Comments by "Dirk Diggler" (@dirkdiggler8260) on "JRE Clips"
channel.
-
@BrianD1961 Jesus Christ, that was enough to send a glass eye to sleep, it really was 🥱 Superfluous hogwash with zero substance. Do you not understand the simple concept of burden of proof? Seemingly not. You're clearly so lost in your delusion and balls deep down your imaginary rabbit hole, you've gone full Tonto and subscribed to the breathtaking insanity of Judy Woods. In answer to your question, who refuted her work, as i stated previously, this was done quite magnificently by a member of the so-called 'truth' community; a physicist by the name of Greg Jenkins who critiqued her work and calculated the energy required to do what that crooked whackjob Wood's claims, would be equivalent to the power output 5x that of planet earth. It's lunacy of the highest order. She has been exposed and proven to be a snakeoil salesman who has manipulated data and outright lied to try and bolster her deranged pseudoscience. In terms of truthers, you rank alongside the no-planers and make up the just a tiny percentage of the truth community. You are the fringe of the fringe. I on the other hand, simply follow the data and have no bias. If somebody were to show me sufficient, credible evidence of a conspiracy, i would change my opinion in a heartbeat. So far nobody has been able to and whether you accept it or not, the official stance backed by much science, has so far stood up to intense scrutiny. What i believe is believed also by the overwhelming consensus of experts in every related field. The burden of proof is yours.
1
-
1
-
@Bogsyism You mean squibs? How ironic you correct other people's spelling. In reality they weren't squibs at all. What we can see is air violently being expelled as entire floor systems are slamming down on to one another. That air has to go somewhere, you accept this right? Drop a heavy book on to a dusty table and watch what happens. We observe the exact same thing in verinage demolitions of which don't use explosives. There isn't a single demolitions expert claiming the twin towers were demoed. Does that alone not tell you something? If it was as you believe, the entire demolitions community would be all over it.
As for "building 3", i can only assume you're talking about WTC7 of which the fire fighters predicted the collapse several hours prior to it falling. It was that obvious a collapse was imminent as ANY non-concrete reinforced, steel-framed structure will collapse if left to freeburn, as WTC7 was. It hadn't been hit by a plane, but it was hit by thousands of tons of debris from one of the collapsing towers. This resulted in widesprrad fires across a number of floors of which the fire department decided to leave burn, save risking any further loss of life. For the record, the planes didn't the towers down; fire did, just as with WTC7. The fact both towers collapsed at the impact zone is proof they weren't demoed as any explosive devices would have been destroyed instantly by the immense impacts and ensuing fires.
Next you jump to an argument from authority, yet fail to realise just how weak that argument is. 80% of those so-called experts have NO experience or knowledge of high-rise construction, structural engineering or controlled demolition. They are comprised of people from completely unrelated backgrounds such as software engineers, electrical engineers etc. etc. That brings the total who have any experience or knowledge on anything remotely related down to around 600 people. That's 600 out of the MILLIONS of architand engineers out there ie. They're the lunatic fringe, nothing more. Its taken over a decade to gather such a tragically, feeble following and in that time they've completely failed in everything they've done and exposed as lying, cheating scumbags who have fraudulently tried to bypass the scientific process to cash in on their whacky conspiracy claims. The AIA even came forward to state that they do NOT share their views in any way shape or form, so the AIA members alone far outnumber those crooked crackpots over at ae911truth. So much for your argument from authority 🤷🏽♂️
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Bogsyism I was going yo leave it at that but i feel you need publicly shaming to make an example of. If what you're saying were true, why can't you provide the name of this imaginary demolitions expert you speak of? Guess we'll just have to take your word for it 🙄 Given how you've shown yourself to be a fact-dodging, bare faced liar, that isn't going to happen. Provide names or we can safely assume you're just lying again. If youtube allowed links still i would take great pleasure in destroying your brazen lies with video footage of a fire fighter that day, HOURS before the WTC7 collapsed stating publicly that it was, and i quote "definitely" going to collapse. Because of the issue with sending links, the best i can do is provide direct quotes from the very fire fighters who tended to and assessed WTC7 and made the decision to pull the operation, allow it to freeburn and create a safe collapse zone to wait for the inevitable collapse. Here's a few of many for you to bury your thick head to.
"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
Don't talk to me about denial you mental fkn midget. I'm not the fact dodging coward who refuses to address the facts, you are 🖕🏽😉🖕🏽
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@xKNO1x Sorry stupid but the fact you think a fireman is capable of discern the chemical composition pf molten metal in those circumstances by site speaks volumes. You're clearly an idiot so your opinon doesn't really count sorry. I will ask you the same question again just to highlight your cowardice and reluctance to accept any conflicting that oppose your tinfoil hat lunacy. You refuse to answer because you know full well the only logical answer debunks your unlearned, kooky hogwash. The fire fighters who assessed the structure stated publicly that a collapse was inevitable. You lose.
Ps. Thermite isn't used in demolition and was only invented by the bogus organisation of crooks and whackjobs that go by the name of ae911truth, because their initial assertions of explosive demolitions were utterly refuted. No evidence whatsoever of any thermite or controlled demolition in general.
Just for good measure, here's the fire fighters themselves speaking about WTC7 to shut you up once and for all:
"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
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stevesherman1743 Ok stupid, the fact you can't even spell 'dumb' tells me everything i need to know, let alone the fact you can't tell the difference between a bottom up collapse and a top down collapse you utter fkn moron. Wtc7 wasn't hit by a plane correct, well done. It was however hit by THOUSANDS of tons of debris from the collapsing north tower which caused HUGE structural damage and fires across many floors which the fire department decided to let freeburn, meaning a collapse was inevitable. The fire fighters who assessed it stated a collapse was inevitable so unless you believe they were part of this mental conspiracy you believe in, you're flat out wrong.
Regarding your imagjnary "squibs", in reality what we were observing was air being violently expelled as floors slammed down on to one another internally, EXACTLY as qe observe in a verinage demolition if which don't use explosives. Stop talking about things you CLEARLY have no understanding of, pretending to know more about demolition than the entire demolitions community given how there isn't seemingly a single demolitions experts claiming the twin towers were demoed. What a clown you are.
As for people carrying pieces of aircraft wing at the Pentagon, it's made from sheet aluminium, ie. it's light as a feather!!! What kind of feeble fk are you?? Not a Boeing you say? Airliner pilots on their morning commute to the airport next door who fly 757's for a living and watched the aircraft approach and impact said it was most definitely WAS a Boeing, so i think I'll go with those professionals who were actually there as opposed to some illiterate, tinfoil hat wearing whackjob on an intellectual par with fkng mildew.
1
-
@432b86ed Mick West is INFINITELY more honest and unbiased than Tony fkn Szamboti, and West and others have utterly decimated those crooks over that bogus organisation ae911truth truth who actively and fraudulently tried to bypass the scientific process in an attempt to cash in on the credulous. Ae911truth are as crooked as can be and make up the most insignificant bunch of nobodies, 80% of which have no relevant backgrounds or experience. They make up less than 0.01% if their respective communities and are commonly known as the luntic fringe. Regardless of details within the the NIST studies, there have been several key studies and whereas they may differ in the smaller details, they ALL concluded fire to be the cause of collapse........except of course, the one funded by the whackjobs over at ae911truth who not only funded it, but insisted it began with the presupposition that fire was NOT the cause. That's as far removed from scientific enquiry as you can get! Pseudoscientific hogwash, nothing more. Do you believe the fire fighters tending to WTC7 were in on this alleged conspiracy? I'm going to assume not, in which case, how do you account for their insistence that a collpase was "definitely" gojng to happen and was therefore inevitable, several hours prior to it falling? Either they were psychic or it was that obvious. Which is it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kenhasibar2450 Ok Ken, let's first punch a vacuous hole in your bizarre claim that fire has never brought down a steel structure by giving you examples such as the Plasco building in Tehran, the Sight and Sound theatre in Pennsylvania and the Kader Toy Factory in Thailand. How many more would you like? Yet more evidence that truthers will lie through their teeth in order to try and validate their lunacy.
Secondly, the entire premise of your ridiculous conspiracy theory and overall argument is false, in that no steel needed to melt, only weaken. At around 550 degrees, steel has lost about 50% of its initial strength. Such temperatures are easily reached in standard office/hydrocarbon fires and given how this steel was under such immense lpad, it's nothing short of a miracle they remained standing as long as they did. The plane's didn't bring the towers down so that's just another strawman argument, well done.
Ps. I notice you failed at naming a single demolitions expert who agrees that the twin towers were demoed. I rest my case lol, but you know better 😉👍🏼
Pps. I couldn't possibly be less of a Trump fan (in my experience the majority of ReTrumplicans are firmly in your conspiracy camp, champ. I'm an atheist although how that's relevant i don't know. Being a gullible sort like yourself, I'd have said you were more likely to have an imaginary friend than i. As for 'knowing science', I'm the lead technician in a QCMT laboratory so am guessing I'm probably a little more clued up on such subjects than yourself. The fact you don't understand how no steel required to melt and that fire weakens steel kinda speaks for itself. You've not even bothered to read the actual scientifoc studies yet have the audacity to call others scientifically illiterate and claim ultimate knowledge on the subject. You're clearly a very deluded individual suffering delusions of grandeur.
1
-
@kenhasibar2450 So again, you can't name ONE demolitions expert who agrees the twin towers were demoed? Speaks for itself.
1000+ engineers?? Wow! What about the millions who have no issue with the official studies? You might also want to learn how science works and then you'll understand how irrelevant that feeble number of crackpots are until they follow the rules and go down the implicit route of peer-review. For the record, out of the 3000 signatories, over 80% of them have no background, knowledge, experience ir understanding of structural engineering, high-rise construction or controlled demolition. That brings the total down to around 600, all of which have seemingly forgotted how science works. The opinions of say, a software engineer or an electrical engineer arr meaningless, so you cling on to your 0.01% of the engineering community and I'll stick with what the real experts say and have backed up with actual studies. That has to be THE weakest argument from authority I've ever heard and highlights the desperation of your argument.
Truthers are ironically all liars who would rather ignore any opposing facts before running away, hence why nobody of worth takes a blind bit of notice of you people. You will no doubt do the same, in fact you already have. Like i said, fire weakens steel and in STANDARD OFFICE/HYDROCARBON FIRES, temperatures of 600 degrees are common. Again, at around 550 degrees, steel has lost around 50% of its initial strength. What part of that are you failing to comprehend? This isn't open for debate, these are simply facts which remain facts whether you accept them or not. We literally have footage of entire floor slabs sagging from the heat and columns and beams buckling prior to collapse.
To designers of the twin towers have no issues with the fact they collpased so it's pretty dishonest of you insinuating otherwise. Your argument is also a strawman given that the towers didn't collapse from the plane impacta so did their job. They fell because of FIRE. They remained standing for 60-90 minutes after the impacts and both collapsed precisely at the impact zones which I would love you to explain to me. How exactly did any explosives of fictional thermite charges survive the plane imapcts and ensuing fires?? Impossible. Literally, impossible which is the word used by the world's leading authority in controlled demolitions when asked how they would go about bringing down those towers in the manner they fell. But hey, you know better because you've watched a conspiracy video by Michael Moore 🙈 lol.
And yes, weakened steel DOES explain how the entire towers came down which you'd know if you hadn't lazily watched conspiracy videos rather than reading the actual studies which explain the how. Allow me to enlighten you the simple concept that explains what happened. The planes severed a number of structural supports when they struck with the force equivalent to that of 1.35 tons of TNT. The load those columns were under was transferred to the remaining columns which were heavily involved in fire due to them being situated in the location the ignited jet fuelled flowed, igniting everything in its path. Once this steel that was under an immense load (greater than it was designed to take) got hot enough and sufficiently weakened, they gave way which led to a chain reaction of events that brought them to the ground. Each floor had a set static load limit of which was MASSIVELY exceeded by the dynamic of the floor above. With each floor, the mass became greater which was the reason there was acceleration. The resistance was negligible.
Thermite isn't used in demolition because it isn't a reliable or efficient means to cut steel and there is NO evidence whatsoever of any such means being used. The only reason the crooks over at ae911truth invented this outlandish theory is because their claims of explosives failed under scrutiny.
Next you claim the steel qas immediately removed which simply isn't true. NO steel was taken away until it was reviewed and deemed to have no bearing on the collapse. Any that was of interest was put aside, taken to Fresh Kills and studied. No evidence found whatsoever of any explosives or thermite.
Regarding the passport, this was found BEFORE the collpase and was picked up by a passer-by. If you're insinuating it was planted, feel free to explain the purpose of taking this needless risk when we know full well he was on board as he was on the flight manifest? This made planting it completely pointless. Passports often survive plane crashes and paper often survives explosions due to its high surface to mass ratio. Literally hundreds of thousands pieces of paper survived and were all over the ground where the passport was found. The fact you tell me i need to do some research when you've done literally NONE yourself is laughable. Watching conspiracy films is in no way, shape or form classed as research sorry. Try reading the actual studies, how about that?? You're simply part of the tinfoil hat wearing lunatic fringe of whom deserve all the ridicule they receive. Please don't pretend your movement holds any weight because in academia, you're a laughing stock, don't deluded yourself otherwise.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1