?
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?
thanks for answering the question!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?
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?
