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

  1.  @timtapsell  How do you seriously expect me to answer that question? How about u tell me what you believe to be compelling evidence that backs whichever version of the conspiracy you subscribe to, & if it's something I'm familiar with, I will offer evidence to the contrary? No gish-galloping, just one point at a time so as not to dilute the conversation.
    1
  2.  @timtapsell  Ok so you're not somebody who's serious, who chooses to be petulant rather than having a rational discussion. Let's do it your way then. You're obviously incapable of understanding the irrationality of your request but I'll humour you regardless. An example of falsehoods claimed in that trashy movie is that the towers were brought down via a controlled demolition which is a claim that's completely debunked. The fact both towers collapsed at the impact zones alone refutes that ridiculous theory.
    1
  3.  @markwilson4374  There hanst been ANY new evidence presented for decades. All the evidence is out there & it PROVES truthers are nothing but lazy, lying crackpots who refuse to acknowledge any facts that oppose their agenda. In answer to your question, I think I'd fair pretty well against those TINY, insignificant fringe lunatics (around only 600 of which have any relevant backgrounds) given how every line of reasoning they've offered has LONG been debunked & destroyed. There is ZERO evidence supporting any other theory on WTC7 other than that fire was the cause of the collapse. There have been several scientific studies, all reaching the same conclusion with a few minor disagreements on the finer details. I think the fact the actual fire fighters who assessed the building publicly stating it was definitely going to collapse several hours before it fell shows how obvious it was to anybody there. ANY non-concrete reinforced steel-framed structure will collapse if left to burn. That's the only possible outcome. I'm more than happy for you to stay in touch & will gladly address any new evidence, should any new evidence come to light. Who are the Campbell family & what is their reasoning behind their demand for a new inquest?
    1
  4.  @azwanajeeb2167  Except NO steel melted, zero evidence of thermite or explosives which would also be impossible for such things to survive the plane impacts & fires. Both towers collapsed precisely at the locations the planes hit which alone debunks your theory. Again though, NO STEEL MELTED, just so we're clear.
    1
  5.  @azwanajeeb2167  I know your theory doesn't stand up to scrutiny for reasons I've stated which you've failed to address, & I also know that the official story DOES stand up. We have more than enough evidence to confirm this, yet nothing in the way of evidence to support the conspiracies. The official story makes WAY more sense than the conspiracies. Occam's Razor.
    1
  6.  @azwanajeeb2167  You think hundreds of people involved in the clean up could be paid off or threatened without a single one blowing the whistle?? That's absurd. Never going to happen. Look at the lengths you guys must go to in order to try & make your conspiracy theories stand.
    1
  7. They didn't "self-sacrifice", they desperately tried to regain control as they knew that was the only chance of survival they had. Nothing hard to believe at all. It was either revolt or accept certain death.
    1
  8. If that were true, why would they blame it on Saudis? Why was less oil exported from the region AFTER the war? Your ridiculous conspiracy theories fail at every turn, get a grip.
    1
  9.  @youtube_chaplain  Prove it
    1
  10.  @jpdemp  This was explained twenty years ago so why you're still confused about this just shows how lazy you are & disinterested in the facts.
    1
  11.  @davidgould5708  NO-PLANER ALERT!!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣 You crackpots truly r the flat earthers of the troofer world 🤪👈🏽
    1
  12.  @mobiledutycodmr.9256  It was 2.3 and was later recovered. What exactly r u suggesting here? Do u think they used this money to fund the attack? 🤣 Tell me, if this was anything to do with the attacks, why would they make it public?? U people really should try thinking before u speak.
    1
  13.  @mobiledutycodmr.9256  WTC7's COLLAPSE was prematurely reported due to the mass confusion going on. The fire department had realised a collapse was imminent & the news simply reported it had collapsed rather than it was going to. Nothing more to it than that.
    1
  14.  @Internationalbigrig  As they often do in plane crashes. Are you suggesting they were planted? If so, for what benefit?
    1
  15. Liar. They do NOT claim the wings came off after hitting the light posts at all & there was indeed marks on the building where the wings & vertical stabiliser hit. When are you crackpots going to accept your ridiculous conspiracy theories fail under scrutiny?
    1
  16. ​ @h1F595 "I can't argue with that" 🤣🤣🤣 I don't think he quite got it the dopey fool 😂
    1
  17. What about it? Thousands of tons of debris from the north tower landed on it causing fires across many floors of which the fire department decided to let burn. Leave ANY steel-framed structure to freeburn & it will collapse EVERY time, just as the fire fighters that day told us it would hours before it fell. What's your problem here? Edit: Judy Woods is a lunatic, a con-merchant & an exposed liar whose claims have been totally refuted by other troofers. You really need to raise your standards of proof.
    1
  18.  @Omexicon  You claim to be informed whilst telling people to search Judy' Woods?? 😂👍🏽
    1
  19. Huh?
    1
  20. You can believe that but you're wrong regardless.
    1
  21. Yup & unlike you, we have the proof to back it up. But hey, who needs evidence when your head is wrapped in tinfoil right? Keep believing everything you read on the internet 🐑
    1
  22. I'd say they're more left centrists where most decent, rational, critically thinking individuals tend to position themselves. Don't tell me, you voted for Trump right? 😬 lol
    1
  23.  @benwatkins6513  Go to school?? You're surely not suggesting that the experts agree with your kooky conspiracy theory? Being that they most definitely don't, I'd say it's YOU who's lacking education.
    1
  24.  @trentonconner8454  The vast majority of YouTube accounts have fe, is any followers of video uploads. Many, like myself, simply use YouTube to browse videos, not upload them. That does not then bots. Is it that difficult to comprehend that most people don't share your opinion? The fact of the matter is that your conspiracy theory fails under scrutiny whereas the official story stands up. It's that simple.
    1
  25.  @andydhillon1977  Thermite isn't an explosive so you're going to have to explain that one for me sorry 😂 No evidence whatsoever of any thermite. How would thermite have survived the plane impacts and ensuing fires too?? Impossible, you're talking nonsense.
    1
  26.  @andydhillon1977  I know all about him. What's your point? Are you going to try and tell me he ran the security at the towers at the time of the attacks? That old chestnut right? You kooks are just all so predictable 🥱 Look how you dodge what I wrote to you previously. How do you expect anybody to take anything you say seriously when you're incapable of addressing the fundamental flaws in your claims? Just ignore and deflect. All you're left to do now is abuse and run, isn't this how it goes? 🙄
    1
  27. No, THAT'S a lie. The order was given but they didn't get to it in time. Stop spreading lies.
    1
  28.  @kaizenyasou6963  Defending the truth would be more accurate. What's your problem with that?
    1
  29.  @kaizenyasou6963  Yes, something you're clearly not concerned with. Your dumb conspiracy theory fails under scrutiny whether you accept this or not. No evidence whatsoever.
    1
  30. Yeah, it was simple & exposed how vulnerable America really was. They trained people to fly planes & then those people took over those planes by claiming they had bombs onboard. They then crashed those planes. Hardly an intricate plan. It was the simplicity that made it so effective. America got caught with its pants down & lessons were learned.
    1
  31. I was the same but I reached the opposite conclusion. I initially thought inside job, looked at the actual evidence & determined the official stance is pretty much on point, give or take a few minor details. Would be interesting to discuss some of the things that you believe point to conspiracy & see if we can both learn something new. Can I ask, have you read any of the studies that detail what happened to WTC7?
    1
  32.  @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
  33.  @tuck6464  Lol, still deflecting and squirming away from reality like the wiley little maggot you are. You've been exposed, stop whining and own it. You've made a series of EASILY refuted claims you now know, but won't admit, are false. So drop the big man act because you're not fooling anybody and just making yourself look an even bigger d!ck than I've made you look already. The only thing you dimiss is reality you clown.
    1
  34.  @tuck6464  😂🤌🏼💦
    1
  35.  @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
  36.  @tuck6464  lol, change the record you clown. Same old, boring, deflective response when you're backed into a corner by facts. YOU'RE dismissed you fact-dodging bed-wetter, we're here to talk on the matter, that's kinda the point.
    1
  37.  @wtc7665  You think the president should have been personally looking for the alleged missing money (that was never actually missing, or certainly not in the way you crackpots believe) instead of visiting that school? And no, it wasn't 30 minutes liar. It was 7 minutes. Wake up to what? Your dumb, debunked conspiracy theories?? The irony.
    1
  38.  @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
  39.  @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
  40. How are all those people dying funny to you? 🤷
    1
  41.  @jamesgo2014  Nope, all dead or in prison.
    1
  42.  @Skatedork88  No explanation?? How are you not aware of the SEVERAL studies explaining it that have been in the public domain for years? Of there's an explanation. To put it simply, steel weakens when heated.
    1
  43.  @brettmcmurphy6893  You're confused. The video was a pre-recorded video made AFTER the event if an interview with Larry Silverstein who leased the entire World Trade Complex. He was talking about the decision made to 'pull' the operation and pull everyone out and away as a collapse was inevitable. Nobody was trapped in WTC7 so they thought it best to stand back and wait for it to collapse.
    1
  44.  @Helllow1012  We had pretty good reason to believe they did given how Sadam was known previously to have stockpiled them and even used them on his own people, and we did also find his plans for their forthcoming nuclear armament so.... 🤷🏽‍♂️
    1
  45.  @Skatedork88  No I don't claim the Pentagon has no security cameras. It has plenty. Unfortunately, in terms of this incident, there aren't any installed facing away from the building pointing in the direction of the plane's approach. 136 people however witnessed the plane, of which we have the wreckage (including the black box) and remains of those on board that were all recovered from within the crash site, so why do we need footage to confirm what we know to be an incontrovertible fact? The security system was set up to monitor the perimeter wall a keep track of everybody coming in and out of the building. They first had to pass through a security gate that also had CCTV security and believe it or not, when installing this system, i very much doubt they had the foresight to invisage a 757 crashing into the building.
    1
  46.  @Skatedork88  Yes, again there have been several credible studies by experts in their fields which have ALL concluded fire was without doubt the cause. Play down the fires all you like but the fire fighters who were there tell it how it is and those fires were huge and out of control and on at least 15 floors. The structural damage sustained was massive and like I said previously, the fire fighters who assessed the building had concluded that it was, and i quote "definitely" going to collapse. If it was no surprise to them, why is it such a surprise to you? In terms of how it fell, it came down asymmetrically without any tell-tale loud bangs that accompany an explosive demolition. I suppose it kind of resembled a controlled demolition (unlike the twin towers), but given the facts we know better. It's ludicrous to believe this was planned. What would have happened if it hadn't have been hit by debris and caught fire as a result? And why demolition an entire building just to get rid of a few files and computer hardrives?? It makes less than zero sense and the argument, as will all the other claims truthers like to make, simply do not stand up to scrutiny.
    1
  47.  @Skatedork88  No I have now seen it and responded. I also edited my previous comment to reflect.
    1
  48.  @MiHungLo  Absolute garbage. Do you seriously believe insurance isn't standard practice?? It was a stipulation of the contract he signed from the Port Authority of whom he leased the complex from. Every commercial building in Manhattan will be insured, there's nothing whatsoever unusual or suspicious about that. Silverstein actually lost a fortune in the event given how the insurance didn't even cover the cost of the rebuild. He lost millions in lost revenue & millions more in the lease he had to continue paying the whole time. Hell, he hadn't even finalised the policies at the time of the attacks which led to long legal battles of which he got paid out HALF of his actual claim. Follow the money you say? Lol, that is such a meaningless statement. Let's just get it straight though, you're saying this was all just an elaborate insurance scam? You can't seriously believe that??
    1
  49.  @azwanajeeb2167  They got caught with their pants down as they never suspected they'd be attacked in this way by internal flights. The plan was simple & effective. The pilots simply turned off the planes transponders so we had no idea where they were or what their intended targets were.
    1
  50. It's not unusual for the president not to be in the White House & WTC7 was struck by thousands of tons of debris from the collapsing North tower. You clearly know what you're talking about lol. Tell me, if the towers were demoed, why isn't there a single demo expert making this claim? You must know better than the entire demolitions community 🙄
    1