I am not the one that required over 500 posts to explain something as simple as freefall, you are from usmessageboard
Can't you get anything right? Freefall can occur of the structure below fails. That equals zero resistance. That's what both Chandler's and NIST's graph both show. Right before the freefall period, there is a less then freefall descent of the entire roofline. How did that less than freefall descent initiate Koko? Was it the damaged/weakened structure below beginning to fail? Then, once the structure below reached it's zero resistance, freefall occured. You have no explanation of why the entire roofline started to descend at less than freefall. It couldn't have been explosives because you claim explosives cause instant support removal which equals freefall. So what caused that entire roofline to come down at less than freefall?
no no no no, not gonna happen. You want to continue chnasing your tail due to your proven inability to grasp the simple concepts of freefall you can go back to USM and beg ELC who with the patience of a saint spent enormous time explaining, demonstrating, teaching, and making extravagant video aids just for you with full definitions over and (*)(*)(*)(*)ing over to the point I stopped reading the thread out of boredom and even after 500 (*)(*)(*)(*)in posts you still dont get it. Dont look at me, first I dont teach (on forums), second I dont have ANY patience for people who jump in over their head, [I actually enjoy watching them drown], much less the patience of a saint like ELC had with you. The most you will get from me is a good laugh and a recommendation to go back and beg ELC to nurse you through it. Go to one of dablunder sites and ask them to help you. One thing it wont be, it wont be me.
I wouldn't expect it to be you. You CAN'T answer it because you don't understand it. You don't understand structures at all. I find it hysterical that we are having a debate and when asked tough questions, you turn tail and run and claim you aren't going to "teach anyone". Yeah, that's going to show folks you know what you're talking about or that you're correct.
Koko is just jerking everyone's chain here..I figured that out a while back,which is why after he insisted electricity wasn't a form of energy,I stopped responding to him,and even though he responds to my posts,the go into a virtual trashcan unread. There are way too many truther fools here already..I don't need to suffer the biggest one.
https://www.google.com/search?q=rob...TNOjQyAG-q4GADw&ved=0CCcQsAQ&biw=1536&bih=770 Gammy made an attempt a few years ago by demonstrating how a fake plane image could align with a real one. This was done by using a real plane (notice that AIR CANADA is backward) after reversing it. He simply reduced the fake image to make it unclear that it was NOT TURNED toward the camera the same way air canada was. This simple deception was exposed by using an enlarged pic of fake 175 compared to a real boeing at or nearly the same angle. It's very important to understand that he didn't alter any evidence back then, just used an easily detectable attempt to make the angle the same. THE FAKE IMAGE IS CREDITED TO ROBERT CLARK.
