Comments by "Mark H" (@markh1011) on "Explosive 9/11 Claims | National Geographic" video.

  1.  @darlenehowell2274  It isn't relevant at all. Then again nothing you say ever is.
    5
  2.  @darlenehowell2274  So, wizards and porky pig and bugs bunny were involved. Yeah sounds like you're building a solid theory there.
    5
  3.  @darlenehowell2274  "and remember what Galileo said" Please tell everyone and then why it's relevant.
    4
  4.  @darlenehowell2274  You've got no evidence....just a string of excuses and evasions.
    4
  5.  @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
  6. "Jet fuel does not melt steel, top to bottom. " 🤦‍♂ Sigh.
    3
  7.  @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
  8.  @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
  9.  @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
  10.  @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
  11.  @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
  12.  @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
  13.  @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
  14. ​ @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
  15.  @jason8952  Sure sure...you're a wizard and dungeons & dragons is real life... sure sure.
    2
  16.  @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
  17. 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
  18.  @darlenehowell2274  Do you need to a box of tissues to help with your meltdown?
    2
  19.  @darlenehowell2274  Your posts contain no useful information or even humour.
    2
  20. "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
  21.  @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
  22.  @darlenehowell2274  "Why did each tower shake violately before each collapse?" They didn't. They shook when the collapses started.
    2
  23.  @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
  24.  @TheAaronRodgersTao  The buildings didn't fall at free fall.
    2
  25.  @c.augustedupin2559  Lame.
    2
  26.  @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
  27.  @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
  28. "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
  29.  @darlenehowell2274  You think 9/11 was caused by a wizard performing a ritual..... no one takes you seriously.
    1
  30. ...that's an absurd claim that was never confirmed.
    1
  31.  @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
  32. 🤦‍♂
    1
  33. "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
  34.  @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
  35.  @jason8952  You're welcome to show where I am wrong. You've failed every time so far.
    1
  36.  @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
  37.  @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
  38.  @jason8952  It's odd that you try to make a joke about the word you didn't understand and embarrassed yourself over.
    1
  39.  @jason8952  🤦‍♂
    1
  40. "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
  41.  @falcon26r87  All the modelling I've seen has looked like the videos. What is different?
    1
  42.  @darlenehowell2274  Wait, your second name has 6 letters! You must be a Satanist! You're part of the conspiracy! 🤣
    1
  43.  @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
  44.  @darlenehowell2274  Everything that you post is nonsense. Why do you go to so much effort looking stupid?
    1
  45.  @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
  46.  @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
  47.  @jason8952  What are you even talking about crazy person? Go play with your harry potter wands.
    1
  48. Whether it was shipped or not doesn't change that there was no evidence for the demolition claims.
    1
  49.  @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
  50.  @darlenehowell2274  I only have 1 account, crazy person.
    1
  51.  @darlenehowell2274  Having a deep belief in utter nonsense and desperately wanting attention for your beliefs makes you crazy.
    1
  52.  @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
  53.  @jason8952  Who is deleting posts?
    1
  54.  @jason8952  Sure thing nutcase.
    1
  55.  @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
  56.  @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
  57.  @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
  58.  @darlenehowell2274  Another post where you dodge. You backed up nothing. A quote doesn't distract from your dodging. You're hopeless..
    1
  59.  @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
  60.  @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
  61.  @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
  62.  @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
  63.  @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
  64.  @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
  65.  @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
  66.  @darlenehowell2274  Of what? Your grade school ability to add up numbers and sometimes turn them upside down? 🤣🤣
    1
  67.  @wilhelmbeck8498  "All the revealing footage What revealing footage? Footage of what?
    1
  68.  @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
  69.  @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
  70.  @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
  71.  @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
  72.  @darlenehowell2274  A lot more of what? You haven't shown anything. A lot more of nothing?
    1
  73.  @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
  74.  @MFitz12  Yeah she's a few cards short of a deck.
    1
  75.  @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
  76.  @darlenehowell2274  "This is stuff that I've posted to you before." You've posted no evidence so far. You have no evidence.
    1
  77.  @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
  78.  @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
  79.  @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
  80.  @darlenehowell2274  "It's only a conspiracy if the number 6 is present." 🤣🤣
    1
  81.  @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
  82.  @jason8952  Sure thing crazy person 👍
    1
  83.  @jason8952  You've only presented nonsense and confusion.
    1
  84.  @jason8952  Your insane babbling isn't confusing. It's childish fantasy.
    1
  85.  @jason8952  Why are you still talking to me?
    1
  86.  @darlenehowell2274  Can you prove that they were? Go ahead.
    1
  87.  @darlenehowell2274  Can you prove that they were? Go ahead. Still waiting. All you have are silly stories you can never prove.
    1
  88.  @jason8952  Making insane comments about wizards and spells isn't proving anything. That's you shooting yourself in the foot.
    1
  89.  @jason8952  " 1. Conventional thermite 2. Nano-thermite 3. Possibly mini-nucs? I believe all 3 were used." 🤣🤣🤣🤣
    1
  90.  @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
  91.  @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
  92.  @jason8952  "Nano-thermite has a US patent no"- The fact that there is a patent doesn't make the conspiracy less ridiculous.
    1
  93.  @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
  94.  @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
  95.  @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
  96.  @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
  97.  @darlenehowell2274  " The laws of physics are on the side of the truthers." You've shown that you don't understand anything about physics.
    1
  98.  @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
  99.  @darlenehowell2274  "FF use thermo imaging. They have the devices on their trucks." You've been asked for evidence not stories.
    1
  100.  @darlenehowell2274  So you couldn't back anything up and you thought gibberish would be a good idea to compensate for that.
    1
  101.  @darlenehowell2274  Your posts aren't funny or entertaining.
    1
  102.  @darlenehowell2274  You're just confirming my last post. You're boring and dumb.
    1
  103.  @jason8952  If you think you have a point to make then make it.
    1
  104.  @jason8952  🤦‍♂
    1
  105. Yes! Still on the leaderboard. Crushing it.
    1
  106.  @tomk.williams1186  WTC7 did not turn to dust.
    1
  107.  @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
  108.  @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
  109.  @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
  110.  @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
  111.  @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
  112.  @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
  113.  @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
  114.  @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
  115.  @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
  116.  @jason8952  You probably don't get out much. Make sensible statements and I wont refute them.
    1
  117. After all these years there is still no evidence to support that.
    1
  118. "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
  119. .....and?
    1
  120. The girders weakened. Not melted. The passport was never in the hot fires.
    1
  121.  @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
  122.  @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
  123. " In some of the photos you can see that supports were cut as 45 degree angles." Cut as part of the clean up.
    1
  124. "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
  125.  @jason8952  What?
    1
  126.  @jason8952  Prove it. Oh that's right you can never prove anything you say.
    1
  127.  @jason8952  🤦‍♂ Hopeless.
    1
  128.  @jason8952  Ok
    1
  129.  @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
  130.  @rnbsteenstar  Sure sure where is the evidence?
    1
  131.  @rnbsteenstar  What? Explain.
    1
  132.  @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
  133.  @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
  134. "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
  135. A decade later and still none of these claims have been verified.
    1
  136.  @darlenehowell2274 Not only do you know nothing about science, you don't understand the difference between reality and fantasy. Go away crazy person.
    1
  137.  @shillhunter4380 What?
    1
  138.  @shillhunter4380  You're a paranoid crackpot.
    1
  139. ​ @shillhunter4380  We are different people. You're a fruitcake.
    1
  140.  @darlenehowell2274  Sure sure everything is about wizards and Satanists in your fantasy world.
    1
  141.  @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
  142.  @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
  143.  @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
  144.  @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
  145.  @darlenehowell2274  So you can't in fact prove me wrong. You're stammering excuses... Pathetic as always. You're hopeless.
    1
  146.  @jasonhickerson2235  You're using quotes... but NIST never said those words. Try again Imbecile.
    1
  147.  @darlenehowell2274  NIST investigated to find the cause of the collapses. They found them. It wasn't CD. Deal with it.
    1
  148.  @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
  149.  @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
  150. "It's super interesting how building 7, untouched, exploded into nothing. " Err no. It didn't explode nor did it explode into nothing.
    1
  151. "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
  152.  @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
  153.  @jason8952  It's been 20 years and the best the conspiracy theorists can do is weak trolling.
    1
  154.  @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
  155.  @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
  156. Find some evidence and then you won't have anything to complain about....
    1
  157. " 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
  158.  @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
  159.  @jason8952  Got nothing? That's what I thought.
    1
  160.  @jason8952  " Sure, tell me all about it." So you don't know?
    1
  161.  @jason8952  Blah blah...you've got nothing.
    1
  162.  @davepowell7168  " Please don't just repeat a report you have yet to understand" What?
    1
  163.  @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
  164.  @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
  165.  @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
  166.  @jason8952  "I want you to explain it all to me." Read the FAQ. Get back to me with your questions.
    1
  167.  @jason8952  "You don't really do reading comprehension do you?" 🤦‍♂
    1
  168.  @davepowell7168  What evidence? I'm waiting for you to provide something.
    1
  169.  @davepowell7168  1. What links? What evidence? 2. What does this even mean? The vague non-answers are very poor.
    1
  170.  @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
  171.  @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
  172.  @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
  173.  @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
  174.  @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
  175.  @jason8952  Where is the source for that testimony?
    1
  176.  @jason8952  Where though? Where is the source? I don't want your description about it. Have you not even listened to it?
    1
  177.  @jason8952  So prove your claim.... take your time I'll wait.
    1
  178.  @jason8952  So you can't prove your claim. I'm so surprised. Really I am. 🙄
    1
  179.  @jason8952  Your dodges are as hopeless as everything else you do.
    1
  180.  @jason8952  So you can't actually back anything up. Run along then. You failed.
    1
  181.  @darlenehowell2274  Ah yes the magic spell. Was it the same one from a harry potter movie?
    1
  182.  @darlenehowell2274  So someone else invented the magic spell? You think that's a better story? haha
    1
  183.  @darlenehowell2274  Get a hobby weirdo.
    1
  184.  @darlenehowell2274  Still waiting for your evidence.
    1
  185.  @darlenehowell2274  So no evidence then? Yeah didn't think so. Head back to your basement and cast some spells Harry Potter.
    1
  186.  @darlenehowell2274  Still no evidence. Most evasions. You're hopeless.
    1
  187. The clean up was coordinated by Mark Loizeaux because he was a demolition expert.
    1
  188.  @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
  189. "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
  190.  @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
  191.  @theflash1425  "believes the ludicrous official report:" Are you familiar with the NIST report on the towers? I seriously doubt that you are.
    1
  192.  @theflash1425  "when you input flawed data, OMG, you get flawed results. " Show that there data was flawed.
    1
  193.  @theflash1425  Did you post a comment and delete it?
    1
  194.  @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
  195.  @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
  196.  @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
  197.  @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
  198.  @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
  199.  @jason8952  "So, now you want me to go through NIST's faq section" I don't care what you do.
    1
  200.  @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
  201.  @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
  202.  @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
  203.  @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
  204.  @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
  205.  @jason8952  "What matters is the meaning of what they said. Not exactly how they said it." So you got caught out lying.
    1
  206.  @jason8952  Look them up.
    1
  207.  @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
  208.  @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
  209.  @darlenehowell2274  "See, any wizards casting spells today, Mark? " You tell me....that's your theory.
    1
  210.  @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
  211.  @lebergerdesphotons4565  No response to my post? Run away with your tail between your legs yet again?
    1
  212.  @jason8952  Go away with this nonsense. Get back to me when you have something that isn't silly.
    1
  213.  @jason8952  What are you 5 years old? Go away kid.
    1
  214.  @jason8952  I think you just confirmed the question. Thanks kid. Run along child. You're only making a fool of yourself here.
    1
  215.  @jason8952  "You don't count as far as I'm concerned. " So stop trying to tell me your stupid stories nutcase.
    1
  216.  @jason8952  ....so...again... stop trying to tell me your stupid stories nutcase.
    1
  217.  @jason8952  🤦‍♂
    1
  218.  @jason8952  Your comments are so bad that all they are worth is a facepalm emoji.
    1
  219.  @jason8952  I don't take recommendations from ignorant crazy people.
    1
  220.  @darlenehowell2274  "How about all the occult numerology?" Your insane rambling isn't evidence.
    1
  221.  @darlenehowell2274  Statistics may matter in the right context... your insane rambling doesn't count for anything.
    1
  222.  @darlenehowell2274  Vague and meaningless. Go play harry potter.
    1
  223.  @darlenehowell2274  Still vague and meaningless. Go cast some spells.
    1
  224.  @darlenehowell2274  Did you know that Harry Potter had an owl called Hedwig? Think about that.
    1
  225.  @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
  226.  @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
  227.  @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
  228.  @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
  229.  @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
  230.  @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
  231.  @darlenehowell2274  So you're backpedaling from your claims now?
    1
  232.  @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
  233.  @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
  234.  @darlenehowell2274  "Also, the word occult has several meanings. " You know that now because I taught you.
    1
  235.  @jason8952  More insane babbling.
    1
  236.  @jason8952  Bye bye crazy person
    1
  237.  @jason8952  Oh that's right you think Harry Potter is real.
    1
  238.  @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
  239.  @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
  240.  @jason8952  "They retrieved a number of samples from various locations." I know. and involved a dubious chain of custody.
    1
  241.  @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
  242.  @jason8952  Oh god. Before then. The fact that something came in the mail doesn't confirm the reliability of the sample! 🤦‍♂
    1
  243.  @jason8952  "I'm not claiming that it's possible, I'm saying plainly that" A terrible dodge.
    1
  244.  @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
  245.  @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
  246.  @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
  247.  @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
  248.  @williamwhitten7820  Well that post was a disaster for you. Do you want to try again?
    1
  249. 🤦‍♂
    1
  250.  @mbzcs  "Prove me wrong then." Easy. Look at photos of the pile. It's not just dust.
    1
  251.  @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
  252.  @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
  253.  @mbzcs  Throwing a tantrum because you were wrong.....
    1
  254.  @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
  255.  @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
  256. "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
  257.  @jason8952  Another empty, pointless post.
    1
  258. Where is your source for this?
    1
  259.  @tommyboogyman  So you don't have a source. It's fictional.
    1
  260. So the reason why there is no evidence for the conspiracy is "da gubment took it". Yeah go with that.
    1
  261.  @jason8952  Prove it. We both know you can't.
    1