Loose Change = Weapon of Mass Distortion

I have yet more misinformation from Loose Change, which is produced by Dylan Avery.

First, as we see here, Avery doesn’t tell us the whole truth about the NORAD drills in 1999.  He quotes an article from USA Today, which states that in said drills, the exercises involved planes flown into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Internet Detectives provides the following quote from said USA Today article that Avery quotes:

One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon – but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say.

However, as we see here, Avery left this portion of the USA Today article out: “The exercises differed from the Sept. 11 attacks in one important respect: The planes in the simulation were coming from a foreign country.”Internet Detectives correctly points out that attempting to be prepared for an extremely unlikely situation does NOT indicate an attempt to cause said situation, or, as Internet Detectives puts it,

Do you put on your seatbelt and drive off a cliff?

Second, Avery  lies about the engines of Flight 77 ( source).    

He gives  details about the melting point of titanium and the temperature kerosene burns at, then states it’s scientifically impossible for the engines to be vaporized by kerosene.  While this is technically true, Avery ignores the fact that the engines were NOT vaporized; they were ripped to shreds due to an impact with a reinforced concrete wall at full speed ( source).

This quote from Internet Detectives makes an excellent point:

Avery claims that the engines should have been found relatively intact. I have no idea why he would expect this. Things don’t usually stay together, undamaged, when they slam into reinforced concrete at over 500 miles per hour, even if they are steel and titanium.

Avery further claims that there was only one turbojet engine found in the building with a diameter of about three feet and the picture is provided here.

The thing is, that’s NOT an engine; it’s a PIECE of one and the pieces of the engine are NOT the same size as the engine itself ( refer to Internet Detectives).

Finally, as we see here, Avery provides us with a picture of a piece of fuselage, states it’s the 2nd piece of debris and skeptics insist it’s proof Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, and it could have come from any American Airlines plane and wants to know why it isn’t singed or scratched.

However, this quote from Internet Detectives shows us the problem with Avery’s statements (emphasis is mine):

First, how would he know it was the second identifiable piece? I suspect he means it was the second identifiable piece he could find an image of on the internet. Second, that piece is only a small part of the proof, which includes many other pieces of debris (visible in the background), eyewitness accounts, and human remains. Third, the piece could come from any American Airlines plane-that was smashed to bits in close proximity to a heavily damaged section of the Pentagon. As for it not being singed or scratched, observant viewers may notice that it’s crumpled, torn, scraped, and dented. It was thrown away from the impact site, indicating it would only be in contact with fire for a brief interval.

Talk about your weapons of mass distortion.

Advertisements

Posted April 9, 2008 by Victor Chabala in Real 9/11 Facts

%d bloggers like this: