General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Mark H
National Geographic
comments

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

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
@yabbadabbadoo8225 That's all you've got? You've just been handed a lesson.
5
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
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
The WTC7 collapse was quite different from the towers collapse. But to answer your question it collapsed due to fire.
5
Water is used to cut steel. Think about that for a min
4
@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
@yabbadabbadoo8225 "No plane smashing into a battleship without bombs would sink it, not one." You're comparing military vessels to a skyscraper.... 🤦‍♂
4
"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
"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
@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
"Especially after this show top of building would’ve just toppled over" Gravity pulls down, not sideways.
3
@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
@yabbadabbadoo8225 🥜🌰
3
Buildings have collapsed due to fire since 9/11.... you have no idea.
3
@yabbadabbadoo8225 " because under Newton's laws we all know what happens" You've shown you have no idea about physics.
3
@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
"So why did Newton's laws stop operating on this one day in history? " Prove that happened.
3
@jeffsundeen1680 It was hit by part of one of the tallest buildings in the world collapsing.
3
@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
 @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
@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
"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
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
@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
@c.augustedupin2559 Why are you still posting? You made a fool of yourself. Accept it an move on. Go away troll.
2
@c.augustedupin2559 Hopeless. 🤦‍♂
2
@c.augustedupin2559 🤦‍♂
2
@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
@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
@yabbadabbadoo8225 Which question? Scrubbing them? What are you talking about?
2
@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
@yabbadabbadoo8225 "Are you suggesting account hacking going on?" What are you talking about? Are you not all there?
2
@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
@yabbadabbadoo8225 "So who scrubs on YT??" Are you new to youtube?
2
"ow does an aluminium plane cut through steel like butter???" The plane was torn apart...and blew up... hardly cutting like butter.
2
🥜🌰
2
"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
We have videos of the collapses.... there are no mysterious explosions on any of them. Prove me wrong.
2
@c.augustedupin2559 Try again.
2
@c.augustedupin2559 You're projecting. Try again.
2
@c.augustedupin2559 Yes it was a question. Good job! You're projecting your insecurities and confusion with your question. Try again.
2
First responders described plane wreckage and saw body parts. DNA identification made it quite conclusive.
2
@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
@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
@yabbadabbadoo8225 "Best if you read John Lear's Jan 2008 affidavit." No one cares about the ranting of a madman.
2
@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
@yabbadabbadoo8225 "No downward force can destroy such a core. T" Just because you don't understanding it doesn't make it impossible.
2
"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
@MrYourfriendbutters " the concrete the wrapped the steel columns" The steel columns were not covered in concrete.
2
@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
Yes! I made the list. What's your issue with Frontier? Why can't they be in the list of awesome people?
2
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
xxxod The report was that it was found and handed to a policeman.
2
@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
@yabbadabbadoo8225 Are you actually denying that a plane hit the towers...? 😂🤦‍♂
2
"Well it is 2020 and there’s still only been 3 steel and concrete structures to ever succumb to fire," ......sigh....
2
@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
@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
@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
@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
@yabbadabbadoo8225 You dodged all the posts with insane ranting....🤦‍♂
2
@yabbadabbadoo8225 Yet more conspiracy piffle... lol... you've got nothing.
2
"laws of physics and motion were suspended until the 12th." Prove it.
2
"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
@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
@yabbadabbadoo8225 Movie? I'm talking about peer reviewed scientific papers.
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
@yabbadabbadoo8225 Movie? I'm talking about peer reviewed scientific papers.
1
@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
@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
@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
@c.augustedupin2559 Look at you trying to brush off the embarrassment.... Just go kiddo...🤦‍♂
1
@c.augustedupin2559 🤦‍♂ Learn from this failure kiddo.
1
"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
@mooneyes2k478 Yeah I'm noticing that his posts aren't simply poor, they are usually nonsensical.
1
@yabbadabbadoo8225 You still don't seem to understand the collapse.
1
@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
@yabbadabbadoo8225 That's all you've got? Why do you even bother when you're this hopeless?
1
@yabbadabbadoo8225 🤦‍♂ Post this science you speak of..... lets see it.
1
@yabbadabbadoo8225 You were called out to post this science you spoke of. What a surprise it was that you couldn't do it! 😂
1
@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
a lot did....and?
1
@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
@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
@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
@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
@shahabkhan8537 Have you done more than 1 minute of research on this topic?
1
@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
@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
@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
@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
@yabbadabbadoo8225 People don't take that seriously. For good reason.
1
@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
@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
@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
@yabbadabbadoo8225 "I Said ''Say when??''" I said Go for it. Do your worst. lol... you've got nothing.
1
@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
@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
@c.augustedupin2559 Of course. Was that the best response you could come up with? lol
1
@c.augustedupin2559 Why do you bother? Your responses are pathetic, troll. lol
1
@yabbadabbadoo8225 A loony making a claim is irrelevant.
1
"Jet fuel cannot heat steel to 1000*C." You still don't understand the basics of this topic do you?
1
@yabbadabbadoo8225 "I understand the ''BASICS'' of this TOPIC very well" From your posts, no you don't.
1
@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
@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
"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
@yabbadabbadoo8225 " It's not Legal, " lol... I assure you it most certainly is legal to reference facts.
1
@yabbadabbadoo8225 Science doesn't progress with affidavits... lol... 🤦‍♂ So the facts remain. Your argument has been easily refuted.
1
@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
@yabbadabbadoo8225 "try much harder." No need. You're so lost on this topic that it's easy to run rings around you.
1
@yabbadabbadoo8225 We have the collapses of the towers on video... many videos in fact. There are no mysterious explosives. Try again.
1
@yabbadabbadoo8225 "My records show that you are wrong" Your records aren't worth squat.
1
@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
@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
"John Leer prooves that the plains where holligrams i" 🤣 Holograms... 😂
1
@yabbadabbadoo8225 " with 3 towers coming down due to fires" Oh no one told you about the planes that hit the towers? 🤦‍♂
1
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@alfie8472 ...sigh... try the page in incognito....
1
@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
@alfie8472 " collapsed with explosives clearly going off before it did." 😂😂😂 Of course it did... Go ahead and prove it then sport.
1
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
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
@mooneyes2k478 Yeah I get sucked in too easily by these types of posters who have no idea. It's a failing.
1
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@MrYourfriendbutters The steel columns were not wrapped in concrete .... there were concrete floor slabs going to the top.
1
@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
 @MrYourfriendbutters The floors trusses and columns were covered with a spray on fire resistant foam which contained asbestos.
1
@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
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
@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
@yabbadabbadoo8225 You got schooled like you always... now you're in damage control. Try harder. 😉
1
@yabbadabbadoo8225 That was lame. Learn when to quit kiddo.
1
@jeffsundeen1680 What he said about WTC7 refutes any claims of explosives.
1
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@yabbadabbadoo8225 "ex CIA pilot John Lear has already proved with science" An affidavit isn't scientific proof. lol... you have no idea.
1
@yabbadabbadoo8225 So use physics to prove your claim. Go on. I'm waiting.
1
@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
@yabbadabbadoo8225 John Lear is a crazy person who believed in a lot of nonsense.
1
@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
@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
@wellifthemediasaysit lol.. bag and plead... 🤦‍♂
1
@wellifthemediasaysit "The US government did this" Prove it. No one else seems to be able to. Give it a go.
1