Continuing to Expose "Truther" dishonesty

Okay, it is once again time to expose some more “truther” lies, misquotes, and/or assumptions.

Let’s deal with the thermite/nano thermite issue first.

The first problem is found by this quote from here: “But, as Kevin Ryan points out in his July 2008 article The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites, NIST, including its leadership, has been on the forefront of research into advanced aluminothermic mixtures, also described as energetic nanocomposites, metastable intermolecular composites, and superthermites.”  Hint:  Just because they’ve been researching something doesn’t mean they made a breakthrough.   Oh, and one more thing, Kevin Ryan is NOT a credible source because, as I pointed out in a previous article, he was a WATER TESTER for UL and was caught lying; he said UL certified steel, which is false, and he was FIRED for said lies ( source ).  In addition, this “peer-reviewed” article was published in Bentham Online, which, as I pointed out in the same previous article, has a reputation for having a rather shoddy-peer review process and accepted a computer-generated nonsense paper as a peer-reviewed paper ( reference) .

Here’s another “truther” lie, as evidenced by this quote regarding Steve Jones here: “Jones made headlines in 2005 when he argued that the rapid and symmetrical fall of the World Trade Center looked like the result of pre-positioned explosives. He argued that fires alone wouldn’t have been hot enough to crumble the buildings; and that even if struck by planes, the towers should have been strong enough to support the weight of the tops as they crumbled — unless they were leveled by explosives.”

There are several problems with this statement:  One, just how on earth would you be able to predict in advance where the planes hit and how could those pilots hit exactly the right spot to touch of the explosives, 2) When he states that the towers should have been able to support the weight of the towers, he’s ignoring the difference between a static ( stationary) and  dynamic ( moving load), not to mention his claim of a pyroclastic cloud ( source ). Hint: Pyroclastic materials are only found in volcanic eruptions and I don’t recall seeing any volcanoes erupting in New York City on 9/11, and 3) Despite claims to the contrary, there are plenty of sources of those alleged thermitic materials that don’t require a government conspiracy.

As we see here, sulfur is a component of gypsum or drywall, silicon, aluminum, calcium, magnesium are from glass, etc.  In short, all these are things one would expect to find used when constructing a building.

On a different note, some of the resident “truthers” that I have been arguing with have again brought up the “nuclear weapons” claim, while ignoring 2 basic facts about nuclear weapons, not to mention physics:  1) Nuclear weapons tend to leave a huge radiation fallout ( reference), and 2) Nuclear weapons produce an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) which, although it does not affect organisms, it WILL knock out electronic devices, and, seeing as how the WTC would be considered a surface altitude, it would be a pretty powerful EMP (source). No electronic blackout means no EMP and therefore, no nukes.

Finally, we have this quote from Air Traffic Controller Danielle O’Brien which “truthers” twist found here: “’The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane,” O’Brien said. “You don’t fly a 757 in that manner. It’s unsafe.’”

‘Truthers” assume this “proves” a military plane was used, however, there are two problems with that assumption: 1) She said they THOUGHT it was a military plane- that is NOT the same as saying it was a military plane, and 2)  Regarding the statement “You don’t fly a 757 in that manner. It’s unsafe,” first of all, the last two words, “ It’s unsafe” implies a recommendation, which is NOT the same thing as an ability, and second, while don’t and can’t are often used interchangeably, they actually shouldn’t be as they have different meanings.

The word don’t means that one has the ability to do something but either shouldn’t or isn’t allowed to do it.   For example, if you have a pool, you might tell your kids (should you have kids) “don’t run on the pool deck; it’s slippery.”  Clearly, one has the ability to run on the wet pool deck, it’s just not a good idea. Before some “truther” makes the obvious statement, “but vegetarians don’t eat meat,” that’s an example of not being allowed to do something; A vegetarian still has the ability to eat meat should they choose to do so but their beliefs don’t allow them too.  DUI is another example. Obviously, one has the ability to drink and drive, but, by law, one is not allowed to drink and drive, and rightly so.

Can’t, on the other hand, refers to an inability to do something. For example, if someone tells you they can’t drive a manual transmission, that means they lack the ability to drive one.

“Truthers” would realize this if they were actually as interested in the truth as they claim to be; however, I have yet to see a “truther” display anything even remotely resembling honesty.   Then again, expecting honesty from a “truther” is like putting a candle in the window for Jimmy Hoffa.

%d bloggers like this: