Yet Another REAL WORLD Physics lesson for “Truthers”

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

Roadrunner cartoon

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/, 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 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.



Posted September 1, 2018 by Victor Chabala in Real 9/11 Facts

Real Facts About Black Smoke

“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 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.


fire triangle


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.







Posted February 16, 2018 by Victor Chabala in Real 9/11 Facts

More REAL Facts

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.

Roadrunner cartoon


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).

Posted October 3, 2017 by Victor Chabala in Real 9/11 Facts

Melted Steel Lie revisited

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.






Posted September 9, 2017 by Victor Chabala in Real 9/11 Facts

Real Facts about intact passports

“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/ 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.

Posted September 9, 2017 by Victor Chabala in Real 9/11 Facts

More REAL facts about cell phones on airlines

“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/  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/ 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.



Posted April 29, 2017 by Victor Chabala in Real 9/11 Facts

“Truthers” are fact-challenged

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 ” “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





Posted March 5, 2017 by Victor Chabala in Real 9/11 Facts