Comments by "Dirk Diggler" (@dirkdiggler8260) on "VICE TV" channel.

  1.  @davepowell7168  Maybe try applying that ethos to your debating technique and less time concerned with other people's handles on YouTube. Can i ask you, how do you explain both towers collapsing at the impact zones? Impossible in a controlled demolition.......according to demolitions experts. So what do you think you know that they don't? Let's see how honest you really are.
    1
  2.  @davepowell7168  You made a statement. Where is your evidence other than you saying there should have been more debris? That's just your opinion, nothing more.
    1
  3.  @davepowell7168  He wasn't no, he survived in a freak twist of fate. Not evidence of space lasers, which is the argument you're promoting by saying there wasn't enough debris. 'The Pile' weight 1.8 million tons. Each tower empty weighed half a million tons. I fail to see where your issue is. Do you have any other, more reasonable arguments of a conspiracy or is this solely what your view hinges on?
    1
  4.  @davepowell7168  The only people claiming the debris pile wasn't big enough, are the loony Judy Woods brigade who claim the towers were zapped by space lasers and turned to dust, which blew away in the wind. Do you then have a different theory as to what happened to the debris you've claimed (without evidence) was missing?
    1
  5.  @davepowell7168  You keep saying this Dave but the physics community seem to disagree. Are you ready to talk physics yet and explain your reasoning or have we just got to take your word for, just as we have to take your word that the debris pile wasn't high enough? "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" - Christopher Hitchens
    1
  6.  @davepowell7168  Except it isn't. You can't seriously be saying the scientific consensus is against you, surely not?? Whatever, if you're so confident David, why is it youre so reluctant to explain HOW you believe the physics supports whichever bizarre version of the conspiracy you subscribe to?
    1
  7.  @davepowell7168  Never have i said the towers were hollow tubes, you misrepresent what i said. What i said was, the towers were a tube-in-tube design and the towers themselves (not the actual steel) were around 95% air. This is undeniable and if you aay otherwise then you really do have no clue whatsoever what you're talking about. Did you not bother looking at the image i toldnyoy look at showing the sunrising or setting behind the towers, illuminating them and showing just how open-plan they were? That alone would have clearee up any misconceptions you have. Once again though you fail to make any point of relevance, any argument from a physics point, and zero evidence whatsoever of any conspiracy. This is like pulling teeth it really is. It's like you're afraid to state what it is you actually believe and the only reason i can think why you'd act this way is because deep down you know how absurd it is.
    1
  8.  @davepowell7168  I've not seen any steel columns oxidising on camera myself peronsally but so what? What causes steel to oxidise? Oxygen and moisture. How is this evidence of any conspiracy and what does this have to do with physics??? Seriously, trying to get you to state your case instead of just making seemingly meaningless statements is like getting blood from a stone. You just jump from one thing to the next without presenting a shred of evidence for anything. You said the physics doesn't add up, so just explain on what grounds you believe this amd lets have a discussion. Can you just do this before moving on to another topic please, it's getting ridiculous now.
    1
  9.  @davepowell7168  Hitchen lied about WMD's AFTER they found none?? BuIIsh!t. Not having that without evidence sorry. Why would he? HOW could he?? That simply doesn't add up and I'm not about to take your word for it. That aside, what the hell does that have to do with the validity of that particular quote?? None whatsoever. Let's pretend what you said were true, that hardly negates everything he ever said. Are you one of the faithful David, is that why you're so bitter about that great man we were so honoured to have had grace our earth? That man did a LOT of good and stood up to the tyranny of religious lunacy that has plagued and polluted our species for so long.
    1
  10.  @davepowell7168  Once again, superfluous nonsense with no shred of evidence. Not once have you backed up a single thing you've said, not that you've dared say much for some strange reason. Always skirting around what is being asked. WTC7 was not structurally affected?? You mean apart from having thousands of tons of debris from a collapsing skyscraper you mean? I think I'm going to go with the guys who were actually there and who assessed WTC7 prior to the collapse over yourself thanks. In reality there was a HUGE amount of structural damage caused to WTC7 eg. A massive gash from the south side of the structure that stretched from the perimeter wall through to the centre of the building, covering around a third of its floors; having one of its bottom corners taken out; a perimeter wall bulging; the entire structure leaning etc. etc. I'll ask you again a question you previously ignored in that, if it was such a shock to everyone it fell, how do you account for the fire fighters at the scene stating publicly that a collapse was inevitable? As those guys knew, ANY steel-framed structure (non-concrete reinforced) left to freeburn will eventually collapse. It's the only viable outcome.
    1
  11.  @davepowell7168  I couldn't care less about some IRRELEVANT remarks of Hitchens whether he made them or not. Like i already explained, it has no bearing on the validity of the quote from him i gave. Now please, stop with the deflection and just tell me HOW and WHY you believe physics doesn't support the official stance. Why is this so hard for you to do????
    1
  12.  @davepowell7168  Still no idea what you're referring to unless you're talking about the eutectic reaction as detailed in FEMA report, appendix C.?
    1
  13.  @davepowell7168  I recommend it as a scientific study that explains what caused this eutectic reaction in rational terms that stands to reason given the materias we know were present.
    1
  14.  @davepowell7168  They weren't aircraft fires, they were building fires that were instigated by the plane strikes dumping thousands of gallons of ignited jet fuel which ignited everything it came into contact with, flowing down elevator and service shafts and sustained by the building's contents. Buildings have collapsed from fire without being hit by huge jet airliners travelling over 500mph before and since 9/11, so saying those fires couldn't bring those buildings down doesn't wash sorry. They could, we watched it happen. There is NO other rational alternative. If you have one, let's hear it. We literally have footage of entire floor slabs sagging, pulling the perimeter columns inwards, as well as footage of beams and columns buckling from the heat taken from the choppers. Have you actually bothered reading the official studies that explains it all in detail? I fail to see how anybody can possibly argue against it, it's pretty straightforward and simple to grasp.
    1
  15.  @rezakarampour6286  <<------ SPAMBOT - FLAG AS SPAM
    1
  16.  @davepowell7168  As far as I'm aware, damage to vehicles was simply from the flaming debris that fell on to them. I've certainly not seen anything anybody could really deem overly unusual. What do you have to say about the chopper footage which shows entire floor slabs sagging, which essentially pulled the perimeter columns inwards, which is what is claimed to have brought on the onset of the progressive collapses that occurred? It also show columns and beams buckling from the heat at the impact zones from where bitb towers fell. To me, this negates any reasoning to invent impossible tales of controlled demolition when we can literally observe what's happening. Do you accept that once the collapse began, it could not be arrested until it came down in its entirety, given how the increasing mass hitting each floor below as a dynamic load, FAR exceeded the static/live load limit of each individual floor?
    1
  17.  @davepowell7168  Terrible film, typical conspiratorial buIIsh!t. You're the one disrespecting those who died, not us mate.
    1
  18.  @davepowell7168  Coming from the guys who's not bothered to read the actual scientific literature detailing the very things he bases his entire conspiracy theory on, I'd say that's pretty rich. I however HAVE watched the movie which is why i can say it's garbage. Winning a Palm d'or doesn't mean what's claimes is true and the documentary is full of proven falsehoods so again, I'll stick with the science rather than some conspiratorial hogwash.
    1
  19.  @davepowell7168  You seriously need to do your homework before making such silly remarks David. Tell me, what exactly is your take on Kevin Ryan's background and the tests you speak of? Lets see how easily duped you really are and how poor your research efforts have been shall we? All you've done is seen results you want and accepted them without question. No idea why you believe the Marriott is relevant or supportive if the conspiracy claims but it isn't. And you have the audacity to call me naive?? lol Please dont talk to me about what the evidence shows when you aren't even aware of the evidence other than what you've gleaned from conspiracy sources. You can deny doing this all you like but the things you say prove otherwise. Why not read the actual studies instead of concentrating in pseudoscientific BS being pushed by rogues, crooks, charlatans and crackpots??? How am I meant to believe you genuinely care about truth when this is how you proceed with your research?
    1
  20.  @davepowell7168  Nice strawman lol. In reality, there's no need whatsoever to believe the media etc., the facts speak for themselves but you wouldn't know, not having bothered reading the actual scientific studies that detail everything you dismiss. I take it you couldn't answer my question on Kevin Ryan and the UL tests? So predictable. This just demonstrates how you do exactly what you accuse me of. All tired, refuted and scientifically rejected arguments, you really need to catch up David because this has been dealt with and put to bed years ago. You do know how science works right? You do understand how there's no requirement for faith in science yes?
    1
  21.  @davepowell7168  So bored of your deflective, fact-dodging. Can you tell me what Kevin Ryan's background/position or not? Obviously not because all you've done is read some rubbish on a conspiracy website and blindly believed it without any form of qualification whatsoever. And you have the audacity to accuse ME of being naive and believing everything i read?? Learn how science works, learn how to conduct better research and quit being such a shameless hypocrite.
    1
  22.  @davepowell7168  "Fact number one..." Irrelevant. I see your logic but it doesn't really work like that. The Marriot took HUGE damage and needed to be taken down. No idea what you're insinuating here, we know the damage caused to both buildings so what is your point? Is it merely that WTC3 didnt collapse yet WTC7 did? If so, so what?? They are completely different designs and the damage wasn't exactly identical. What a silly, oversimplified argument that doesn't take reality into account. I just can't take you seriously when you come out witb things like this. STILL nothing to say about Kevin Ryan when it was you who brought him up! You shouldn't talk about things you clearly have no knowledge of because you will get called out on them.
    1
  23.  @davepowell7168  Great, so AGAIN what are you suggesting? Such a bizarre, ridiculous argument. Let's get this straight here. WTC3 took WAY more damage than WTC7 did, but because WTC7 was designed COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY than WTC3, it collapsed. Just look at the images of WTC3 in the aftermath and then looknat WTC7. Look into how WTC7 had a huge open atrium which left it more susceptible to fire. How can you compare?? This is just a silly argument from incredulity. You don't understand it therefore it must have been a conspiracy. I honestly don't even know what you're trying to insinuate here. The short answer is, they were very different designs and WTC3 didn't suffer the same level of fires as WTC7. WTC7 was allowed to freeburn for 6-7hrs which was 2hrs longer than what its fire-proofing was rated at, therefore making a collapse inevitable. Have you got any real arguments or is this it?
    1
  24.  @davepowell7168  Says the guy who has admittedly not read the actual studies detailing the collapse, that's pretty rich. You've misunderstood me. WTC7 had a strong "moment frame" incorporated in the perimeter shell. The perimeter was strong. The core was weaker. Hence the collapse was "core led" ie. the core collapsing first leaving the still intact perimeter shell to fall later and still mostly intact for the portion of middle to upper-level floors that was visible. The perimeter failed at the lower levels. The fact you've not bothered to familiarise yourself the facts detailed in the studies speaks for itself. Surely this should be one of the first things you do? Your questions have been answered, you're just too lazy to look. Edit: Kevin Ryan was a water analyst who ran a small lab at UL.
    1
  25.  @davepowell7168  So you just haven't got around to reading them yet, is that what you're saying? You thought you'd come here instead and get the opinions of crackpots instead of looking at the science? Sounds logical...... But great, please do jog on and continue your journey with your clear bias, ignoring the science and finding your way to your preconceived 'truths' 👋🏼
    1
  26.  @davepowell7168  I thought you were leaving? Parrotted statements? Lol, it's hardly my fault you benighted kooks are like a stuck record, repeating the same debunked buIIsh!t over and over again. The reality remains the same therefore so does the response. No cutting and pasting, just forced to repeat the same refutaions of the same debunked arguments. You've brought nothing to the table David other than a spectacular display of wilful ignorance. All you do, like every other truther, is seek confirmation bias whilst refusing to accept any arguments or evidence that opposes your presupposed position. What's tedious is your futile stab at sounding intelligent and dancing around in circles with a blatant disregard for truth. Keep ignoring the science and continue listening to the refuted arguments of water analysts and other fringe lunatics, but do come back to me if and when you ever gain a better grasp on reality.
    1
  27.  @natty-1820  No they didnt and you saying otherwise doesn't make it true. That myth has been totally debunked but please, show us the evidence you take it on that it was shot down.
    1
  28.  @davepowell7168  Which statements would they be then?
    1
  29. @Morpheus Bey Aside from box cutters being lethak weapons that can cause utterly horrific injuries, and aside from the fact they'd only need to hold one to the throat of one of the passengers to gain full compliance, you fail to acknowledge the fact they also claimed to have bombs on board. Wanna try again champ?
    1
  30.  @isawicame4579  Proven false, but please do feel free to show on what evidence you have taken this debunked myth from and let's discuss further.
    1
  31.  @stawmtroopa1968  Erm, ok buddy lol. I love you guys 😁👍🏼
    1
  32.  @davepowell7168  Can't find the footage you're taking about so can't really comment other than saying, dust is a big part of what we see when building's collapse and fully expected. Not sufficient or credible evidence of explosives or space lasers sorry. Why would there be explosives planted lower in the towers when the mass of the top section so greatly exceeded the static load limit of each individual floor below, meaning a global collapse would be inevitable once the collapse was underway and thus making any explosives located lower in the structure pointless? How would any explosives go undetected by the bomb detection dogs present?
    1
  33.  @davepowell7168  No, just don't have the time right now and i only have my phone to use, but from what you've said, it's just a dust cloud which as i said, is fully expected in such an event. Besides, accusing me of this when you've not even bothered to read the studies and reports you're so desperate to dismiss, that's pretty damned rich to say the least lol. Are you by chance talking about the long debunked claim of smoking emitting from the lower section of the tower which in reality is just dust from the collapsed tower that kinda looks like its coming from the remaining tower? This is certainly a truther myth I've heard before, and yet another that was debunked long ago.
    1
  34.  @ginpok6640  Except for the radar evidence, big hole in the ground, 95% of plane wreckage recovered from and around the crash site as well as the fragmented remains of the passengers and their belongings. Yeah, no evidence at all you delusional crackpot.
    1
  35.  @Joe-xh2lk  No Joe, you've got it a bsck to front. The official stance has stood up to decades of the most intense, global scrutiny. The conspiracy theories however, have ALL been utterly debunked which is why people like you are forced to gather on youtube rather than going down the proper channels and presenting your findings.
    1
  36.  @maddymal8439  Only in the minds of the lunatic fringe.
    1
  37.  @Gonewthewind210  Except the calls were almost all made from the airphones on the backs of the seats that are specifically designed to work during flight. The shot down theory has been utterly debunked and only tiny, confettied pieces of aircraft skin that would be expected to be found over a large radius. ALL heavy parts were found at the crash site along with all human remains recovered within an acre of the impact location. Calling others who don't believe the lunacy you subscribe to is pretty rich when you believe everything you read on the internet.
    1
  38.  @Gonewthewind210  Nope, sorry stupid but repeating your inane lies won't make true no matter how many times you repeat them. That airline had airphones on the backs of the seats on that model aircraft. They were all detailed during the Moussaoui trial in a court of law. Such an easily verified fact you're too stubborn to search as it conflicts with your dumb conspiracy theories. Only a couple of the calls were made using cell phones and were made over land and lasting only a few seconds. Contrary to truther belief, cell phones CAN make and receive calls at altitude but how long the call will stay connected for is anybody's guess. Several studies have proven this that I can direct you to, and there are many cases of people getting fined for using the cell phones at altitude that you could easily find with a simple, 10 second internet search. Again, only tiny, confettied pieces of aircraft skin was found miles away and certainly no large section of tail as you implied. ALL heavy parts were recovered locally to the impact zone. There is no way whatsoever that this plane was shot down, this has been debunked on several levels. Seriously, where are you getting your information from?
    1
  39.  @sthor1000  No, we most definitely didn't even though they have authorisation to do so and thought they had when news came through that it was down.
    1
  40.  @scotsman6712  Except 95% of the plane was recovered from the crash site (including the black box), along with the remains of all the passengers on board. Are you that ignorant or just a liar?
    1
  41.  @W1HURI  Do you actually believe the utter lunacy you spout? People as gullible as you shouldn't be allowed internet access.
    1
  42.  @W1HURI  In reality, NINETY FIVE PERCENT of that aircraft was found, including the black box. We literally have footage of them digging an engine out of the ground along with other heavier parts of the landing gear that naturally buried itself in the ground after nose-diving into the earth at full throttle. Your ignorance is blinding. Why talk about things you clearly have no knowledge of? Idiot.
    1
  43.  @eduardopena5893  Yes it was. Show me ANY evidence to suggest otherwise.
    1
  44.  @at8504  Yes it did.
    1
  45.  @at8504  Except it was, as ALL available evidence proves beyond all reasonable doubt.
    1
  46.  hollymcneill2413  It's just another dumb conspiracy documentary offering nothing new; same old refuted arguments 🥱
    1
  47. Sounds almost like you sympathise with him. Weird.
    1
  48.  @Maxboun3204  Again, sounds to me like you're justifying the attacks.
    1
  49.  @rezakarampour6286  <<------ SPAMBOT
    1
  50.  @wendyladybug355laurie4  And then you go and spoil it all with your MAGA cultist motto 🙈 How can anybody have the audacity to call themselves a Christian and support such an immoral, wealthy monster? You need to try reading your bible sometime Wendy because rest assured, Jesus would have despised everything Trump says, does, has done and stands for. It amazes me how you guys so readily dismiss your scriptures when it suits.
    1