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