No, I meant inertia. The not-falling part of the building has no momentum, just inertia. It doesn't want to move, and requires a force for it to do so. That force comes from the falling part of the building. But when there is a force applied from the falling part to the non-falling part, there is an acceleration on both parts. The non-falling section increases in speed (from zero to non-zero), the falling part decreases in speed. This decrease in speed is non negligible. You can see the effect of air on a falling object when a skydiver changes his posture. Terminal velocity is highly variable depending on the resisting force. And in the case of 9/11, the resisting force is not air. It is supposedly solid masonry.

I think our disagreement seems to come from the fact you seem to think the falling part of the building is much larger than the not-falling part. This is not true. We can see that's not true when we watch it happen. There is absolutely no reason it would fall from the bottom first, it makes no sense for the falling part to be massively heavier than the resisting part. What we saw was the much larger lower section of the buildings offer nearly zero resistance. That does not make any sense to me whatsoever. That is critical in my belief that what we're told is a pack of lies. The lower section was practically dust before the falling section meets it. I'm open to theories on how this can be, so far in 20 years I've come across one such theory... professional demolition.

Climate change... I feel I need to emphasise I am not a climate change denier. I'm skeptical, but on balance believe it's probably happening. It does make sense, but this is a subject I brought into the discussion because it's highly political and an excellent example of people assuming logic plus consensus equals indisputable fact. This isn't science, it's faith.

And the covid thing, I mean I don't actually think it's a full scale hoax. I would have to question how it would be possible to get health care workers either on board, or fooled. I can get behind the global scale of the conspiracy, in terms of governments, because these people are crooked the world over, but ordinary people on the scale we're talking, it would require a level of control that doesn't seem plausible. But to think that it's possible... it's not science denial. I don't know why you keep saying that. Science denial is to make scientifically illiterate claims, not to dismiss scientific findings. To say otherwise is to say that calling Newtonian gravity wrong or incomplete in the 1600s is science denial. There must be countless other examples I could cite where science got it wrong. What did people think magnetism was before we solved that problem? Witchcraft? Would it be science denial to say magnetism is electricity before we knew that was the case?