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.
Todd Dulles chimes in again, always lurking in the shadows.
First time using it. Wouldn't know.Todd Dulles chimes in again, always lurking in the shadows.
Is everybody who points out your idiocy named Dulles?
There is not any evidence to have a chain of custory for.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
what are you referring to?Koko, you missed this...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?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 didnt make an errorProof of Santa Claus ?I already told you several times, resistance variables need to be added in.
What are you waiting for? Post it.
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 errorProof of Santa Claus ?I already told you several times, resistance variables need to be added in.
What are you waiting for? Post it.
You're back?
I thought your 64% versus 100% error made you flee.
Maybe you can post the real acceleration formula at 1 atm?
he gave you the graph, if you think its wrong feel free to fall all over it with your reason, or unreasonI didnt make an errorProof of Santa Claus ?I already told you several times, resistance variables need to be added in.
What are you waiting for? Post it.
You're back?
I thought your 64% versus 100% error made you flee.
Maybe you can post the real acceleration formula at 1 atm?
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,
depends on the context and grammar used.he gave you the graph,
He posted a graph that showed 64% of free-fall.....and called it free-fall.
Was he correct?
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 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 free-fall.
If you think he's wrong.....just say so.
Little Todd is lying as usual , because I never said that. Total loser.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 free-fall.
If you think he's wrong.....just say so.
If you believed Angelo's claim that 64% of free-fall is "near" free-fall.
so you were just trying to scam me eh.....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 free-fall.
If you think he's wrong.....just say so.
If you believed Angelo's claim that 64% of free-fall is "near" free-fall.
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.so you were just trying to scam me eh.....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 free-fall.
If you think he's wrong.....just say so.
If you believed Angelo's claim that 64% of free-fall is "near" free-fall.
glad angelo brought that to my attention.
Yes they shoukld have fallen all the way to the ground and no evidence shows otherswise.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.so you were just trying to scam me eh.....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 free-fall.
If you think he's wrong.....just say so.
If you believed Angelo's claim that 64% of free-fall is "near" free-fall.
glad angelo brought that to my attention.
Little Todd is lying as usual , because I never said that. Total loser.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 free-fall.
If you think he's wrong.....just say so.
If you believed Angelo's claim that 64% of free-fall is "near" free-fall.
I'll put it to you this way; the first presidential election I could vote in had Reagan running.Out of curiosity how old are you?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.....
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?
