Comments by "Mark H" (@markh1011) on "New York Post" channel.

  1.  @bobbyvicious8359  I respect your service, but the claims of a conspiracy involving the government are garbage.
    2
  2. Gravity pulls down....
    2
  3. ....so?
    1
  4.  @robertmarszalek1978  " you and many others are the reason why our government has gotten away with this so far.... truly sad" ...and letting NASA get away with the globe earth lie right?
    1
  5.  @robertmarszalek1978  Dozens of papers supporting the official story were published in the relevant peer reviewed science journals. Numerous design standards were changed as a result of these findings. Multiple analyses were done on the WTC collapse that supported NISTs findings - Werdlinger Associates, Exponent Failure Analysis, MIT, Perdue and others. The ASCE openly supported NISTs findings on 9/11. There are over 100 000 engineers in the group. I guess you know better than all those engineers/scientists? That's a mic drop. 💥
    1
  6.  @robertmarszalek1978  Oh and the paper you're referring to is from one engineer who worked with a couple of grads. It wasn't even published in a peer reviewed paper. 🤦‍♂
    1
  7. " I knew from day one that is not the truth because I recognized controlled demolition is what really brought it all down." Where is your evidence?
    1
  8. " So in order to explain the collapses you need to explain what happened to the columns, especially the extra large core columns." There are plenty of analyses that explain it. It's not a big mystery. Go to the NIST FAQ.
    1
  9. " tiny iron spheres like those which were found all over in WTC dust" There are plenty of causes for iron rich microspheres. The construction, the clean up, friction in the collapse, fly ash, melting point depression. It's not such a big mystery as confirmed by the people who actually reported it, the R J Lee group.
    1
  10.  @brians898  "NIST was not tasked with explaining what happened after initiation of collapses for both twin towers. " They were asked to determine why the towers collapsed and they did. In their FAQ they explain why the collapses had to continue. There are various analyses published in peer reviewed papers that do explain what happened after initiation. "Therefore you're telling someone to look at a report that doesn't explain what they asked. " Except that it does......you're inventing problems to avoid this.
    1
  11.  @brians898  Quit playing the victim. It happens to me all the time. Make your posts smaller and don't rant and cry in them.
    1
  12.  @brians898  "NIST does not explain the core columns all giving way within 12 seconds after the initiation of collapse. " 1. Yes they do in that the core is impacted with the drop of the upper blocks. They describe the collapse sequence progressing to impact the cores. 2. As I said there are various analyses that do explain the collapse in detail from Bazant, Seffen, Zhou, Greening and others.
    1
  13.  @brians898  ". NIST was not tasked with explaining what happened once the controlled demolition initiated. " They were tasked to explain why the towers collapsed. They did that.
    1
  14.  @brians898  "So name me someone else, like Bazant, who ignores a key Newtonian rule we learned in high school physics. " Tell me what you think he misses. If you say Newton's third law I'm going to laugh. "The pancake theory was a farce due to many factors" Do you even know what the pancake theory was? Tell me what you think it was.
    1
  15.  @brians898  "from NYPD, NYFD and eyewitnesses." Already addressed at the top. " You will ignore all documented accounts of bombs being heard at the WTC complexes " Just another reference to out of context testimony. Show me the bombs on the footage of the towers. Go on. We have plenty of footage of the towers. It should be easy for you. Bring on your excuses.
    1
  16.  @brians898  " It's not hard to understand" Your arguments are painfully simplistic actually. "why once we get past your nefarious claims.' Show they are. Go on.
    1
  17.  @brians898  "NIST was not tasked with explaining why the towers KEPT EXPLODING," 1. You mean collapsed. There are no mysterious explosions on any of the footage. 2. They were tasked with explaining why that happened and they did. 3. NIST explain in their FAQ why the collapse continued. 4. There are analyses of the collapse from people like Bazant, Seffen, Zhou, Greening and I'm pretty sure NIST even reference the Bazant one. You have no argument.
    1
  18.  @brians898  " Why lie about such an easily verifiable fact? I know why, but why be so brazen about it? " Anyone can see that I'm not lying here. I've giving you facts that destroy your 'argument'.
    1
  19.  @brians898  "NIST does not explain the core columns " NIST explain why the core fails in their FAQ. "NIST was not tasked with explaining what happened once the controlled demolition initiated." There is no evidence for a demolition. ", like Bazant, who ignores a key Newtonian rule we learned in high school physics." Feel free to explain what you think that is. Go on, I want a laugh.
    1
  20.  @brians898  "The pancake theory was a farce due to many factors, including eyewitness testimony from NYPD, NYFD and eyewitnesses. Y" You don't know what the pancake theory was do you? ...and no testimony only supports the official story. " You will ignore all documented accounts of bombs being heard at the WTC complexes on 9.11" Out of context quotes. We have plenty of footage of the towers. No mysterious bombs.
    1
  21.  @brians898  1. No that's a collection of people who said 'explosion' or similar in their testimony. A lot of that testimony is of people just describing the collapse. It's from Graeme Macqueen. I've actually gone through testimony. So that claim fails.
    1
  22.  @brians898  2. NIST were tasked with explaining what caused the towers to collapse. They do that. In their FAQ they show why the collapse continued after it started. Others have done peer reviewed papers analysing the collapse in more detail. So that claim fails.
    1
  23.  @brians898  3. NIST explain why the collapse continued in their FAQ. From memory they even reference one of the papers analysing the collapse - the Bazant one. So that claim fails.
    1
  24.  @brians898  4. NIST explain it. They show simple calculations in their FAQ. Bazant and others lay out a deep analysis of it. This isn't complicated. You have no argument.
    1
  25.  @brians898  "NIST referenced the debunked Bazant paper?" From memory they mention it in one of the chapters of their report. They don't go through it, merely mention it.
    1
  26.  @brians898  Was that all you had to respond to?
    1
  27.  @MrBarrynicholas  It's been over 20 years and still no one can support that claim....
    1
  28. "Three buildings two planes." Wow what a compelling argument. Actually all the buildings in the area were destroyed or damaged beyond repair.
    1
  29.  @jimchambers420  Yeah sometimes.
    1
  30. 🤦‍♂
    1
  31. As each floor is destroyed, what happens to the material from that floor? It doesn't magically disappear, it joins in the collapse and falls on the next floor. So it wasn't 10% destroying the rest. It started with 15-20 floors but more floors joined every second.
    1
  32.  @4465Vman  ".also theres a massiv e internal section of core columns that would still be standing!!" The cores were destroyed in the collapses as well.
    1
  33.  @4465Vman  "youre only dealing with gravity' ...and planes and fire. So no you're not only dealing with gravity.
    1
  34.  @4465Vman  ".gravity will not disintegrate these structures" The structures were crushed, not disintegrated and yes gravity did that. "you could drop the top of each tower from the air and it would still be there when it hits the ground!!" What are you talking about?
    1
  35.  @4465Vman  ".newtons third Law l and law of conservation of momentum means the force of gravity will not take the top fifteen or ten percent of ANY structure" You are showing that you don't understand the mechanics of a progressive collapse. I did physics at high school and university as part of computer science. This isn't like 2 cars hitting each other. This is 20 or so floors smashing the floor below it....then what happens to the material from that floor? It falls onto the floor below. Then you have 21 floors coming down onto the next...22....23...24 and it continues. It started with 20 floors but a few seconds later half the building is coming down. Some does come out the sides but with all the other material coming down that becomes negligible.
    1
  36.  @4465Vman  "gravity cannot throws steel beams horizontal either !!!!" Some material was ejected as part of the plane impact. Some fell out to the sides during the collapse. We have the collapses on videos. No mysterious explosives.
    1
  37.  @4465Vman  "IF you want to learn the physics" You don't understand the physics.
    1
  38. Judy Wood is utterly confused. Even the other 9/11 conspiracy theorists distance themselves from her terrible theories.
    1
  39. Her theories are absurd.
    1
  40. " Footage even shows a holographic plane with projection glitches defying physics before penetrating the buildings" 🤦‍♂
    1
  41. ...people describing what they saw. Planes hitting buildings...jet fuel exploding...buildings collapsing....no mystery.
    1
  42. It's a molten material of some sort.
    1
  43.  @andanotherthingwithdave777  " What Burns got enought to melt metal to liquid" A large fire will melt aluminium. It has a melting temp of 660C.
    1
  44. 🤦‍♂ How is demolishing buildings a way to hide money? Sigh....
    1
  45.  @maxsmith695  Who is correct?
    1
  46. "How many of you still believe that some Arab named Osama......" Prove otherwise. No one else can.
    1
  47.  @sean.durham999  🤷‍♂
    1
  48. "jet fuel physically cannot melt the steel beams " Nor is that the official story. "done with thermite and small explosives" No evidence for either. Why use both? "freefall is physically imposible" The towers didn't fall at free fall.
    1
  49. "Long ago a plane flew into the "Empire State Building" in heavy fog, and it did not collapse" A smaller plane flying slowly and carrying a fraction of the jet fuel. Mostly one floor was damaged. It's no comparison to 9/11.
    1
  50. "When airplanes crash it never melts the metal framing. " You've based this on all the other intentional 767 crashes into buildings? "How is jet fuel melting those heavy steel beams?" It isn't. The fire in the buildings is causing a molten material. It could be aluminium from the plane or lead from the UPS nearby...or a mix. We don't know for sure.
    1