More "Truther" BS Exposed 3

     Continuing from my previous article, “Truther” A, in keeping with “truther” tradition, has managed to make himself look even dumber.

     After I pointed out in my previous article  that when the upper floors impacted on the lower floors,  the lower floors exerted an equal but opposite force on the upper floors as per Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion, and, since the upper and lower floors were constructed of the same material, the force that was able to crush the lower floors was also sufficient to crush the upper ones, “ Truther” A’s response was to ask me to explain how melting jello could break apart a block of frozen jello by falling on it.  I’ll bet even Bill Cosby is shaking his head at that.

 (picture from here )

     Anyway, there are some rather obvious problems with “Truther” A’s claims.  1: Jello is NOT exactly the sturdiest of substances, 2.  Jello and steel are NOT the same thing; I’m pretty sure steel is just a tad stronger, and 3. The steel in the WTC NEVER melted, it was merely WEAKENED.  Only “truthers” have ever claimed that the WTC steel melted.

     There is of course, yet another tiny little problem with “Truther” A’s jello comment.  Logically, melting jello would, LOGICALLY, be HOT, which means that if you poured it over frozen jello, it would cause the frozen jello to melt in turn. It seems to me that someone may have had a few too many jello shots.

 (picture from here )

     Truther” A still insists that the top floors would not have caused the lower floors to collapse had they fallen the distance created by the impact.  This, of course, shows just how badly “Truther” A- and “truthers” in general- need a physics lesson.  He is ignoring the difference between a static or stationary load and a dynamic or moving load.   Generally speaking, one does not expect floors of a building to have tons of material slamming into them.

     “Truther” A also claims that the falling bottom section exerted zero resistance, which of course, is false because, as we saw- and as Fellow Debunker 5, who I mentioned previously,  pointed out to “Truther” A-  if “Truther” A’s claim was true, the bottom section would have collapsed all at once. Fellow Debunker 5 also correctly pointed out that when one floor was pulverized, the floor immediately below it was still intact, and when the next floor was pulverized, the floor immediately below that floor was still intact, and so forth, in essence, a domino effect.

     “Truther” A still insists that the top floors would not have caused the lower floors to collapse had they fallen the distance created by the impact.  This, of course, shows just how badly “Truther” A- and “truthers” in general- need a physics lesson.  He is ignoring the difference between a static or stationary load and a dynamic or moving load.   Generally speaking, one does not expect floors of a building to have tons of material slamming into them.

    “Truther” A also claims that the falling bottom section exerted zero resistance, which of course, is false because, as we saw- and as Fellow Debunker 5  pointed out to “Truther” A-  if “Truther” A’s claim was true, the bottom section would have collapsed all at once. Fellow Debunker 5 also correctly pointed out that when one floor was pulverized, the floor immediately below it was still intact, and when the next floor was pulverized, the floor immediately below that floor was still intact, and so forth, in essence, a domino effect.

(picture from here )

     “Truther” A also still claims that a super high tech demo job – at times claiming that they were super secret explosives- were used to bring down the Twin Towers.  There are, of course, two problems: 1) If the stuff is secret, how does “Truther” A know about it, and 2) Flying planes into buildings is pretty low tech.

     “Truther” A uses the typical “truther” line that WTC 7 was not hit by a plane.  However, Fellow Debunker 5 reminded “Truther” A that WTC 7   had a huge chunk carved out of it by the collapsing north tower. Fellow Debunker 5 also went on to cite Brent Blanchard, who I’ve often cited myself, to show “Truther” A why his claims are a blatant lie.  “Truther” A’s couldn’t even come up with any REAL criticism of Brent Blanchard’s article–  his only “criticism” was that Brent Blanchard did said article  for free, which Fellow Debunker 5 called “ Truther” A on.  At that point, “Truther” A went straight to the “truther” tap-dance.

      More recently, one of “Truther A’s buddies, “Truther” B, who I mentioned in an earlier article, posted this link, which cites an article here   as “proof.”   (aAs an aside, “Truther” A had to run with it too. ) The article  in question is dated 9/12/01  and states that “At the September 12, 2001, Dept. of Defense News Briefing,
“American Airlines”, “Flight 77”, “Boeing 757” were not even mentioned.”

       In typical “truther” fashion, this site  took the following quotes by CNN Jamie McIntyre out of context: “From my close up inspection there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. . . . . The only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you could pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage — nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon, ” and “If you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that all of the floors have collapsed, that didn’t happen immediately. It wasn’t till almost 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.”

       However, as we see from 911myths.com, they leave out They leave out this statement, also by Jamie McIntyre, which, as 911myths.com, mentions,  he stated BEFORE the quote “truthers” use: “A short — a while ago I walked right up next to the building, firefighters were still trying to put the blaze. The fire, by the way, is still burning in some parts of the Pentagon. And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that’s in the side of the Pentagon in an area of the Pentagon that has been recently renovated, part of a multibillion dollar renovation program here at the Pentagon. I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane.”

       This site  also uses the usual argument about the Pentagon surveillance camera not catching the plane itself, just a fireball.  However, they forget the fact that surveillance cameras are designed to catch people walking and vehicles such as cars, motorcycles, etc, all of which move just a LITTLE slower than a plane- they do not have a sufficient frame rate to catch a speeding aircraft.  That and, the plane came from above and when was the last time you saw a surveillance camera pointing UP?

       Last but not least, another fellow debunker, Fellow Debunker 9, correctly points out yet another problem  not to mention a rather obvious reason why “American Airlines”, “Flight 77”, “Boeing 757” were not even mentioned ( besides the fact that they are all the same thing in this case):  The briefing occurred on September 12, 24 hours AFTER the attack occurred, which means that the plane was gone and therefore no longer a threat.

       Clearly, “truthers” need to lay off the Kool-aid.

 (picture from here )

 

Advertisements

Posted February 19, 2011 by Victor Chabala in Real 9/11 Facts

Tagged with , , ,

%d bloggers like this: