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

Mark H
New York Post
comments

Comments by "Mark H" (@markh1011) on "Unseen 9/11 video found in a closet shows moment when World Trade Center collapsed" video.

@SquidProQuo80 " there were other accelerants and there is documented proof of nano-thermite on the columns." Jet fuel was the only accelerant identified. No one found nanothermite. That's a claim from a couple of kooky scientists that they themselves have never confirmed. "I can't believe that there are still non-experts who want to lecture professionals on nonsensical theories." Yeah like people who don't even understand the difference between speed and acceleration? 😂
21
@SquidProQuo80 "Floor trusses "pancaking" still would not fall at free-fall speed " The towers didn't fall at free fall so your argument is invalid. Oh and you are referring to acceleration, not speed. "we clearly see molten steel literally dripping out of the building and incinerating everything it touched" You don't know what metal that was. There were other metals inside nearby. There was tons of aluminium. There were server rooms with UPS nearby that contained lead. Conspiracy theorists act like steep is the only metal (well iron).
19
@Dan_druft "Strange because the fire could never be hot enough to melt steel and molten aluminum doesn't glow red" You don't see red steel coming out the sides so it's odd that you say that. A molten material was seen coming out the side. It was unlikely to be pure. It was probably a mix. It certainly could have been mostly aluminium.
16
@sarah_751 "And still, you get these sheep who’ll come out with absolutely anything." You mean the 9/11 conspiracy theorists....
14
@shredder9643 "2 planes, 3 skyscrapers... " Every building in the area was destroyed or damaged beyond repair. It was more like 2 planes, 11 buildings... perhaps more. ..and? It's funny that people think this is some sort of argument.
12
@jadedmastermind "Journal of the American Society of Safety Engineers published an article in which they say" Where is this article? The only accurate readings taken of the pile were from NASA's AVIRIS and the maximum temp they recorded was about 730C from memory. "Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolitions, Inc, was told by contractors at Ground Zero of “hot spots of molten steel in the basements" Unsupported testimony. You can't identify what a molten metal is purely by sight.
10
@peppergrand1072 "The building would have been leaning towards the weakest point then" On the sides where the temperatures were the highest, the perimeter columns bowed inwards until those columns failed. The buildings leaned towards those sides as they collapsed. There is no evidence for the conspiracy.....
6
"You will never convince me that that day was not an inside job," Those are the words of an irrational person.
4
Sigh... skyscrapers have collapsed due to fire before... Edifício Wilton Paes de Almeida and the Plasco building are two examples. Conspiracy theorists don't do basic research.
4
Enjoy your fantasy world.
3
"No one saw plane number 1.... " Everything you said was wrong.
3
@peppergrand1072 That's a really poor deflection.
3
So what you're saying is that you don't understand physics.
3
Not really.
3
"The steel the concrete turned from a full solid into billions of tiny particles" A lot of the concrete yes. The steel no. "It was cooked from the inside. That's why people jumped." People chose to jump over burning to death. You forgot about the fires. "It's called direct energy weapon " 🤦‍♂
3
@Urfavdwplayer what?
2
"This was done by our own Government" 🤦‍♂ .....and NASA is hiding the flat earth right?
2
"Anybody after all these years who thinks the buildings just fell down because a plane hit them is incredibly naive..." Do you even understand the official story on why the towers collapsed?
2
@K3ndex1210 " Did bbc report building 7 had fallen before it actually had "fallen"?" It was an error. There were several errors that day. It's not hard to see how they could have made that error as multiple buildings collapsed and partially collapsed that day and WTC7 was looking so unstable that the FDNY thought it would probably collapse.
2
@robertmarszalek1978 "and then resulted in as they describe the pancake Theory" The pancake theory was FEMAs explanation of collapse initiation. NIST did not support that theory. If you're talking about pancaking as if floors hitting the floors below during the collapse, that undeniably happened. Do you know what you were referring to?
2
@robertmarszalek1978 ". I really hope that you watch all the documentaries" Yes yes I've seen plenty of conspiracy documentaries. They are terrible. They work on the gullible and those who don't bother to do the research to verify the half-baked claims. Are you informed on this topic?
2
@robertmarszalek1978 So that's all you could come up with to respond to my posts? Not surprising.
2
@ronaldgreene5733 And we'll wait forever as you avoid the original question." You're projecting your own dodging. You have made two claims: 1. An unusual lack of turbulence. 2. Imperfect projection technology. I'm waiting for you to back this up. You've evaded for several posts now. Again - why did you bother posting when you couldn't back anything up?
2
@ronaldgreene5733 "Wake turbulence in the smoke and fire," You're making the claim that something is missing. I'm waiting for you to back this up. Why did you bother posting just to commence a tap dance routine when challenged to back up your claim? 👯💃👯💃
2
@ronaldgreene5733 You have made two claims. You've been challenged to support them. Take the dress off and end the tap dance routine. 👯💃👯
2
@ronaldgreene5733 " and see the complete lack of any turbulence in the smoke and fire" Prove that there should be something visible that's missing. ""Backed up" lol....repeating a claim isn't backing up. 🤦‍♂ This is comedy. You made two claims. I'm waiting for you to back them up. Give us another diversion. We'll wait. 😂
2
@ronaldgreene5733 "You are a desperate rehash as everyone has seen the smoke and fire only seconds after the passage of a 500 mph large passenger airliner. " So then it would be easy for you to back your claim up. ""back it up" . . "back it up" LOL, You have lost, Mark." You can't back up your claim so that means I've lost? 🤣🤣 🤦‍♂ Troll logic.
2
@ronaldgreene5733 " We can continue this forever, Mark" Yeah trolls like you probably can. Not much else to do in mummy and daddy's basement I guess. 😆
2
@ronaldgreene5733 "True desperation in your great efforts here. " The projection is mildly amusing. You have made two claims. Look at how much energy you're spending AVOIDING backing up your claims. Every time you do this, you are conceding.
2
@ronaldgreene5733 "Smoke and fire seconds later at both towers" ?? lol...yeah there was.... and? You're a mess. This is comical. You came here with claims you lack the ability to support. But you sure put on a frantic tap dance! 👯💃👯💃 😂
2
@ronaldgreene5733 "In the smoke and fire seconds later at both towers -- zero turbulence after passage of a 500 mph large passenger airliner" What does this even mean? You're not making sense.
2
@ronaldgreene5733 "Repetition is in my favor" No you sound like a crazy person who can't make a logical argument. 🤣
2
@ronaldgreene5733 Still waiting for you to back up your claims. Why did you bother coming here just evade? 😂😂 Bizarre. A big L.
2
@ronaldgreene5733 Another dodge. You came in with nothing and now you're frenetically tap dancing....lol... Why make the claims if you're too scared to support them? 😂😂😂
2
"Why did the 3rd building collapse?" It burned away freely all day until it collapsed. The FDNY thought it would collapse long before it did because it looked so unstable. No big mystery.
2
@peppergrand1072 🤦‍♂ No.
2
@peppergrand1072 ", than challenge the unsupported physics of skyscrapers and black boxes " What are you claiming here?
2
Ah yes Graeme Graeme MacQueen's absurd list. I remember reading through it. There were plenty of loud exploding type noises that day. Planes hitting buildings, jet fuel exploding, buildings on fire...buildings collapsing. It's really no surprise that some people used that term. If you actually bothered to look at the testimony you'd see that many are just describing the collapses. We have them on video and there were no mysterious explosions. This proves a point. People say 'explosion' for things that are not related to demolition explosives.
2
" Start with the movie Loose Change." This movie is for people who have the critical thinking skills of a flat earther.
2
"Then examine Architects and Engineers for 911 truth. And most importantly, read the book Where did the towers go by Dr.Judy Wood. " They contradict each other! They reject each other's theories. You're just accepting everything without any thought. 🤦‍♂
2
Do you understand why it collapsed?
2
@leelunk8235 Do you actually have an argument?
2
🤦‍♂...sigh.
2
It collapsed due to fire. It was looking so unstable it was expected to collapse. It's not such a big mystery.
2
@bangkobangko1391 The fire fighters who were there weren't surprised. But obviously you know better than them.... sure.
2
@friendlyadvice2792 " 800° is the max temperature for these combustibles." Office fires exceed 600C and can exceed 1000C. "Underground fires burned for 100 days at temperatures over 2000° " The fires smouldered for a long time which is not surprising. No such temperature was recorded.
2
"Why all the Jews did not come out on this day to work " Many Jewish people died in the WTC attack. Stop being so gullible.
2
It's been over 20 years and no one can support the conspiracy theories...
2
"marvin bush put bombs in the building" 🤦‍♂.... did aliens help him?
2
You're hearing things. Also, thermite is an incendiary not an explosive.
2
@bobbyvicious8359 I respect your service, but the claims of a conspiracy involving the government are garbage.
2
Gravity pulls down....
2
....so?
1
@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
@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
@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
" 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
" 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
" 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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@brians898 Was that all you had to respond to?
1
@MrBarrynicholas It's been over 20 years and still no one can support that claim....
1
"Three buildings two planes." Wow what a compelling argument. Actually all the buildings in the area were destroyed or damaged beyond repair.
1
@jimchambers420 Yeah sometimes.
1
🤦‍♂
1
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
@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
@4465Vman "youre only dealing with gravity' ...and planes and fire. So no you're not only dealing with gravity.
1
@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
@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
@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
@4465Vman "IF you want to learn the physics" You don't understand the physics.
1
Judy Wood is utterly confused. Even the other 9/11 conspiracy theorists distance themselves from her terrible theories.
1
Her theories are absurd.
1
" Footage even shows a holographic plane with projection glitches defying physics before penetrating the buildings" 🤦‍♂
1
...people describing what they saw. Planes hitting buildings...jet fuel exploding...buildings collapsing....no mystery.
1
It's a molten material of some sort.
1
@andanotherthingwithdave777 " What Burns got enought to melt metal to liquid" A large fire will melt aluminium. It has a melting temp of 660C.
1
🤦‍♂ How is demolishing buildings a way to hide money? Sigh....
1
@maxsmith695 Who is correct?
1
"How many of you still believe that some Arab named Osama......" Prove otherwise. No one else can.
1
@sean.durham999 🤷‍♂
1
"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
"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
Jet fuel only started the fires. The contents of the buildings did the rest....and then gravity.
1
" What happened to the TRILLIONS of" Most of it was reconciled within 6 months of 9/11.
1
"Those building were built for demolition" 🤦‍♂ "the beams were cut in angles so they would fall at the right moment " No suspiciously cut beams were found. We can see that the perimeter columns bow inward more and more until they failed, triggering the collapse. We can see that the floors were sagging. None of this fits your claim.
1
Perhaps you could produce some evidence to support your claim then.... considering your comment it should be easy for you.
1
@thearch1tect249 "There is sufficient evidence out there. " That's what the flat earther say.
1
It's been over 20 years and people still can't produce evidence for those nonsense claims.
1
No you can't see "steel burning"...
1
@terryhamrick7487 That's a molten material coming out the sides. You don't know if it's steel. It's not 'burning', it's a molten material flowing.
1
"Both buildings just happen to fall the same way." You mean the two buildings that were the same and were attacked the same way.... "Like a perfect demolition. " All the nearby buildings were destroyed....what was perfect about it? "And then they hastened with removing the debris. " They did start moving debris quickly to save peoples lives. You have a problem with that?
1
@jamiemcculloch3242 The towers didn't drop at free fall. Only part of WTC7, outer walls, fell at virtual free fall for a moment after the total collapse was already in full effect. Not surprising.
1
It's been over 20 yeas and still no one can find evidence to support that claim....
1
@LEELUNK-IS-A-HUNK "YOU MUST WORK FOR THE CIA OR PENTAGON" lol yeah man I'm a secret agent. Some people will believe anything. 🤣🤣🤣
1
"It's all very strange how it was later discovered that a few of the people accused by the government and media of being the hijackers, were found to be alive " No that wasn't strange at all. In the days after the attack the FBI were trying to identify the hijackers and they apparently listed people that were wrong. This was corrected immediately. "But the government and the media never amended their official story. " It was immediately corrected.
1
The hardest people to convince are often those who say they know a physics teacher or an engineer who said it couldn't happen. So you put faith in their view at the time. Those people were wrong and not here to debate the topic.
1
"Notice the white smoke??" ...and? " The molten steal pouring out of the corner of the building?" It was a molten metal, we don't know that it was steeel. " How did all the white smoke start pouring out of the second building?" Fire. " How did all the white smoke start pouring out of the second building?" It didn't. " Both buildings??? " Both were targets. " I mean, all 3 buildings at world trade centers??" Every WTC building was destroyed as were several nearby.....and? "Recovered I beams that were cut at an angle," Cut during the clean up. "he fact, that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel??" Irrelevant.
1
@WillCIII You tell me where you can see explosives going off.
1
@WillCIII None of the WTC buildings fell from the bottom up. What are you talking about? The towers collapsed from the top down. Get some glasses.
1
Are you actually serious..
1
"All engineers, architects and explosive experts, know for a fact this was a conspiracy, " Err no.
1
@GingerCC-he8be LOL... step off!? 🤣🤣
1
All engineers don't in fact support your bizarre claim. The ASCE openly supported the NIST findings, and they have over 100 000 members. Several analyses were conducted by engineering firms that supported NISTs findings. Many papers were published in relevant peer reviewed science journals that were consistent with NISTs findings. You're making things up.
1
@GingerCC-he8be Give me a list of all the demolition companies that support your claim. Go on. Take your time. I'll wait.
1
@GingerCC-he8be lol... you dodged everything. 🤣🤣 You were publicly refuted and all you could do was evade. 🤦‍♂
1
@GingerCC-he8be Your claim was dismantled in front of you. You were challenged. All you can do is mumble weak deflections... 🤣🤣
1
@GingerCC-he8be Perhaps you might want to do some basic research before posting and then you won't dig yourself into a hole like this. 😉
1
@GingerCC-he8be Oh I missed this gem. "spouting numbers such as 100,000 members will typically work to intimidate many." It's not a matter of intimidation. You made the claim that 'All engineers, architects and explosive experts, know for a fact this was a conspiracy'....when we can see from the work of engineers that this is not the case. You were challenged for a list of demolition companies. You dodged. You might want to stop now....
1
evidence?
1
@leelunk8235 Deflecting with upper case ranting...lol... 🤦‍♂
1
There is no evidence for thermite or nanothermite being involved. That's nonsense.
1
It looks like a molten material of some sort. People claim that it's steel but you can't know that from sight. There was certainly many tons of aluminium nearby (the plane) so it could have been a mix of aluminium and whatever else was in the offices...
1
What about it?
1
Stop believing everything you read on the internet.
1
"Building 7 also collapsed explain that " A report was released on that over a decade ago. "government said they demoed it " No. They did not.
1
" towers destroyed all five other WTC buildings but not another building around them. " what are you talking about? All the nearby buildings were destroyed. WTC 1-7 was destroyed as were others. "Why was there seismic activity four minutes before the first plane hit?" There wasn't. That's completely false.
1
" The records should be released soon and hopefully they will explain what really happened that tragic day." We already know what happened.
1
You don't know if what you're seeing is steel. No one found thermite....
1