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