But it is so much better than that, for the overlords. The corporate interests that own the congress also own much of the media that that congress must pay so that it can get reelected. Guess who gets their money back? Buying congress is almost free for them. Well, maybe it actually makes a profit, even before considering the services rendered.

One can see where laws are needed, but how can they be passed?

"We do not torture."

In politics, only actions count. Obama's actions do not convince me the US will prohibit torture when the next crisis occurs.

wrote:

And I submit that if one isn't enthralled by this Tone, one can more readily perceive that his responses are facile, glib, and superficially satisfying.

I agree, but understand why many people do not. The puzzling thing is this: how was anyone fooled by the previous occupant?

1. Concerning recalcitrant UT "activists":

In a way, their comments are protestations of their importance, attempts at affirmation fueled by an underlying fear that they may be sadly, profoundly unimportant if 9/11 was an inside job. --peakdavid

2. A statement many might find delusional:

It stark ravingly obvious the towers were blown up. --LondadLad

Even if you do not care what people think about you for writing these things, you still really do not want to write them. The reason is that few will take anything else you write seriously, and then what is the point of writing anything at all?

Please just avoid this topic. It will be more pleasant and interesting here.

Gravity is a force. It causes acceleration; that is, things fall faster as time goes on. Near the surface of the earth, the force of gravity does not change significantly with height. It also does not depend on the speed of the object with respect to the earth.

In a typical situation, other forces are or become significant, modifying or eliminating the acceleration.

Example: Drop a ball from a high tower. The ball accelerates, that is falls faster towards the ground with time. As the speed of the ball increases, another force becomes significant. This is friction with the air. This force increases with the speed of the ball with respect to the air. If the tower is high enough, a balance between the two forces is achieved before the ball hits the ground. Thus the ball falls at a constant speed, usually known as the terminal velocity.

A mass of floors from a building falling towards the ground also accelerates under the force of gravity; that is, it gains energy as it continues to fall, and tends to go faster. However, there are other forces involved which cause a loss of this energy. There is friction with the air, as in ball example. But also its takes energy to break loose each successive floor and accelerate it to the speed of the mass of floors already falling. A calculation of what happened on 9/11 would be involved, but there does not appear to be anything obviously "wrong". It would not be surprising if an approximate balance were achieved between the gain in energy from the change in height with the losses just described, but it would take some work to show that.

wrote:

I'll thank you not to presume to give me a lecture about basic physics.

You need it. The physics you described in your previous posts in this discussion is wrong

What I wrote is indeed simple physics which you can verify by studying any introductory physics book. It contradicts nearly all of what you wrote about the physics; there is no need for me to quote you; check it yourself.

By the way, I agree with the NIST guy. It is obvious what happened; there is no need to do any computing, but one could if necessary.

The building collapse appears to go according to the physics I described. If you question that, please show what the problem is.

As for 9/11 myths in general, that is a much bigger topic, and I have nothing to say on that.

wrote: "And the downward velocity it looses will be in direct proportion to the amount of mass that the object gathers as it falls..."

Must I point out something so obvious? What you are missing is that the whole falling system is gaining energy as it falls (from the force of gravity). Some of this energy goes into smashing more floors, some into accelerating the newly broken floors up to speed, and some is lost to air friction. The point is that there is nothing surprising about the falling mass accelerating (briefly, for a few floors) until an approximately constant speed is achieved, roughly balancing the forces involved.

This is not a detailed explanation, but so what? It is better than total fantasy.

wrote:

An object cannot ever fall through the line of MOST resistance under gravity alone and achieve free fall rate time.

What do you mean by free fall rate? Is that the same as what I defined as terminal velocity? It is in general different for every object. It depends on a lot of things, such as the density of the object, the shape of the object, etc.

So, how was the "free fall rate" of the collapsing buildings determined by those who say if was falling at that rate? Remember, looking at an object falling along side the building (ejected from it, for example) does not tell you enough since it might fall at a different speed than the collapsed floors as a whole.