It’s been a while but it is time for a refresher on REAL WORLD physics, not the Roadrunner cartoon physics that “truthers” use.

First, with respect to the Twin Towers, “Truthers” claim that the fact that Tower 2 fell first despite being struck second is proof that it was a conspiracy.  However, that is completely FALSE. The ACTUAL reason for the order of collapses ( in addition to the fact that, as we see here,  the fire-proofing was, if you’ll excuse the language, half-assed) is plain, old physics. Newton’s 1st Law, also known as the Law of Inertia states that ” Unless acted upon by an outside force, an object in motion tends to remain in motion and an object at rest tends to remain at rest.”  The planes were the outside force and you do NOT necessarily see the force right away. For example, if you try pushing a heavy enough object, it can take a while for you to get it moving.  In physics, force is defined as mass times acceleration, acceleration is defined as a change in velocity over time, and velocity is the speed and direction you are going.  For example, if you say you’re doing 65 MPH, that’s speed. If you say you’re doing 65 MPH due east, that’s velocity. As a result, acceleration, in physics terms, can be defined as not only speeding up and slowing down but also turning. The planes obviously had mass and a speeding aircraft slamming into a building is obviously going to experience a rather abrupt change in velocity, so the equation of Force = Mass times Acceleration ( F = ma) does  indeed apply.

The primary reason for the order of collapse is how and where the Twin Towers were damaged. As we see from 9/11myths.com, WTC 2 was hit lower down and suffered more asymmetrical damage than WTC 1, which is why it gave out first.  Since the second plane struck lower down, that means there were fewer floors trying to support more weight.  Oh, and this quote from 911.myths.com shows the TRUTH: “However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory. ”   In short, it was a COMBINATION of the impact of the planes, the dislodging of the rather shoddy fireproofing and the fires.

In the case of BOTH towers,  once the upper floors started coming down, Newton’s 1st and 2nd Law as well as momentum kicked in. As I  mentioned, force = mass times acceleration. Those upper floors had mass and, once they started moving, they had acceleration ( acceleration due to gravity, which is 9.8 meters/second squared ( 32 ft/second squared) and when they hit the floors below them, the mass increased, which means the force would have increased as well. The same goes for momentum, which is defined as mass times velocity, written as p=mv.  Again, if mass increases, so does momentum.  Those floors were NOT meant to slam into each other.

As for the planes, yes, they obviously broke apart on impact but that doesn’t mean all the pieces will be the same size.  While some of the smaller pieces may have ricocheted off things, it is NOT unreasonable to assume that some of the larger pieces would have continued going straight as per Newton’s 1st Law of Motion and just MIGHT have poked out the other side.

 

Now as for their claim that the jet fuel can’t melt steel, as we see from one of my previous articles, while that is technically true, what they ignore is the FACT that 1) The steel only had to WEAKEN, and the temperature was more than sufficient for that and 2) The jet fuel was NOT the only thing burning. It was merely the ignition point. There were plenty of other things that were burning in there as well. Let’s not forget that things like wood, paper, etc can burn and I’m pretty sure the WTC had plenty of those in the form of printer paper, furniture, etc. But, guess what: all those things have MASS ( which is defined as the amount of space an object takes up). The equation for heat ( specifically heat transfer), which any physics book will tell you is Q = mc ΔT, where Q is the amount of heat trasnferred, m is the mass of the object, c is the specific heat and  ΔT is the change in temperature. The jet fuel, which got the fires going, has mass, which means that all the other combustibles in the Twin Towers ( furniture and such) would have added to thee mass and, if you increase one side of the equation, the OTHER side ALSO increases.

No, the jet fuel did not disappear as the Law of Conservation of Matter states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed by a chemical or physical reaction ( burning is combustion, which is a chemical reaction). That is why, in chemistry, equations MUST be balanced. For example, if you have 2 carbons, one hydrogen and 3 oxygens on one side of the equation, you have to have the same number on the other side.

As for the heat transfer, heat is a form of energy and, per the First Law of Thermodynamics can neither be created nor destroyed. Therefore, in the case of Q = mc ΔT, if ANY of the variables on the right side of the equation ( in this case, mass) are increased, then the left side MUST increase as well. That means you have more heat being transferred until the point of collapse.

 

“Truthers” claim that black smoke in the Twin Towers indicated an oxygen-starved fire.  However, as we see here, that is false.

Leaving aside the FACT that the buildings had gaping holes in them- which allowed air, of which oxygen is a component of, the color of the smoke is often an indication of WHAT is burning (reference).

This quote from here, provided by 911myths.com sums it up perfectly: ” Large fires involving plastics produce copious quantities of black smoke.”  I’m sure there were plenty of plastics in the WTC on 9/11 and those fires certainly qualify as large fires.

Furthermore, black smoke tends to indicate petroleum-based products (source). Last time I checked, plastics were petroleum-based products, not to mention the jet fuel.

In point of fact, black smoke, especially if thick, simply indicates the fuel is not being fully consumed ( reference).  Now, before some “truther” says that’s proof that the fires was oxygen-starved, that is 100% FALSE. Oxygen and fuel are NOT the same thing. As we see from the fire triangle provided below, a fire requires THREE things: Oxygen, fuel- which is defined as something to burn- and heat.

 

 

As for the fuel not being fully consumed, anyone who has ever taken BASIC chemistry can tell you that is not unusual in a chemical reaction ( and a fire is indeed a type of chemical reaction).   That’s why when you do stoichiometry in chemistry, which is defined here as” 1.the calculation of the quantities of chemical elements or compounds involved in chemical reactions.

2.the branch of chemistry dealing with relationships of combining elements, especially quantitatively.,” you also often have something called the “limiting reactant” and “excess reactant.”  Generally, when one is in the chem lab, the reaction is controlled. However in the case of the WTC fires, the recent wildfires, etc, the reaction was clearly UNCONTROLLED. 

 

Last but not least, let’s not forget that the oil wells in Kuwait, which were OUTDOORS,  that Saddam set on fire back in ’91, produced black smoke, as did the recent wildfires here in California.  Seeing as how BOTH examples were OUTSIDE, lack of oxygen was clearly NOT a problem.

As usual. “truthers” are just blowing smoke.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just a review of the REAL facts for “truthers.”

 

First, let’s start with the Twin Towers. “Truthers” say it was controlled demolition despite controlled demolition professionals saying otherwise.

As we see here, controlled demolition is done in such a way that all parts of the building are in motion at the same time. This was NOT the case with the Twin Towers. In point of fact, the parts above the impact began falling first, and the floors below the impact did not budge until the upper portions collapsed on them ( reference).

Before someone says the explosives were planted, there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to have predicted the exact location of the planes on impact ( source).  That and logic  ( something that escapes “truthers”) dictates that in order to plant explosives, they would have had to spent months tearing apart walls to place the explosives properly. There is NO WAY IN HELL that would have gone unnoticed, unless the Starship Enterprise beamed them there.

 

As for why the South tower collapsed first despite being hit second, that has to do with how the planes hit. The plane that hit the North tower hit between the 94th and 98th floors, pretty much head on. The plane that hit the South Tower hitbetween the 78th and 84th floor at an angle. As a result, the damage to the South tower was not only less evenly distrubuted but also lower down, meaning that the weakened area on the South Tower had to support more weight than the damaged area of the North Tower ( reference). As a result, it was only natural for the South Tower to have collapsed first. It’s called physics. By physics, I mean real world physics, not the Roadrunner cartoon physics “truthers” use.

 

As for WT7, while no airplane hit it, it did suffer significant damage as a result of being pelted by debris from the collapsing towers. Furthermore, despite “truther” claims to the contrary, there were severe fires in WTC 7 plus a big gaping hole on the south side of the WTC. “Truthers” purposely use the north side of WTC 7, rather than the north side ( source).

Since “truthers insist on saying fire can’t melt steel, while ignoring the FACT that they are the only ones making that claim,   As we can see here, the steel did not need to melt, only weaknen and the temperatures of between 1000 and 1800 degrees Fahrenheit ( 538-982 degrees Celcius was more than sufficient to weaken it. After all, steel loses half its strength at 650 degrees Fahrenheit ( 343 degrees Celcius) and 90% of it’s strength at the maximum temp of the WTC fires and even losing 50% of it’s strength would be more than sufficient to reslult in the eventual collapse ( source).

I know “truthers” will point to the “pooled samples of melted steel” while ignoring the fact that those are just observations and not tested in the lab, which is the ONLY way to be sure ( source).  As eSkeptic points out, many people will refer to any grayish metal as steel, while ignoring the fact that one must do some sort of test in a lab to be sure. The metal was more than likely aluminum, which was one of the structural components of the WTC. Furthermore, alumimum melts at a much lower temperature than steel and can look like steel at first glance. This is yet more proof that “truthers” need to remember the old adage of why one should never ASSume ( yes,  I deliberately capitalized the first 3 letters. “Truthers” are clearly composed of arsenic, selenium and sulfur.

 

 

“Truthers” are still insisting that the fact that passports were found intact at Ground Zero is proof of an inside job. However, this is false.

First of all, as we see here, passports are made out of 60 different materials, only 2 of which are paper and plastic ( source).   In addition, there are passport covvers, which can be plastic, leather, etc ( reference), although the passports may or may not have had a cover.  Furthermore, as 9/11myths.com points out, explosions are unpredictable, plus one of the victims United Airlines Mileage Plus cards was found. Being a card, it was plastic, not paper.  Not only that, but two pieces of mail, specfically letters, which tend to be paper were found ( reference).  Although it is unrelated, as we see here, in the case of the Columbia Space Shuttle disaster six canisters of worms not only survived intact ( the shuttle itself broke up 40 miles above the earth) but the worms were also alive.  As we know, reentry gets pretty darn hot, specifically about 3000 degrees Farhenheit or 1649 degrees Celcius, so why couldn’t a passport or a letter survive the much lower temperatures of the WTC fire ( lower than reentry, that is)?.

As we see from this site, the planes broke apart on impact, THEN the 60 tons fuel that had been stored mainly in the wings exploded and it was actually more of a conflagration, as the precise mixing of fuel and air is difficult to pull off. Furthermore, when the plane broke apart, while some of the debris probably did richochet, the larger debris continued on a straight line at the same speed the plane had been going upon impact, as per Newton’s !st Law of motion. Therefore, it is not inconceivable that passports and such survived intact.

“Truthers” are still going on about cell phone usage being impossible from an airplane ( never mind the FACT that as we see from a previous article, 1) Most of the calls were made from AIRPHONES and 2) Cell phone calls weren’t impossible to make from an airplane in 2001, just very difficult. Hint: Difficult and impossible are NOT the same thing.

As we see from this New York Times article from September 14, 2001- 3 days AFTER the 9/11 attacks occurred, the older phones, which use analog can operate as high as 10 miles  ( 52,800 ft) and the digital ones can operate at an altitude of 5 or 6 miles ( 26,400 -31,680 ft). Also from the aforementioned NYT article we see that a typical airline cruising altitude is 35,000 ft or 6.6 miles, which puts it at the outside range for cell phones that operate on digital systems and well within the range for the older, analog cell phones.

Also, as we see here, it was NOT the Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA) but rather the Federal Communications Commission ( FCC) that banned cell phone usage on airplanes- the FAA simply upheld the FCC ban. Oh, and the reason the FCC banned cell phone usage on airlines is because they were worried about it interfering with ground networks, plus said ban was enacted in 1991, 10 years BEFORE 9/11 ( source).  This, of course, begs the following question- if cell phones didn’t work on planes, why would the FCC have been worried about cell phones on planes interfering with ground networks. Logic, which escapes “truthers,” says they would not have been worried about it if cell phones didn’t work on planes.

As for Dewdney’s Project Achilles, the biggest problem with it, according to 9/11myths.com  is that he made this call close to the center of the city, which tends to be heavily populated and therefore have a ton of cell phone stations- Dewdney himself described it as “richly supplied.”

The problem is each base station can only handle so many cell phone users, which means the more users you have, the more base stations you need, plus the shorter distance between base stations in the central area of the city means less power is required ( reference).

As we see from here, according to a German page, the cell diameter goes from 100 kilometers ( .062 miles or 328 ft) in the inner cities ( which is where Dewdney conducted his test) to 15 kilometers ( 9.3 miles) in rural areas.

In short, by sticking to the area that used less power and therefore less range, Dewdney rigged the experiment since, as 9/11mtyhs.com points out, his experiment does NOT prove that cell phones would not work in an airplane over rural areas, which use more power and therefore have a greater range.

Oh, and it should also be pointed out that the planes that rammed the Twin Towers and the Pentagon had to descend in order to hit said buildings and, therefore, were conceivably within the range the base stations that had lower power and range.

It seems to me that “truthers” are about due for another type of cell- specifically of the padded variety.

 

 

I realize it’s been a while, so it is now time to smack the “truthers” around some more.

Readers will remember “Truther ” B from a previous article.  He is again pulling his “follow the money” nonsense to “prove a conspiracy. Of course, the problem with that is just because one benefits financially from a tragedy does NOT mean they caused it. That is a logical fallacy known as “Post hoc ergo propter hoc,” which as we see here, is “a conclusion that assumes that if ‘A’ occurred after ‘B’ then ‘B’ must have caused ‘A. ” The A, in this case, would be the financial benefiting, and B would have been 9/11. Another example of this logical fallacy is if you have a rich uncle  who died in a car crash and left you all his money, that does NOT mean you caused the car crash.

It should also be pointed out that the various people who made money off books supporting the various 9/11 conspiracy theories can be said to have benefited financially from 9/1, so, using ” truther logic” ( an obvious oxymoron), the people who made money off said books were behind 9/11. No, I’m not saying they were- I’m just pointing out the blatantly obvious flaw in the “follow the money” argument.

Next “Truther” B goes on to make the claim that cell phone calls were impossible to make from airplanes in 2001, but as I pointed out in one of my earliest articles, that’s false.

First, we have this quote from Slate.com: ” “According to industry experts, it is possible to use cell phones with varying success during the ascent and descent of commercial airline flights, although the difficulty of maintaining a signal appears to increase as planes gain altitude. Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on analog networks, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones on newer digital systems can work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles. A typical airline cruising altitude would be 35,000 feet, or about 6.6 miles.”

 

Simply put, cell phones DO work on planes, just not very well- and that article was from September 14, 2001- 3 days AFTER 9/11.  Furthermore, most of the calls on 9/11 were made from AIRPHONES, not cell phones.

 

In short, anything a “truther” says  about 9/11 is composed of Scandium and Americium

 

 

This is my rebuttal ( for the most part) of George Takei’s recent article on the Orlando shooting., although I will be addressing the issue of gun control in general as well. Thei first part, however, is my response to George Takei on gun control.While he is indeed correct that the Orlando shooting was a tragedy fueled  by hate and religious extremism, this is the only point I agree with him on ( and I will not quit being a fan simply because I disagree with him.

He cites the assault weapons ban that ended in 2004. However, what he fails to mention is that Columbine under the aforementioned assault weapons ban, as did the 1997 North Hollywood B of A shootout, where 2 criminals, using fully automatic weapons- ie, BANNED GUNS- initially had the police OUTGUNNED.

He is also incorrect that a private citizen is not allowed to own a machine gun. In point of fact one can own a fully automatic weapon- it’s simply a royal pain in the butt to do so with all the red tape, plus it has to have been manufactured prior to 1986 ( source).

As for his question about how much liberty we must concede, allow me to offer this quote from Benjamin Franklin: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” (reference).

Also, with all due respect to George Takei, he needs to get off the NRAs case. While far from perfect, the NRA did NOT put the gun in the Orlando ( or any other mass shooters) hands. They seem to be one of the only, if not THE ONLY organization in America that gets blamed for acts NONE of its members commit.

As for the background check, exactly how will expanded background checks help when this guy PASSED a background check. It seems to me it was law enforcement that dropped the ball here.oh, and it is actually VERY UNUSUAL for shooters to obtain their guns legally. This was the exception that proved the rule.  In point of fact, the gun shop owner and his employees REFUSED to sell Omar Mateen anything and reported him ( source).

I would also respectfully remind George Takei that the Orlando shooting, like the vast majority of the, occurred in a GUN FREE ZONE. Obviously, at least in the case of a nightclub or bar, I would NOT want the patrons armed as alcohol and guns are just as bad a combination as alcohol and cars. However, arming the staff- on a volunteer basis, of course, is probably not a bad idea.  After all, there’s a REASON mass shootings RARELY occur at gun ranges or police stations- it’s because the people in those locations have the ability to SHOOT BACK.

Now, on to gun control advocates in general.

First, with respect to the gun control lobby’s claim that no law abiding gun owner has ever stopped a mass shooting, there are 2 reasons for that: 1) They stop the shooter BEFORE it becomes a mass shooting, such as the Clackamas mall shooting, or 2) They’re in a gun free zone and, being law abiding, don’t have their guns.

Now,as for the claim that the 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets, 1) Using that logic, the First Amendment only applies to a quill and parchment- the point being that the same standards must be applied to either the ENTIRE Bill of Rights or NONE of it, and 2) we have the Puckle gun, which was the first machine gun, invented in 1718, about 73 years BEFORE the 2nd Amendment was written (source).   Also, since the Founding Fathers had seen weapons technology advance from rocks, the bow and arrow, catapult, etc to muskets and pistols, the argument that they couldn’t anticipate the advancement of ANY sort of technology is invalid. There’s a REASON they said ARMS.

Regarding the “well-regulated militia,” well-regulated back then had a completely different meaning than it does now.

These quotes from here sums it up pretty well: ”

George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, said: “Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people.” Likewise, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a “militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves.” The list goes on and on.

By contrast, nowhere is to be found a contemporaneous definition of the militia, by any of the Framers, as anything other than the “whole body of the people.” and

 

“Furthermore, returning to the text of the Second Amendment itself, the right to keep and bear arms is expressly retained by “the people,” not the states. Recently the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this view, finding that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right held by the “people,” — a “term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution,” specifically the Preamble and the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Thus, the term “well regulated” ought to be considered in the context of the noun it modifies, the people themselves, the militia(s).

The above analysis leads us finally to the term “well regulated.” What did these two words mean at the time of ratification? Were they commonly used to refer to a governmental bureaucracy as we know it today, with countless rules and regulations and inspectors, or something quite different? We begin this analysis by examining how the term “regulate” was used elsewhere in the Constitution. In every other instance where the term “regulate” is used, or regulations are referred to, the Constitution specifies who is to do the regulating and what is being “regulated.” However, in the Second Amendment, the Framers chose only to use the term “well regulated” to describe a militia and chose not to define who or what would regulate it.

It is also important to note that the Framers’ chose to use the indefinite article “a” to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article “the.” This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State. Thus, the Framers chose not to explicitly define who, or what, would regulate the militias, nor what such regulation would consist of, nor how the regulation was to be accomplished.

This comparison of the Framers’ use of the term “well regulated” in the Second Amendment, and the words “regulate” and “regulation” elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term “militia” had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, “the people,” had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, “well regulate” themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.

This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb “regulate” the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers’ use of the indefinite article “a” in the phrase “A well regulated Militia.”

This concept of the people’s self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress “for calling forth” the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to “provide for” the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The “well regula[tion]” of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, “well regula[tion]” referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.”

Oh, and before anyone says civilians are no match for tanks, planes, etc: The Afghans and Vietnamese seemed to manage all right against them.

 

 

 

 

First, for those of you that have either never seen the TV show Once Upon a Time or have not caught up to the current episodes yet, SPOILER ALERT.

That being said, recently, the group One Million Moms, who, a few months ago were calling for a boycott of Olive Garden because they have an advertising contract with Fox, which airs Lucifer, got all up in arms about Once Upon a Time’s lesbian kiss between Dorothy and Little Red Riding Hood in the episode that aired on Sunday, April 17, 2016.

Apparently, they didn’t have an issue with people’s hearts being ripped out and crushed, Hades turning a woman into a puddle of water, people being shoved into a pit of fire, etc. That and one or two seasons ago, Zelena ( the Wicked Witch of the West) used magic to trick Robin Hood into having sex with her. Hint: That is, in point of fact, rape. So, to recap, murder, cheating and rape didn’t set them off but a kiss between two women did?!    I would also suggest One Million Moms read the ORIGINAL Grimm Brother’s Fairy Tales, which are not only FAR from innocent but also make today’s slasher films look tame. The Fairy Tales we read today have been toned down considerably.

Also, if One Million Moms is so upset about gay rights and businesses and such that support gay rights, I suggest they shut down their Facebook page as Facebook supports gay rights. Apparently, they don’t see the irony of that.

Apparently, One Million Mom’s doesn’t realize that, by being so judgmental, they’re ignoring the part of the Bible that says, ”

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

² For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

³ And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”

Oh, and it might also interest them to know that all that anger, aka wrath, they’re displaying over these issues makes them guilty of one of the 7 deadly sins. It should also be pointed out that their faith can’t be that strong if it’s threatened by a TV show or 2.

Hint to One Million Moms:  By drawing all this attention to Once Upon a Time, you are INCREASING their viewership because people want to see what all the fuss is about. You’d know that if you understood human nature.

Last but not least, One Million Moms, nobody is forcing you to watch. Here’s a wild idea for you: If you don’t like what’s on TV, either change the channel or turn the TV OFF.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to watch Once Upon a Time, check out Lucifer, and make some dinner reservations at Olive Garden.

 

 

 

 Once again , it is time to expose the lies and hypocrisy of “truthers.”  Recently, I had a new “truther,” who I will cal “Truther E”, do a granny hit and run on my forum dedicated to exposing their lies. One thing “Truther” E did was essentially say that I should at least have some respect for those who lost loved ones in the attacks. The following photo is my response to “Truther” E:

 

 

Another thing “Truther” E said is that he lived 10 minutes outside of DC on 9/11 and he never saw any plane, tail etc.

There are several problems with this. 1) 10 minutes outside of DC is NOT the same as in DC, plus he wasn’t necessarily anywhere near the Pentagon when the plane hit. 2) As we see here, eyewitnesses SAW the plane hit. In addition, there were plenty of plane parts both on the Pentagon lawn and inside the Pentagon. As we see here, most of the plane went INSIDE the Pentagon. The site in question provides eyewitness accounts of people who hauled the plane parts out of the Pentagon, including the hub of an airplane wheel about 3/4 of the way down the page.

As for the size of the hole in the Pentagon, this site points out, correctly, that a speeding aircraft slamming into is NOT going to leave an exact outline of itself. The site further points out that, as many eyewitnesses, who SAW the plane hit, stated, the plane crashed and skidded along the ground before hitting the Pentagon. In this case, the wings, which are designed to be as light as possible, would have already been disintegrating before hitting the building but still caused significant damage to the Pentagon ( reference).

Oh, and before any “Truther” says that disintegration means the wings wwere no longer there, that is false. Here is the definition of disintegrate, according to Merriam Webster:,

”  Full Definition of disintegrate

1. transitive verb

   1:  to break or decompose into constituent elements, parts, or small particles

   2:  to destroy the unity or integrity of

2. intransitive verb

   1:  to break or separate into constituent elements or parts

   2:  to lose unity or integrity by or as if by breaking into parts

   3:  to undergo a change in composition <an atomic nucleus that disintegrates because of radioactivity>”

In short, despite the fact that the wings disintegrated, the entire mass of the wings would still be there as per the Law of Conservation of Mass, which,as any physics book will tell you, states that , ” Matter can neither be transormed nor destroyed, only transformed. That means regardless of the change in matter, the MASS (which is the amount of matter) NEVER changes.   Since the mass of the wings would still be there, albeit no longer attached to the planes, the wings ( or, more accurately, pieces of thee wings), would still be going at the same speed the plane was when it hit. To put it another way, “truthers” need to quit taking physics lessons from Roadrunner cartoons. Also, the Pentagon is in VIRGINIA, not Washington DC.

 

 

 

Oh, and  before “”truthers” say the wreckage was planted there, seeing as how everyone was gaping at the Pentagon ( plus it was the middle of rush hour) that would have been IMPOSSIBLE for them to do without getting caught, unless the Starship Enterpise beamed the wreckage there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. Next, we have “Truther” B, who readers will remember from a previous article

He is continuing the “truther” lie that Silverstein deliberately demolished WTC 7 and admitted to it on live TV. His source is Veterans Today , which as I pointed out in a previous article, is a source that is NOT known for accuracy or honesty. In point of fact, they are less accurate than your average tabloid, and that’s insulting tabloids.

The Veteran’s Today article in question claims Silverstein desgined a new WTC 7 in April of 2000 and even provides a video. The problem is the video clearly starts in the middle of the speech, meaning it was taken out of context, as “truthers” tend to do.

As I mentioned in one of my earliest articles, “truthers” point to the fact that Silverstein insured WTC 7 against terrorist attacks as proof that he was aware it would be attacked. The problem is that the WTC was attacked by terrorists in 2003, so it is not only expected but also logical to insure it against terrorism. Only a complete idiot or a “truther” ( oh, wait, that’s the same thing) wouldn’t have done so.

In addition, if the “truther” claim was right ( which it isn’t), that would mean that Silverstein admitted to insurance fraud on live television. Why would ANYONE admit to committing insurance fraud on live TV. The dumbest people on the face of the earth aren’t THAT dumb. Hell, even “truthers” aren’t THAT dumb.

Oh, and we have this quote from Silverstein found here: ” I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, “We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.” And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”

Even “truthers” admit Silverstein was talking to the fire department, so the 2 possible interpretations are, 1) ” We’ve had such a terrible loss of life that it would be a good idea to get the firefighters out of there,” or 2) ” We’ve had such a terrible loss of life that it would be a good idea to blow up my building.” Logic ( something that escapes “truthers”) dictates that the first interpretation makes a lot more sense.

Once again, we see that “truthers” run away from facts faster than Bill Clinton dropping his pants around an intern.