Comments by "Dirk Diggler" (@dirkdiggler8260) on "JRE Clips"
channel.
-
1
-
@johnlively819 Moving on because, that's not where your dishonesty ends. You being up Silverstein's interview where he stated they decided to pull it to save risking any more lives, of which he was OBVIOUSLY referring to pulling the operation and pulling everybody out and away from a building they had assessed and deemed to be structurally unsound and about to collapse. Contrary to your typical BS, the term 'pull' in demolition does NOT refer to an explosive demolition, EVER. It is a rarelynused term that refers to a structure being rigged up with cables attached to excavators which then pull the structure down in a way so as not to damage surrounding buildings. A term a property mogul would very unlikely know, as would the fire chief who was actually the one who made that call, NOT Silverstein as you claim. To even suggest Silverstein would out himself in such a way on a pre-recorded interview that he could easily have just scrapped and started again the second he realised he'd let the cat out of the bag, once again highlights just how mental you people are. I mean, AS IF!!!! 🤣 As i said, this was NOT Silverstein's call to make and he gave zero orders that day. It was in fact the sole decision of Chief of Department Dan Nigro who has publicly corrected your lies and stated that he was referring to pulling the operation and pulling everyone back to create a safe collapse zone as a collapse was inevitable.
Yes the BBC did prematurely report the buildings demise as a result of the fire fighters publicly stating the building was about to collapse. The BBC simply made the mistake of saying it had, as opposed to saying it was. A simple error and one of several fundamental errors reported that day, as is often the case in live news reports. You clowns simply seize on this because again, you feel it supports your agenda. I should say, wrongly feel it supports your agenda because it doesn't and you've clearly not thought this through. Explain to me why they would give the BBC inside information? What possible benefit would they gain from this? NONE WHATSOEVER!! All they would do is create an utterly pointless risk and a HUGE risk at that. All they would have had to do is wait for it to collapse and they'd have reported it as it happened without any risk whatsoever. You're seemingly too dumb to have worked that one out, or simply more dishonesty?
1
-
@johnlively819 Unfortunately the depths of your depravity doesn't end there and you go on to claim nothing hit WTC7 when every man and his dog knows full well it sustained a HUGE amount of structural damage from thousands of tons of falling debris dropping on to it from as high as a thousands foot. I'd hardly say that was nothing. This led yo widespread fires on many floors that the fire department decided to let freeburn, and thus willingly allowing it to collapse because there could be no other outcome given the design of the structure. They knew this when they made this decision, hence why they stated it would "DEFINITELY" collapse several HOURS before it fell. As i told you previously, leave ANY non-concrete reinforced, steel-framed structure to freeburn and it will collapse 100% of the time. Heat weakens steel, it's that simple.
You then ask why the debria didn't make other buildings collapse that were hit, and the simple answer to that is, because they were all concrete reinforced and of completely different, incomparable design. And no, Silverstein didn't own WTC7, he leased it. In fact he leased the entire World Trade complex, including all those other buildings that got hit that didn't collapse so, WRONF AGAIN!!!
You and your 19hr documentary lol, try conducting some proper research for a change you lazy, uneducated crackpot. Perhaps then you won't be made to look so stupid. Spread lies like this and there will always be somebody who will call you out and expose you. You cant even use the excuse of ignorance as you've read the statements from Chief Dan Nigro confirming what I've said, along with statements from the other fire fighters who tended to building 7, all detailing the immense structural damage and fires of WTC7. You're just an outright, shameless liar, no excuses.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@unknowngentile419 Of course you're an architect, i believe you ......honest 🙄 An architect who hasn't even bothered to read the actual studies that would no doubt be very interesting to an actual architect. The fact you say it wasn't hit by anything speaks for itself, you clearly know NOTHING about this topic, yet here you are, being an arrogant arsehoIe trying to lord it over me with your bogus claims of imaginary career paths. If you really are an architect, going on what you've said, i wouldn't let you design me a bird bath. Of course WTC7 was hit! It sustained HUGE structural damage from THOUSANDS of tons of falling debris from the collapsing North tower! How do you not know this? As well as all the structural damage, there were widespread fires across many floors of which were left to freeburn. Being an architect, you're no doubt aware of the purpose and importance of fire-proofing, though you're somehow unable to grasp that this building had freeburned without any attempt to stem the blaze, for 2hrs beyond what it's fire proofing was rated at. Another key factor was the implementation of longspan beams used to create a large open atrium which as you will know, are more susceptible to heat than shortspan beams for obvious reason. This is what gave the impression that the building fell in on itself.
Well done for completely deflecting my previous response and changing the subject. Is that because you couldn't refute the verifiable facts i put to you, or find a single demolitions expert who agrees with you? You couldn't even justify your stupid claim that the towers couldn't have come down in the time they came down! You're just a typical, lying, fact-dodging truther who will no doubt run away rather than address the fundamental problems with your reasoning or acknowledge any evidence or facts that oppose your kooky conspiracy theories. That's not the actions of somebody with a genuine concern for truth.
Regarding your claim the attack was "put into movies and videogames before it even happened", i truly and honestly cannot even think what you possibly mean by this. Care to explain exactly what you're saying here because to suggest they would do this purposely is beyond lunacy and if that's what you believe then i can smell the reek of mental instability emanating from yourself from here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Michael Hoffman
"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? Ignorance is not a defence sorry stupid 🤷🏽♂️
1
-
1
-
Michael Hoffman There was no countdown, that myth was well and truly shut down and the fact you still believe this speaks volumes about your ability to conduct proper research. This only serves to prove categorically how easily duped and gullible you are. To say this fictional countdown was captured on film just highlights how readily you're will to lie. If you're going to continue with this ludicrous, buIIsh!t claim then send a link/cite your source and show everyone how easily fooled you are.
Next you try and explain to me how demolitions work with your pigeon understanding based on BS you've heard on conspiracy videos. In reality however, the audio tapes and seismic data alone PROVE WTC7 wasn't an explosive demolition. If you've ever witnessed an actual demolition, then you'd know how loud they are. What magical, silent explosives do you believe were used exactly? 😂 The smallest blast required to take the critical column of WTC7 would result in an explosion with a sound level of 130 decibels. No such blast is on any of the audios. How do you reconcile that fact with your kooky conspiracy beliefs?
WTC7 did NOT collapse into it's footprint and the reason it appeared to 'implode' is quite simple due to the building's design, with the implementation of longspan beams used to create a large open atrium. How do you not know this? How do you expect anybody to take anything you say seriously when you are less than clueless regarding the basics? Yet here you are, trying to pretend you're some kind of demolitions expert lol, it's quite hilarious. If these "teams" you speak of that you allege wired WTC7 with explosives, how come nobody saw anything? The building was occupied and it would have taken weeks to wire and it would have required access to key places and peeles back to the supports in order to drop it with any kind of precision. Another huge problem for your bizarre theory is, this building was randomly hit by debris from the towers. Nobody couldnhave predicted that building would have been hit for sure or sustained such huge, structural damage. So do you not think that would have raised a few eyebrows had it not been hit and just suddenly collapsed?? And why would they need to demolished WTC7?? Any records contained in there were no doubt backed up, and besides, would it not be easier to just incinerate any paperwork etc. or dump it in the sea, rather than going to such lengths? A demolition is hardly the most secure or reliable means to destroy paperwork to say the least. What you're suggesting is sheer, unadulterated lunacy of the highest order.
Name ONE other non-concrete reinforced, steel framed structure that you claim burned for 12hrs without collapsing and I'll gladly explain to you just how wrong you are.
Finally you appeal to one of the most weakest arguments from authority I've ever heard. Ae911truth are a tiny, insignificant number of whackjobs that make up less the 0.01% of their respective communities. It's took them 2 decades to collect just 3500 signatures which is just pathetic lol. Out of those 3500, around 80% of them have ZERO experience, knowledge or understanding of structural engineering, high-rise construction or controlled demolition. Who cares what a software engineer and the like think on this matter?? Most of them are as clueless as you. So that's 600 out of the millions of engineers out there. Wow 😂 What makes this even worse is that they have all seemingly forgotten how the scientific process works and even tried to fraudulently bypass it. The organisation is a joke. The AIA even spoke out to say they do not agree with their opinions. Again, this just goes to expose how easily you are conned.
Your final, fundamentally flawed argument regarding Silverstein, is once again easily refuted as more absurd nonsense. First off, what he said was that "they" decided to pull, referring to pulling the operation and pulling the fire fighters out and away to save risking any more lives. It was a pre-recorded interview so let's pretend he slipped up, he would have immediately realised and stopped the interview and asked to do a retake, obviously lol. And no, 'pull' is a rarely used term used only by demolition professionals which refers PURELY to a structure being rigged up with cables attached to excavators which then pull the structure down to avoid damaging surrounding structures. Never, EVER does it refer to an explosive demolition so wrong again. Silverstein never made that call either, it was entirely the decision of Chief of Department Dan Nigro. How do you explain the fire fighters tending to WTC7, publicly stating a collapse was inevitable several hours prior to it falling? Why did they set up a collapase zone? Are you seriously suggesting the fire fighters were in on this alleged conspiracy?? You're out of your mind lol.
Now if you have any actual evidence to support your crazy notions, then present it because so far you've given nothing and just repeated arguments that have been long debunked.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joshngu6631 You see your problem is that because you don't trust the government (which, for the record i don't either), you automatically assume they're behind everything bad that happens which is just irrational. I follow the evidence, it's that simple. In the case of 911, although the conspiracies initially sound very compelling after watching things like Zeitgeist, Loose Change and all the other awful, specious conspiracy movies, but when you take the time to properly research each claim made, it soon becomes clear there's no truth to them whatsoever. How about you show me what you believe to be the most compelling evidence of a conspiracy and let's see. In fact, just show me ANY evidence of conspiracy, that would be start because so far, all I'm hearing are the same, parroted lies/half-truthes that were debunked years ago. If you can show me sufficient, credible evidence of a conspiracy, I'll gladly change my opinion in a heartbeat.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shilohwehrmacht2947 Ok first off show me your evidence that WTC7 had ANYTHING whatsoever to do with the so-called 'missing 2.3 trillion' dollars that was never actually missing and later accounted for, because i call buIIsh!t. You saying it doesn't make it true and i can't find ANY evidence whatsoever to back that up. And you seriously don't think such information would have been backed up??? 🤣 Get real. Most of you clowns claim it was rhe Pentagon office that was hit that was investigating it, so which was it? Evidence please because in the words of the mighty Hitchens, 'what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed withour evidence'. In fact i will say now, i guarantee you will dodge this because as you know, you've just taken that claim on blind faith after hearing some other tinfoil hat wearing whackjob saying it. It's BS mate, no truth to it whatsoever. It's common knowledge and no secret whatsoever that the CIA had an office in there and set up a command point after the 93 bombing of the twin towers, but beyond that, there's no link whatsoever. Prove me wrong.
Secondly, heat weakens steel. It's that simple. They were non-concrete reinforced structures which made them far more susceptible to heat, hence why we use fire-proofing. The fire-proofing incidentally was blasted off by the impacts so the fact they remained standing as long as they did was nothing short of a miracle. It should also be noted that we literally have footage of emtire floor slabs sagging and beams buckling from heat prior to collapse. Theres no mystery here, we know why they collapsed and we have no need to invent crazy-arsed conspiracy theories to justify any of it.
In respect to building 7, how am i meant to take you seriously when you claim it wasn't hit by anything?? 🙈 In reality it was hit by thousands of tons of debris from the collapsing towers which resulted in huge structural damage and widespread fires across many floors, of which were left to freeburn. Any non-concrete reinforced structure left to freeburn will eventually collapse, every time. Wtc7 burned for 2hrs beyond what its fire-proofing was rated at. Again, no mystery at all, and the fire fighters who tended to it even publicly stated that a collapse was inevitable. Why talk about things you clearly know nothing about??
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1