Comments by "Dirk Diggler" (@dirkdiggler8260) on "VICE TV"
channel.
-
23
-
19
-
15
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
@jeremiahjohnson6082 A plane is made from "almost paper"? Lol, you really need to think before you speal because that statement right there is insane. Aircraft grade aluminium is actually stronger than structural steel, but in terms of the forces at play when a 150 ton mass slams into an immovable object (like say, the planet fkng earth) at full throttle, there really isn't going to be much left. I already explained to you VAST difference between a typical crash site where the pilot is doing everything in his power to keep the aircraft airborne, and one the nose dives at full throttle into the ground, but this seemingly went over your head. Its akin to throwing a bulllet at the ground and firing a bullet from a gun at the ground, the extent of the forces at play are slightly different.
Like i said previously which you also ignored, is that 95% of the aircraft was recovered along with everyone on board. Are you suggesting this was all planted? They buried the engines and other wreckage from AA93 several meters underground, scattered thousands of other pieces of wreckage and human remains over such a large distance all without anybody seeing? You can't possibly be that deranged as to believe that to be possible, surely not?
As far as the Pentagon goes, watch the video right here on youtube of a Phantom F4 sled test where they slammed it into a heavily reinforced (as was the Pentagon perimeter wall) wall at 500mph and look what happened to it. After watching that, it's a miracle any of AA77 was left at all. There was plenty of wreckage however retrieved, including again (like AA93), the black box which when decoded showed the data from AA77's final 11 flights. On top of this, 136 people directly observed it and all confirm it to be a plane; radar evidence showing a radar track from Dulles airport to the Pentagon before abruptly stopping. The damage to surrounding structures hit on approach confirm the wingspan and engine separation of a Boeing 757 too. There really is no doubts whatsoever that this plane crashed there that day as ALL evidence confirms. If not then what exactly do you believe did??
For the record, there are other crash sites that have similarly left very little debris in respect to large pieces that you assume should always remain regardless of the circumstances (which is nothing more than an argument from incredulity). I've seen images of them that were presented over on the Metabunk forum, but i can't remember the full details as this was quite a long back. They are there though if you bother to search.
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Possibly THE dumbest sh!t I've ever read. I feel dumber for reading it 😕
Now for the reality. WTC7 was LEASED by Larry Silverstein who made the comment you're speaking of AFTER the attacks during a pre-recorded interview in a studio. This was NOT the same day and he was OBVIOUSLY speaking about pulling the operation and pulling the fire fighters out and away from the building as it had been determined a collapse was inevitable. Incidentally, this was not Silverstein's decision to make and the order came directly from Chief of Department FDNY Dan Nigro. The term 'pull' in demolition terms refers SOLELY to a structure being rigged up with cables attached to excavators which then proceed to pull it down in a manner so as not to damage other, surrounding structures. Never does it refer to an explosive demolition.
You also said that WTC7 only had fires on 3 floors but according to fire fighters who's job is was to assess, the whole building was hevaily involved with fire and we KNOW there were fires on at least 15 floors. The fire fighters at the scene had literally stated publicly that a collapse was inevitable due to it being non-concrete reinforced, steel-framed structure that had sustained a huge amount of structural damage, and was left to freeburn. It's pretty well known that ANY non-concrete reinforced, steel-framed structure will eventually collapse if allowed to continue burning. It's the reason we use fire-proofing. In this case, the fires continued for 2hrs beyond what its fire-proofing was rated at.
Next you say it came down in textbook fashion which is again, completely false. Watch a video, or better still go and watch an actual demolition if you get chance and listen just how loud it is. Where was the huge blasts we hear right before the building drops? The collapse was also highly asymmetrical and fell like it did due to the implementation of longspan beams, used to create a large open atrium, leaving it more susceptible to fire.
You go on to say the towers were demoed also, so why doesn't there appear to be ANY demolitions experts agreeing with you? Not one. If you believe otherwise, name one.
Can you also explain how both towers managed to collapse at the impact zones 60-90 minutes after the impacts? If there were explosives planed there, how did the planes hit those precise locations and how did the explosives survive the impacts and ensuing fires?
For the record, the official stance doesn't say the planes brought the towers down, it was the fires hence why they remained standing so long.
Finally, and possibly the most ridiculous thing you say is trying to compare a plane hitting a flimsy, steel-framed skyscraper that was 95% air, to one hitting a heavily reinforced, kevlar-lined, concrete wall several feet thick. Do you really need that one explaining to you?? It's akin to you driving a car at speed in to a cardboard box or driving flat out into the side of a cliff.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@immachine1565 No, I'm not a demolitions expert but unlike you, I'm willing yo admit it. Saying something is a fact doesn't make it so and given how there aren't any actual demolitions experts claiming it was demoed, I'd say that doesn't really bode well for your assertions. Just be honest and admit, you have no experience or knowledge of controllee demolition.
As I said, controlled demolitions start from the bottom whereas both towers collapsed at precisely where the planes struck. Now that is a fact and one that alone refutes any claims of controlled demolitions. I'm not a CD expert but I do know that demolitions devices are extremely sensitive to things like heat and geometry, so can you explain how they managed to survive the plane impacts and ensuing fires that raged for 60-90 minutes before collapsing? This is a huge problem for anybody claiming demolition so how do you reconcile this fact with your theory?
In respect to you claiming into it's own footprint, this isn't true unless you believe its footprint was SIX times its perimeter area. If it fell neatly into itz own footprint, why so much damage to surrounding buildings?
Regarding the link to the video you sent, the "huge explosion" was clearly just the actual sound of the collapse. Watch a video of a real controlled demolition and you'll see they're incomparable. Not only do they fall from the bottom up (unlike either tower), you'll hear a very loud series of explosions in sequence at the collapse initiation. In the footage you linked me to, you can't even rrally hear any explosion. They're incomparable to a real controlled demolition. They didn't look like CD's, nor did sound like CD's. You're essentially claiming to know more about CD's than seemingly the entire demolitions community and I'm sure you realise how absurd that would be, right?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@davepowell7168 No, that's not exactly what happened but you are correct in saying velocity is of great importance being that there really isn't much that will stop a mass weighing the best part of 200 tons, travelling at around 500mph, certainly not a few steel columns a quarter inch thick, which is what the steel was at that height if i remember correctly. Force = mass x acceleration and the math shows those planes struck with a force equivalent to 1.35 tons of TNT. The plane was shredded and destroyed on impact, but not without smashed through several steel columns. If a piece of 2x4 can punch through solid concrete just being propelled by the wind, I'm pretty certain those planes cut through those columns like butter. I'm yet to hear a physicist making this argument and they won't because the math is verifiable and conclusive. For the record, aircraft grade aluminium is stronger than A36 structural steel, obviously the aluminium used on the planes fuselage is relatively thin gauge, but then it is a pressurised container.
In terms of velocity, Flight 11 was travelling at 495mph when it struck the tower and Flight 175 was travelling at around 587mph. Speeds easily achieved during a dive.
2
-
@federalreservebrown2507 Wow. I have nothing to say to that sorry lol, what a bizarre response. You're clearly batsh!t crazy with zero concern for truth. Look how you've blatantly ignored key facts just because they oppose your view, choosing to ignore what the fire fighters who assessed WTC7 said, instead focusing on some fictional, booze soaked farmers 🙈 lol. Sheer lunacy.
Personal friend Alan Sabrosky?? Lol, I'm sure he is 🙄😂 Quit with the bs, how gullible do you think i am? Besides, why would anybody admit to being friends with that Jew hating crackpot?? I certainly wouldn't. What do you think about him saying the 911 truth movement has "utterly failed"? Not quite what you're claiming is it? 🤔 Now have you got anything other than arguments from incredulity and the personal opinion of people completely unqualified to be talking about such matters? Try finding me a demolitions expert who believes the towers were demoed and when you fail doing that, grow a set of balls and address what i asked you in my previous comment you fact-dodging blowhard. You have two fundamental problems i want you to address in that the fire fighters knew WTC7 was going to collapse hours before it fell, and how the hell would a demolition possibly bring the twin towers down precisely at the impact zones when it's pretty obvious any demolition devices located anywhere near those areas would have been instantly destroyed by the impacts and ensuing fires? Ignore this too, just like you ignore the fact Danny Jowenko (a personal friend too by any chance? 🙄) wasn't experienced in demolition structures anywhere near rhat magnitude and stated the towers were NOT demoed? Why are you burying your head to these facts if you have a genuine concern for truth? Rhetorical question as it's clear to all you have no interest in anything other than conspiracy, hence why nobody takes anything you say seriously.
2
-
2
-
@davepowell7168 I don't profess to know the answer to this but a quick search suggests they were indeed visible. I don't know in all honesty as i have no knowledge of such things. I fail to see the argument here though when we literally watched the planes hit. The only people seemingly making this argument are no-planers. You do accept planes crashed into the towers that day right?
Physicists say those planes most definitely could and did cut through those relatively thin columns like butter and they have shown the math to back it up. If a paper thin ping-pong ball can smash through a ping-pong paddle, and a piece of 2x4 can punch through a solid concrete wall or curb, then I'm pretty sure a 200 ton mass travelling 500mph can severe relatively thin steel columns, I really can't understand why/how anybody could possibly question this. Mass and velocity is key here and we had a large mass travelling very fast so it stands to reason. If you were so confident in this argument, why haven't you or anybody else done the math to demonstrate it? The physics community would be shouting it from the rooftops. If you want me to dig out the math demonstrating how easily they smashed through them, i will do so if needs be. I do vividly remember thought that it was shown that the planes could have been travelling much slower and would still have struck with enough force to smash through them. As i said, there really is not much that is going to stop a plane travelling those speeds, amd certainly not a few thin steel columns.
Oc course firemens axes aren't made of aluminium, but then they don't use axes 155ft in length weighing the best part of 200 ton, swinging them at 500mph making it a completely incomparable analogy.
The planes never severed the core columns so that's again, irrelevant.
Yes the towers were constructed to withstand a strike from a 707, but NOT at take off weight as you claim. The scenario imagined by the designers was a 707 (the heaviest plane in service at that time which was smaller and lighter than the 767's that hit) that was coming into land whilst lost in fog, and therefore having very little fuel onboard left. The imagined scenario also meant they'd have been travelling 3 times less than what the planes that hit were travlling at, so we have a smaller mass travelling much slower and therefore striking with much, MUCH less force. Again, easily calculable should you wish to do the math. It should also be noted that the towers withstood the plane impacts amazingly well and is testament to their design and construction which enabled thousands of people to escape with their lives. It was the ensuing fires that brought them down, not the plane impacts.
Can i ask what exactly it is you believe as I'm confused by your arguments. First off, do you accept planes hit the towers, and do you believe the twin towers were demoed?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ramzichouk4080 "We were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse." - Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
"There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it.....On the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.
That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good......Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see. So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped." - Captain Chris Boyle NYFD
"They were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out." - Richard Banaciski NYFD Firefigher
"The biggest decision we had to make on the first day was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged WTC 7 a 47-story building heavily involved in fire. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt. I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision." - Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY
How many more would you like?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jamestee8852 Yes, you were wrong. VERY wrong. In fact, that's one of the dumbest things I've heard from a truther, and I've hear some pretty dumb sh!t from you guys over the years to say the least.
It wasn't a 50 ton plane, more like double that and it was mostly the heavier parts of the plane that buried itself (as expected) and the lightweight skin mostly confettied into small pieces which we then scattered far and wide in the blast. The vast majority of that plane was recovered and hundreds of volunteers scoured the area retrieving wreckage, remains of the passengers and their personal belongings. Are you suggesting all of this was planted without anybody seeing, or that the hundreds of volunteers, first response, emergency services, the clergyman, the county coroner and all the others who helped out were all just lying? It's beyond absurd and highly disrespectful to those who died that day. Your ridiculous conspiracy theory fail's under scrutiny many times over whether you accept that or not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tuck6464 Says some clueless jerk0ff on youtube who's watcjed a bunch of conspiracy videos 😏 Go speak with the likes of Giulio Bernacchia, pilot of 30+yrs, much of it in the military, then captain for a commercial airline, flight simulator instructor and examiner who flew NATO AWACS planes as Aircraft Commander (air refuelling qualified) and low altitude maritime patrol captain. He says otherwise sorry. All Hanjour did was royally fkd up the approach to show what a poor pilot he was, then came in recklessly from 4 miles out, at 2000ft altitude, dipped the nose amd throttled up, crashing into THE world's largest offices. Stop trying to hype up his achievements, ALL evidnece PROVES you wrong eg. 757 wreckage, direct eye-witnesses, the remains of all the passengers, the black box and so on. Jog on fool.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tuck6464 136 people saw that jet, EVERY eye-witness reporting it being a plane, not a single report of anything other than a plane. The wreckage strewn throughout the crashsite has been independently confirmed as coming from a 757 and the radar track, the black box and the remains of those on board each independently PROVE that 7 was AA77. The amount of evidence you choose to ignore in order to make your conspiracy fly is insane. ZERO evidnece whatsoever of a missile and there is a mountain of conflicting evidence that categorically proves it could not possibly have been a missile eg. Damage to structures hit on approach over 100ft apart, the impact hole, the impact marks from the wing and vertical stabiliser, the fact there is an exit hole 3 rings in, the blatant hydrocarbon explosion, the toral absence of missile debris, all eye-witness testimonies, the radar/ATC evidence, the list goes on. Why are you so desperate to dismiss the official stance? I find it all extremely bizarre.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jeremiahjohnson6082 Did you really just advise somebody else to "listen to scientists, architects, pilots and physicists" (who I'm pretty sure fall under the umbrella of 'scientists')? You do realise that the number of experts you refer to equate to less than 0.1% of their respective communities and many, MANY others feel very differently and don't share their fundamentally flawed, utterly refuted beliefs? So in reality, it is YOU who should try listening to the experts instead of the tiny, insignificant, fringe lunatics who happen to hold some academic credentials in some (half the time very loosely) affiliated field of expertise.
Lying about being an aerospace engineer too, that's pretty shameful. You literally just told me on another thread that planes are made from "almost paper", and we're meant to believe you have knowledge of aerospace engineering?? I don't think so. To say those planes couldn't have achieved those speeds at sea level without "destroying themselves" is lunacy and easily debunked by 100 videos here on youtube of large aircraft (some being the same model planes as were used that day) achieving similar speeds during extremely low passes without any issues at all. Test pilots take them beyond their V-limits all the time. What you're seemingly confused by is that you believe the second a plane exceeds these limits, it instantly breaks up which is so easily debunked by literally thousands of examples. Those limits are simply what Boeing will guarantee the structural integrity of the airframe. What you're also failing to recognise is that those planes DIVED to achieve those speeds and only exceeded any limits momentarily before crashing. I'm afraid this is what happens when you obtain all of your information from notoriously unreliable conspiracy websites whilst refusing to look at the actual scientific studies that actually hold weigh in the academic community, NOT like that pseudoscientific study of Hulsey's that was paid for by truthers who insisted he began with the presupposition that fire didn't bring WTC7 down. If that were true, can you please explain to me how the fire fighters tending to 7 had managed to predict the collapse several hours before it fell?
Can you also tell me at what speed a 757 at sea level will instantly break up or do you admit you have no clue as to what you're talking about?
I'll await your deflective answers and failure to address what I've asked, just as you failed to acknowledge the fundamentals of what i said in my previous comment on the other thread here.
Ps. Hitting those towers was easy, stop making it to be something difficult when it so wasn't. They had about 200 miles of clear skies to line themselves up in near perfect flying conditions. They could have literally just put a mark on the windscreen with a sharpie and lined it up with the towers lol.
Pps. No buildings collapsed at freefall and there isn't a single demolitions expert who agrees with you that the twin towers were demoed. By all means name one and prove me wrong.
1
-
@jeremiahjohnson6082 I've been watching too many movies?? 🤣 You're completely and utterly detached from reality so i find that pretty rich. Like I said, there's literally videos here on youtube of the same model planes and other similar aircraft, doing up to 500mph low passes. You're just repeating the lies you've read on truther websites, twisting reality to suit your/their agenda. This myth has been utterly refuted and you seem to be forgotting, we KNOW those plane hit those buildings and we KNOW what speed they were flying. The FACT it actually happened alone kinda refuses your spurious buIIsh!t.
Your "superhuman feats" were in fact pretty fkng easy and many people (some complete novices) have done exactly what they did in flight simulators without issue.
You say they become uncontrollable, but what exactly do you think was going to happen?? Do you think the planes would suddenly jump off course, change direction, nose dive instantly into the ground or what? Planes can EASILY reach those speeds during a dive and anybody who claims otherwise doesn't know what the hell they're talking about. Again, Boeing have no issues and the fact it happened in front of many witnesses and we have thr wreckage and remains of those on board, as well as much more independent evidence, your arguments from incredulity don't really cut it. Keep repeating your lies but facts remain facts regardless sorry.
What are you talking about Top Gun pilots?? Hanjour made a STANDARD TURN, coming out of it at 2000ft over 4 miles from the Pentagon. He simply then dipped the nose and lined himself up, throttled up to gain speed. There really is NOTHING difficult whatsoever about it, as several pilots have confirmed. You want a name? Just one? Try Giullio Bernacchia, a pilot in the Italiam airforcefor 27yrs before becoming an airliner Captain, dligjt instructor and examiner who flew NATO AWACS as a Commander.. Let me know if you want any others.
The fact you also say WTC7 is a "proven demolition" again exposes just how readily you'll lie. Proven by whom and how?? LIAR!! Explain to me how the fire fighters managed to predict the collapse several hours before it fell? Lucky guess? 🤔
Years from now truth will come out you say? You've been saying this for over 20yrs lol, keep dreaming you crackpot.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@diannawilson1329 Diane you are so wrong about many things here. There was plenty of gold located in their vaults which was removed after. Yes people certainly used the event to make money, as is always the case, but Larry Silverstein who leased the complex didn't get a double payout, in fact he got paid out only half of his claim. He tried to claim it as two separate events, as would anybody in his position, but they paid it as one, leaving him way out of pocket. His claim didn't even cover the cost of the rebuild let alone all the money he lost in revenue and 100 million lease he still had to pay each year to the Port Authority. The Put Options claim has been debunked and isn't how truthers like to claim it. If you search '911myths Put Options' then you should find the full details of this there.
It isn't true that an unusually large number of people didn't turn into work and by ethnic group, I'm assuming your referring to the mythical 'Jew call' that was made as a joke by a comedian, that truthers ran with as being genuine. There were hundreds of Jews in those towers that day, and a number of the victims who perished were Jewish.
Zero evidence whatsoever of thermite of any kind present, that was proven to rubbish. All they found were red paint chips from the red oxide paint used to prime the steel, and iron microspheres which were present in huge quantities in the materials used in construction, which were liberated in the collapse. There were also huge numbers created during the actual collapse as they're simply the result of sparking.
Never heard of the image of Bush on Epstein island so can't comment on that. Seems a bit silly that one to me but whatever. You are right in that the US government weren't behind it as there's no doubts it was Al-Qaeda, the evidence is overwhelming.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@liukang3545 Ok stupid, first off I'm not American so as per usual, wrong from the outset. Secondly, the fact you have managed to convince yourselves that you know more about demolition than the ENTIRE demolitions community speaks for itself and exposes your delusions of granduer and general mental instability. The world's leading authority on controlled demolition literally stated it would be "impossiblecl" to have brought those towers down in that manner via a controlled demolition, but once again you know better because you looked at the footage and concluded with your ZERO knowledge of demolition that it was a demolition. Anybody with the first clue of demolition would know that it would be impossible to bring to the towers down at the impact zone. Demolitions start from the bottom up you tool, not from two thirds up 🤣 Any demo devices located anywhere near those locations would have been instantly destroyed by the plane impacts, let alone manage to survive 60-90 minutes if raging fires! Demo devices are EXTREMELY sensitive to things like heat and geometry, which demo experts understand and which is why there aren't ANY who agree with you 😏🖕🏽 Finally, NO beams exploded you freaking crackpot, what footage are you looking at?? You're such a liar lol. The only thing i can possibly think you're referring to is the air being violently expelled as entire floor slabs are slamming down on to one another. We observe the exact same thing during verinage demolitions which don't use any explosives. You are demonstrably wrong and you have nothing, literally NOTHING to back up your kooky conspiracy claims. And you know it 😉
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@youtube_chaplain I GUARANTEE you've not converted a single individual by spamming youtube videos with primitive ramblings. Not one. Why don't you be more like a real Christian and get out and help people instead of wasting your time doing what you're doing and annoying everyone else?
And no, it isn't about free will as many people (me included) couldn't believe what you believe even if we wanted to. Many people NEED evidence to believe in things, and rightly so. Believing in something without evidence is madness and leaves you open to all kinds of manipulation as history has specifically proven many times. No omnipotent, omniscient deity would ever make blind faith a requirement, and no omnibenevolent deity would ever condemm us to eternal damnation for not being physically capable of believing in something so absurd without ANY evidence whatsoever. If i told you there were invisible unicorns grazing in my back garden, would you believe me or would you need evidence? I rest my case. Another incontrovertible fact worth noting that is also very inconvenient for religion to deal with is that we are simply all products of our environment. If you were born on the bamks of the river Ganges of Hinidi parents for instance, you would bow to Shiva and Ganesh. Are you telling me that BILLIONS of people, through no fault of their own are now burning in hell for the crime of being born in the wrong place, at the wrong time, of the wrong parents? I don't wish to be part of that sorry, not could i if i wanted to. Believe whatever you like, just stop ramming it down the throats of the rest of us who you have literally ZERO chance of converting just by copying and pasting bible verses om every damn thread.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@astrofarmer9350 Ok, firstly well done for ignoring the actual fundamentals and glaring holes in your argument. Secondly, google isnt a website, it's a search engine. What actual site did you get thise figures from, give me the name? Of course it's a truther site because ONLY truther sites makes such ridiculously irrelevant comparisons.
Thirdly, we've already proven those attacks were orchestrated by Islamic radicals and ignorance doesn't quite cut it in the real world. You may be able to get away with this sh!t in the court of youtube, public opinion, but in a court of law, not quite so much.
Finally, the passport wasn't fireproof nor did it need to be. Passports often survive plane crashes as paper and the like are easily ejected by a blast due to their large surface to mass ratio. This is nothing new and nothing whatsoever unusual about it. The passport was found prior to the collapse, on the street surrounded by thousands of other pieces of paper that survived unscathed and ejected by the blast. Are you suggesting they were all planted also? And what would be the purpose of planting a passport of somebody who was on the flight manifest which proves he was on the plane? It would be an utterly needless risk.
1
-
@astrofarmer9350 Redone?? No. That had some maintenance work done, they were NOT "redone", whatever that means lol. Is this your evidence for foul play? If so then please explain why both towers collapsed precisely at the impact zones? How does that fit in with this theory? It doesn't, not that it matters to the tinfoil hat wearing lunatic fringe that you're part of. Care to explain how explosives managed to evade the bomb detection dogs present? To rig a tower of that magnitude would take many people many months and according to the world's leading experts in demolition, they wouldn't know where to begin with such a task. They also said that it would be "impossible" to have brought those towers down in that manner via a controlled demolition.......but you know better 😉 In fact there doesn't seem to be a single demolitions expert on earth who agrees with you that the twin towers were demoed. Mainly because they OBVIOUSLY weren't. Any devices located anywhere near the impact zones would have been instantly destroyed by the plane impacts and ensuing fires, yet you believe they managed to survive the plane strikes and without 60-90 of intense heat from the fires thay raged prior to collapse. In reality, we literally have footage of collumns and beams buckling and entire floor slabs sagging from heat in that area prior to collapse.
In respect to the ignited jet fuel flowing down the elevator shafts causing an explosion in the lobby, i assure you this could most definitely have happened and did. You're clearly unaware of the service shafts and the express elevator that was a continuous elevator shaft from top to bottom......and I'm the one who doesn't know anything about this topic you say? 🤔 You've not even read the reports or studies and uet you expect me or anyone else to take you seriously?? Reading those would be far too much like real research and would require a genuine concern for truth which you simply do not have. For you itsall just about conspiracy and you'll happily bury your head to any conflicting evidence which speaks for itself.
Larry Silverstein was just one of a large consortium of investors of which ALL maor decisions required their agreement. He was NOT the sole lease holder as you crackpots would have everyone believe.
The reasoning that they were demoed because of asbestos is beyond absurd and clearly something you've not thought through lol. Tell me, why would they need to strip out all of the asbestos and if it was such a major issue, why lease the buildings in the first place?
Benjamin Netanyahu wasn't even in power in 2001 🙈 lol. And who told you they are such close friends?? I can't seem to find any evidence for this whatsoever, but you just keep clutching those straws you antisemitic scumbag.
1
-
@astrofarmer9350 NO molten steel was found anywhere, feel free to provide any non-conjectural evidence to show otherwise. Molten metal doesn't necessarily equate to molten steel. Was molten metal present? Yes, lots of, just as we'd expect there to be given the temperatures and metals present in such vast quantities, namely aluminium. But no molten steel. A fireman saying he saw molten steel doesn't quite cut it sorry. Without chemical analysis, this is just pure guesswork and assumption. We now know better given the information we have and we can say with the utmost confidence, no molten steel was found.
Nope, dust tested has never shown any traces of thermite and the only ones making this claim is the pair of crackpot conspiracy kooks who purposely tried to fraudulently circumnavigate the scientific process, knowing full well their pseudoscientific buIIsh!t wouldn't stand up to actual scientific scrutiny. This really does expose your blinding ignorance and breathtaking credulity. So desperate to believe the conspiracy. All those two clowns found were red paint chips that came from the red oxide paint used to prime the steelwork st the time of construction, and iron microspheres which were not only present in HUGE quantities in the materials used in the construction that were liberated during the collapse, but were also created in HUGE quantities during the fires and collapse. I cannot believe how easily truthers are duped, it's truly mind-numbing.
Secret societies like who, and what exactly do you believe their purpose to be? Be specific. There's no such thing as the Illuminati if that's what you're suggesting, just like there is no group of wealthy, evil Jews plitting world domination. I do hope this isn't the path you're taking me down because i already think you're an idiot, i don't need it confirming any further. This is what happens when you get your new from places like InfoWars 🙈
Fox news interviewed Bin Laden? Are you sure about that?? Lol, you're literally just making this up as you go. Are you referring to the ABC interview back in 1998? You really are all over tha place and clearly well out of your depth here.
As for Sadam, we KNOW he had been stockpiling WMD's and he'd even used them on his own people, therefore we had very good reason to believe he had them. He had plenty of time to get rid of them however, but that said, we did find his plans for nuclear armament. Last time i checked, nuclear weapons fall into the category of WMD's. Let's just pretend though you're right about America using the attacks to invade Iraq, firstly, why blame the attacks on Saudi nationals? Secondly, using the attacks as an excuse to invade Iraq doesn't mean they orchestrated the attacks. You do realise this right?
1
-
1
-
@astrofarmer9350 You can make these outlandish, baseless claims, but that doesn't make them true. Putting blame using the most flaky, utterly debunked reasoning on a man just because he's of Jewish heritage is most definitely antisemitic. Your remarks about an entire nation being "evil" confirm this. You're an antisemite, own it instead of denying it.
Silverstein and his conglomerate of investors, were victims of this attack, not the purportrators. They lost a fortune in the event which hardly indicates him having any involvement. The asbestos argument is a nonestarter on several grounds, it's utterly absurd beyond reason. To think the best solution they came to would be to hijack civilian planes and convince somebody to commit suicide by flying them into skyscrapers, covering Manhattan in a cloud of toxic dust just to save a few quid on asbestos removal is insane on so many levels, i struggle to take anything you say seriously on this basis alone.
Keep repeating the lie that there was molten steel, but your failure to do as i asked and offer ANY non-conjectural evidence demonstrates otherwise. If you knew of any, you'd be ramming it down my throat, but your only defence seems to be 'nu-huh, yeah there was' which doesn't really hold much weight in the real world. This again serves to show how readily you'll accept erroneous claims with zero evidence as long as it supports your theory; but you immediately reject facts you can easily verify for yourself purely because they oppose your version of events. You're so clearly not somebody who cares for truth.
How would you know it wasn't accounted for in the NIST report when you've not read it?? It wasn't accounted for because there wasn't any, it's that simple. Prove me wrong and show me on what grounds you take it on. Conjectural claims of fire fighters and the like, nothing more. Not good enough sorry.
Your next falsehood is again, your dismissal of another easily verified fact, that there was an express elevator and service shafts from lobby to the top. Yes there were 3 others which weren't connected, but ignoring the express elevator and service shafts again doesn't work in the real world. Take a few seconds to image search 'twin towers elevator system' and you'll see a diagram right there.
60% of the fuel evaporated on impact? Lol, are you serious??? 🙈 Where do you get this inane cr@p from? Cite your source for that little gem. Most exploded in a fireball whilst the rest (difficult to put a figure on how much for obvious reasons) flowed into the structure and caused flash fires whichbwere then sustained by the contents of the buildings. Some without doubt flowed down those shafts as evidence shows.
Again, having work done on the elevator system doesn't mean they were using this as a ruse to plant bombs. That's one hell of an assumption to make to say the least. Have you got ANYTHING whatsoever in the way of evidence to back that up? Of course not, because people like you don't care about evidence. If you did then you wouldn't be a truther. As I said the last time you made this ridiculous claim, how did the bombs go past the detection of the detection dogs? How and why did both towers collapsed precisely at the impact zones? How would any devices located there survive the impacts and 60-90 minutes of intense heat when they're so sensitive to such things? The other thing you fail to acknowledge here is.......the work did get done on the elevators. Those guys were quite obviously elevator engineers. You also ignored what i said about ZERO demolitions experts agreeing with you. Is that not a concern for you?
I'm not even going to acknowledge your Benjamin Netanyahu remark. Show me ANY evidence of his involvement and I'll entertain you. Again, he wasn't even in power at the time.
I know nothing about the secret dealings of the United States? And neither do you!!! At least i admit it rather than deluding because I've watched a couple of episodes of InfoWars!
The towers didnt collapse at the impact zones? 🤯 Wow. You must be THE only individual on either side of the fence making this DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE fact. I mean, have you not even watched the collapse footage?? Evidently not. There's nothing i can say to that. It's like denying the sky is blue whilst refusing to look up. Those towers CLEARLY collapsed at the impact zones; the truth community accept this without question because it cannot be denied.
Your next insane claim tht they turned to dust is again, which is sheer lunacy. Firstly that would completely contradict your explosive/thermite demolition argument, and this is solely the argument of Judy Woods (a proven fraud, liar and general whackjob who's claims were debunked by truthers) and her kooky cronies. The debris pile was as expected and all steel and concrete was accounted for.
Many ironworkers said that did they?? LIAR!!!!!!! Name ONE! That is a shameless lie and shows you for what you really are. The ONLY claims made about steel being cut was by moronic truthers like yourself on the grounds of a single photograph showing a steel column cut at 45 degrees at the base of the towers. The fact this would have done ZERO to assist the collapse, the steel column in question was cut DURING the clean up using an oxy-acetylene torch. By all means prove me wrong but we both know you won't do anything i've asked, because you've proven in spectacular fashion that truth has no meaning to you. All you care about is your intensely stupid conspiracy theories. I guarantee you won't provide a single name or shred of evidence I've requested. Your next response will be to shout abuse to deflect before running away, that's my prediction.
1
-
@astrofarmer9350 As predicted, you failed to answer a single thing i asked you. And with that we can dismiss your bogus claims of molten steel, ironworkers reports of cut columns and all the othet things you've failed to acknowledge and address as more lies you've failed to back up with evidence. Still refusing to acknowledge the existence of the express elevator and service shafts?
As i already told you, the bomb detection dogs were present prior to the attacks and part of the security at the towers. How would all those demo experts who seemingly moonlight as elevator engineers (doing a sterling job of the elevator overhaul, whilst allegedly rigging the place for demolition) got the demo devices past the dogs? What if the dogs had of caught them? A very real and high chance of happening, WAY too risky.
Regarding Israel, I'm not getting into that argument. This is regarding 911, so if you have any actual evidence of them being behind the attacks, let's hear it. If not then I'm not interested as i, unlike you, only follow the evidence.
So Bin Laden was a friend of Bushes and worked for the CIA now too?? 🤣🤣 You're mental. Fox news never interviewed Bin Laden before or after the attacks. Again a 10 second browser search would prove this quite easily. Just search 'Fox News Bin Laden interview' and see what comes up. Nada. Stop repeating lies and LOOK FOR YOURSELF!! It really isn't difficult.
Yes, that image of that one column that forms the basis of all claims of columns being cut, and of which you've created your lie about ironworkers (hence why you can't provide a single name), was at ground level. No need for scaffolding of any sort, you really are just clutching at straws. The image was taken on October 29th 2001 and a separate image from earlier that day literally shows THAT EXACT COLUMN prior to being cut! Send me an email address and I'll send you the before and after photos along with links to back up anything else I've claimed. And contrary to your again, baseless assumptions of my background, i was involved in construction for many years. Why would you presume such things? You just continually set yourself up to fail.
No there are most definitely not secret societies controlling the world lol, get a grip. Your ridiculous conspiracy theories take away from the real corruption going on. You really are straight from the Alex Jones school of crackpots.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MapleLeafistan Very rarely are controlled demolitions wired for a top down collapse and never is if due to "aesthetic purpose". Who cares what a CD looks like?? But let's say for arguments sake the twin towers were. How did the explosives survive the plane strikes and ensuing fires for 60-90 minutes? That is impossible. Demo devices are extremely sensitive to things like heat and geometry and there is ZERO percent chance of them survived those hits from the planes. The worlds leading authority on demolition have literally said it would be impossible to have brought them down like that via a CD. I think they know a little better than you or i. In fact, try and find ONE demolitions expert who agrees with you that the twin towers were demoed.
The core columns weren't 'eliminated', they were the last thing to fall and remained standing to the end. Where are you getting this nonsense from?
William Rodriguez was mistaken and claims of explosions before the plane hit have been well and truly debunked. The audios alone refute this, as does the absence of any corroborating seismic data. Why on earth would they set bombs off in the basement (ie. the OPPOSITE side of the towers the collapses were initiated from!) an HOUR to NINETY minutes prior to them coming down?? That makes no sense whatever and never, EVER is this how controlled demolitions work. Yes there were explosions reported in the basement but they were AFTER the planes hit and were thr result of ignited jet fuel spewing down elevator and service shafts, debris hitting the ground from a thousands foot in the air, elevators freefalling into the ground, electrical transformers going pop etc. They were NOT caused by bombs. How would bombs in the basement assist a top down collapse?? How would bombs in the basement go undetected by bomb-sniffing dogs present? No, we can safely say with the utmost confidence that the twin towers were CLEARLY not demoed.
You saying the official story doesn't make any sense doesn't wash sorry. It makes sense to me and most other people and has stood up to 2 decades of intense, global scrutiny. One thing for sure, it makes infinitely more sense than the truly ridiculous claims that it was all orchestrated by the government. There was a proper investigation and even if there was another, unless it fitted with your agenda, you people would just say it was set-to-fail etc. It wouldn't change nothing and truthers would remain truthers regardless. You need to understand that there is no mystery or doubts in academia. The overwhelming consensus of experts in EVERY related field accept the official studies, so a bunch of fringe lunatics completely unqualified to be speaking on the subject, using arguments from incredulity really doesn't warrant another investigation.
The fact you say the NIST report doesn't include WTC7 says it all. Of course it does!!! NIST did an entire study dedicated solely to it!!! 🙈 I'm yet to meet a truther who's even bothered to read the official studies, so how can you expect anybody to take you seriously when you're all so lazy and inept in your research? Shambolic report indeed, how would you know???
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kennethbarnhouse8489 Wow. Can i take my initial remark back and change it to THIS right here that you just spewed is now THE dumbest sh!t I've ever heard 🙈 It was more like 500mph, not 300mph, just to get that out of the way first. Secondly, what does the weight of the plane have to do with anything other than increasing the force in which it would have struck?? Please explained that one for me.
A few feet of kevlar?? Is that what i said? No, i CLEARLY said it was a reinforced concrete wall several feet thick, CONCRETE. It was LINED with kevlar which to be fair, can stop a bullet so is pretty strong stuff. Watch the video here on youtube of a Phantom F4 sled test where they plough it into a similarly constructed wall at 500mph and it will give you an idea of the forces we're dealing with here. The F4 basically atomised. So yes, that wall didn't stop Flight 77 as such, but it did a pretty good job.
A plane full of people armed with box cutters cable of horrific injuries, of which they would simply have had to held one the throat of a passenger and full compliance would be gained. You're forgetting they also claimed to have bombs on board. No way would any passenger in their right mind take such a risk, especially since they all likely believed they would land safely and eventually be released, as with almost every plane hijacking in history.
No i don't think Biden is the president the US has ever had, but he's a hell of a lot better than Diaper Don, that's for sure.
The official stance does NOT say that any jet fuel melted any steel whatsoever. Nice strawman. You're either dishonest or don't know what the hell you're talking about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jordanemede lol, so many clichés in one statement, it really is like day one of conspiracy school with you hey buddy? Well obviously i can't possibly cover every point you've just cluste-rbombed me with, but we can go through them individually by all means. Some we can maybe skip past fairly quickly as there's nothing to actually be refuted, eg. No steel melted. If you can provide me with ANY non-conjectural evidence for molten steel, then we can continue this one.
Next you mention the "an entire group of building engineers and architects", by which i assume you refer to that bogus, corrupt organisation of fringe crackpots that go by the name ae911truth. Building engineers you say? You might want to check that. In reality, out of the measly 3000+ members, around 80% of them have no background, knowledge or understanding of any related field ie. Structural engineering, high-rise construction and controlled demolition. This brings the total of relevant engineers and architects to around the 600+ mark. Out of the millions out there. That's pitiful. They're just fringe lunatics who all seem to have conveniently forgotten the scientific process. This is why they remain a joke in academic circles and always will. It should also be noted that the AIA have even publicly denounced them, making it quite clearly they do not share their views.
Do you want to comment on any of the above, or shall i continue to your next point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Gonewthewind210 Blah, blah, blah. What a load of hot air. Again, no plane tail was recovered 7 miles away, that's a total lie, as is the tail was riddled with bullet holes. You're either a terrible liar or delusional as fk. Back up those claims with evidence we can verify for ourselves because you claiming you saw it on TV that day, never to be seen again is doing ludicrous and obviously buIIsh!t. As if such footage wouldn't have resurfaced by now! We were all glued to out TV's that day, but only you seem to have viewed this footage 🤔
Contrary to your claims, older mobile phones actually worked better at altitude as they had stronger transmitters, operated on analog networks, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones on newer digital systems can work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles. A typical airline cruising altitude would be 35,000 feet, or about 6.6 miles. As I've already told you, you can read many counts of passengers being fined for being caught on their mobiles at altitude, and many accounts of pilots calling their wives etc. from the air using their cell phones. The Moussaoui trial detailed all calls made and almost all of them were made using the Airphones located on the backs of the seats fitted on that particular aircraft, which the airline have verified were most definitely on that aircraft. But don't let facts get in the way of your silly, little conspiracy theory hey 🤪👍🏼
1
-
@Gonewthewind210 Nope, reTrumplican, MAGA cultists are almost all exclusively 911 truthers like you, so please don't tar me with that brush, they're part of your clan not mine. Unlike you, I'm a firm believer in evidence. Something you don't seem to care about.
Only one report of the tail section? Yet nobody else saw it and you took it as gospel from a media source you and yours always claim to be part of the cabal. Doesn't really make much sense sorry. No evidence whatsoever to back your claims and with that we can safely dismiss it as the bullsh!t it is.
No I didn't answer your question about whether I was a flight attendant because it has no bearing whatsoever on this argument. To answer you, no I've never been a trolly dolly. I'm an electrical engineer. Unlike you, I've done actual research rather than trying to glorify a menial position you held, pretending it makes you some kind of expert. It doesn't. I've been on countless flights if that helps? Or do I need to have served people food and drinks to make me an expert on the matter? D!ckhead.
As I stated previously, we can easily verify if those planes had Airphones and unlike you, I have done so. Deny it all you like, it is an incontrovertible fact that Airphones were on Flight 93. This has been confirmed by the airline themselves with the data of the calls presented in a court of law, standing as evidence of which the defence had no issue with. Do you seriously believe the defence would have just let this go or not bothered checking if there were any doubt?? Idiot, of course not!! It would have been a glaring hole that would have caused serious, serious doubt to the integrity of the entire investigation. Search the website I told you on the other thread and you can verify this yourself. Until you admit that the plane had Airphones on the seats, I can't take anything you say seriously sorry.
95% of Flight 93 was recovered by HUNDREDS of volunteers so we know who found what and where. Whereas there was debris found several miles away, as I've already explained, only very small pieces of lightweight, aircraft skin was found at any distance. ALL heavy parts were naturally found within a relatively close distance to the crash site with ALL human remains located within an acre sized area directly around the impact zone. All evidenced in a court of law with no areas of issue with the defence. You need to stop watching so much TV, cut your interest time down and get out of the house more.
For the record, I'm not American and if I was, I would most certainly not be a Republican. You really are a very confused and gullible individual. Let me know when you're able to provide evidence and admit you're wrong about the Airphones and we can continue.
1
-
1
-
@Gonewthewind210 You really are THE biggest fantasist on YouTube. We both know you had no clue whether those planes had Airphones or not. You just repeat this lie purely because twoofers can never admit they're wrong. You're easily proven a liar though which you know, yet you've somehow convinced yourself to think I'd believe a word you say about your alleged playboy lifestyle that you've been gifted simply because you underachieved in life and spent your entire career serving others. Others who could actually afford to fly to exotic locations, like me 😏
Going back to the topic in hand that you're so blatantly trying to deflect from, American Airlines have provided the call logs from the Airphones the calls were made from, and they were again presented in a court of law, with zero objections from the defence during the Moussaoui trial of which, you or anyone else can easily verify. Give me an email address and I'll send you the copies if you're too lazy, it'd be my pleasure. I can literally provide you the CSC Id's, the GS Id's, the handset Id's, literally every detail of each and every call made on them. The fact you still deny the undeniable shows how deceitful, dishonest and desperate you are, hence why I couldn't believe your buIIsh!t about your alleged jetset lifestyle if I wanted to. Besides, a retired old man ligging freebies and trying to impose yourself on topless young girls (who would not doubt not want you around for reasons obvious to most), would only show you to be the seedy old cu#t you clearly are. In your reality however, instead of hanging out with scantily clad beauties, you likely spend your evenings w@nking into sock whilst shovelling fried chicken from a bucket into your mouth, sat in squalor in your shabby old trailor. Jog the fk on, liar 🖕🏽
1
-
1
-
1
-
@1323lobo Box cutters are lethal and used to mug people all over the world. Football hooligans used to use them and they can inflict truly horrific injuries. All the hijackers had to do was out one to the throat of a passenger and they'd have gained total compliance from everyone else. In addition to this, the hijackers claimed to have a bomb on board which alone would have stopped any passengers from trying to be a hero.
The comments from the flight school instructor were from prior to them gaining much more experience and gaining their commercial pilots licences. You do need a reasonable level of competence to gain those licenses, you do accept that right? And lets not forget, all those guys had to do was steer the planes which any fool could do with ease. Steering a plane couldn't be easier, it's the take off and landing which are the tricky parts, of which, those guys didn't concern themselves with. Steering a light aircraft is no different to steering a large airliner, it's exactly the same.
As somebody here informed you, a baggage handler with ZERO experience of flying managed to take off in a passenger plane much larger than a Cessna and proceeded to do barrel rolls and all kinds of acrobatic manoeuvres which just goes to show how easy it is. The fact it was a prop plane has zero bearing on anything, you're clutching at straws.
Please stop saying it would be impossible to navigate without air traffic control, that is NOT true! You can literally input the coordinates of your destination and have no requirement for any guidance from ATC staff. Where are you getting this from?
Box cutters can NOT be taken through airport security. They could prior to 9/11 but BECAUSE of that event, any blades whatsoever are no longer allowed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ScheerMagic For the most part, yes i accept the evidence that shows it to be true. If you know of any actual evidence that opposes it, let's hear it.
What do you need explaining about WTC7?? It had thousands of tons of debris drop on to it which resulted in huge structural damage and widespread fires across many floora that were left to freeburn. As the fire fighters said that day, hours before it fell, a collapse was inevitable. No mystery, no need for bombs, thermite or magic space lasers, just fire. It was a non-concrete reinforced, steel-framed structure of which had sustained much damage and was allowed to freeburn for 2hrs beyond what it's fire-proofing was rated at. If you think it was so unusual, i guess you must believe the fire fighters tending to the building that day were in on this alleged conspiracy?
Edit: If you're genuinely concerned for truth, why haven't you bothrred reading the official study? Too much like real research for you huh?
1
-
1
-
1
-
What difference does it make where the hijackers were from in terms of them being able to fly & crash a plane?? 😂 What election fraud??? The only one guilty of election fraud is Donald Trump, you do realise this right?
No, both planes that hit the towers were Not grey military drones at all lol. Witnesses, wreckage, ATC evidence, there's plenty that proves that false. What would be the purpose of "explosive pods", whatever they are? 🤣 "Neither towers needed to be removed", you're just making it up as you go I swear, its madness!
WTC7 houses no such documents & COLLAPSED due to uncontrolled fires across many of its floors. It burned for several hours beyond it's fire proofing was rated at. Nothing unusual about a non-concrete reinforced, steel-framed structure collapsing after being left to freeburn, hence how the fire fighters knew it would fall. The 2.3 trillion was made public 2 years before 911 & has since been tracked. Again, where are you getting your information from, can you cite any sources? The last bit of what you said is just paranoid nonsense with nothing to debunk. As with election fraud, the only ine guilty of wanting to destroy democracy & do away with the constitution is Trump. It's not going to happen.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davepowell7168 Leslie Robertson who designed the twin towers said on numerous occasions they were designed to withstand strikes from 707's, but one low on fuel in the scenario i previously stated, specifically '‘A low-flying, slow-flying 707 heading for Idlewild.’
'According to Mr. Robertson, the buildings had been designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, but the planes flown into the towers were heavier 767s. And his calculations had been based on the initial impact of the plane; they did not take into account the possibility of what he called a “second event,” like a fire. When the planes struck the towers, they sliced through the steel frames, but the buildings remained standing. Many engineers concluded that conventionally framed buildings would have collapsed soon after impact. The twin towers stood long enough to allow thousands of people to escape. But the fire ignited by the burning jet fuel raged on. The floor trusses lost strength as they heated up, and they began to sag. The floors eventually began pulling away from the exterior columns before the buildings fell.' Being lost in fog whilst coming in to land is the only real way in which a plane like that could potentially hit the towers. Under what other scenario could it realistically happen?
What are the inexplicable effects you're speaking of? We literally have footage of entire floor slabs sagging and beams and columns buckling from the heat near the impact zones, i fail to see any issues here, to me it's blindly obvious how this occurred. Where is the mystery? Steel weakens when heated and steel under such immense load is always going to succumb even quicker. The official studies stand up to scrutiny and are accept by the vast consensus of engineers in relative fields. Anybody who serious issue with them only have to submit their findings to the MIT or the likes and if their claims stand up, they overturn the official stance. Why hasn't anybody managed to do this in over 20yrs?
Would you mind answering what i asked you in my last comment please?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davepowell7168 Did you delete your comment David? I managed to read it before it disappeared and find it funny how you have the audacity to question other people's ability to think critically, whilst claiming the government are paying people to comment on youtube in order to counter the already debunked arguments, that hold no weight whatsoever in academia. Paying people to literally assist in the cover-up of the murder of thousands of their fellow countrymen, without a single individual's conscience getting the better of them and blowing the whistle on such a heinous crime. I mean, you clearly haven't thought this through. Do you have any evidence of this going on, or is it all just based on you irrationally believing anyone with an opposing view and a voice, is automatically being paid by the government to fend off people like yourself, to help keep the conspiracy going? Twenty years later and it's still going on? Quite the long con, I wonder how long they'll keep paying all these unscrupulous creatures to do their treacherous work? I wonder what the recruitment process is? 🤔 If you can't see how utterly absurd such a belief to be, then you have no place questioning the cognitive abilities of others.
Happy at least that you now accept the openess of the floors of the twin towers. Quite like yourself, they were pretty much full of hot air. And farts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ramzichouk4080 Yes they did, but then explosions are common and expected in building fires. You had electrical transformers going pop, huge studs shearing, oil-filled generators, LNG, gas lines fracturing, elevators freefalling into the ground, huge pieces of debris hitting the ground after falljng a thousand feet, exothermic reactions of water coming into contact with molten aluminum, entire floor slabs slamming down on top of one another, the list is endless. Demolitions however, explosions happen at the moment of collapse, NOT throughout 60-90 periods leading up to collapse. There isn't a single demolitions expert on the planet claiming the twin towers were demolished, so now you're claiming to know more about demolition than the entire demolitions community. Funny though how you accept fire fighters saying things you THINK support your agenda whilst shamelessly ignoring those who say things which oppose it. You're a fraud mate; a fact dodging coward.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ramzichouk4080 And just in case you're still confused by what Chief Nigro said and meant, here's another statement from him. You will also find video footage of him directly addressing your insane conspiracy claims regarding WTC7. Look it up and see what he has to say about whackjobs like you spreadin such lies:
"Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).
The reasons are as follows:
1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.
For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.
Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.
Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thethree60five Ok so cutting through all the superfluous, deranged buIIsh!t, I'll get straight to your claims.
You rightly say it's the opinions of experts (eg. engineers from relevant backgrounds etc.) that matter, rather than the opinions of the unlearned, wanna be experts on youtube. Unfortunately for you, the overwhelming consensus of experts in ALL related fields have no issue with the official studies. Only a tiny, insignificant number of fringe lunatics say otherwise and their reasoning has been utterly debunked and scientifically rejected, hence why they refuse to go the implicit route of peer-review, choosing instead to release their 'work' in pay-to-publish journals which will literally publish anything for a price. This hold zero weight in academia so going by your own standards, your beliefs fail.
The melting point of steel is irrelevant given how NO steel melted nor needed to. Feel free to provide ANY non-conjectural evidence of molten steel but we both know you have none. At around 550 degrees, structural steel has lost 50% of its initial strength. That steel was under immense load therefore losing that much of its strength would obviously invoke a collapse. We literally have footage of the steel columns and beams buckling from heat at the collapse zone prior to collapse, as well as entire floor slabs sagging, pulling in the perimeter columns which is what led to the collapse.
The difference between a missile engine and a jet engine used kn a 757 is vastly different. The engines found however have been identified and verified by aerospace engineers as coming from the specific model of 757 engine used on AA77. We have images of the exact parts found coupled up with images of those parts being installed during production. It seems as though you were expecting to see the complete engines, complete with engine casings etc. lol. That obviously wasn't going to happen and the engine casing, blades and lighter parts were naturally stripped and obliterated on impact. The missile theory has to be one of the easiest theories to debunk on many grounds eg. 136 people who saw it ALL report seeing a plane; damage to surrounding structures confirm the dimensions of a 757's wingspan and engine separation (how could a missile take out lampposts over 100ft apart??); the blatant kerosene explosion which is completely different to a missile strike; the mass of wreckage identifiable to a 757 including engines, landing gear and black box; the remains of the passengers all found at the crash site; the fact there was an exit hole; radar track from Dulles airport to the Pentagon, and much more.
The cctv footage wasn't confiscated, it was handed in willingly and viewed as is standard practice for a crime scene. Any footage that showed anything was released. The fact is, there were no security cameras pointing away from the building, pointing down the street facing the direction of approach. Why would there be when cctv cameras are there to protect the perimeter and monitor people entering and leaving the building. It's just a strawman argument used to divert from the mountain of proof we have. The fact you people focus on the lack of footage whilst ignoring the actual evidence speaks for itself.
Next you say there were no impact marks from the wings which isn't true. We have images of a wing impact mark as well as the where the vertical stabiliser hit. Ignorance of the evidence isn't absence of evidence. Search the words 'right blogger b@stard Pentagon' and you'll find those images plus much more.
Regarding Flight 93, yes i have indeed seen images of wreckage, how have you not?? We have images of a large piece of fuselage and of enginsles and landing gear being dug out of the ground. You think was planted? Just goes to show how poor your research skills are, but then you believe Loose Change to be a reliable source when it's even rejected by many truthers as garbage. Alex Jones most definitely produced it, maybe not the original, but the original was forced to be amended due to the number of falsehoods made. 95% of Flight 93 was recovered at and around the crash site, retrieved by hundreds of volunteers who scoured the area. All in on this alleged conspiracy, is that what you believe? As with AA77, the black box was also recovered along with the remains of all the passengers whos fragmented remains were found within an acre sized area of the crash site. Again, the missile theory has been well and truly debunked and the evidence simply does not support this theory. Everything's I've said is verifiable and i can back it al up, so let's see just how much you do actually believe "facts matter" as I'm pretty certain you're going to just hand-wave away everything I've said without a seconds thought. The only 'facts' conspiracy theorists care about are those that support their theories, immediately rejecting any that conflict.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1