Exposing "truther" lies 5

Both “truthers” I have mentioned in a previous article, “truther” A and “truther” B, have both provided the same video here in a pathetic attempt to “prove” a conspiracy.

At 50 seconds, the video states that NIST concluded the fires were the primary cause of the collapse and claims they were normal office fires.  This is a LIE.  As we see here, it was a COMBINATION of impact ( planes for WTC 1 and 2, debris from the collapsing north tower for WTC 7), severe structural damage, and fires that brought the buildings down.  Also, those fires were FAR FROM NORMAL office fires.

At 54 seconds, the video dismisses the NIST statement from page 152 of NIST NCSTAR1  that “ The downward movement of this structural block was more than this structure can withstand.  Clearly, they are ignoring the difference between a static ( stationary) load and a dynamic ( moving) load.

At 1 minute and 4 seconds they quote David Chandler and refer to the destruction of the north tower- the video is in fact, focusing on the north tower.  There’s just one problem:  David Chandler analyzed-  incorrectly, I might at-  the collapse of WTC 7, NOT  the north tower. In addition, all of Chandler’s evaluations were based upon a video shot at a specific angle, which created the ILLUSION of the building falling at a different speed.  In addition, David Chandler is a high school physics teacher, meaning he has NO EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER in controlled demolition or structural engineering.  As I stated in an earlier article, rather than disproving NIST, Chandler actually VINDICATED them ( reference ).

The video then challenges us to prove it wrong at the end, however we don’t need to, as it already proved itself wrong by not even getting the buildings right.

There is certainly a load of SOMETHING coming from “truthers.”


Posted September 8, 2010 by Victor Chabala in Real 9/11 Facts

Tagged with , , ,

%d bloggers like this: