Comments by "Mark H" (@markh1011) on "National Geographic" channel.

  1. 1. The plasco building. 2. The towers didn't collapse due to just fire. Did you forget about the planes? 3. If all that happened on 9/11 was a fire at WTC7 then it would have been put out.
    6
  2.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  That's all you've got? You've just been handed a lesson.
    5
  3. Ohh you started a whole thread about me. John Lear was a nut who believed in many crazy conspiracies including alien abductions and secret bases on the moon. It's quite telling that this guy is the best you can come up with! 😂😂😂😂
    5
  4. You basically just repeated the same flawed claim I addressed. Nothing to do with corruption. All to do with a guy who wasn't rational and fell for silly conspiracies.
    5
  5.  @darlenehowell2274  It isn't relevant at all. Then again nothing you say ever is.
    5
  6.  @darlenehowell2274  So, wizards and porky pig and bugs bunny were involved. Yeah sounds like you're building a solid theory there.
    5
  7. The WTC7 collapse was quite different from the towers collapse. But to answer your question it collapsed due to fire.
    5
  8. Water is used to cut steel. Think about that for a min
    4
  9.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  "So almost no flames blows" Several hundred people jumped to their deaths. They chose to jump instead of painful death by burning. But you cherry pick a quote from people not near the fires and claim there were no fires. 🤦‍♂ Sigh... conspiracy theorists... so disrespectful to the victims with their dishonest arguments.
    4
  10.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  "No plane smashing into a battleship without bombs would sink it, not one." You're comparing military vessels to a skyscraper.... 🤦‍♂
    4
  11. "I'm one of so many from Europe ,the towers should of never collapsed like that ." They shouldn't have but planes loaded with jet fuel hit them.
    4
  12. "ten damaged storeys cannot damage 90 perfectly fine storeys" That's not how the collapses worked. 15-20 stories fall on to a weakened floor and the collapse continues, now you have 21 floors worth of material falling then 22 23 24 and it continues. It was a progressive collapse " tower 7" and? " Pentagon hole being too small" It was the size of the fuselage.
    4
  13.  @darlenehowell2274  "and remember what Galileo said" Please tell everyone and then why it's relevant.
    4
  14.  @darlenehowell2274  You've got no evidence....just a string of excuses and evasions.
    4
  15.  @darlenehowell2274  Bowing and sagging - WTC 1 - NCSTAR1-3C Figure 2-24 and 2-25, and NCSTAR 1-5A Figure 8-108. WTC 2 - NCSTAR1-3C Figure 2-37 and NCSTAR1-5A Figures 9-46, 9-59, 9-80, 9-82, and 9-83. Floor sag NCSTAR1-3C Figure 2-40 Are you actually claiming the towers didn't collapse? You know we have them collapsing on video right? Wow you're loopy.
    4
  16.  @JuanJimenez.  The building didn't free fall. Some outer walls were in virtual free fall for a moment in a later stage of the collapse. Of course fire can do that.
    4
  17. "Jet fuel does not melt steel, top to bottom. " 🤦‍♂ Sigh.
    3
  18. "Especially after this show top of building would’ve just toppled over" Gravity pulls down, not sideways.
    3
  19.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  ...on top of that, we can actually see the fires in the photos and video. We can even see the steel gradually weakening from the fires. So everything you say is wrong.
    3
  20.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  🥜🌰
    3
  21. Buildings have collapsed due to fire since 9/11.... you have no idea.
    3
  22.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  " because under Newton's laws we all know what happens" You've shown you have no idea about physics.
    3
  23.  @michaelp4218  "In essence what you are saying is that you can start a large fire 10-15 floors from the top of any skyscraper and in less than 2 hours it will come tumbling straight down onto its own foundation " Did you forget about the planes loaded with jet fuel smashing the buildings had high speed?
    3
  24.  @darlenehowell2274  " The top of the north tower lean so much that it should have slid off into the street" So you're now conceding that it wasn't symmetrical. You're all over the place. "How do think that it righted itself?" The upper blocks were falling, but one side was lower. . With a little rotation of that block to make one side lower, that side that is lower starts experiencing more and larger impacts so that opposes that rotation overall and there is a natural righting.
    3
  25.  @darlenehowell2274  You're now trying to pretend you haven't told me about Crowley and rituals being behind it. You're a complete mess. Go away crazy person.
    3
  26. "So why did Newton's laws stop operating on this one day in history? " Prove that happened.
    3
  27.  @jason8952  In short - a combination of impact and jet fuel initiated fires. You don't even know what the official story is do you? Do you understand the collapse initiation or do I need to explain that to you? It would be very embarrassing for you if i did. You see, I actually downloaded and read the NIST report many years ago, which is why I can tell you have no idea about it.
    3
  28.  @jeffsundeen1680  It was hit by part of one of the tallest buildings in the world collapsing.
    3
  29.  @jeffsundeen1680  From the NIST site. "The Act, signed into law on Oct. 1, 2002, by President Bush, authorizes the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to establish teams to investigate building failures. " They were authorised. Your argument is pointless and incorrect. You're arguing for the sake of arguing and going backwards.
    3
  30. ​ @jeffsundeen1680  So you lost an argument. Learn from the experience. Get back to me when you know a little about the topic and have something to say.
    3
  31.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  " smaller buildings survived as was clearly shown by the press the following day. " Different situations. Many people have been shot and lived. That doesn't mean that bullets can't kill you.
    3
  32. "A theory is something proven by scientific method" Actually in science a theory is never technically "proven". "Most of the jet fuel exploded out of the side of the bldg during the second crash" A lot of it did. How did you determine "most" ...and why do you think this is relevant? "Also the center of the bldgs had heavily reinforced columns that should have still partially stood, " No they were smashed during the collapse. "even if the pancake theory is correct. Which it is not." You don't know what the 'pancake theory' is do you?
    3
  33. A passport was found on the sidewalk. Passenger items were found at every crash site. The collapse pattern? There are various analyses you can read if you're really interested. What don't you understand about them?
    2
  34.  @liarfire101  Here comes liarfire again with his nonsenical babbling. Have you learnt about the verinage technique yet? ...you know... the thing that you claim is impossible...
    2
  35.  @c.augustedupin2559  Why are you still posting? You made a fool of yourself. Accept it an move on. Go away troll.
    2
  36.  @c.augustedupin2559  Hopeless. 🤦‍♂
    2
  37.  @c.augustedupin2559  🤦‍♂
    2
  38.  @DT__1  " I’ve never seen and all I can say Now , no one never will be able to prove that my theory is wrong" What theory?
    2
  39.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  The flames were most certainly an issue as we can see that they were weakening the structure. A comment from people who weren't near the hottest fires at the time doesn't change that.
    2
  40.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  Which question? Scrubbing them? What are you talking about?
    2
  41.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  " there were little to almost zero flames." Because they were in the stairwell and not near the fires.... duh. " there were little to almost zero flames." Actually you need to. Don't just pick out a sentence and not understand the context. Cherry pickling quotes is a classic deceptive technique.
    2
  42.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  "Are you suggesting account hacking going on?" What are you talking about? Are you not all there?
    2
  43.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  "I asked you for proof of your claims the structures of the towers were being affected by flames," No problem. Gradually bowing and sagging steel. WTC 1 - NCSTAR1-3C Figure 2-24 and 2-25, and NCSTAR 1-5A Figure 8-108. WTC 2 - NCSTAR1-3C Figure 2-37 and NCSTAR1-5A Figures 9-46, 9-59, 9-80, 9-82, and 9-83. Floor sagging NCSTAR1-3C Figure 2-40. Over to you to refute.
    2
  44.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  "So who scrubs on YT??" Are you new to youtube?
    2
  45.  @darlenehowell2274 You're the one who thinks that it's a conspiracy when a 6 is involved....somewhere... you're challenging people about evidence. ..🤣
    2
  46.  @darlenehowell2274  "STATICAL MATHEMATICS PROVES THE NON-COINCIDENCE OF THE OCCULT NUMEROLOGY" Are you trying to talk about statistics but you keep calling it statics? You don't know the difference between statics and statistics? 🤣🤣🤣🤣
    2
  47.  @darlenehowell2274  "One of which, I gave to you and you tried to say that I thought that the word occult meant, "wizards and spells"." Ohhhhhhhh that's right ... you didn't understand that "occult" had other meanings. So you don't know the difference between statics and statistics. You don't even know what "occult" means. hahahaha.... You're making it worse with every attempt.
    2
  48.  @darlenehowell2274  "Like I said, "I mock you for laughs" That's not even a good try. You're shooting yourself in the foot with every post and it's hilarious. "I don't argue with stupid people" You can't argue this subject.... you don't know anything about it.
    2
  49. ​ @shilIhunter4380 Fitz and I are different people. It's like the two of you are having a competition to see who can be more nutty.
    2
  50. "ow does an aluminium plane cut through steel like butter???" The plane was torn apart...and blew up... hardly cutting like butter.
    2
  51.  @jason8952  Sure sure...you're a wizard and dungeons & dragons is real life... sure sure.
    2
  52. 🥜🌰
    2
  53. "So many keyboard experts here with zero Quals," So what are your "Quals".....? From the other thread, you don't seem to know much about what happened....
    2
  54.  @darlenehowell2274  "The fires at the impact floors were smothered when the so called collapse began. So, cancel that." No then extremely hot material was just introduced to more combustible material in the pile. "Which, were the highest temperatures recorded in the basement." No one recorded any such temp in the basement. "Molten metal reacting to low yield nuclear fission would generate those temperatures." 🤣🤣🤣🤣 You don't have a clue...
    2
  55. The small problem with that claim is that it's completely false. Bush was never in charge of security of any building. The company that gets thrown up, Securacom, weren't even in charge of the WTC security. Bush had no connection with them at the time. He was apparently on the board a few years earlier. Either way, you're spreading lies.
    2
  56.  @darlenehowell2274  Do you need to a box of tissues to help with your meltdown?
    2
  57.  @darlenehowell2274  Your posts contain no useful information or even humour.
    2
  58. "there's absolutely no way a plane crashing into buildings, then office fires cause a building to uniformly, symmetrically telescope into it's own footprint." The buildings didn't fall symmetrically or into their own footprint. Most of the debris went outside the footprint. You seem to get everything wrong in your posts.
    2
  59.  @darlenehowell2274  "Again with the BS! The buildings did fall symmetrically. " Both buildings leaned towards the side of the collapse initiation during the collapse. Debris fields were not evenly distributed. "Some of the debris was outside of the foot print." More was outside the footprint than in the foot print. You get everything wrong. You're completely clueless about this subject. Stick to your harry potter stories.
    2
  60.  @darlenehowell2274  "Why did each tower shake violately before each collapse?" They didn't. They shook when the collapses started.
    2
  61. We have videos of the collapses.... there are no mysterious explosions on any of them. Prove me wrong.
    2
  62.  @c.augustedupin2559  Try again.
    2
  63.  @c.augustedupin2559  You're projecting. Try again.
    2
  64.  @c.augustedupin2559  Yes it was a question. Good job! You're projecting your insecurities and confusion with your question. Try again.
    2
  65. First responders described plane wreckage and saw body parts. DNA identification made it quite conclusive.
    2
  66.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  "The Coroner said there was nothing there" He never said any such thing. Wally Miller personally identified several of the victims and is on record dismissing the conspiracy claims.
    2
  67.  @sammyd9564  "One day you may wake up." Tired old conspiracy theorists lines don't compensate for evidence. "There is absolute proof...molten steel is seen pouring outta both towers during the collapse." Molten metal is seen coming out one tower before collapse. Once again you seem to get nothing right. ". This is usually consistent with an oxygen starved building fire" Ah that old chestnut! Haven't heard that one in a while.... It's an idiotic statement. I think it came from David Ray Griffin who is a moron....and gullible conspiracy theorists keep repeating it. Look at an oil fire... or tire fire.... the black smoke is due to petrochemicals burning... it doesn't mean the fire is oxygen starved.... the oxygen didn't disappear from this building with hundreds of windows smashed and a plane sized hole on one side. "Days later first responders still found many pockets of molten steel still evident in the rubble. " There are reports of molten metal...glowing metal...and even a few of molten steel...but no one actually confirmed that it was steel...and not one of the other metals present, notably aluminium.... at this point the conspiracy theorist conflates the video of the molten material with the testimony and tries to claim that the testimony was all consistently describing material that couldn't be aluminium which is false. "Take a breathe...let go of your naivete " Do you understand the word 'irony' ? "and look into it" ..says the guy who gets everything wrong... and clearly hasn't done research beyond watching a YouTube video.
    2
  68.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  "Best if you read John Lear's Jan 2008 affidavit." No one cares about the ranting of a madman.
    2
  69.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  "You have never challenged John Lear's affidavit and I know you never will." No one cares about the ranting of a madman.
    2
  70.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  "No downward force can destroy such a core. T" Just because you don't understanding it doesn't make it impossible.
    2
  71. "Not a single spot of blood, bone, teeth, skin, organ, nothing." Most of the victims have been identified through dna matching families. You get everything wrong.
    2
  72.  @perkins4253  "Actually, it is impossible for the steel frame buildings to completely fail due to a fire since the temperatures in the building fires are way under the necessary temperatures and durations for the weakening of the steel." Incorrect. Independent testing confirms the temps that fires reach. We know the fires were hot enough to weaken the steel as we have photos of it gradually weakening in the fire areas. We have photos of bending and sagging steel leading to the collapses.
    2
  73.  @TheAaronRodgersTao  The buildings didn't fall at free fall.
    2
  74.  @c.augustedupin2559  Lame.
    2
  75.  @MrYourfriendbutters  " the concrete the wrapped the steel columns" The steel columns were not covered in concrete.
    2
  76.  @MrYourfriendbutters  " I'm confused by you long answer" You're easily confused if you think a single sentence is a long answer. Read it again and let me know what part of the sentence confuses you.
    2
  77. Yes! I made the list. What's your issue with Frontier? Why can't they be in the list of awesome people?
    2
  78.  @jason8952  "NIST is laughable as well." Still waiting for you to show me the errors in the NIST report on the towers. Oh and "everything" is not an answer.
    2
  79.  @darlenehowell2274  "There's the oral history of the FDNY," All consistent with the official story. "the many interviews with eye witnesses" Their testimony all consistent with the official story. I doubt you've even read any of the testimony. " the analysis of A&ETRUTH, UFA, FF for 911 truth." Analyses that are discarded by the scientific community because they are so bad. ". Then there's Franklin Square/Munson District and the 911 Families that want a new investigation." Except there isn't and even if there were, that isn't evidence. " How about the obvious violation of the laws of physics and the evidence" Present these violations. Go on. ". Than there's the fact that the Deep State is run by Luciferian Practitioners of the Clandestine Way." Your fantasies about wizards and magic are not evidence of a CD. "The historical record of the U.S. Gov's use of propaganda to gain support for war ect.." That's just another claim. Still not evidence of a CD. ". All of these are evidence" You presented no evidence whatsoever. You've got nothing apparently.
    2
  80. Passenger items were found at every crash site. An airline seat cushion was found on the sidewalk in NY. If a seat cushion could make it to the ground then so could a passport.
    2
  81.  xxxod  The report was that it was found and handed to a policeman.
    2
  82.  @jeffsundeen1680  "thats when they decided to pull it" The "they" he's referring to is the FDNY. The fire department don't blow up buildings. You don't make the decision to blow them up while they are on fire. The fire department lost hundreds of people that day. It's absurd to think they are part of the conspiracy. I recommend you read the quote properly. It debunks claims about explosives.
    2
  83.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  Are you actually denying that a plane hit the towers...? 😂🤦‍♂
    2
  84. "Well it is 2020 and there’s still only been 3 steel and concrete structures to ever succumb to fire," ......sigh....
    2
  85.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  " So weird how the Pentagon damage was where the Rumsfeld $2T missing staff were working?" That's false and more than half the money was reconciled within 6 months of 9/11.
    2
  86.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  " So weird how a plane can crash into a field and not a single body part is found? " Body parts were seen and dna was matched. Also false. "So weird how 5 ton engines all vanished?" Plane wreckage was recovered. Also false.
    2
  87.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  " So weird how a passport flew thru a plane hull, thru a steel core, thru fires, thru plate glass or steel lattice " Passenger items were found at every crash site.
    2
  88.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  "Explain how a crossed braced all steel core, all 50,000 tons of it can fail as shown" Did you come back after the humiliating lesson? Ok. The cores failed when the upper blocks dropped down. The cores were not magically impervious. "Bolted to bedrock this core was going nowhere." Being bolted to the bedrock doesn't stop it getting crushed....
    2
  89.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  You dodged all the posts with insane ranting....🤦‍♂
    2
  90.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  Yet more conspiracy piffle... lol... you've got nothing.
    2
  91. "laws of physics and motion were suspended until the 12th." Prove it.
    2
  92. "Any suggestion that untrained people can just slip into a pilots seat and perform high speed stunts in a passenger commercial" They were trained. Even the worst pilot of the group had a commercial pilots license. They trained for months specifically for this mission. You are wrong. Again.
    2
  93. "Look to Dr. Judy Woods and John Leer for answers. " People who believe in death ray beams and secret bases on the moon. lol
    1
  94.  @darlenehowell2274  You think 9/11 was caused by a wizard performing a ritual..... no one takes you seriously.
    1
  95. "Why was there molten steel shooting out of the Towers and at Ground Zero for weeks" It was metal. We don't know if it was steel. "Why is there no video footage of any of the 19 hijackers?" There are photos of them at the airports and witnesses saw them. "Why where there no bodies or wreckage in Shanksville? " There were body parts. It should be obvious why they are parts. "Why was there 'Thermite' found in all of the dust samples " Completely false. "hy where there multiple explosions that went off before the collapses? " Out of context testimony. We have the collapses on video and there are no explosions. "Why did the Towers turn to dust?" They didn't. There was a lot of dust though but that's due to the destructive collapse.
    1
  96. ...that's an absurd claim that was never confirmed.
    1
  97.  @Chestermcfly420  Nope. It was claimed by a couple of conspiracy kooks. It was never confirmed. They didn't share the samples for independent verification. They didn't test if you could bring a structure down with nanothermite. They didn't verify anything.
    1
  98. 🤦‍♂
    1
  99.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  "As we all know, Mr John Lear submitted to the NY High Court an affidavit that expessly states zero planes were involved in the 9'11 events" Did he also submit anything about there being millions of aliens living on the moon? That is another one of his crazy beliefs. He's a nut. No one cares what he says.
    1
  100.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  Movie? I'm talking about peer reviewed scientific papers.
    1
  101.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  "Flames to hot they made high rise sections glow but a phone and credit card survived?? " Items were found at every crash site. This isn't a surprise. Fires caused collapses at one perimeter section of both towers. That was where they were hottest. That doesn't mean everything in the whole area was that hot. It's really not so complicated.
    1
  102.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  Movie? I'm talking about peer reviewed scientific papers.
    1
  103.  @liarfire101  " has finally come to his senses that an obliterated skyscraper is a demolished building:" You could call it demolished....demolished by planes..jet fuel ..fire...gravity... "But doesn't agree the demolition technique separates a building into sections " This is nonsensical ..the building isn't separated into sections... that's gibberish.... verinage relies on some columns and supporting walls taken out... "into sections of approximate equal mass, or even at the same time. " Equal mass is not a requirement... you think it is because you've seen it in one of the verinage videos... It's not about the percentage of the video.. you just need enough mass to be dropping that it will destroy the floors below it and continue.... in the case of the towers 15-20 floors was enough. You don't understand any of this though. "Me repeatedly pointing that out somehow makes Marks understanding of verinage demolition impossibl" I'm the one explaining to you you kid.... "But at least Mark's indirectly admitting an obliterated skyscraper is a demolished building now; " Sure it was demolished by planes jet fuel fire etc... I don't oppose that. "anthony winter doesn't like hearing an obliterated skyscraper is a demolished building " Context and the way a person intends to use a word matters.... when you say "demolished" you're trying to mean "destroyed by the evil government with magical bombs" ..or something.... I don't agree with that. "so he's outwardly protesting that thought by referencing some guy who did a calculation somehow indicating a skyscraper gains momentum through itself. " Do you have an intelligent response to that? No didn't think so. My point proven.... you're still as confused and cowardly as you've ever been.
    1
  104.  @c.augustedupin2559  "Water jet blades use aggregate." I know. That an abrasive is added doesn't change the point. Determining what can break through materials isn't simply a matter of which one is harder. There is physics involved. Try again.
    1
  105.  @c.augustedupin2559  Where have I left out physics? The point was quite clear... it's not merely about the material... the impact force matters... That wasn't even a good try.
    1
  106.  @c.augustedupin2559  Look at you trying to brush off the embarrassment.... Just go kiddo...🤦‍♂
    1
  107.  @c.augustedupin2559  🤦‍♂ Learn from this failure kiddo.
    1
  108. "all has been proven with nano- thermite and debris was quickly removed" No evidence of nanothermite. The debris took over 6 months to remove. ... hardly quickly. "smoldering embers for about 90 to 100 days." Smouldering fires. Nanothermite explodes and burns out very quickly in an obvious manner. Proposing something burning quickly to explain a long burning fire is illogical. "listen to the fire fighters testimonies.." Which are consistent with the official story.
    1
  109.  @stephenherrick9971  "cutting steel was the objective" Yet no one reported any mysteriously cut steel. It would have been so obvious. Thousands of people were involved in the clean uo. ".fire fighters described the booms and said that was no fire induced sound." Nonsense. Firefighters made no such evaluation. You're trying to misrepresent fire fighter testimony which was entirely consistent with the official story.
    1
  110.  @jason8952  You're welcome to show where I am wrong. You've failed every time so far.
    1
  111.  @jason8952  "Many GZ workers thought it was odd that the outer columns flange bolts just seemed to have gone missing? " 1. You're diverted to a different claim. The point was supposed cut steel. 2 Show your evidence for this.
    1
  112.  @jason8952  Sigh...these are basic errors you're making.. There were explosions that day. Planes hitting buildings, jet fuel exploding, numerous buildings on fire, numerous building collapses. People heard that.
    1
  113.  @jason8952  It's odd that you try to make a joke about the word you didn't understand and embarrassed yourself over.
    1
  114.  @jason8952  🤦‍♂
    1
  115. "so how is it possible that it completely collapsed?" Do you understand what a progressive collapse is?
    1
  116.  @MirjanaLukic-d5e  What?
    1
  117. "What about the fact that they didn’t even try to look for them look at the nist report." They looked for whatever caused the collapses. They found it. You don't need to start with a predetermined outcome to determined what happened. " It’s also the first time ever they didn’t reconstruct offsite and failure analysis results on through computer modeling in the computer" Computer modeling in the computer....? "Model did not behave and share the same deformations that we all saw on the video." Where was it different? Be specific.
    1
  118.  @falcon26r87  All the modelling I've seen has looked like the videos. What is different?
    1
  119.  @darlenehowell2274  Wait, your second name has 6 letters! You must be a Satanist! You're part of the conspiracy! 🤣
    1
  120.  @darlenehowell2274  Statics huh? I'm right here. What have you got? You've made a total fool of yourself so far with half baked claims you barely understood.
    1
  121.  @darlenehowell2274  Everything that you post is nonsense. Why do you go to so much effort looking stupid?
    1
  122. "MarkH believes a fully crossed braced all steel core can just fall to bits " Fall to bits? The cores were smashed and pummeled when the upper blocks dropped. "Ps, no floors fell ''thru'' the core." What does this even mean ? We know that the upper blocks down down destroying the core. You're not even making a coherent argument. You're babbling. Try harder.
    1
  123.  @mooneyes2k478  Yeah I'm noticing that his posts aren't simply poor, they are usually nonsensical.
    1
  124.  @coffeeandxanax2158  If it's the one I'm thinking of, the effort he had to go to, to get some effect shows how unlikely the already absurd theory is.
    1
  125.  @coffeeandxanax2158  What he had to do to, particularly with the positioning of his charge on a little beam showed how hard it would be on the structure in the towers.
    1
  126.  @jason8952  What are you even talking about crazy person? Go play with your harry potter wands.
    1
  127. Whether it was shipped or not doesn't change that there was no evidence for the demolition claims.
    1
  128.  @darlenehowell2274  " It matters for obvious investigative reasons." What matters is that there is no evidence for a demolition or your silly claims about wizards.
    1
  129.  @darlenehowell2274  I only have 1 account, crazy person.
    1
  130.  @darlenehowell2274  Having a deep belief in utter nonsense and desperately wanting attention for your beliefs makes you crazy.
    1
  131.  @darlenehowell2274  You're spending all this energy trying to convince someone who thinks you're gullible and poorly educated. You're using terrible arguments and going nowhere. It's probably time you go.
    1
  132.  @jason8952  Who is deleting posts?
    1
  133.  @jason8952  Sure thing nutcase.
    1
  134.  @jasonhickerson2235  Only 1 witness made claims of pre impact explosions...and it's not supported by video evidence...and he didn't say it on 9/11, he changed his story...and he wasn't in position to even see the impact .....and he was at the bottom which didn't collapse so the whole claim makes no sense.
    1
  135.  @darlenehowell2274  " There're several witnesses interviewed about the pre-impact explosions." None of them confirmed explosions before impact. We have plenty of footage of the second impact. Perhaps you could show me the explosions on the footage hrm? Take your time I'll wait.
    1
  136.  @darlenehowell2274  "Like I said, "Go to top documentary " Like I said, None of them confirmed explosions before impact. I've seen it all before. So you were issued with this challenge: We have plenty of footage of the second impact. Perhaps you could show me the explosions on the footage hrm? You couldn't come up with anything. You mumbled your previous post over again. My point proven. It's nonsense. You can't back up your claims.
    1
  137.  @darlenehowell2274  Another post where you dodge. You backed up nothing. A quote doesn't distract from your dodging. You're hopeless..
    1
  138.  @darlenehowell2274  "Just like when you swore you were going to embarrass me with your understanding of the definition of the word, "Occult"" I swore? No I pointed that you didn't understand the word you were referencing. In that context "occult" did not mean 'wizards and magic'. You didn't know this. You made a total fool of yourself. You didn't even look up the meaning of the word you were pointing to. It's a word that you seem to like but don't even understand all the meanings it has. "Subterranean meaning secret" I explained all of this to you. You didn't know and now you're trying to act like you did. You referenced that paragraph thinking "occult" meant 'wizards and magic'. Your attempts to deny it after I roasted you are simply hilarious.
    1
  139.  @darlenehowell2274  One more time - posting a quote won't distract from your failures. You can't support your claims of an inside job. You screwed up when trying to reference the word "occult". You seem to be digging your hole deeper.
    1
  140.  @darlenehowell2274  You're scrambling. In that context "occult" did not mean 'wizards and magic'. You didn't know this. You made a total fool of yourself. Keep squirming.
    1
  141.  @darlenehowell2274  You're still scrambling in damage control. In that context "occult" did not mean 'wizards and magic'. You didn't know this. You made a total fool of yourself. Keep squirming.
    1
  142.  @darlenehowell2274  You're still trying to recover from this? You thought that it mean "wizards and magic". I educated you that it didn't. You didn't look at the context. You screwed up. I will continue to remind you. 😉
    1
  143.  @darlenehowell2274  "So, you see dumb dumb, while the word occult means-hidden. " I posted the definition to teach you what it meant. You thought that it meant "wizards and magic" in that passage. 🤣 I educated you that it didn't. You didn't look at the context. You screwed up. I will continue to remind you.
    1
  144.  @darlenehowell2274  "9/11/2001 the date of the event. 1941 to 2001 is 60 yrs and 6 is 9 upside-down. 1990 to 2001 is 11 yrs. These 2 dates create 911. Is goes on and on." 🤣🤣🤣 What is this? You're just playing with numbers. Is this the evidence you've been too scared to present? Really? That's it? Pick some numbers and start adding and subtracting? hahahaha
    1
  145.  @darlenehowell2274  Of what? Your grade school ability to add up numbers and sometimes turn them upside down? 🤣🤣
    1
  146.  @wilhelmbeck8498  "All the revealing footage What revealing footage? Footage of what?
    1
  147.  @darlenehowell2274  "No, this is called Crowleyian Numerology" No that's just grade school math. You're making a fool of yourself. It's hilarious. "Of course, you've no idea what Crowley has to do with 911." Yes yes you think wizards caused 9/11 with a spell.... 🤣
    1
  148.  @darlenehowell2274  Your evidence is adding and subtracting numbers until you can make a 9, a 6, a 1 or an 11. ...and then you claim wizards were involved. 🤣🤣
    1
  149.  @darlenehowell2274  "I'm just showing you a few things." You've shown me nothing. If you start adding and subtracting and turning numbers upside down you eventually get to a 6 a 9 a 1 or an 11. This isn't anything. This is basic math.
    1
  150.  @darlenehowell2274  "Liber 175 is book of spiritual devotion written by Aleister Crowley. 93 is Crowley's personal number and is the number of will, ascension and love. 11 is the number of Crowley's Spirit Guide. 77 is a principle in the O.T.O. which is Crowley's Occult Order." .....and? "No, Master Masons built the 911 Ritual using the, "Occult Sciences". There were no wizards casting spells." So now you're backtracking and saying that no rituals were involved? You can't seem to get your story straight.
    1
  151.  @darlenehowell2274  A lot more of what? You haven't shown anything. A lot more of nothing?
    1
  152.  @darlenehowell2274  "No, you called me scared. My posting "Scared" as a question was to mock" You appear to be scared to post any evidence. Yes.
    1
  153.  @MFitz12  Yeah she's a few cards short of a deck.
    1
  154.  @wilhelmbeck8498  "Keep shouting buddy" What sort of response is this? I asked you a question. You're talking about shouting. Is there something wrong with you?
    1
  155.  @darlenehowell2274  "This is stuff that I've posted to you before." You've posted no evidence so far. You have no evidence.
    1
  156.  @darlenehowell2274  Yes when you add numbers up they add up to other numbers. Very good. You keep this up and you will pass grade school. "These few things that I'm beating you up " By adding up numbers? 🤣🤣 You're not right in the head.
    1
  157.  @darlenehowell2274  "The Occult Sciences are over your head." Your fantasy isn't science. Ah I get it... so if the numbers 1 or 9 or 4 or 5 or 2 or 3 or 8 or 7 are involved it's all a conspiracy. You're really onto something! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
    1
  158.  @darlenehowell2274  1 or 9 or 4 or 5 or 2 or 3 or 8 or 7 It's a conspiracy! Wow you're so much smarter than everyone for noticing. 😂
    1
  159.  @darlenehowell2274  "It's only a conspiracy if the number 6 is present." 🤣🤣
    1
  160.  @darlenehowell2274  Why are you working so hard to try and convince me? Your arguments, if they could be called that, are the worst I've ever heard from a conspiracy theorist. I've debated flat earthers and your arguments are worse. Just stop.
    1
  161.  @jason8952  Sure thing crazy person 👍
    1
  162.  @jason8952  You've only presented nonsense and confusion.
    1
  163.  @jason8952  Your insane babbling isn't confusing. It's childish fantasy.
    1
  164.  @jason8952  Why are you still talking to me?
    1
  165.  @darlenehowell2274  Can you prove that they were? Go ahead.
    1
  166.  @darlenehowell2274  Can you prove that they were? Go ahead. Still waiting. All you have are silly stories you can never prove.
    1
  167.  @jason8952  Making insane comments about wizards and spells isn't proving anything. That's you shooting yourself in the foot.
    1
  168.  @jason8952  " 1. Conventional thermite 2. Nano-thermite 3. Possibly mini-nucs? I believe all 3 were used." 🤣🤣🤣🤣
    1
  169.  @jason8952  " Nano-thermite can achieve what occurred in the basement for sure." What do you think occurred in the basement? Why would you even put an incendiary in the basement? The buildings collapsed from the top down. Everything you speculate is ridiculous.
    1
  170.  @jason8952  "Conventional thermite is an incendiary. " Yes kid I know. "Conventional thermite is an incendiary. " Show me it in action then. Show me an example of it taking down a structure. Show something. Of course you can't. Your whole argument is fantasy.
    1
  171.  @jason8952  "Nano-thermite has a US patent no"- The fact that there is a patent doesn't make the conspiracy less ridiculous.
    1
  172.  @darlenehowell2274  " 2nd law of thermodynamics." LOL...Do you even know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is!? Don't you mean Newton's second law? 😂😂 You're making a total fool of yourself. Show me your working with the 2nd law of thermodynamics then. Go on. "They temperatures are documented." Then prove it. Prove something. "The nuclear devices in question were built for use in construction." There is no evidence for any nuclear devices being involved. If you think you can find evidence then give it a go. Everything you say is confusion and fantasy. You're a clown.
    1
  173.  @darlenehowell2274  That's got nothing to do with the 2nd law of Thermodynamics! 🤣🤣 "Thus, office fires can't heat something hotter then they've burned." Nor did that happen on 9/11. So we've established that you have no idea about thermodynamics..or fires....or anything about this topic.
    1
  174.  @darlenehowell2274  "Basement temperatures exceeded 2800°F. In spots temps of 3400°F were recorded at GZ and lasted for weeks" Show your evidence for this.
    1
  175.  @darlenehowell2274  " Thermo-images from the fires at both towers recorded temps at the impact floors around 750°F just before collapse. " Actually no that didn't happen but either way 750F isn't very hot.
    1
  176.  @darlenehowell2274  " The laws of physics are on the side of the truthers." You've shown that you don't understand anything about physics.
    1
  177.  @darlenehowell2274  " It is not difficult to understand that we the people are being attacked by a shadow " People like to imagine all sorts of stupid things. No that isn't difficult to understand.
    1
  178.  @darlenehowell2274  "FF use thermo imaging. They have the devices on their trucks." You've been asked for evidence not stories.
    1
  179.  @darlenehowell2274  So you couldn't back anything up and you thought gibberish would be a good idea to compensate for that.
    1
  180.  @darlenehowell2274  Your posts aren't funny or entertaining.
    1
  181.  @darlenehowell2274  You're just confirming my last post. You're boring and dumb.
    1
  182.  @jason8952  If you think you have a point to make then make it.
    1
  183.  @jason8952  🤦‍♂
    1
  184. Yes! Still on the leaderboard. Crushing it.
    1
  185.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  You still don't seem to understand the collapse.
    1
  186.  @tomk.williams1186  WTC7 did not turn to dust.
    1
  187.  @jason8952  None of the buildings fell at free fall. The closest you can squirm up to that is that part of what was left of WTC7 was in virtual free fall in the later stages of the collapse. This isn't even surprising. It's been 20 years and you're still clinging to defeated arguments...
    1
  188.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  " ah, the child and his response." Yes that's exactly what you gave me. " I''ll bet a lazy million" You don't have a million.
    1
  189.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  That's all you've got? Why do you even bother when you're this hopeless?
    1
  190.  @darlenehowell2274  Prove it. To date you've never shown evidence for a single thing you've said. You don't care about evidence of course. When you live in a fantasy world of wizards and witches you just accept it all......uneducated...and gullible.
    1
  191.  @jason8952  Oh dear what mess do we have here. "That's stupid! " Feel free to show where I am wrong. "A natural righting?" Yep. " That's a complete violation of the laws of motion" Prove it. "That's not at all what the videos show." It's exactly what the videos show. Well that was a failure Jason. You might want to do better with the next post.
    1
  192.  @jason8952  What on earth are you babbling about? The antenna kept floors from hitting the ground? what? If you're going to respond to posts at least try to make a valid point.
    1
  193.  @jason8952  " No, the floors being demolished 94 95 96 ect... Is what kept the top 17 floors from continuing on their path to the street below. " This is nonsensical. The top 17 floors did continue on a path to the ground. " The downward part of the demolition started at the 93rd floor once the antenna reached the 93rd floor." This is also gibberish.. The downward part? Do collapses have an upward part? What on earth are you talking about? "How could an antenna stop 17 floors from hitting the ground? " It didn't. You're not connected to reality. "Then again, I am talking to the same liar that say he schooled me about the occult and then deleted the posts that prove he didn't" I can't delete posts you nutcase.
    1
  194.  @jason8952  "There is no way that the top portion of the tower twisted itself achieve greater destruction on that side so it could remain centered" What? You're obviously quite confused. I didn't say that it consciously moved in a certain direction so it could achieve something. " That's lunacy! " Yes all your posts are lunacy. " What would have happened is when the impacted floors gave the top portion would have followed it's leaning direction and slide on to the street. " You're confusing a 110 story structure with a tree. There isn't pivoting action that would allow this...nor would the structure hold together to allow such a pivot....nor is there a lateral force to make all that material do that. " Because power always takes the pathway of least resistance." Get someone to stand above and drop a brick on your head. Does the brick make a decision to dodge around you? Everything you post is utter nonsense. It's not just that your arguments have problems... it's that you don't ever begin to make sense.
    1
  195.  @jason8952  Your obsession with the antenna is weird. 'You make no logical argument with it. Firstly, show me a video where you can "can see the antenna hit the 93rd floor' as you claim. Secondly, you're still not making an argument that helps you. You've shown that you don't understand the progressive collapse. Your inability to understand isn't evidence for a demolition.
    1
  196.  @jason8952  "What's nonsensical is you bypassing the fact that I said, "power always takes the pathway of least resistance"." Power? lol.. no. You are stating something that you think sounds scientific but you're making a fool of yourself. Gravity pulls objects down. Objects do no move to the left of right to dodge what is below them. "It was leaning after the impact floor gave." I've explained to you why the leaning stopped. "It should have followed it's leaning path and slide down to the ground. " I have also addressed this. There isn't pivoting action that would allow this...nor would the structure hold together to allow such a pivot....nor is there a lateral force to make all that material do that. "Not go through the pathway of greatest resistance. That's nonsensical." Objects don't get to ignore physics because they want to dodge what is below them.
    1
  197.  @jason8952  "Did I use the word, "consciously"?" This is the argument you are making though. You are trying to claim that material makes a decision to change direction and go somewhere else to avoid resistance. You have no idea. " I just find interesting that you're so contrary." I refute all your nonsense yes.
    1
  198.  @jason8952  You probably don't get out much. Make sensible statements and I wont refute them.
    1
  199. After all these years there is still no evidence to support that.
    1
  200.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  🤦‍♂ Post this science you speak of..... lets see it.
    1
  201.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  You were called out to post this science you spoke of. What a surprise it was that you couldn't do it! 😂
    1
  202. "How come ALL of the first responders passed away within a year from types of cancer that show up after nuclear explosion?" Sigh...no they didnt all pass away. Some first responders did get cancer but there are peer reviewed papers pointing to the carcinogens in the pile causing it.
    1
  203. .....and?
    1
  204.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  "John Lear's affidavit to this day has never been challenged" lol it's dismissed by everyone. Only people without an education would take him seriously. People like you.
    1
  205. The girders weakened. Not melted. The passport was never in the hot fires.
    1
  206.  @darlenehowell2274  No idea who you are troll. Wait were you the person who believed a wizard caused 9/11 with a magic spell? It's easy to get your nutcases confused.
    1
  207.  @darlenehowell2274  " I've proven that 911 was a Globalist/Luciferian Conspiracy." You think 9/11 was caused by a wizard casting a spell. Everyone can ignore your conclusions.
    1
  208. " In some of the photos you can see that supports were cut as 45 degree angles." Cut as part of the clean up.
    1
  209. "We also have videos in which you can hear explosives going off. " Lets see these videos then. No one else can seem to find them.
    1
  210.  @jason8952  What?
    1
  211.  @jason8952  Prove it. Oh that's right you can never prove anything you say.
    1
  212.  @jason8952  🤦‍♂ Hopeless.
    1
  213.  @jason8952  Ok
    1
  214. a lot did....and?
    1
  215.  @kifter4254  " you actually think 2 planes took down 3 towers on the same day??" Actually all the WTC buildings were collapsed or partially collapsed... WTC1-7....
    1
  216.  @kifter4254  There was no "missing 2.3 trillion". It was just unaccounted for in an audit...at the time...1 Here is what happened. Some time before 9/11 there was an audit done, as happens regularly. But some of the finances couldn't be accounted for. This was due to records not being available, different systems, old systems etc. Within 6 months of 9/11 most of it was reconciled. End of story. Nothing to do with 9/11 or the pentagon crash.
    1
  217.  @kifter4254  You seem to have some problems understanding simple concepts... but then again this is common in conspiracy theorists. It was never missing....they just couldn't account for it at the time during an audit..but most of it WAS accounted for within months. Nothing to do with 9/11... it wasn't announced on 9/11....nothing to do with the pentagon... most of it found anyway.... It's been nearly 20 years and these are the desperate empty claims the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are clinging to.... That says a lot.
    1
  218.  @kifter4254  "i mean we would know what happened but they decided to ship the evidence" So the only evidence is steel? You might want to think about that a bit more...
    1
  219.  @shahabkhan8537  Have you done more than 1 minute of research on this topic?
    1
  220.  @darlenehowell2274  So you followed up irrelevant babbling with... well..irrelevant and pathetic babbling. No one would be surprised. Go put your wizard cloak on and cast some spells...
    1
  221.  @rnbsteenstar  Sure sure where is the evidence?
    1
  222.  @rnbsteenstar  What? Explain.
    1
  223.  @sammyd9564  "They fell straight down at the speed of gravity" Ah yes....the speed of gravity.... what is the speed of gravity? Is it 10? Tell me.
    1
  224.  @sammyd9564  Sammy there is no such thing as the "speed of gravity"... at least not in the way you're trying to use it. Your use of that term shows you don't have a physics background. "10lb weight from the top of the building it would of hit the ground at the same time the collapsing bldg did." False. Debris was noted outpacing dropping building. "There was NO way it could of fallen at the same free fall rate of the 10lb weight. " It didn't.
    1
  225.  @sammyd9564  _ The towers fell in about 9 seconds. That is pretty much the rate of free fall for that height."_ Your assurances of "pretty much" aren't solid evidence. We can see on the collapse videos that the falling debris outpaced the dropping building. So the debris was in free fall... the building were dropping slightly slower. " The towers fell in about 9 seconds. That is pretty much the rate of free fall for that height." It it wasn't free fall then there was some resistance. "The top section would of decelerated when impacting the intact structure(floors) below. " No. Due to the progressive collapse, as each floor was destroyed it added to the material that was falling on the floors below. You're thinking of the collapse as a 20 V 90 impact... there is a little more to it than that. "Science n newtons 3rd law says this." Newton's third law will guide you about each individual impact....but there were thousands of impacts involved in this collapse.
    1
  226.  @sammyd9564  "No bldg made of steel n concrete has ever collapsed in the history of the US due to a fire" It's happened before in other countries. Fire and steel are the same in other countries. "So never before...and that day 3 fell to fire" Wrong and wrong. It's happened before. The towers didn't collapse due to just fire. WTC 7 collapsed due to fire, but as I have mentioned this is nothing new or unique. "All the same way." No the collapses were different. "I dont buy it." You don't have all the facts and your analyses so far about the collapse have been wrong.
    1
  227.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  People don't take that seriously. For good reason.
    1
  228.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  "Over 3500 civil eng's do take it very seriously, why do you lie?" You can't even get this right. The AE911 list isn't just engineers and isn't even just civil engineers. In fact there are very few structural engineers involved. If their case is so strong then why does the scientific community dismiss it? Oh I'll tell you - because it's garbage.
    1
  229.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  Science doesn't progress from an affidavit nor does it progress from an internet list of a relatively tiny amount of people in the field. There are millions of architects and engineers globally. The number they have is so bad that it actually words against them. Oh and I've read many of the statements they provided when signing up and many did no research on the topic at all.
    1
  230.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  "Happy to see you in court any day with the entire list of signatures, say when??" Go for it. Do your worst. This should be good.....
    1
  231.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  "I Said ''Say when??''" I said Go for it. Do your worst. lol... you've got nothing.
    1
  232.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  "Where did I state ''The AE911''?" You referenced their list. Have you got another list that you think you're referencing it. Lets see it then.
    1
  233.  @c.augustedupin2559  Go to the video WTC Angle Cut Columns during cleanup ... someone from the clean up crew points at diagonally cut columns while explaining what they are doing.
    1
  234.  @c.augustedupin2559  Of course. Was that the best response you could come up with? lol
    1
  235.  @c.augustedupin2559  Why do you bother? Your responses are pathetic, troll. lol
    1
  236.  @jason8952  "You mean like the time that you confused Leslie Robertson's tail about the core columns needing "lateral load support" from the floor trusses " The core was provided lateral support from the trusses and perimeter columns. "Yet he said, "I saw molten steel" Most likely he meant 'molten metal' as no one actually tested the molten materials seen.
    1
  237.  @jason8952  "I've been speaking with you for over 4 yrs." You've spent 4 years on this? You don't even know the basics?!
    1
  238.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  A loony making a claim is irrelevant.
    1
  239. "Explain the micro spheres in the world trade" There are various explanations for those. Fly ash, friction in the collapse, the clean up, the construction, the fires - look up melting point depression. "It's called thermite" There is still zero evidence for thermite being used.
    1
  240. "Jet fuel cannot heat steel to 1000*C." You still don't understand the basics of this topic do you?
    1
  241.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  "I understand the ''BASICS'' of this TOPIC very well" From your posts, no you don't.
    1
  242.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  " The bottom 80 floors were 100% intact," Until the upper block smashed down, starting a progressive collapse. A concept you still cannot grasp.
    1
  243.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  "How does a 100% intact structure fail??" The rest of the structure came down on it. It's funny how you take 70-80% of the structure and treat that as a single structure and refer to 100% of that single structure.... what a bizarre argument.
    1
  244. "Conspiracy theorists say jet fuel fires couldn't have brought down the towers" Actually the official story was that impacts, fires and gravity brought down the towers. But you've never got anything right so far so why start now.... "Example, how much energy would it take to heat 20,000 tons of concrete and steel just 1 degree C?" The towers didn't collapse because of heated concrete. As for the weakening of steel, it would be down to around 50% strength at a mere 600C and building fires exceed 600C and can even exceed 1000C. "How much heat was lost thru the 1000's of tons of lattice that cold fall morning?" If only it were that simple that the heat just disappears... you would need fire protection strategies or the fire department.
    1
  245.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  " It's not Legal, " lol... I assure you it most certainly is legal to reference facts.
    1
  246.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  Science doesn't progress with affidavits... lol... 🤦‍♂ So the facts remain. Your argument has been easily refuted.
    1
  247.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  " Once again, just your opinion" Physics is not merely my opinion. "You'll never get how the braced core fell to bits over the line, " Over the line? What line? What argument are you trying to make? Do you even know? lol
    1
  248.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  "try much harder." No need. You're so lost on this topic that it's easy to run rings around you.
    1
  249. A decade later and still none of these claims have been verified.
    1
  250.  @darlenehowell2274 Not only do you know nothing about science, you don't understand the difference between reality and fantasy. Go away crazy person.
    1
  251.  @shillhunter4380 What?
    1
  252.  @shillhunter4380  You're a paranoid crackpot.
    1
  253. ​ @shillhunter4380  We are different people. You're a fruitcake.
    1
  254.  @darlenehowell2274  Sure sure everything is about wizards and Satanists in your fantasy world.
    1
  255.  @darlenehowell2274  "You're not going to start with the" You're the one who keeps telling me about wizards and magic. You actually think 9/11 was caused by a wizard casting a spell. That says it all.
    1
  256.  @jason8952  When explosives go off it's rather obvious. Explosives destroy the structure so badly that it collapses. Anyone thinking that the only way to know if explosives were involved is lab testing has no idea.
    1
  257.  @jasonhickerson2235  "Many people heard, felt and saw explosions before the planes hit." No it was only 1 guy who didn't say it on 9/11.....he changed his story years later.
    1
  258.  @darlenehowell2274  "FDNY Oral History. Go go read it." I have, which is why I know I'm right. You obviously haven't. "One guy who changed his story? Liar!" Prove me wrong then. Go on.
    1
  259.  @darlenehowell2274  So you can't in fact prove me wrong. You're stammering excuses... Pathetic as always. You're hopeless.
    1
  260.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  We have the collapses of the towers on video... many videos in fact. There are no mysterious explosives. Try again.
    1
  261.  @jasonhickerson2235  You're using quotes... but NIST never said those words. Try again Imbecile.
    1
  262.  @darlenehowell2274  NIST investigated to find the cause of the collapses. They found them. It wasn't CD. Deal with it.
    1
  263.  @darlenehowell2274  " No, NIST investigated to fulfile a "Government Mandate"." Prove it. Oh that's right you aren't able to prove anything you say. As you cannot support any of your claims, they are dismissed.
    1
  264.  @jason8952  "NIST never investigated for evidence of, "controlled demolition"." This is an argument for dumb people like yourself. NIST investigated the cause of the collapse. They found the cause of the collapse. You don't have to have a predetermined conclusion when investigating. You're utterly incompetent.
    1
  265.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  "My records show that you are wrong" Your records aren't worth squat.
    1
  266.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  Reopening Old Wounds’: When 9/11 Remains Are Identified, 20 Years Later "Scientists are still testing the vast inventory of unidentified remains for a genetic connection to the 1,106 victims — roughly 40 percent of the ground zero death toll — who are still without a match so that their families can reclaim the remains for a proper burial." My comment was that most have been identified. ...that's more than half. My point stands. Send me my million.
    1
  267.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  "No passenger remains were found at the Pentagon either." From the Washington Post: "Investigators have identified remains of 184 people who were aboard American Airlines Flight 77 or inside the Pentagon, including those of the five hijackers, but they say it is impossible to match what is left with the five missing people." You're just making things up.
    1
  268. "It's super interesting how building 7, untouched, exploded into nothing. " Err no. It didn't explode nor did it explode into nothing.
    1
  269. "When a 15 year NIST employee leaves because they couldn't agree with nist. That's a powerful statement." You mean Kevin Ryan? His job was to test water for a living. He had no idea about this subject. NIST had thousands of employees. That one left who had no idea about the topic isn't a powerful statement at all.
    1
  270.  @MFitz12  Oh. Who was that? I've had a few supposed smoking gun whistle blowers mentioned to me over the years and none of them said anything of interest.
    1
  271.  @jason8952  It's been 20 years and the best the conspiracy theorists can do is weak trolling.
    1
  272.  @melvynsngltn27  I don't think I've seen that one before. That footage is really clear. You can see the columns on the left side of the screen bowing inward more and more leading to the failure.
    1
  273.  @stevelandry6825  " No skyscraper in HISTORY before 911, or after, has EVER collapsed from fire. PERIOD." Except for the ones that have such as Wilton Paes de Almeida Building and Plasco Building. It's funny when someone goes on a rant with upper case and "PERIOD" and they are simply wrong.
    1
  274. "John Leer prooves that the plains where holligrams i" 🤣 Holograms... 😂
    1
  275. Find some evidence and then you won't have anything to complain about....
    1
  276. " NIST admitted that they never looked. " This is a nonsensical argument. NIST looked for whatever caused the collapses. They found what caused the collapses. The steel was taken to the scrap yards where it was inspected.
    1
  277.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  " with 3 towers coming down due to fires" Oh no one told you about the planes that hit the towers? 🤦‍♂
    1
  278.  @alfie8472  You're looking at it wrong. It's not a 20 floors V 90. 20 floors smash down on a weakened floor... on an angle... that floor cannot stop the upper block and it progresses... then you have 21 floors falling onto the next one... then 22 onto the next one... you're hitting undamaged floors now but you've got 22 floors coming down with momentum... the floor directly below will never be able to stop that... 23 24 25 and it continues. They were progressive collapses. Halfway through the collapse it's not 20 floors dropping, it's half the building.
    1
  279.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  "You prove in any court in the US planes were involved in 9'11, good luck" Plenty of video, testimony and physical evidence. ...even dna evidence. Yeah that wouldn't be hard. I'm waiting for you to debunk all this now. Go.
    1
  280.  @alfie8472  " Did you watch the video I posted," Posts with links usually get blocked. " Where's the resistance from the building below, " The collapse wasn't at free fall so there must have been some resistance. As the collapse progressed though the resistance would have been negligible. Buildings are mostly air. They are just frameworks. When you've got thousands of tons of concrete and still smashing through that framework at high speed it does little.
    1
  281.  @alfie8472  "Build a model & demonstrate your theory." Structural engineers learn that the strength of building materials doesn't proportionally with size. So building a little model wouldn't represent the towers or the collapse.
    1
  282.  @alfie8472  " Show me another example of a supported tower destroying itself from top to bottom." The Plasco building completely collapsed starting near the top. It collapsed from fire alone. But even if couldn't find another example of it happening that wouldn't prove it can't happen. There has never been an event anything like 9/11 where planes hit 2 skyscrapers that were in the top 10 tallest buildings in the world at the time.
    1
  283.  @alfie8472  "Fine, if that theory of yours works you can demonstrate it happening again." I've addressed this. Progressive collapses aren't a mystery. There are similar collapses. Just because we don't have exactly the same scenario doesn't mean anything because nothing like 9/11 has ever happened before. So you need to come up with a better argument.
    1
  284.  @alfie8472  ...sigh... try the page in incognito....
    1
  285.  @alfie8472  "That fire was a lot worse than the 9/11 fire." 1. A few hundred people chose to jump to their deaths due to the 9/11 fires... you don't know what you're talking about. 2. You're deflecting to a new argument. The point was whether a building could collapse in a manner like the towers.
    1
  286.  @alfie8472  " collapsed with explosives clearly going off before it did." 😂😂😂 Of course it did... Go ahead and prove it then sport.
    1
  287.  @alfie8472  "Clearly seen squibs exploding before the collapse," Which videos? Show me where I can see and hear squibs going of before the collapse as you claim. Not noises once the collapse starts.....squibs going off before it starts. I'm waiting.
    1
  288.  @alfie8472  "Plasco building controlled demolition" .... did that.. I see a video where you can hear the noise of the collapse starting. No squib... just structural failure. It's telling that you've yet to refute anything I've said so far and you're just diverting to new claims.
    1
  289.  @alfie8472  "I see & hear the explosions " When the collapse starts you hear the structural failure. You're making claims of explosions before the collapse.
    1
  290.  @alfie8472  " Replicate your theory again that a supported tower can destroy itself from top to bottom." I've addressed this request multiple times now but you dodge what I say and just repeat. You do this because you cannot refute what I say. You're hopelessly out of your depth.
    1
  291.  @alfie8472  " If what you say is true it can be done to an infinite number of times. " Theoretically it could be... but it's not convenient to build 110 story skyscrapers and smash planes into them. Your argument is absurd. The physics of the collapse is well understood. Your whole "it hasn't happened since" argument has been conclusively debunked.
    1
  292.  @alfie8472  " Baaaaa baaaa baaa Mr sheep, yes my government" Straight from the same script as the flat earthers. You're basically the same. A running joke to the rest of the world...lol
    1
  293.  @alfie8472  So you don't understand physics. You denied that pancaking can happen. You've been given multiple references now. What will you dodge to next?
    1
  294. Still waiting for you to demonstrate this claim "So why did Newton's laws stop operating on this one day in history? "... As you don't seem to know anything about physics I'm not going to be holding my breath.
    1
  295.  @alfie8472  "Newtons laws, you know equal & opposite force, hmmmmm resistance" Do you even know which law that is? I'm waiting for you to actually make an argument with that. "I'm still waiting for you to give me another example a supported tower can destroy itself from the top down." I've referenced a building that collapsed from fire in a similar manner and I've referenced the verinage technique which includes several examples. You dodged everything of course... I'm waiting for your response. I'm not going to hold my breath..... err.. again.
    1
  296.  @alfie8472  "What about all the huge skyscrapers around the world, for example in China, that have burned like a roman candle for hours" The CCTV building? It was designed after an investigation into the WTC collapses. It wasn't built in the same manner. Generally buildings today have a concrete core or a mix of concrete and steel unlike the WTYC buildings.
    1
  297.  @alfie8472  "Did you see the Iran building pancake itself from top to bottom. " It did collapse from top to bottom. It didn't do it it exactly the same as the 110 story building....but when collapses start 1000 feet up they tend to be more destructive. Again - the importance here will be lost on you.
    1
  298.  @alfie8472  " I'll make this simple for you:" Everything you say on this topic is painfully simple. That's part of your problem. You don't understand what your' talking about. This isn't complicated but it's too complicated for you.
    1
  299.  @alfie8472  "a building cannot destroy itself from top to bottom" For the fourth time I refer you to the verinage technique.... which is entirely based on that premise. You simply have no idea....lol
    1
  300.  @alfie8472  "You can't replicate your theory it can, end of story." I keep giving you examples... you keep evading them. End of story.
    1
  301.  @alfie8472  ". The video "the force behind the motion" proves it " lol no... I know that video... I've posted on it I'm sure... it doesn't take into account the progressive collapse.... I explained this to you many posts up... no doubt it went above your head.
    1
  302.  @alfie8472  "Whether it is 110 stories or 5 stories, it can't be done" It has been done. .... I keep pointing you to a demolition technique based entirely off the physics involved. "You have no evidence to prove it " I have the videos of the collapses supported by all known physics. 1. Debunk it. 2. What do you have? Go. I'm waiting. ..
    1
  303. So ...still waiting... " So why did Newton's laws stop operating on this one day in history?"... when are you going to back this question up?
    1
  304.  @mooneyes2k478  Yeah I get sucked in too easily by these types of posters who have no idea. It's a failing.
    1
  305.  @alfie8472  "If 9/11 was a real thing nobody would be allowed in high rise buildings ever again, for fear of them falling over." A real thing? What an absurd thing to say. 1. Many building codes were changed as a result of the 9/11 collapses. 2. They don't design buildings like that any more as a result of the 9/11 collapses. 3. These buildings didn't just fall for no reason.... it was a terrorist attack.
    1
  306.  @alfie8472  "What are you talking about? On every other day in history Newton's laws operate" I'm waiting for you to show me that they didn't on 9/11. You can't though.
    1
  307.  @alfie8472  "whuch is why you can't show me another example of a supported tower destroying itself from top to bottom. " I've given you multiple references. I've referred you to the plasco building collapse. I've referred you to watch examples of the verinage technique which not only gives examples of buildings collapsing this way, is entirely dependent on it being possible. You've not been able to refute these.... so instead you dodge and repeat.
    1
  308.  @alfie8472  "The only conclusion is what we were seeing was a manufactured event. " Yep... terrorists intentionally hit the buildings... that is manufactured. ". Care to comment on the burnt out cars toasted in car parks some distance away from the towers?" So moving on are you? You were challenged to prove your claim about Newton's laws... you couldn't do it. So now you're moving on You are admitting your failure.
    1
  309.  @alfie8472  "burnt out cars toasted in car parks some distance away from the towers? " They were moved there to make room for emergency vehicles as part of the rescue/clean up. "Where did that heat & radiation come from? " They were near building buildings. People got out and left them where they were. "are to comment why the fires in the pit after collapse could not be put out for a couple of months?" 220 floors of combustible material smoldering away. "Care to comment on the molten steel? " No one ever confirmed molten steel. " Care to comment on the Dancing Israelis" No evidence of anything was found and they were released. Did you get your list from 2005?
    1
  310.  @alfie8472  So after you were called out about your claim ... you panicked and are just flailing about, picking off old claims from the tired old list. You're not very good at this. So you've yet to support a single claim so far. You're running away from my posts....beaten... looking panicked.
    1
  311.  @alfie8472  " They didn't operate because there was no resistance from the larger & stronger building below. " Sigh... I educated you about your misunderstanding above. You're just making the same error. Here it is again. It's not a 20 floors V 90. 20 floors smash down on a weakened floor... on an angle... that floor cannot stop the upper block and it progresses... then you have 21 floors falling onto the next one... then 22 onto the next one... you're hitting undamaged floors now but you've got 22 floors coming down with momentum... the floor directly below will never be able to stop that... 23 24 25 and it continues. They were progressive collapses. Halfway through the collapse it's not 20 floors dropping, it's half the building.
    1
  312.  @alfie8472  " That is why you can't show me one other example in history of this happening. " The fact that you keep lying speaks volumes. I've referred you to the plasco building collapse. I've referred you to watch examples of the verinage technique which not only gives examples of buildings collapsing this way, is entirely dependent on it being possible. " Newton says there should be an equal & opposite reaction from below." ....and there was. But you don't understand the progressive collapse. As each floor is destroyed, the material from that floor joins in on the collapse. Can you understand this? Don't dodge like you always do. Can you understand this? If you say "but you haven't shown" you will be lying again.
    1
  313.  @alfie8472  So after you were called out about your claim ... you panicked and are just flailing about, picking off old claims from the tired old list. You're not very good at this. So you've yet to support a single claim so far.
    1
  314.  @alfie8472  " You know you can't so stop wasting my time" I have but all you have are lies... that's how desperate its become for you. " You know you can't so stop wasting my time" I've given multiple real life examples but you keep lying.
    1
  315.  @alfie8472  " When they announced Building 7 had fallen 30 minutes before it did." There were incorrect reports that day... that was just one of them. It's easy to see how they got that one wrong as the FDNY thought that the building was so unstable that it would collapse...long before it did. Does it make any sense that a national media company from the UK would be involved? Conspiracy theories never seem to be remotely plausible.
    1
  316.  @alfie8472  "Obviously the plane that came down in Pennsylvania was meant to hit Building 7. OOPS! " Ah yes... obviously Al Qaeda was going to attack 4 important landmarks... the pentagon... the WTC...1 and 2....and..err.. the building next to the WTC... 🤦‍♂ These conspiracy theories are so amazingly dense....
    1
  317.  @alfie8472  "The fires that could not be put out for weeks " I responded to that as well. You keep evading all my responses it seems. It's pretty clear that you have no idea about this and you're in a constant state of lying and dodging. The fires smoldered for a very long time. You had 220 floors of combustible material. Actually more because there were floors below the ground floor.
    1
  318.  @alfie8472  " Want to talk about gravity?" lol...this from someone who has no understanding of physics. "Want to tell me how multi ton building sections were hurled 900 " Impact from the plane. Your script is from 15 years ago..... this is too easy.
    1
  319.  @alfie8472  So I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim - "So why did Newton's laws stop operating on this one day in history?" Come one kid. Oh that's right you don't actually know how to apply Newton's laws to the real world. Over 70 posts in and you're still not able to support your first claims.... ... 🤡
    1
  320.  @alfie8472  So I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim - "So why did Newton's laws stop operating on this one day in history?" Come one kid. Oh that's right you don't actually know how to apply Newton's laws to the real world.
    1
  321.  @alfie8472  "The pulleys are used to get the collapse to start - they remove structure." They pull some walls out to trigger the collapse and gravity does the rest. My point proven.
    1
  322.  @alfie8472  "sure, the kinetic energy of the topsection would be sufficient to break the 1st floor it impacted, thereby damaging itself also, TO A GREATER DEGREE," Lets say it was to the same degree. "That's action = reaction," Correct. "I don't know if u've heard of that? " I'm here explaining it to you. Pay attention - this is the part you're not getting. Lets say that the collapse starts at the 90th floor. The 89th and 90th floor are destroyed... you have 20 floors smashing down onto the 88th floor but that includes the material from the 89th and 90th floor and every floor abvove. The fact that the 80th and 90th floor were destroyed doesn't mean that they no longer have mass. This is what you keep messing up. You think that the impacts make them disappear. They don't disappear. The mass continues to fall onto the next floor. It can't make this much simpler for you.
    1
  323.  @MrYourfriendbutters  The steel columns were not wrapped in concrete .... there were concrete floor slabs going to the top.
    1
  324.  @MrYourfriendbutters  What 'design change' are you referring to? The concrete slabs were in the floors to the top. The steel columns were not covered in concrete. What are you asking?
    1
  325. ​ @MrYourfriendbutters  The floors trusses and columns were covered with a spray on fire resistant foam which contained asbestos.
    1
  326.  @MrYourfriendbutters  I could look all of this up.... but I'm not going to put any effort into doing so unless you have some sort of point. Do you?
    1
  327.  @lettherebeblight  "and fire so hot the passports are just fine afterwards yeah? " A passport was found on the sidewalk near the WTC. It was never in the hottest fires.
    1
  328.  @lettherebeblight  The fuel from the planes started very large fires very quickly. But the jet fuel would have burnt off in minutes. The hottest fires happened afterwards. Yes there were hot fires in the rubble as well. It was a mountain containing combustible material.
    1
  329.  @lettherebeblight  Among other materials.
    1
  330.  @jason8952  "and we've gone over NIST rather extensively in the past." You've yet to show any understanding of the NIST report at all. You have no idea about any of this.
    1
  331.  @jason8952  Got nothing? That's what I thought.
    1
  332.  @jason8952  " Sure, tell me all about it." So you don't know?
    1
  333.  @jason8952  Blah blah...you've got nothing.
    1
  334.  @davepowell7168  " Please don't just repeat a report you have yet to understand" What?
    1
  335.  @jason8952  " You were the one who asked me if I wanted to know what your take on the NIST Reports collapse explanation was." The explanation fits the evidence. A combination of impact and fires caused the collapse of the towers.
    1
  336.  @jason8952  "Now, are you going to explain what your take on the NIST Reports collapse explanation is or not" What? I just answered. ' What do you mean by "take"? Do you want me to explain it all to you? Are you aware of the sagging floors and bowing perimeter columns? Read the FAQ You haven't done basic research on this topic. 🤦‍♂
    1
  337.  @jason8952  "Look, you offered to explain the collapse to me A-Z" Actually I didn't. That was rhetorical. That was me mocking you for not even knowing the basics. 😂😂
    1
  338.  @jason8952  "I want you to explain it all to me." Read the FAQ. Get back to me with your questions.
    1
  339.  @jason8952  "You don't really do reading comprehension do you?" 🤦‍♂
    1
  340.  @davepowell7168  What evidence? I'm waiting for you to provide something.
    1
  341.  @davepowell7168  1. What links? What evidence? 2. What does this even mean? The vague non-answers are very poor.
    1
  342.  @davepowell7168  What does that even mean? Weren't you the guy claiming to be an engineer? Yet you spouting lines I would expect from a teenage rookie conspiracy theorist. Can you back up some of your claims?
    1
  343.  @davepowell7168  " welded together disintegrated." Progressive collapse. "However when 911 demolition or NIST FOIA clearly demonstrate most of the material" Show us your reference and calculations for this.
    1
  344.  @davepowell7168  "Site director claim '1.8 M tons of debris removed" Where? When? What is the context? You're being evasive. "Progressive collapse? No," Yes progressive collapse. Refute this if you can. "study the evidence." I have. I've not seen any indication that you have.
    1
  345.  @davepowell7168  You're still evading. You posted an out of context number. No reference. Nothing to back it up. "Next you will be asking me to figure out the volume of the slurry wall enclosure for you and the approximate mass?" You're deflecting from your evasion. I'm waiting for evidence and you're tap dancing. "Least informed shill l have had the mispleasure" Personal attacks aren't saving you.
    1
  346.  @darlenehowell2274  "The Oral History of the FDNY proves the NIST wrong." Nope. The oral history is consistent with the official story. You wouldn't understand of course because you haven't read it...or done any real research about this topic. You read some books about wizards and thought that was the answer.
    1
  347.  @jason8952  Where is the source for that testimony?
    1
  348.  @jason8952  Where though? Where is the source? I don't want your description about it. Have you not even listened to it?
    1
  349.  @jason8952  So prove your claim.... take your time I'll wait.
    1
  350.  @jason8952  So you can't prove your claim. I'm so surprised. Really I am. 🙄
    1
  351.  @jason8952  Your dodges are as hopeless as everything else you do.
    1
  352.  @jason8952  So you can't actually back anything up. Run along then. You failed.
    1
  353.  @darlenehowell2274  Ah yes the magic spell. Was it the same one from a harry potter movie?
    1
  354.  @darlenehowell2274  So someone else invented the magic spell? You think that's a better story? haha
    1
  355.  @darlenehowell2274  Get a hobby weirdo.
    1
  356. "Gravity works down, not up and out." What are you talking about? They collapsed down.
    1
  357.  @adambeaulieu6868  "ook at the walls of the buildings 1,2.... up and out.. Again - what are you talking about? Debris fell away from the building during the destructive collapse.
    1
  358.  @adambeaulieu6868  "Can you see the flashes of the bombs going off." You may certainly see some flashes in a building collapsing from the top down. Did you not expect destruction? "Normal office fires can't and won't bring down skyscrapers " 🤦‍♂ 1. This wasn't a normal office fire. This was a jet fuel started fire. 2. Fires alone didn't cause the collapses - remember the planes? 3. Fires have caused tall buildings to collapse before. You fail completely.
    1
  359.  @adambeaulieu6868  "demolition style at free fall speed. " 🤦‍♂ sigh... It's acceleration... not speed. Free fall acceleration. The speed keeps increasing. ..oh and no the towers didn't fall at free fall. The debris falling away dropped faster than the towers. The debris is in free fall, the towers were not. "You obviously failed basic physics." 😂 You don't even understand the difference between speed and acceleration. 😂
    1
  360.  @adambeaulieu6868  You just got schooled. Go on and show me some more of your physics knowledge... 😂😂
    1
  361.  @darlenehowell2274  Still waiting for your evidence.
    1
  362.  @darlenehowell2274  So no evidence then? Yeah didn't think so. Head back to your basement and cast some spells Harry Potter.
    1
  363.  @darlenehowell2274  Still no evidence. Most evasions. You're hopeless.
    1
  364. The clean up was coordinated by Mark Loizeaux because he was a demolition expert.
    1
  365.  @bluesky6985  " Do you know any physics and basic building construction" Do you? Can you explain the theory of collapse initiation of the towers? Can you explain what a progressive collapse is? Do you even know what the official story is in regards to the collapse? Over to you.
    1
  366. "First time in my 70 year old memory that evidence of a crime was quickly disposed of before forensic examination was completed" It took over 6 months to clear the debris. It was taken to scrapyards where it was examined. " Also, in the beginning, there were numerous photographs clearly showing cut steel columns." Yeah that's how they got the steel out of there. They had to cut it. "Nearly all of those photos have been scrubbed from the web." I'm sure they are still around. Less people were interested in the conspiracy so the sites have probably gone down. " but as a retired structural designer, I can say, without any doubt, that the towers were brought down with controlled demolition." Based on what? "Apparently, hundreds of other, highly educated, architects and engineers agree with me. We can't ALL be wrong." Actually, relatively there are very few. Numerous organisations preformed analysis into what happened at the towers and all agreed with NIST. Numerous papers were published in relevant journals and agreed with NIST. The ASCE openly supported NISTs findings when they had over 100 000 members. You're trying to appeal to numbers but you haven't done the research.
    1
  367.  @theflash1425  "First, the cut steel columns I was referring to, appeared in pictures a day or so after the drops," They started the clean up immediately. They started the clean up on 9/11. "Building Seven." ...and?
    1
  368.  @theflash1425  "believes the ludicrous official report:" Are you familiar with the NIST report on the towers? I seriously doubt that you are.
    1
  369.  @theflash1425  "when you input flawed data, OMG, you get flawed results. " Show that there data was flawed.
    1
  370.  @theflash1425  Did you post a comment and delete it?
    1
  371.  @jason8952  "NIST, "we never investigated for explosives or controlled demolition" They don't look for a predetermined outcome, they look for what caused the collapses. They did that. They found what caused the collapses. It wasn't explosives. They even address this argument in their faq.
    1
  372.  @jason8952  " They stated specifically, "we never investigated for explosives". " I've already addressed this false claim. You're just repeating the error that has been addressed.
    1
  373.  @jason8952  "Yes, it can be observed and was observed." Actually no, no suspicious explosives were observed. Feel free to point to the videos of the towers with suspicious explosives going off. You can't. It's a fantasy.
    1
  374.  @jason8952  "NIST was given a directive not to look for explosives" Prove it. "Everybody knows this is true." What are you 10 years old? You need to do somewhat better than "everyone knows" lol
    1
  375.  @jason8952  "Addressing an argument in a faq isn't disproving it" Waving it away isn't refuting it. Try to do better next time... You can't though can you?
    1
  376.  @jason8952  "So, now you want me to go through NIST's faq section" I don't care what you do.
    1
  377.  @jason8952  "This being said, you've no ground to stand on" baahah the irony. You can present no evidence. You have no arguments. You don't even understand the official story. You've not nothing.
    1
  378.  @jason8952  " the guy who keeps saying that I am talking about magik spells, wizards " You think 9/11 was caused by a wizard doing a spell. That's what you explained to me. Now you're backpedalling out of embarrassment..... 🤦‍♂
    1
  379.  @jason8952  "and says that I don't know what the word occult means" You made a monumental error and showed that you didn't fully understand the word. It was hilarious.
    1
  380.  @jason8952  "How much clearer does it need to be?" Exactly. There was no evidence for it. Their words. Those words are accurate. When investigating what the cause was, that involves investigating all the evidence. They didn't investigate to see if UFOs did it, so does that mean UFOs did it? You don't need to start with a conclusion and look for that conclusion. That's not how it works.
    1
  381.  @jason8952  "It also doesn't matter what words they used exactly" You're trying to quote people and also saying it doesn't matter what they said. 🤦‍♂
    1
  382.  @jason8952  "What matters is the meaning of what they said. Not exactly how they said it." So you got caught out lying.
    1
  383.  @jason8952  Look them up.
    1
  384.  @jason8952  _ "NIST never investigated for explosives or controlled demolition"_ You're not getting it. By investigating the evidence, they would be investigating that. You don't need to start your investigation with a conclusion you're checking specifically for. Explosives are absurdly obvious. Had there been explosives it would have been uncovered in the investigation. Your argument doesn't make sense.
    1
  385.  @lebergerdesphotons4565  "or maybe that 911 physics determines easily that mgh is not enough energy to do what we saw? not one part in 10,000 of the required energy? Either that or a technology that we don't know of?" Still waiting for you to support this. I've seen you lose this argument a few times now......
    1
  386.  @darlenehowell2274  "See, any wizards casting spells today, Mark? " You tell me....that's your theory.
    1
  387.  @darlenehowell2274  "Harry Potter and you know the meaning of the word occult?" I had to give you a lesson on the meaning because you didn't know it had multiple meanings. You really made a fool of yourself there. I won't let you forget it. At least take the time to understand what words mean before you use them you dunce. "Wizards and spells?" That's your fantasy world...
    1
  388.  @lebergerdesphotons4565  No response to my post? Run away with your tail between your legs yet again?
    1
  389.  @jason8952  Go away with this nonsense. Get back to me when you have something that isn't silly.
    1
  390.  @jason8952  What are you 5 years old? Go away kid.
    1
  391.  @jason8952  I think you just confirmed the question. Thanks kid. Run along child. You're only making a fool of yourself here.
    1
  392.  @jason8952  "You don't count as far as I'm concerned. " So stop trying to tell me your stupid stories nutcase.
    1
  393.  @jason8952  ....so...again... stop trying to tell me your stupid stories nutcase.
    1
  394.  @jason8952  🤦‍♂
    1
  395.  @jason8952  Your comments are so bad that all they are worth is a facepalm emoji.
    1
  396.  @jason8952  I don't take recommendations from ignorant crazy people.
    1
  397. A car made out of aluminium that weighs over 100 tons and travels hundreds of mph, would still be something of a problem. But you don't know anything about physics so this no doubt confuses you.
    1
  398.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  "Explain how a ''Car'' could weigh ''100'' tons when a truck or bus are far less?" lol it was a hypothetical. I was trying to educate you on the relevance of the mass and the speed of the planes but apparentlt that was too complicated for you. 🤦‍♂
    1
  399.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  You got schooled like you always... now you're in damage control. Try harder. 😉
    1
  400.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  That was lame. Learn when to quit kiddo.
    1
  401.  @jeffsundeen1680  What he said about WTC7 refutes any claims of explosives.
    1
  402.  @jeffsundeen1680  Incorrect. The agency tasked with explaining the collapses was NIST and they said the following: " What caused the fires in WTC 7? Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors-7 through 9 and 11 through 13-burned out of control. These lower-floor fires-which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed-were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building's collapse began. " I'm assuming you're not familiar with their investigation.
    1
  403.  @jeffsundeen1680  "THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY??? When did they become an agency?" The definition of an agency is - a business or organization providing a particular service on behalf of another business, person, or group. Yep they are an agency. This is what you're going to argue about? You're going to deny what the dictionary says? You must have so many good arguments if this is your focus.....🙄
    1
  404.  @jeffsundeen1680  "They were not "tasked" by anyone/anything at any time. " Incorrect again. They were tasked by congress as part of the National Construction Safety Team (NCST) Act. You seem to be getting everything wrong. ..and once again, I have to note that you're quibbling about fairly irrelevant points and even that isn't working out.
    1
  405.  @jeffsundeen1680  " Drunk people usually like to argue and avoid facts" You just described yourself perfectly. You've dodged, deflected and changed the subject so far and seem to be digging yourself deeper into a hole.
    1
  406.  @jeffsundeen1680  " if nist was an agency, then they would be paid for their services and would not have been volunteers" So you're denying the dictionary.... 🤦‍♂ you might want to stop now...
    1
  407.  @jeffsundeen1680  "Nist was not nominated by congress. Thank u for clarifying your error" They were authorised by congress, which is what I said. You just made yet another error. I was right. You have got pretty much everything wrong so far.
    1
  408.  @jeffsundeen1680  "For more than a century, Black's Law Dictionary has been the gold standard for the language of law." I've already dismantled this. 1. In America. Not the world. 2. The definition still proves my point. 3. NIST were authorised by congress. 4. NIST preformed the most comprehensive investigation into the collapses. You're only making things worse for yourself.
    1
  409.  @alek0245  That paper is a joke. They tried to prove that there was thermite but that backfired and the material they had didn't match thermite. So they just asserted it was nanothermite. But they have no nanothermite to test this theory. So they don't prove their own assumption. They don't prove whether you can even bring down a structure with nanothermite. This is not very scientific at all. It's been a decade. Still nothing...
    1
  410.  @darlenehowell2274  "How about all the occult numerology?" Your insane rambling isn't evidence.
    1
  411.  @darlenehowell2274  Statistics may matter in the right context... your insane rambling doesn't count for anything.
    1
  412.  @darlenehowell2274  Vague and meaningless. Go play harry potter.
    1
  413.  @darlenehowell2274  Still vague and meaningless. Go cast some spells.
    1
  414.  @darlenehowell2274  Did you know that Harry Potter had an owl called Hedwig? Think about that.
    1
  415.  @darlenehowell2274  "You debunkers are easy prey. " It's actually amusing that you think babbling about wizards and magic causing 9/11 is working out well for you.
    1
  416.  @darlenehowell2274  "All you do is insult." Except that I haven't insulted you in any of these posts. "Where are the proofs that Statical Mathematics are" Where are the proofs indeed... all you've done is babble about wizards and spells.
    1
  417.  @darlenehowell2274  On pg 123 of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone Hagrid : You're a wizard, Harry! Harry : I'm a what? Hagrid: "A wizard, o' course," said Hagrid, sitting back down on the sofa, which groaned and sank even lower, "an' a thumpin' good'un I'd say, once yeh've been trained up a bit. With a mum an' dad like yours, what else would yeh be?" This, is just one of many such pieces of documented evidence that I can sight and use to plead my case. The truth is that you're not well read.
    1
  418.  @darlenehowell2274  Oh and just for a laugh, I decided to check your reference. "This third stage of capitalism is of such overwhelming significance in the history of the twentieth century, and its ramifications and influences have been so subterranean and even occult, that we may be excused if we devote considerate attention to its organization and methods." Are you referring to this section? It would be very embarrassing for you if you were.
    1
  419.  @darlenehowell2274  I see a lot of crying and panicky flailing... but you dodged the question. Are you referring to this section? It would be very embarrassing for you if you were. Will you find the courage to answer?
    1
  420.  @darlenehowell2274  You dodged the question again. Your dodging shows you're defeated. Are you referring to this section? It would be very embarrassing for you if you were. Will you find the courage to answer? I suspect it may be dawning on you that you screwed up.
    1
  421.  @darlenehowell2274  So you're backpedaling from your claims now?
    1
  422.  @darlenehowell2274  Nowhere in that reference is there anything about the occult.... in regards to wizards and magic. If you look up the definition of "occult" you will see that it is a verb meaning "cut off from view by interposing something". In the context of "and influences have been so subterranean and even occult" it is not talking about magic. It is talking about it being hidden and cut off. Learn the proper definitions of words and check the context in which they are used. Any 'research' done by you would be next to worthless.
    1
  423.  @darlenehowell2274  "You don't know the 1st thing about the, "Occult"." You made a total fool of yourself and now you're trying to recover your dignity with pointless statements like that. What I know about fantasy and magic spells is irrelevant. What is relevant is that you didn't even check the definition of the word you referenced. You didn't even understand the context in which it was being used. Your research is worthless.
    1
  424.  @darlenehowell2274  "Also, the word occult has several meanings. " You know that now because I taught you.
    1
  425.  @jason8952  More insane babbling.
    1
  426.  @jason8952  Bye bye crazy person
    1
  427.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  "ex CIA pilot John Lear has already proved with science" An affidavit isn't scientific proof. lol... you have no idea.
    1
  428.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  So use physics to prove your claim. Go on. I'm waiting.
    1
  429.  @jason8952  Oh that's right you think Harry Potter is real.
    1
  430.  @jason8952  "Paint will never be mistaken for nano-thermite." Except from people like Jones and Harrit. Did they test to see if they really had nanothermite? No. Did they pass their samples on for independent review? No. Did they keep working to see if their samples were good representations of WTC dust? No. Did they get hold of some nanothermite and try to demolish a structure with it? No. Did they test their claims at all? Of course not.
    1
  431.  @jason8952  "Jones had the US Gov steal one of the samples that he sent to a colleague via the US Postal Service." So you're saying that Steven Jones told the government to steal a sample from someone and they did? lol.. No. That didn't happen.
    1
  432.  @jason8952  "They retrieved a number of samples from various locations." I know. and involved a dubious chain of custody.
    1
  433.  @jason8952  "You don't need to demolition a structure with the nano-thermite to see if it can or can not destroy a steel structure. " If you're claiming it's possible you need to support your claim with something. " What you do is measure the force of the nano-thermite as it explodes," They had no nano-thermite. They did not even do this.
    1
  434.  @jason8952  Oh god. Before then. The fact that something came in the mail doesn't confirm the reliability of the sample! 🤦‍♂
    1
  435.  @jason8952  "I'm not claiming that it's possible, I'm saying plainly that" A terrible dodge.
    1
  436.  @jason8952  "Dodge? No, you can look into for yourself" I have and you're dodging the problem. "You won't because dodging is what artful dodgers do." ..and now you're projecting.
    1
  437.  @williamwhitten7820  "Did they test to see if they really had nanothermite? Yes" Wrong. All they did was declare that the results reminded them of nanothermite. "Did they pass their samples on for independent review? Yes" Wrong. They apparently included some of their ae911 buddies. Not independent. "Did they keep working to see if their samples were good representations of WTC dust? Yes" Wrong. They took what they could and didn't consider the chain of custody problems. "There is no Nanothermite available" Wow how convenient! It's all based on a magic substance that no one has! lol.... Kind of refutes your first claim. Did they test their claims at all? Yes" Shown to be wrong. "Did Mark H. actually read the Harrit - Jones paper? No!" Wrong. I read it when it came out.
    1
  438.  @williamwhitten7820  "Did they test to see if they really had nanothermite? Yes" Wrong. All they did was declare that the results reminded them of nanothermite. "Did they pass their samples on for independent review? Yes" Wrong. They apparently included some of their ae911 buddies. Not independent. "Did they keep working to see if their samples were good representations of WTC dust? Yes" Wrong. They took what they could and didn't consider the chain of custody problems.
    1
  439.  @williamwhitten7820  "There is no Nanothermite available" Wow how convenient! It's all based on a magic substance that no one has! lol.... Kind of refutes your first claim. Did they test their claims at all? Yes" Shown to be wrong. "Did Mark H. actually read the Harrit - Jones paper? No!" Wrong. I read it when it came out. You obviously haven't read, or understood it.
    1
  440.  @williamwhitten7820  Well that post was a disaster for you. Do you want to try again?
    1
  441.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  John Lear was a crazy person who believed there were bases on the moon. We can see the large jets hitting the towers.
    1
  442. 🤦‍♂
    1
  443.  @mbzcs  "Prove me wrong then." Easy. Look at photos of the pile. It's not just dust.
    1
  444.  @jason8952  ". The evidence for "controlled demolition", is conclusive" Still waiting for you to show some. Your lack of understanding about the collapse isn't evidence.
    1
  445.  @jason8952  "It's been 4 or 5 years that I have been talking to you." I don't remember talking to you for that long. I can only remember some fool who believes that 9/11 was caused by wizards doing a ritual and that was more recent. " You have been shown plenty of evidence." Your evidence always falls apart under scrutiny.
    1
  446.  @mbzcs  Throwing a tantrum because you were wrong.....
    1
  447.  @davepowell7168  " was not the result of planestrikes, resulting fires and then collapses" Most of the destruction being described was the result of the collapses. When 1300 feet tall buildings collapse from the top down it is very destructive. A lot of material will be pulverised.
    1
  448.  @davepowell7168  " There would be powder, sand, gravel, loose chunks and lumps still attached to the rebar. " There was. Go to The day I decided not to collect: A curator's view of Ground Zero and look at a couple of the photos.
    1
  449.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  John Lear is a crazy person who believed in a lot of nonsense.
    1
  450.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  "sorry, what was your point again?" Your argument was just dismantled in front of you and now you don't know what's going on....
    1
  451.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  "don't need to squire," So you can't. You made a claim. You were challenged on your claim. You're now squirming and fumbling for excuses.
    1
  452.  @wellifthemediasaysit  lol.. bag and plead... 🤦‍♂
    1
  453.  @wellifthemediasaysit  "The US government did this" Prove it. No one else seems to be able to. Give it a go.
    1
  454. "and i wonder why all the crime scene was cleared so fast " It took over 6 months to clear the debris. Not exactly fast. But yes they did start clearing debris very quickly and lives were saved because of it.
    1
  455.  @jason8952  Another empty, pointless post.
    1
  456. Where is your source for this?
    1
  457.  @tommyboogyman  So you don't have a source. It's fictional.
    1
  458. So the reason why there is no evidence for the conspiracy is "da gubment took it". Yeah go with that.
    1
  459.  @jason8952  Prove it. We both know you can't.
    1