Comments by "Dirk Diggler" (@dirkdiggler8260) on "JRE Clips"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tryksta7247 Coming from somebody who has fitted hundreds of CCTV systems, then yes i know what I'm talking about. The CCTV was there to monitor the perimeter of the structure ie. Windows, doors, fire escapes, low roofs etc. Basically any vulnerable areas where entry could possibly be gained and monitoring people entering and leaving the building. Why the hell would you point a camera away from the structure, down the street?? What purpose would that possibly serve?? Your argument is entirely one from incredulity and ignorance, hence why it holds no weight in the real world. The fact we have footage from 2 cameras at the security gate, the Citadel gas station and one other (if i remember rightly) that have been released to the public kinda punches a pretty big hole in your paranoid delusions. You're also conveniently ignoring the mountain of other evidence that categorically proves AA Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon that day, focusing entirely on a fundamentally flawed argument that has no bearing on anything. We could literally have 4k UHD footage with Hani Hanjour waving as they flew past, and you'd simply claim it to be fake. We don't need any footage. For the record however, one of those from the security gate DOES indeed show, when zoomed in on a single still, what is obviously a large plane with the American Airlines livery emblazoned across it, just as ALL other evidence (ie. Wreckage, black box, 135 direct eye-witnesses, ATC evidence, radar track, damage to surrounding structures hit on approach confirming the precise dimensions of a 757's wingspan and engine separation, remains of the passengers on board retrieved at the crash site etc. etc. etc.) confirms. Those CCTV cameras incidentally, were set at 1 frame per second so I'm sure even somebody as moronic as you can work out how much distance an object travelling around 500mph covers each second, so work it out and then tell me again how we should expect to see a clear image of the plane you clown. And yes, i am most definitely saying that a 757 could travel that speed at that altitude over that distance without "falling apart". Boeing have no issue with it, so why the hell do you?? The turn was a standard manoeuvre used by pilots to lose altitude when coming in to land and the fact he was forced to make that turn only serves to show how poor his piloting skills were as he'd come in too high and way too fast. A crackpot dullard you are, an aeronautical engineer you are not. How exactly have i cherrypicked my arguments when all I've done is address and rebuked EVERY dumb claim you've made? Unlike truthers, i don't bury my head to any facts and embrace the full body of evidence. Just look at how much evidence you choose to ignore! Hypocrisy, much?? Lying about me ignoring Lloyd England doesn't do much for your credibility either. I clearly stated your claim that he admitted lying was BS and the burden of proof lies with you to back that claim up, not i. I also addressed your claim about how you've quote-mined reporters and even asked you to provide the name of a single reporter there that day who doesn't believe AA Flighrb77 hit that building that day and you failed. The date on the camera footage is less than meaningless as you acknowledge. I've messed with the wrong one??? 🤣🤣🤣 Oh you silly boy, I'm going to enjoy handing you your backside. I've listed SOME of the fundamental evidence above that you choose to ignore, so how about we get into the evidence we have and let's see how you go shall we little one? Let's start with the 135 direct eye-witnesses who ALL reported seeing a plane, some of whom were pilots who dlew 757's and identified it specifically as an American Airlines 757. Are you saying they're all lying or simply mistaken? Can you also tell me what you believe hit the Pentagon if not a plane?
Ps. I left you TWO replies to your previous comment. It seems you only read one. Either that or you're even more of a shameless liar than i initially perceived.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ritchieaustin5451 Ok so you're now moving the goalposts. You started off claiming no building has ever collapsed from fire before. After being provided 3 examples of the many available, you've changed tact. That's fine because using your own standards, you refute your own argument in that the Meridian was a concrete reinforced structure with a granite curtain wall facade and didn't implement the use of long span beams, as WTC7 did in order to create a large, open atrium. It also had a sprinkler system that was still functional. The fire fighters however did abandon internal fire fighting due to fear of it collapsing. The Meridian also hadn't sustained a huge amount of structural damage after having thousands of tons of debris crashing down onto it from a collapsing sky-scraper. All in all, an incomparable example. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had 47 stories of weight on its supports after having the lower 10 floors scooped out 25% into the depth of the building by falling debris, whilst being left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires. When you can provide me with another building that meets the above criteria, then your question is relevant. Unless that criteria is met, it's a redundant argument. In terms of the twin towers, 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. Shall i continue or do you get the picture? This was an incomparable event.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2