"The Laws of Gravity are all rubbish. If I think I float and you think I float, then Winston "Lynx" Smith you snivelling piece of craven human garbage,
I FUCKING WELL FLOAT!

From "1984," the LondonLad translation.

I obviously don't believe

Oh, I see, you're not just an idiot, you're a disingenuous idiot who doesn't even have the courage to stand behind his inane ideas.

Coward

the two men have been released, and any questions will be referred to the Funny Farm.

It didn't fall at free-fall speeds, it isn't ONE object falling THROUGH others, it doesn't take into account most of the variables that were present at the time. You turn in a paper in your HS physics class that you're so fond of mentioning, solving a problem while taking into account one variable and ignoring most of the problem? You'll get an F and a "See me after class".

Oh I wouldn't think so. Here is the principle that governs this situation.

If an object falling under gravity gathers mass as it falls it will lose downward velocity as it does so. And the downward velocity it loses will be in direct proportion to the mass the object gathers as it falls.

Have you got that? When object A hits object B it causes an equal and opposite reaction. If the top gathered floors as it fell it should have been losing downward velocity. Newton is quite insistent on it and it applies in ALL & EVERY INSTANCE without exception any where on planet earth where such an event takes place.

Did see any loss of downward velocity as the towers fell Lynx?

You didn't did you? Therefore other forces as well as gravity must have been in play ensuring no velocity was lost. We are almost there aren't we?

Your eyes will have been accurate and telling you the truth, its just your dumb brain that is lagging behind isn't it dear?

By the way I obviously don't believe the top fell crushing the stuff below. That's not what was happening at all. But I'm just having fun making easy sport of fools that believe the government lie that one can so easily pick holes in. Even within their own terms of reference the government story does not form a coherent whole.

You are an utter moron.

is clarity and cleanliness of thought

Is not the same as simpler. Of course, what should I expect from a simpleton like you?

It didn't fall at free-fall speeds, it isn't ONE object falling THROUGH others, it doesn't take into account most of the variables that were present at the time. You turn in a paper in your HS physics class that you're so fond of mentioning, solving a problem while taking into account one variable and ignoring most of the problem? You'll get an F and a "See me after class".

But of course, the answer can't possibly be that you're too stupid or uneducated to understand so there must be a conspiracy and everyone else is dumb. Yep, that's it. Your quest for clarity and cleanliness of thought brings you to an incredibly convoluded, nonsensical and ridiculous series of events and conspiracies because you can't do the thinking required in the original problem.

That's the cry of losers like you everywhere: "It isn't me! Everyone else is wrong/at fault".

So, Andrew, you just had to mention the 9/11 truthers? Sigh.... here we go again....

Making it "simpler" is exactly the opposite of what you need to do.

See that folks? I've got it out of him. Once more in caps:

MAKING - IT - "SIMPLER" - IS - EXACTLY - THE - OPPOSITE - OF - WHAT - YOU - NEED - TO - DO.

Have we all got it now? You see how they avoid the simple and the clear? They avoid it like the plague. It's the daylight that acts like disinfectant and the last thing the story makers and their craven believers want - is clarity and cleanliness of thought - or truth as it otherwise is called.

And the more complicated you can make it the more you can befuddle and lie and also disguise the lies.

"Simple is exactly the opposite of what you need to do."

Classic fucking classic.

Tell you what lynx enough of me. Why not have a little lecture from a physics teacher. David Chandler is not given to wild theorising. Furthermore he'll even use footage of the collapses to explain what is actually happening, something NIST wont do anymore than you will answer a simple question.

Funny that. There you guys are expecting the rest of us to believe a story that you wont or cant explain yourselves.

North Tower

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&feature=related

South Tower

www.youtube.com/watch?v=atSd7mxgsGY

Making it "simpler" is exactly the opposite of what you need to do. I have no interest in doing your "high school physics" problems for you. It has NOTHING TO DO with the events at hand. This is the same kind of fallacious thinking that has nuts all over the world thinking they can prove Einstein was wrong, the speed of light isn't an absolute, etc...

"Aha" you say "If I ignore all this other data and evidence, the answer is clear!"

Sadly, there's all that other data and evidence proving you wrong. Sure, you likely have a good answer for your question, but the question is what is revealing your ignorance.

There you go squirming all over again. I'll make it even simpler. Two objects falling from the same height only under gravity. One travels through the line of MOST resistance and the other travels through the line of LEAST resistance. Can both fall at the same rate and achieve the same fall time?

All this is, is an elementary high school physics question for gods sake. Would you care to answer it?

Insurance fraud? Doubtful. I had a client spend nearly $100,000 in legal fees from claims investigation to appeal to fight a $10,000 fraudulent claim, mostly for the principle of the matter! If the policyholders had committed insurance fraud, the carriers would have sniffed it out, even if they went broke doing so. Still, I like your thinking -- you should do insurance work.