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

  1.  @shillhunter4380 What?
    1
  2.  @shillhunter4380  You're a paranoid crackpot.
    1
  3. ​ @shillhunter4380  We are different people. You're a fruitcake.
    1
  4.  @darlenehowell2274  Sure sure everything is about wizards and Satanists in your fantasy world.
    1
  5.  @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
  6.  @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
  7.  @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
  8.  @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
  9.  @darlenehowell2274  So you can't in fact prove me wrong. You're stammering excuses... Pathetic as always. You're hopeless.
    1
  10.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  We have the collapses of the towers on video... many videos in fact. There are no mysterious explosives. Try again.
    1
  11.  @jasonhickerson2235  You're using quotes... but NIST never said those words. Try again Imbecile.
    1
  12.  @darlenehowell2274  NIST investigated to find the cause of the collapses. They found them. It wasn't CD. Deal with it.
    1
  13.  @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
  14.  @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
  15.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  "My records show that you are wrong" Your records aren't worth squat.
    1
  16.  @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
  17.  @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
  18. "It's super interesting how building 7, untouched, exploded into nothing. " Err no. It didn't explode nor did it explode into nothing.
    1
  19. "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
  20.  @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
  21.  @jason8952  It's been 20 years and the best the conspiracy theorists can do is weak trolling.
    1
  22.  @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
  23.  @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
  24. "John Leer prooves that the plains where holligrams i" 🤣 Holograms... 😂
    1
  25. Find some evidence and then you won't have anything to complain about....
    1
  26. " 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
  27.  @yabbadabbadoo8225  " with 3 towers coming down due to fires" Oh no one told you about the planes that hit the towers? 🤦‍♂
    1
  28.  @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
  29.  @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
  30.  @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
  31.  @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
  32.  @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
  33.  @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
  34.  @alfie8472  ...sigh... try the page in incognito....
    1
  35.  @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
  36.  @alfie8472  " collapsed with explosives clearly going off before it did." 😂😂😂 Of course it did... Go ahead and prove it then sport.
    1
  37.  @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
  38.  @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
  39.  @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
  40.  @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
  41.  @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
  42.  @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
  43.  @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
  44. 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
  45.  @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
  46.  @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
  47.  @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
  48.  @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
  49.  @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
  50.  @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