Please if possible, always post direct YT/google/veoh etc.. link for better source-code mirror-PR-vlogging, thx :)

In watching your factually challenged movie, I noticed basic conceptual flaws that would earn any freshman taking physics an F on even the easiest of kinematics exams. First of all, before throwing around Newton's laws, understand what they entail. The law of inertia is negated because there IS an external force acting on the object: the gravitational force. That is why the tower fell instead of just floating there. The law of conservation of momentum also doesn't apply here because the earth is not included in your so-called system. The law of conservation of momentum only works when gravity is not involved. One minute and 30 seconds into your ten minute move, you have been liberal about throwing around physics, unfortunately, it has all been wrong. Back from the anger tangent, your use of Newton's third law makes absolutely no sense. An equal and opposite reaction has nothing to do with your argument. The laws of projectile motion also have nothing to do with your argument. In such a cloud, the HUGE force acting on each particle causes it to follow the path of least resistance. No, that does not mean it goes straight down through the concrete. Now, skipping ahead a bit, to 4 minutes and 10 seconds in, I use your conservation of momentum argument in the Y and Z dimensions (along the ground). The tower had no force going that way, so there would be no reason for it to fall anywhere but down. 4:47 in, you talk about the massive seismic peaks. Did you ever consider that a 110 story tower falling may cause the ground to shake a bit? You explicitly state that it was after the plane crashed, and never mentioned the actual collapse, so I believe that the tower did not spontaneously become replaced by a pile of rubble, but, in fact, fell. According to Wikipedia, the bedrock in this area is 65 feet below the surface. Even if that is plus or minus 10 feet, destroying a massive structure rooted to it would cause it to shake a bit, unless, you are ignoring that inconvenient fact. A bit later, you cite the furniture fire as the cause of the heat. This is simply not the case. The furniture fire would have caused but a small fraction of the heat generated by, I don't know, say a 48,000 gallons of fuel combusting at once? This would create plenty of heat to melt high-temperature steel. Your analogy to a hot blue flame is just preposterous. A hot blue flame is a small fraction of the temperature of a flash fire of that magnitude. Your argument against NOVA presents itself as, at best, a logical fallacy. Just because they failed to have the correct fact does not prove a conspiracy. I know that it is a moot point to argue against your bashing of NOVA, but the outer supports and connections were removed from the model for clarity. And here come the actual numbers. The acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s^2. This is disregarding (for the moment) the upward normal forces. as one meter is approximately equal to 3 feet, we can multiply the gravitational acceleration by three for conversion due to that. When plugged into the formula D=1/2 *G* time^2, we find that it is well under the necessary time of 10 seconds. "Should be rejected immediately?" Not a chance. On a side note, the NOVA footage was slowed down to make it clear what was happening. Otherwise, it would be nearly impossible to see what was going on (especially with the supports on the outside drawn in). Next up: your pencil analogy. Take your pencil and fill it with thermite to have some idea of how it would have actually happened. The pencil burns, as does the thermite, melting your screen, and generally making a mess of your patio, or wherever you choose to try this. Next: the Madrid Hotel: True, it burned "like an inferno" for a day, but there was no serious application of accelerant, like in the trade towers. That alone would be enough to do heat damage to the supports. Also, I hate to nit-pick, but since when was there a third tower (10:55)? This video does a wonderful job of displaying your knowledge of physics, or rather lack thereof, and I urge all of your viewers not to buy your DVD, except for comedic value.
Sincerely
Random Physicist #37