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

  1.  @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
  2.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  Movie? I'm talking about peer reviewed scientific papers.
    1
  3.  @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
  4.  @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
  5.  @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
  6.  @c.augustedupin2559  Look at you trying to brush off the embarrassment.... Just go kiddo...🤦‍♂
    1
  7.  @c.augustedupin2559  🤦‍♂ Learn from this failure kiddo.
    1
  8. "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
  9.  @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
  10.  @jason8952  You're welcome to show where I am wrong. You've failed every time so far.
    1
  11.  @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
  12.  @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
  13.  @jason8952  It's odd that you try to make a joke about the word you didn't understand and embarrassed yourself over.
    1
  14.  @jason8952  🤦‍♂
    1
  15. "so how is it possible that it completely collapsed?" Do you understand what a progressive collapse is?
    1
  16.  @MirjanaLukic-d5e  What?
    1
  17. "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
  18.  @falcon26r87  All the modelling I've seen has looked like the videos. What is different?
    1
  19.  @darlenehowell2274  Wait, your second name has 6 letters! You must be a Satanist! You're part of the conspiracy! 🤣
    1
  20.  @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
  21.  @darlenehowell2274  Everything that you post is nonsense. Why do you go to so much effort looking stupid?
    1
  22. "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
  23.  @mooneyes2k478  Yeah I'm noticing that his posts aren't simply poor, they are usually nonsensical.
    1
  24.  @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
  25.  @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
  26.  @jason8952  What are you even talking about crazy person? Go play with your harry potter wands.
    1
  27. Whether it was shipped or not doesn't change that there was no evidence for the demolition claims.
    1
  28.  @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
  29.  @darlenehowell2274  I only have 1 account, crazy person.
    1
  30.  @darlenehowell2274  Having a deep belief in utter nonsense and desperately wanting attention for your beliefs makes you crazy.
    1
  31.  @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
  32.  @jason8952  Who is deleting posts?
    1
  33.  @jason8952  Sure thing nutcase.
    1
  34.  @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
  35.  @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
  36.  @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
  37.  @darlenehowell2274  Another post where you dodge. You backed up nothing. A quote doesn't distract from your dodging. You're hopeless..
    1
  38.  @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
  39.  @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
  40.  @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
  41.  @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
  42.  @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
  43.  @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
  44.  @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
  45.  @darlenehowell2274  Of what? Your grade school ability to add up numbers and sometimes turn them upside down? 🤣🤣
    1
  46.  @wilhelmbeck8498  "All the revealing footage What revealing footage? Footage of what?
    1
  47.  @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
  48.  @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
  49.  @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
  50.  @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