More "Truther" BS Exposed

     (Hat tip to Allalone3 for directing me to the source indicating some details that “ Truther” A neglected to mention)           

     Readers may remember “Truther” A, who I mentioned in a previous article – well, several previous articles actually, but it will take too long to find them all.

     Anyway, he is still continuing to make a complete and utter fool of himself  and I will now expose his statements ( and “truther” statements in general)  for the BS that they are.

 (picture from here)

     “Truther” A still insists that Flight 77 should have gone from 500 MPH  to a dead stop in under 200 feet  and still remained intact, which is a clear violation EVERY PHYSICAL LAW IN THE BOOK.  He also still believes that even if the tail section had sheared off the plane,  it should have plopped down on the ground rather than following the rest of the plane in, which violates Newton’s First Law of Motion, also known as the Law of Inertia.  For example, take a ball on a string and start swinging it around your head, then release it.  When you release the ball, it will go in the direction it was travelling when you let go.  The same applies to the plane.  Even had the tail section sheared off, it would still have been going around 500 MPH, per Newton’s First Law.  Yes, the plane would have decelerated slightly, but at that speed, the deceleration would be negligible.  As for why the plane broke apart, generally speaking, a plane slamming into a reinforced concrete wall at 500 MPH is NOT going to remain intact.  Yes, the plane and the Pentagon both exerted equal but opposite force on each other on impact per Newton’s 3rd Law, which any physic book will tell you, states that “ If object A exerts a force on object B, then object B will exert an equal force of opposite magnitude on object A.”  This is often shortened to “ For every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction.”  However, what “truthers” never mention is that a commercial aircraft is not meant to take that kind of force.  Generally speaking, pilots aren’t in the habit of flying commercial aircraft into buildings at high speeds.

            “Truther” A also claims that in real physics- which “truthers” know nothing about; they prefer Roadrunner cartoon physics- that Flight 77 should have crashed before it got to the Pentagon.

  (picture from here)

     He ignores the fact that that would require the plane to have something to crash into.  Newton’s 1st Law, or the Law of Inertia makes “Truther” A’s claim a complete lie  and something that Fellow Debunker 4 mentioned previously.

     His next claim is that one cannot fly a plane close to the ground.  I think readers can see the obvious problem with this claim.  IF a plane can’t fly close to the ground, then it would crash the second it took off.   When this was pointed out to him, “ Truther” A tried to wriggle out of it by saying that the wheels are down on take-off and landing.  However, as we know, this is irrelevant-  the plane can simply fly BETTER with the wheels up.  Fellow Debunker 5, who was also mentioned in an earlier article   pointed out that little detail.  Fellow Debunker 5 also provided this video  of a plane flying low to the ground at high speed with the wheels up  in response to a challenge issued by “Truther” A  and “Truther” A completely ignored the video.

            Another fellow debunker, who I will call Fellow Debunker 6, provided this video animation  of US Airways Flight1549, which landed in the Hudson after losing both engines due to a bird strike, and flew close to the ground with the wheels UP.

                Next, he wonders why Rumsfeld was helping out at the Pentagon on 9/11 and claims that Rumsfeld knew the attack was going to happen. This, of course, begs the following question:  If Rumsfeld knew the attack on the Pentagon was going to occur on that day, WHY THE HELL WOULD HE EVEN HAVE BEEN AT THE PENTAGON IN THE FIRST PLACE?!  I don’t know about anyone else,  but if I knew a building would be attacked on a specific day, I’d make sure to be as far away from it as I could on the day in question.  The funny thing is that shortly thereafter, “ Truther” A stated that the government didn’t know exactly what happened or who was responsible at the time of the attacks, thereby both proving his OPPONENTS, i.e. the DEBUNKERS right and contradicting himself.  After all, the “truther”  argument is that 9/11 was an inside job. If that were true, then logically the government WOULD have known exactly what happened and who was responsible.  Like most “truthers,” “Truther” A wants it both ways.

                Next, he uses the Pilotsfor911Truth, who, like most “truthers,” have a political agenda and are about as interested in the truth as OJ is in finding the real killers  and supposed Flight Data Recorder “expert” Dennis Cimino

                However, Fellow Debunker 7 directed me to this quote from here: “Has anyone else here had questions as to the background of Dennis? He claims to have had access to the safe that held the launch keys used to release nuclear weapons. Why would the navy allow a junior enlisted man whose job had nothing to do with nuclear weapons access to such items? Does anyone else have a hard time buying this?

There’s his claim that the navy wanted him to come back in as a CWO4, chief warrant officer, to instruct potential naval aviators how to fly. The facts say different. It was not until January 2006 that the navy started a program for chief warrant officer pilots. Prior to that warrant officers were taken from the ranks of CPO’s as specialized technical experts, not as IP’s. Of course this begs the question why would the navy want someone who has never flown for the navy or proven that he has want it takes to be a naval aviator himself training people to become naval aviators. It is much easier to get a private pilot’s license, CFI and ATP than it is to become a naval aviator. Many have made it through the initial training only to wash out trying to land on a carrier.”

            In addition, Fellow Debunker 7  also informed me that the above quote originated  from the Pilots for 9/11 truth site, but, of course, as she correctly pointed out, “truthers” ignore anything that doesn’t fit their agenda.

            Oh, and here’s another quote from the same site that explains another problem with the findings of Pilots for 911 “Truth” ( emphasis mine): “BTW – Pilots 4 911 Truth say the last second of data – 9:37:44 – does not fit the damage of impact – its pitch isn’t right, its wing bank, and especially its altitude. This is true. However one point they missed is the last second also has the wrong coordinates – a point about six seconds prior to impact, well over a mile back, where that altitude fits and pitch and bank are irrelevant, having plenty of time to change and fit the impact pattern.

            Once again, we see that “truthers”  have been caught in so many lies that their noses should be longer than Pinocchio’s.    

  (picture from here)

Advertisements

Posted January 23, 2011 by Victor Chabala in Real 9/11 Facts

Tagged with , , ,

%d bloggers like this: