Comments by "Dirk Diggler" (@dirkdiggler8260) on "JRE Clips"
channel.
-
Literally every single thing you say is false. Rumsfeld did mention they were having difficulty tracking that money (why incidentally would he even do this if they wanted to cover it up??), but it was originally announced publicly back in 1999 and several times after, so was old news. It was never actually missing in the way truthers like to claim. It was simply a case of having outmoded, incompatible computer systems making it very difficult to track money between departments. It has since been accounted for which truthers obviously don't like to acknowledge. All the documents affiliated to the missing money wasn't destroyed in the crash and such documentation was almost certainly backed up for obviously reasons. How else were they finally able to track it?
As for proving with 100% certainty, i assure you we most definitely can and have using various, independent lines of evidence. There was mever any chance of getting any clear footage of an object travelling on excess of 500mph on a CCTV camera set at 1 frame per second and it's absurd to think otherwise. Work out how many meters that aircraft would have neen covering each second then you'll see what i mean. Besides, even if we had a 4k UHD video of the crash, truthers would only claim it to be fake, CGI. For the record, the security camera footage wasn't the only footage released and it was NOT spliced in any way, other than maybe on conspiracy websites in what i can only assume is an attempt to deceive. The fact is, we don't need any footage to know categorically that AA Flight 77 hit the Pentagon that day. Enter the word 'right blogger bastard' into your search bar and take a look at the mountain of evidence we have confirming this. I'm sure if you take the time to go through it, you will be left with no doubts either.
Regarding the theory it was a missile, this has to be the easiest conspiracy theory of all to refute. Firstly, how could a missile with a 9ft wingspan take out lampposts either side of a street and slice the tops off trees? The explosion on impact was quite obviously a hydrocarbon explosion and a missile would not have left an exit hole. 136 people from all walks of life, who were mostly sat in traffic on their morning commute witnessed the approach and impact and EVERY one of them said it was a plane. Some of those witnesses were even pilots who flew 757's and they'd identified the plane model at the scene prior to details being released. The wreckage was from a 757, including the black box which when decoded, provided details if AA Flight 77's last 11 flights. The physical remains of everyone on board along with their personal belongings, all retrieved at the crash site; the damage caused to surrounding structures on approach confirm perfectly the dimensions of a 757. There is simply no way whatsoever 136 people could possibly mistake a 22ft missile with a 9ft wingspan for a 155ft aircraft with a 125ft wingspan.
26
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@jebidiahnewkedkracker1025 Appreciate you taking the time to respond in such depth and keeping it civil. And yes, 9/11 was no doubt a conspiracy in that radicalised, Islamic fundamentalists conspired to attack the US in the way we witnessed that day. However, we all know the context in which i was referring to.
I believe that it's highly likely that I've viewed all of the evidnece you've seen myself, but in my experience, having looked into the claims in detail, being sure of staying well clear of using notoriously unreliable conspiracy websites and the like as sources, i am yet to see any of the claims stand up when scrutinised. I myself jumped on the conspiracy bandwagon quite early on I'm jot afraid to say, hence my reason for investing so much of my time to it. The difference between us though is that i see no truth to any of it when embracing the full body of evidence we have available to us. Of course in an event of this magnitude and complexity, there will be coincidences we can shoehorn into the narrarive, but coincidences happen all the time and none are enough to convince me of any foreknowledge or involvement by the US government. Again, by all means show me any you believe shows otherwise and I'd be more than happy to disuss it with you.
To address your reasoning for people not wanting to believe, i kinda get that but struggle to comprehend how anybody could choose to take such a stance if that wasn't their true feeling. I mean, who would they be trying to fool other than themselves? For me personally that would be impossible. I don't think foe one minute we can trust our political leaders and there is no doubt corruption at play all the time in such circles. But to think they would come up with such an insanely risky, eloborate and complex plan to me, requires intellectual suicide. Why hijack 4 planes instead of 1 for instance? Hijacking 1 plane and flying it into a building would have been enough to warrant the reaction of the US government. Why accuse Saudi nationals if this was an excuse to invade Iraq? There are so many fundamental issues, i find it incomprehensibly irrational to think they'd take such needless risks over and over and over again. The number of people required to be complicit with this is enormous, yet not a single whistle-blower. It couldn't happen, no way.
The 'i already got my mind made up so....' reasoning is exactly how i feel when talking to the vast majority of conspiracy theorists. Most are way too much emotionally invested in this to accept they're wrong. Have a look around these threads and you will notice that every single thread on any video i have ever spoken to such sorts, they run away when faced with evidence that opposes their view. This is no exaggeration and i find it quite infuriating how many people purposely and publicly choose wilful ignorance over reality. For me personally, if you or anybody else were to show me sufficient, credible evidence that the US government were behind this attack, i would change my opinion in a heartbeat without question. I have no bias whatsoever, I'm not even from the US or have any affiliation whatsoever.
Lastly, you stated that building 7 was the smoking gun, but i could not diagree more and fail to understand why people get so hung up on this. The fire fighters knew that building was going to collapse several hours before it fell. They stated it publicly and even pulled everybody away to create a safe collapse zone. This shows there was no mystery and it was no shock when it fell, unless of course such people believe the fire fighters who lost hundreds of their brothers that day, were also in on this alleged conspiracy. The reality is that any and every steel-framed structure (non-concrete reinforced) will collapse if left to freeburn. There can be no other outcome. Wtc7 was left to freeburn and was a non-concrete reinforced steel-framed structure which implemented the use of longspan beam, leaving it even more susceptible to fire. It burned for 2 or 3hrs (i remember exactly off-hand sorry) beyond what it's fire-proofing was rated at so again, collapse was inevitable.
Anyway, thanks again for the civil response and I'd be happy to carry on the discussion and get into more detail if you so wish to do so?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@jimbobalob2491 There were plentynof CCTV cameras but, as per the nature of CCTV, they were set up to monitor the perimeter of the building (eg. people coming and out/exits and entrances) and were OBVIOUSLY not set up, pointing away from the structure down the street. Why would they?? Believe it or not, they never envisaged somebody flying a 757 into the building and for such a camera to capture an object travelling over 500mph, it isn't very likely when they're set at such a low value f.p.s. It's such a naive, ignorant argument made in desperation. Who cares if we don't have footage?? Are you just going to ignore all if the witnesses, wreckage, or any of the other evidence we have that categorically proves AA Flight 77 crashed there that day? For the record, there is a still from one of the CCTV camera's that, when zoomed in, shows what is obviously a large plane displaying the American Airlines livery. But don't concern yourself with the actual evidence and reality of the situation because for you guys, it's all about conspiracy and nothing more, and that's why nobody of worth takes any notice.
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@triggerhappydad65 1) War games go on all the time where many scenarios are carries out, i fail to see why this is an issue sorry.
2) And?
3) Those amateur pilots with minimal training and zero flight hours had gained commercial pilot licences so where more than capable of steering and crashing a plane; any plane. Steering a plane really is simple and crashing one is even easier. Nothing they did that day was difficult nor suggests they were great pilots by any stretch of the imagination. Those who flew into the twin towers had miles and miles of clear skies to line themselves up, and almost perfect flying conditions. You could literally draw a line in the cockpit window with a sharpie and just line it up with one of the towers, it could be that simple and easy. The difficult parts of flying are taking off and landing, neither of which these guys had to concern themselves with.
Regarding Flight 77, thr fact Hanjour came in way too fast and way too high, forcing him to make a turn to lose altitude,.is evidence of his poor piloting skills and lack of experience. There are plenty of pilots who've stated this and voiced how silly the arguments of truthers are in this respect. I'd send links but Youtube won't allow them and whenever i try, my comments won't publish, but if you search the words 911myths giulio bernacchia and see what the experts say, you'll hopefully understand there was nothing special about what he did and this is just a typical argument from incredulity.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@danielchoritz1903 What's crazy Daniel is the fact you believe bombs were planted at the bottom of the towers yet both collapses were CLEARLY initiated at the impact zones. Care to explain that one champ? And if there were bombs at the bottom, how did almost everyone in the lower floors survive?
As for first skyscrapers to collapse from fire, can you show me ONE single comparable event? No you can't because in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires. In reality however, steel-framed structures have been collapsing from fire ever since steel has been used to construct. Why do you think we coat steelwork in fire-proofing? There was the Plasco high-rise in Tehran, the Sight and Sound theatre in Pennsylvania and the Kader Toy factory in Thailand to name 3 off the top of my head. Once again we have somebody who's clueless about any related topic, talking like they're an expert. Stop believing everything you read in the internet.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@mlb805 "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
"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
How many more would you like?
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3