Comments by "Dirk Diggler" (@dirkdiggler8260) on "JRE Clips"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MegaDavyk We went to the moon mainly to get one over on the Russians as we were embroiled in the Cold War. Although no physical conflict, the 2 countries flexed their might by technological advancements, political expansion and proxy wars like Vietnam. America had suffered a couple of major setbacks to the Russians in that they'd successfully sent the first man into space, and America had also suffered a crushing defeat to the Cubans in the Bay of Pigs invasion. Beating the Russians to the moon was seen as a way of gaining back that edge. That was what is was really all about. Without this competition, it is very likely it would not have happened, or certaibly not when it did. That said, humanity has always had a natural compulsive desire for exploration and expansion and man had pondered it from the dawn of humanity. There were many scientists at the time however who thought it to be a waste of time. I don't personally believe it was but to POINTLESSLY continue going back with such huge risk to human life and incurring such immense costs, what would be the point? Why can't you answer this simple, yet pertinent question? For what purpose???
You can't compare lunar missions to individuals climbing Everest lol, don't be ridiculous. Up until now there has been no drive or valid, rational reason to go back, but since the discovery of water up there and with us furthering our exploration of Mars, we now have reason to go back. And we will. I'm afraid your rationale to say we've never been is just dumb to put it bluntly. Your argument makes no sense and couldn't be weaker. If that's all you have then this is a nonestarter. It would have been more difficult to fake the landings than to actually go there.
As for 9/11, how did i know? 🤣 Too predictable. It would probably have been easier asking are there any kooky conspiracy theories you don't subscribe to? lol.
So what you're saying is, Larry Silverstein somehow managed to persuade the US government to carry out this insanely risky plot to murder thousands of their own innocent civilians, all so that he could save a few dollars by pulling off an elaborate insurance scam, ine that he in reality, lost a fortune? 🤔 Sounds likely 🤣 You're clearly mental and in serious need of a psychiatric evaluation to discern the best way to help you become a normal, functioning member of society. How can you possibly beleive what you believe, it's beyond lunacy.
Firstly, what the hell is a "cohen-cidence"? Also, it's spelled 'insured'. The word 'ensured' has a different meaning altogether. It comes as no surprise you're painfully uneducated, yet here you are claiming to be smarter than EVERY SCIENTIST in human history. You realise how crazy that makes you appear to others right?
Moving on. I'm not sure how you concluded he bought the World Trade Complex for cheap. The 99yr lease he took out wasn't cheap by any standard, so can only assime you say this for effect to help bolster your truly, truly absurd conspiracy theory. He had no say whatsoever in insuring the complex so why you say this with suspicion makes no sense either. It is standard practice in ANY commercial property and was a stipulation enforced by the Port Authority as part of the lease contract. Nothing whatsoever unusual about this. He did NOT double his insurance against terroism, that is an outright lie! In reality, ALL commercial insurance policies sold in the U.S. before 9/11 covered terrorist incidents as a matter of course. They were insured back in 93 before the previous terrorist attack on the towers, you know this right? It was simply a STANDARD, 'all-risk' policy. Where do you get off shamelessly lying like this?
As for you claiming he "ensured them to the max", in reality he underinsured them, opting to pay THE very bare minimum his lenders insisted in them being insured for in an attempt to save money and do it on the cheap, and he hadn't even finalised the policies at the time of the attacks! Does that sound like somebody who had foreknowledge of the attack?? Obviously not. This led to several years of court battles and he and his consortium of investors getting paid out HALF of his claim, and a total of 4.55 billion dollars. The estimated cost of the rebuild was 9 billion and he was losing hundreds of millions in rent whilst still having to continue paying millions on the lease. This would have to make it THE worst insurance scam in history lol. As with everything else you say and believe, it makes zero sense and it's for reasons like these that nobody of worth takes a blind bit of notice of you or ever will. It's why you comment on youtube, desperately seeking affirmation and echo-chamber of fellow, socially inept crackpots who gravitate to such forums, seeking like-minded morons in an attempt to offer you a sense of worse. You need to get out more and step away from the computer before it's too late.
As for you claiming he "ensured them to the max", in reality he underinsured them in an attempt to save money and do it on the cheap, and he hadn't even finalised the policies at the time of the attacks! Does that sound like somebody who had foreknowledge of the attack?? Obviously not. This led to several years of legal battles and he and his consortium of investors getting paid out HALF of his claim, and a total of 4.55 billion dollars. The estimated cost of the rebuild was 9 billion and he was losing hundreds of millions in rent whilst still having to continue pay 10 million in lease payments of which he couldn't recoup a single cent. This would have to make it THE worst insurance scam in history lol. As with everything else you say and believe, it makes zero sense. It's for reasons like these that nobody of worth takes a blind bit of notice of you or ever will. It's why you comment on youtube, desperately seeking affirmation and echo-chamber of fellow, socially inept crackpots who gravitate to such forums, seeking like-minded morons in an attempt to offer you a sense of worse. You need to get out more and step away from the computer before it's too late.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@beyondnow1600 Which only goes to show you've never read the studies and have no understanding whatsoever of what the official story is. That os NOT what the official studies say, and we're supposed to listen to a deranged, unlearned crackpot like you?? Get a grip man lol. Controlled demolitions are done from the bottom up, whereas both towers collapsed at the impact zone's, a fact that alone utterly destroys all claims of controlled demolition. Any demo devices located anywhere near those impact zones would have been instantly destroyed by the plane impacts and ensuing fires. You obviously aren't aware of just how sensitive demo devices are to things like heat and geometry.
Regarding builidng 7, it wasn't hit by a plane which is pretty much the only correct claim you've made so far. It was however hit by thousands of tons of debris from the collapsing south tower which resulted in massive structural damage and fires across many floors, of which were allowed to freeburn and thus making a collapse inevitable. The firefighters tending to the builidng literally stated publicly it was going to collapse several hours before it fell. Are you suggesting they were in on this alleged conspiracy that killed hundreds of their brothers?? Im case you hadn't noticed too, it wasn't the plane impacts that brought the towers down, it was the fires, just like what brought down building 7. As for building 7 falling in the exact same way as the towers, once again all this does is expose your blinding ignorance as they couldn't have been any different. The twin towers fell from the top down, whereas builidng 7 collapsed from the bottom up.
20yrs of research and you don't even understand the basics or recognise the vacuous, fundamental flaws in your logic?? Wow, what a waste of 2 decades 🙈 Imagine what you could have achieved in that time, you could literally be a professor had you focused your efforts elsewhere. That's pretty tragic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shostako1284 Stop claiming it's the most protected space in the world, that's utter sh!te, no it is not. It was/is well protected but believe it or not, not only did they not expect somebody to fly a plane into it, there really isn't much that will stop a 150 ton mass full of kerosene travelling at 500mph.
As for your claim of the 136 eye witnesses are all lying and paid off, you really are seriously deluded beyond reason. Would you take money to help cover up the mass nutder of thousands of your fellow countrymen?? Like hell you would, yet you think all those 136 people were so morally bankrupt that they'd do such a heinous thing? Get real. The risk involved would be immense and no way would they take such a chance. It's all about risk to reward. There were airline pilots, doctors, clergymen, fire fighters and many other credible people who witnessed it, and you actually believe they're all lying and not one honest person witnessed it whilst sat in traffic on that busy highway??? Put the crackpipe down, you're insane. Now a single witness to anything other than a plane. On top of this, a mass of 757 wreckage including the black box, the remains of all the passengers and their personal belongings, ATC evidence detailing a radar track from Dulles airport to the impact site, damage to surrounding structures hit in approach which confirm perfectly the dimensions of a 757 wingspan and engine separation. The list goes on but hey, you keep clutching those straws and burying your head to all this incontestable evidence to try and keep your kooky, failed conspiracy theory alive 😏👍🏼
Ps. Your claim about the Mexican drug cartels in as ludicrous and unhinged as the rest of what you said. Just more baseless, naive hogwash. You've clearly been watching too much TV.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1