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

  1. It seems your legend has it wrong. ONE passport was found BEFORE the collaspe of the towers. It was found amongst thousands of pieces of paper that was also ejected by the blast. The reason for this is because paper products have a large surface to mass ratio, which means they're way more likely to be ejected. There were cusions from the plane also found on the ground prior to the collapse, are you suggesting they were planted also? I also don't understand what the purpose of planting one of the terrorists passports would be. The guy was on the flight manifest so we know he was onboard which would make planting his passport a needless risk. As with all other claiks of conspiracy, this fails under scrutiny.
    2
  2.  @openlybookish  But then being a twoofer, you'll literally believe anything you see on the internet so .... 🤷🏽‍♂️
    2
  3.  @joelwolfe7579  First of all, rest assured i don't believe a word about you speaking to anybody who had anything whatsoever to do with the clean up operation or the like. Either you or he is full of sh!t, that we can be certain of. We can be sure of this becasue in reality, 95% of that plane was recovered from the crash site. It was retrieved by hundreds of volunteers who scoured the area, much of it in hand and knee. The heavy parts of the plane such as the engines and landing gear were buried several meters deep and the lighter pieces mostly confettied. All human remains were found within an acre of the impact site and naturally, papers would have been FAR more likely to be expelled by a blast and survive due to its large surface to mass ratio and is nothing unusual. Passports often survive plane crashes. Hell, many paper postcards managed to survive the Hindenburg disaster! Small pieces were carried far and wide by the wind but to say there was no aluminium, well that's just horsesh!t sorry and demonstrably false.
    2
  4.  @AJBJ0802  Liar. Most accept the reality that is the official stance. Many would natually have assumed the loud bangs they heard were bombs as everyone by then was aware it was a terrorist attack. It was already a target of a past terrorist attack using bombs, so it was wise to assume there were bombs that day also. We now know this was false and i assure you most who were there that day accept this.
    2
  5. No it didn't, stop spreading lies. That money had been missing YEARS earlier & made public LONG before 9/11. It was simply.mentiones again the day prior to the attacks. This is such a stupid argument, much like all other truther arguments. If there was anything sinister about it, why would they announce it at all?? In reality, the money was never actually missing as in it disappeared. It was simply a case of them having different computer systems making it extremely difficult to track between departments. It has since been tracked & accounted for.
    2
  6.  @rezakarampour6286  <<------ SPAMBOT - FLAG AS SPAM
    2
  7. Either you're a liar, or your aunt is.
    2
  8.  @youtube_chaplain  You clearly don't understand the definition of proof. I'll ask you again, prove it. Is it so difficult to accept many people don't believe what you believe and quoting scripture isn't about to change our mind?
    2
  9.  @astrofarmer9350  Those figures change depending on which truther source you pluck them from. Out of the budget for NASA, they spent up to 50 million dollars of it on the salvage of Challenger alone, which was one of many costs that simply didn't apply to 9/11. This is such a typical, oversimplified, disingenuous argument truthers like to make and another reason nobody of worth takes them seriously. On top of the 15 million budget for the Commission, there was 600,000 dollars spent on the joint enquiry ACSE reports on building performance, another 16 million on the NIST report with an additional 2 million being granted to them. Then there was the 7000 FBI agents and thousands more FBI support workers who's working hours totalled over 4 MILLION hrs, so even doing some conservative sums on that one soon shows us that what you're being told on truther websites is very different from the reality. You use sources which have an agenda and it's in their interest to purposely mislead you. Learn to conduct better research and be less credulous in your studies.
    2
  10.  @archstanton3379  Why do this to yourself?? 🙈 There were literally tons of wreckage found including the engines, wheels (both identified independently by aerospace engineers as being from a Boeing 757), landing gear and black box of which was decoded to show the data from AA77's final 11 flights. Don't take my word for it, just a 10 second internet search will confirm this for you. And sadly no CCTV, but then a CCTV camera would be set to 1fps and the plane was travelling over 500mph. It was covering 778ft each and every second, and you seriously expect a CCTV to capture that??? Don't be absurd. Can you tell me how many CCTV cameras there were pointing away from the building they were installed on to protect, would have been pointing away from it, in the direction of the planes approach? So far no truther has ever been able to answer this fundamental question, nor do they/you care because for you guys, it's all just about the conspiracy conspiracy 😉
    2
  11.  @astrofarmer9350  The exchange we've had suggests the opposite. This is why you're unable to defend your claims, refute a single thing I've said and resort to strawman arguments to deflect. Move along now, make way...... NEXT!!
    2
  12.  @toddjohnson271  That was a pretty long-winded way of saying you don't have any evidence to back up your conspiracy theory surrounding 9/11. Just going on your gut yeah buddy? Lol, I personally need a little bit more than that sorry. As a wise man & hero of mine once rightly said, "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence".
    2
  13. Ok so the fact you type in block capitals suggests you're suffering some form of mental disorder so I'll bear that in mind when responding. I can only assume by "paper flow from a burning bldg" you refer to the molten aluminium flowing from it. There was plenty of identifiable plane wreckage at the Pentagon, including the black box. If building 7 is such a mystery, how is it the fire fighters who tended to it that day stated it was "definitely" going to collapse several hours before it fell?? Hardly a mystery to them lol. I'm reality, there's nothing unusual about a non-concrete reinforced, steel-framed structure collapsing after burning for 2hrs longer than its fire-proofing was rated at. Your last point is surprise, surprise.....wrong again. It was 2.3 trillion & this was made public TWO YEARS prior to 911 & was never actually missing in the way you crackpot's claim. It was simply a case that the use of outmoded computer systems made it extremely difficult to track the money between departments. It has since been tracked, hence why they're not talking about it any more. If this was anything sinister, why would they make it public at all?? Any more utterly debunked gems for us that you need clearing up?
    2
  14.  @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
  15.  @stevecook413  lol, i take it something called 'evidence' really isn't of much concern to you? Let me know when you're able to back that truly, truly insane claim up with evidence and then maybe I'll think about taking your more seriously.
    2
  16. This is hilarious. First off, he most certainly did give the order to shoot down Flight 93. They didn't manage to intercept the aircraft & as we know, the passengers revolted with the knowledge that they were going to die if they did nothing. As for Major Stubblebine, the guy was a lunatic. He genuinely believed 'super soldiers' were able to walk through solid walls by willing it & could kill people (& goats 🙄) simply by looking at them lol. He also practiced 'remote viewing' ffs! 😂 What a crackpot. He was also a moron given the fact AA Flight 77 DID knock down several lampposts which is the very reason he dismissed it being a plane! 🤣 How would he not know this well documented fact?? Saying it was a "skid" missile (I'm assuming you mean Skud) is absurd. 136 people directly witnessed the aircraft & impact. Every one said it was a plane. Some of those witnesses were even pilots who flew 757's, but you're telling me that even they couldn't tell the difference between 155ft airliner with 125ft wingspan that they themselves had flown, & a 37ft missile with a wingspan less than 3ft??? Don't be so silly lol. We have plane wreckage that has been independently confirmed as being from a Boeing 757, including the black box from Flight 77. We also have radar & ATC evidence confirming the FDR data's direct track from Dulles airport to the Pentagon, & then of course there were the remains of the passengers & crew known to have been on board, all recovered from inside the crash site. There's way more evidence in addition to this but this is more than enough to categorically prove, that plane crashed into that building that day.
    2
  17.  @proteg3881  Except no steel melted or needed to. You clearly struggle with reality so this conversation probably isn't for you champ.
    2
  18. Show me ANY evidence that shows otherwise. Your opinion is meaningless without evidence, you do realise this right?
    2
  19.  @JohnnyBGood11  Yeah you do buddy 🤪👍🏼
    2
  20. Wrong. The towers CLEARLY collapsed, not demoed. So easy to debunk any ridiculous tales of controlled demolition, how anyone can believe such a thing is beyond me. If it was all an excuse to invade Iraq for oil, why was less oil exported from the region after the war? Nothing hit the White House but I'm assuming you were referring to the Pentagon & I assure you, that was most definitely not a missile lol. Flight 77 hit the Pentagon & anybody who denies this does so in ignorance of the available evidence. You seriously believe people couldn't tell the difference between a little missile & a huge commercial airliner?? 😂 Don't be absurd.
    2
  21. No they didn't. They found molten metal, but it wasn't steel. It was almost certainly molten aluminium alloyed with other metals present of which the fires were hot enough to melt. Steel was not one of them.
    2
  22. Lol, where do you crackpots get this sh!t?? 🤣 I swear you make it up as you go. We have the radar track which PROVES it was not rerouted. 95% of that plane was recovered, including the black box. The remains of the passengers were scattered across an acre of land, all planted though according to you right? lol, get a grip.
    2
  23.  @ronquigel216  In reality, the black box, the engines, the lamding gear, pieces of fuselage and in total 95% of the plane was recovered. As were the remains of those on board. You've obviously taken your research very seriously 🤣
    2
  24.  @tuck6464  Instead of asking somebody if they're high for stating facts simply because they oppose your kooky view, isn't a valid defence. How about you try offering something in the way if evidence to try and refute what he said and maybe earn a little respect? You won't because you can't, because what he said is verifiably true. This is why you're still crying about your failed, scientifically rejected conspiracy theory. Here's to another 20+yrs of achieving fk all 🍺😂👍🏼
    2
  25.  @mechanismmalfunction3822  You make the average truther sound positively intelligent. Your sort are the flat earthers of the truther world 🤪👈🏽
    2
  26.  @davepowell7168  You lack the power of critical thought, evidenced by the fact you've chosen to blindly believe anything you read on notoriously unreliable conspiracy websites. How have u managed to convince yourself otherwise??
    2
  27.  @federalreservebrown2507  Ok so first off Danny Jowenko had ZERO experience of dealing with large structutes. But fine, ok. He WAS indeed a demolitions expert who believed building 7 looked like a demolition. It didn't sound like one at all, and I'd have loved to have heard his explanation for the total absence of huge detonations at the moment of collapse that ALWAYS accompany a demolition, but i guess we'll never know how he managed go deal with such a fundamental inconsistency. What he did also say however, something a truther will never tell you for obviously reason, is that he said the towers were clearly NOT controlled demolitions. Care to comment on that one buddy? 🤔 As for Hulsey's pseudoscientific hogwash, it doesn't really stand for much when the study was funded by truthers who insisted it began with the presupposition fire wasn't the cause of collapse. If i need to explain to you the problem with that then this is a nonestarter.
    2
  28.  @Lucitin  At around 550 degrees C, structural steel has lost 50% of its strength. We KNOW such temperatures were essily reached that day in those towers, so wheres the issue? Let's not forget that greatly weakened steel that day was under load, WAY more than the live/static load it was designed to withstand given how the load from the stricken steelwork severed by the planes had been transferred to the remaining columns at the impact zones.
    2
  29.  @davepowell7168  Not always. It's also very often a sign of confidence and if you've read previous comments then you'll know there is substance to my arguments and that i am most confident in my defence. How about we start again and I will gladly converse with you in a civil manner? I'm intrigued to know what argument from physics you're talking about....
    2
  30.  @davepowell7168  I fully accept the official stance and that of which Boeing themselves have no issue with. Such aircraft can EASILY reach such speeds during a dive and they do not need to be anywhere near a vertical nose dive. I really don't know where you're getting your information from but its patently false. Only one plane that day actually exceeded its vD limit, and did so briefly before crashing. Test pilots take planes beyond those limits frequently and there is even footage here on youtube of similar planes travelling similar speeds during a low pass flyby.
    2
  31.  @federalreservebrown2507  You clearly struggle with reading comprehension as never did I state it was the thousands of tons of debris that brought down WTC7. Try again. Danny Jowenko was originally played the footage without audio to hide the glaringly obvious, demolition destroying fact there was no audible explosions at the moment of collapse. He also had zero experience of demolishing large structures so was quite out of his depth here. Another fun fact about him that you'll never see a truther addressing is that he rejected outright any claims that the twin towers were demoed. Does that change your opinion on the towers? Of course it doesn't because all you're concerned with is evidence that only supports your conspiracy beliefs. Now back to those fire fighters ie. The men who were actually there, tending to WTC7. How do you explain the fact they had publicly asserted that a collapse was inevitable, several hours before it came down? Do you believe they were in on the conspiracy too? They made a decision to create a safe collapse zone and pull the operation to try and save it from falling. They allowed it to freeburn for 2hrs beyond what its fire-proofing was rated at, and again, ANY steel-framed structure left to freeburn will eventually collapse. Fire-proofing simply buys us more time. For clarification, WTC7 was a NON-CONCRETE reinforced, steel-framed structure of which implemented the use of longspan beams in order to create a large open atrium within. This meant it was more susceptible to fire. Countless engineers and scientists have scrutinised the studies and have no issue with it. You, with zero relevant academic credentials, experience or related knowledge simply saying nuh huh doesn't quite cut it in the real world sorry.
    2
  32.  @davepowell7168  Pieces of landing gear were recovered and one engine famously captured on video, exiting the tower, flying through the air before striking a building, bouncing down the street and coming to rest on the corner of Murray St. No idea on the serial number but it has been identified as coming from an engine used on that model of 767. Are we done with the speed issue now, have we moved on from that now?
    2
  33.  @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
  34.  @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
  35.  @davepowell7168  I can't help yu with wake vortices, you'll have to ask an expert on that but regardless, we all observed those planes so it happened regardless and there's obviously a rational explanation for that. Rest assured I will look into it. I'll check on the steel gauge but I'm pretty sure I'm right as the steel used was greatly thinner at the top of the towers as they obviously had much lesser a load to sustain. I have to disagree about the vertical stabiliser as the velocity thise plane's were travelling would have meant the plane would have continued to flow into the structure, just like what happened at the Pentagon.
    2
  36.  @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
  37.  @nikaluss5946  A crime must be committed to be prosecuted.
    2
  38.  @JohnSmith-dt2yb  No, SOME Americans who believe everything they read on the internet think this, but that doesn't make it true. Facts matter.
    2
  39.  @edward8205  Smart for believing stupid conspiracy theories?? Wow 😂
    2
  40.  @Pram4  Hijacking a plane then was easy & those guys had commercial pilot licenses. They never had to take off or land, merely steer which ANYBODY could do with less than an hour's training. Crashing a plane really isn't that difficult.
    2
  41. @@user-tl1ef1hb1l Can I ask where you got that information from? I can't find anywhere that makes any mention of this & can only find references to the 2.3 trillion that was made public long before 9/11 & spoken of again the day before the attack. Unlike some of these idiots on this thread, I'm not immune to becoming better informed & happy to admit if & when I'm wrong.
    2
  42. Any evidence for that ludicrous claim? Don't tell me, 'dancing Israelis' yeah? 😂👍🏽
    2
  43.  @shaundinan2951  LIAR!!!!
    2
  44.  @michaelshafer2996  They openly admit they gave the order to shoot it down and that they believed it had been shot down when the news came in. The fact however is, they didn't and didn't need to.
    2
  45.  @chrispewkreme  And what did they do here Chris? 🥱
    2
  46.  @SomeFooThatGrows  Maybe we should have done nothing and just let them get away with it 🙄
    2
  47.  @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
  48.  @ramzichouk4080  Tom Sullivan - He's not an explosives expert. He is an explosives 'loader'. He carries and places explosives ie. a glorified labourer who does what he's told. He does not determine where the explosives go, nor is he an expert on building physics. Torin Wolf - Was a military combat nurse who had a little basic training in demolitions but far, FAR from what anybody could rationally call a demolitions 'expert'. Dennis Thompson - The only thing i can find on him is that he is a holder of a commercial blaster licence which does not make somebody a demolitions expert. It just means he's licenced to aquire and keep explosives. His page removed from the ae911truth website. Why? Tim Erney - Did some very basic demo training whilst in the Army Reserves. He was an aircraft mechanic. Danny Jowenko - Was a demo expert on SMALL structures and had zero experience of taking down structures of anywhere near the magnitude of what we observed that day. He also said categorically that the twin towers were NOT brought down via a controlled demolition, but let's not mention that one hey champ? 😏 lol John Suffoletta - No idea who he is, can't find any mention or log of him anywhere. He certainly hasn't done any work to refute the official 9/11 stance so nothing to comment on here 🤷🏽‍♂️ Roman Korol - Has a B.Eng in electrical engineering. Had very basic demo training in the military but no relevant experience whatsoever. Frank Cullinan - A civil engineer who builds bridges. Jesse Ventura - Are you fkng kidding me??? 🤣🤣🤣 Chris De Gouw - Engineer in the military who has some basic training using small explosives. David C. Avina - Another engineer who this time specialised in the construction of power plants. Very basic demo training, NOT an expert by any stretch of the imagination. Care to try again or is this the best you could find? 🙄😂 I was kinda more hoping for REAL demolitions experts like Mark Loizeaux or Brent Blanchard who have REAL expertise and who are capable of planning and overseeing of huge demolitions projects. Face it, there aren't ANY of such calibre supporting your lunacy, hence why you're left resorting to listing Jesse Ventura as an demo expert 🙈🤣
    2
  49.  @youtube_chaplain  Ok buddy, can you prove that? Didn't think so 👋🏼🤪
    2
  50.  @thelastbreed91  🤪👈🏽
    2