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

@quebecpower978 "have you ever seen an other building this size collapsing from the top with no explosions? " Ah the "it's never happened before" argument. There has never been a demolition of a building this size either. So by your logic it wasn't a demolition. You diverted from your previous flawed argument to a new flawed argument.
5
That's the sound of a building collapsing from the top down. Did you expect silence?
4
@quebecpower978 "if you don't understand basic physics you learn in elementary school" You've been challenged to make an argument using physics and you're blurting out weak excuses. It's quite funny. You obviously realise you've been caught out. You don't know anything do you?
4
You're embarrassing yourself further with these evasions.
4
@quebecpower978 "There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see" You're mumbling nonsense and still evading.
4
Remember this? "Time to learn physics!" Oh so you know physics? Great. Prove it was a demolition using physics. You obviously don't know anything about physics. Keep the excuses and evasions coming though! 😂
4
@quebecpower978 Another dodge.... 🤡
4
@quebecpower978 A little bit of advice kiddo... don't try to pretend you know anything about physics when you don't. That way you won't have to perform this embarrassing tap dance when called out on your statements. 😉
4
@quebecpower978 Another dodge. Toy were challenged about physics. You're tap dancing because you don't know anything about physics. 👯💃 It's hilarious. You got exposed.
4
@quebecpower978 All you have are empty, evasive posts. You have no argument. You have no evidence. You have no clue. Run along kiddo. Get back to me when you have something.
4
@quebecpower978 "Time to learn physics!" Oh so you know physics? Great. Prove it was a demolition using physics.
3
@quebecpower978 "wonder why you guys got Biden as a president" I'm not American. Swing and a miss.....
3
@quebecpower978 "Ofcourse i do!" You know physics? Why are you dodging the challenge then? Prove it was a demolition using physics. I'm waiting.
3
@quebecpower978 " 1:43 you can see the explosions LMAO" Why are you laughing? Is there something wrong with you? Oh and no...there are no explosions there, just a collapsing building.
3
@quebecpower978 "There is literally thousands of building destroyed this way in China alone each year! LOL" What?! What are you talking about?
3
@quebecpower978 You're still dodging. I guess you don't know anything about physics or this topic then. Get back to me when you're confident enough to make an argument kid.
3
@quebecpower978 No you've evaded, given excuses and are now trying to run away. You can present no evidence, no argument, nothing.
3
It was more than 10...but the point is that it was 10 at the start and then as it progressed and each floor was destroyed the material from that floor joined the collapse meaning the impact force only increased.
2
While your logic there may be sound, this is the debate I've had many times: conspiracy theorist "the NIST report is rubbish" me "point out where it is wrong" conspiracy theorist "..umm... you're a sheep" me "you don't know anything about the NIST report do you?" conspiracy theorist "..umm... you're a shill" If you declare that something is wrong you should at least be able to say why.
1
"I have seen many people saying that some simulation of the colapse doens't seem 100% the same as the actual video footage, but it's really difficult to do simulation to represent an event 100% as it should be" Yep. Good point. Models are just that. They are a representation. There are inaccuracies. That doesn't necessarily invalidate them. "Molten lava falling from the building or at the bottom of the actual ruins " Molten metal. Molten metal in a very hot fire isn't so suspicious. Aluminium for example would be molten in areas of the highest temps. "I already saw 3 simulations, but the actual parameters are secret, if an experiment is not reproducible" No one is stopping others doing their own simulation though. In fact I would have more respect for the conspiracy theorists if they actually did this. They don't though. Isn't that odd? So it is reproduceable. You would just need to enter your own parameters. "-The "no plane wing impact" on pentagon. " The walls next to the fuselage hole are gone... they are blown in. It's not a shape like the towers but that's not so surprising considering it was a military instillation designed to handle blasts... "Why the lovy of WTC 1 and 2 seems to be so damage when rescue teams arrived if the plane impact so high in the tower. " Sorry I don't understand what you mean here? "Theres many other things I find unexplicable" It was certainly not your average day. There are many things that are unlike anything that has happened before. It interests me but i've seen nothing to think the US were behind it.
1
"I repeat, there no reason of this appearing at sides of the building between 50 - 60 floors." Oh ok you're talking about an area below with the fires. I missed that. Where was this seen? Was it on video? " Well theres no engine residues anywhere here. " They went into the building. "I havent seen any real video of the plane itselft, because suddendly, one of the most important building in the US has no records of it coming. " They didn't have cameras set up to get footage of planes from the sky. I don't find that so strange. The evidence that a large plane hit the pentagon is convincing tho There is wreckage. http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html Also Passenger DNA matched with families. Passenger personal effects identified by families. The FDR. Image from the security footage with a shape that fits a large plane. Light poles knocked down on the way into the impact. over 100 witnesses who saw the plane hit. "The cuestion is why will they be in that condition if he plane stroke 80 floors above. " I think it's deflagration/explosion related to the jet fuel travelling down some shafts. This is supported by testimony., http://www.911myths.com/html/jet_fuel.html That's what I think anyway.
1