Archive for the ‘Real 9/11 Facts’ Category

More REAL facts about cell phones on airlines

“Truthers” are still going on about cell phone usage being impossible from an airplane ( never mind the FACT that as we see from a previous article, 1) Most of the calls were made from AIRPHONES and 2) Cell phone calls weren’t impossible to make from an airplane in 2001, just very difficult. Hint: Difficult and impossible are NOT the same thing.

As we see from this New York Times article from September 14, 2001- 3 days AFTER the 9/11 attacks occurred, the older phones, which use analog can operate as high as 10 miles  ( 52,800 ft) and the digital ones can operate at an altitude of 5 or 6 miles ( 26,400 -31,680 ft). Also from the aforementioned NYT article we see that a typical airline cruising altitude is 35,000 ft or 6.6 miles, which puts it at the outside range for cell phones that operate on digital systems and well within the range for the older, analog cell phones.

Also, as we see here, it was NOT the Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA) but rather the Federal Communications Commission ( FCC) that banned cell phone usage on airplanes- the FAA simply upheld the FCC ban. Oh, and the reason the FCC banned cell phone usage on airlines is because they were worried about it interfering with ground networks, plus said ban was enacted in 1991, 10 years BEFORE 9/11 ( source).  This, of course, begs the following question- if cell phones didn’t work on planes, why would the FCC have been worried about cell phones on planes interfering with ground networks. Logic, which escapes “truthers,” says they would not have been worried about it if cell phones didn’t work on planes.

As for Dewdney’s Project Achilles, the biggest problem with it, according to 9/11myths.com  is that he made this call close to the center of the city, which tends to be heavily populated and therefore have a ton of cell phone stations- Dewdney himself described it as “richly supplied.”

The problem is each base station can only handle so many cell phone users, which means the more users you have, the more base stations you need, plus the shorter distance between base stations in the central area of the city means less power is required ( reference).

As we see from here, according to a German page, the cell diameter goes from 100 kilometers ( .062 miles or 328 ft) in the inner cities ( which is where Dewdney conducted his test) to 15 kilometers ( 9.3 miles) in rural areas.

In short, by sticking to the area that used less power and therefore less range, Dewdney rigged the experiment since, as 9/11mtyhs.com points out, his experiment does NOT prove that cell phones would not work in an airplane over rural areas, which use more power and therefore have a greater range.

Oh, and it should also be pointed out that the planes that rammed the Twin Towers and the Pentagon had to descend in order to hit said buildings and, therefore, were conceivably within the range the base stations that had lower power and range.

It seems to me that “truthers” are about due for another type of cell- specifically of the padded variety.

 

 

Posted April 29, 2017 by Victor Chabala in Real 9/11 Facts

“Truthers” are fact-challenged

I realize it’s been a while, so it is now time to smack the “truthers” around some more.

Readers will remember “Truther ” B from a previous article.  He is again pulling his “follow the money” nonsense to “prove a conspiracy. Of course, the problem with that is just because one benefits financially from a tragedy does NOT mean they caused it. That is a logical fallacy known as “Post hoc ergo propter hoc,” which as we see here, is “a conclusion that assumes that if ‘A’ occurred after ‘B’ then ‘B’ must have caused ‘A. ” The A, in this case, would be the financial benefiting, and B would have been 9/11. Another example of this logical fallacy is if you have a rich uncle  who died in a car crash and left you all his money, that does NOT mean you caused the car crash.

It should also be pointed out that the various people who made money off books supporting the various 9/11 conspiracy theories can be said to have benefited financially from 9/1, so, using ” truther logic” ( an obvious oxymoron), the people who made money off said books were behind 9/11. No, I’m not saying they were- I’m just pointing out the blatantly obvious flaw in the “follow the money” argument.

Next “Truther” B goes on to make the claim that cell phone calls were impossible to make from airplanes in 2001, but as I pointed out in one of my earliest articles, that’s false.

First, we have this quote from Slate.com: ” “According to industry experts, it is possible to use cell phones with varying success during the ascent and descent of commercial airline flights, although the difficulty of maintaining a signal appears to increase as planes gain altitude. Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on analog networks, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones on newer digital systems can work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles. A typical airline cruising altitude would be 35,000 feet, or about 6.6 miles.”

 

Simply put, cell phones DO work on planes, just not very well- and that article was from September 14, 2001- 3 days AFTER 9/11.  Furthermore, most of the calls on 9/11 were made from AIRPHONES, not cell phones.

 

In short, anything a “truther” says  about 9/11 is composed of Scandium and Americium

scandium

americium

 

 

Posted March 5, 2017 by Victor Chabala in Real 9/11 Facts

Why George Takei is Wrong on Gun Control

This is my rebuttal ( for the most part) of George Takei’s recent article on the Orlando shooting., although I will be addressing the issue of gun control in general as well. Thei first part, however, is my response to George Takei on gun control.While he is indeed correct that the Orlando shooting was a tragedy fueled  by hate and religious extremism, this is the only point I agree with him on ( and I will not quit being a fan simply because I disagree with him.

He cites the assault weapons ban that ended in 2004. However, what he fails to mention is that Columbine under the aforementioned assault weapons ban, as did the 1997 North Hollywood B of A shootout, where 2 criminals, using fully automatic weapons- ie, BANNED GUNS- initially had the police OUTGUNNED.

He is also incorrect that a private citizen is not allowed to own a machine gun. In point of fact one can own a fully automatic weapon- it’s simply a royal pain in the butt to do so with all the red tape, plus it has to have been manufactured prior to 1986 ( source).

As for his question about how much liberty we must concede, allow me to offer this quote from Benjamin Franklin: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” (reference).

Also, with all due respect to George Takei, he needs to get off the NRAs case. While far from perfect, the NRA did NOT put the gun in the Orlando ( or any other mass shooters) hands. They seem to be one of the only, if not THE ONLY organization in America that gets blamed for acts NONE of its members commit.

As for the background check, exactly how will expanded background checks help when this guy PASSED a background check. It seems to me it was law enforcement that dropped the ball here.oh, and it is actually VERY UNUSUAL for shooters to obtain their guns legally. This was the exception that proved the rule.  In point of fact, the gun shop owner and his employees REFUSED to sell Omar Mateen anything and reported him ( source).

I would also respectfully remind George Takei that the Orlando shooting, like the vast majority of the, occurred in a GUN FREE ZONE. Obviously, at least in the case of a nightclub or bar, I would NOT want the patrons armed as alcohol and guns are just as bad a combination as alcohol and cars. However, arming the staff- on a volunteer basis, of course, is probably not a bad idea.  After all, there’s a REASON mass shootings RARELY occur at gun ranges or police stations- it’s because the people in those locations have the ability to SHOOT BACK.

Now, on to gun control advocates in general.

First, with respect to the gun control lobby’s claim that no law abiding gun owner has ever stopped a mass shooting, there are 2 reasons for that: 1) They stop the shooter BEFORE it becomes a mass shooting, such as the Clackamas mall shooting, or 2) They’re in a gun free zone and, being law abiding, don’t have their guns.

Now,as for the claim that the 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets, 1) Using that logic, the First Amendment only applies to a quill and parchment- the point being that the same standards must be applied to either the ENTIRE Bill of Rights or NONE of it, and 2) we have the Puckle gun, which was the first machine gun, invented in 1718, about 73 years BEFORE the 2nd Amendment was written (source).   Also, since the Founding Fathers had seen weapons technology advance from rocks, the bow and arrow, catapult, etc to muskets and pistols, the argument that they couldn’t anticipate the advancement of ANY sort of technology is invalid. There’s a REASON they said ARMS.

Regarding the “well-regulated militia,” well-regulated back then had a completely different meaning than it does now.

These quotes from here sums it up pretty well: ”

George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, said: “Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people.” Likewise, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a “militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves.” The list goes on and on.

By contrast, nowhere is to be found a contemporaneous definition of the militia, by any of the Framers, as anything other than the “whole body of the people.” and

 

“Furthermore, returning to the text of the Second Amendment itself, the right to keep and bear arms is expressly retained by “the people,” not the states. Recently the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this view, finding that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right held by the “people,” — a “term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution,” specifically the Preamble and the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Thus, the term “well regulated” ought to be considered in the context of the noun it modifies, the people themselves, the militia(s).

The above analysis leads us finally to the term “well regulated.” What did these two words mean at the time of ratification? Were they commonly used to refer to a governmental bureaucracy as we know it today, with countless rules and regulations and inspectors, or something quite different? We begin this analysis by examining how the term “regulate” was used elsewhere in the Constitution. In every other instance where the term “regulate” is used, or regulations are referred to, the Constitution specifies who is to do the regulating and what is being “regulated.” However, in the Second Amendment, the Framers chose only to use the term “well regulated” to describe a militia and chose not to define who or what would regulate it.

It is also important to note that the Framers’ chose to use the indefinite article “a” to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article “the.” This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State. Thus, the Framers chose not to explicitly define who, or what, would regulate the militias, nor what such regulation would consist of, nor how the regulation was to be accomplished.

This comparison of the Framers’ use of the term “well regulated” in the Second Amendment, and the words “regulate” and “regulation” elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term “militia” had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, “the people,” had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, “well regulate” themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.

This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb “regulate” the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers’ use of the indefinite article “a” in the phrase “A well regulated Militia.”

This concept of the people’s self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress “for calling forth” the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to “provide for” the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The “well regula[tion]” of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, “well regula[tion]” referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.”

Oh, and before anyone says civilians are no match for tanks, planes, etc: The Afghans and Vietnamese seemed to manage all right against them.

 

 

 

 

Posted June 19, 2016 by Victor Chabala in Real 9/11 Facts

One Million Moms Should Get a Life

First, for those of you that have either never seen the TV show Once Upon a Time or have not caught up to the current episodes yet, SPOILER ALERT.

That being said, recently, the group One Million Moms, who, a few months ago were calling for a boycott of Olive Garden because they have an advertising contract with Fox, which airs Lucifer, got all up in arms about Once Upon a Time’s lesbian kiss between Dorothy and Little Red Riding Hood in the episode that aired on Sunday, April 17, 2016.

Apparently, they didn’t have an issue with people’s hearts being ripped out and crushed, Hades turning a woman into a puddle of water, people being shoved into a pit of fire, etc. That and one or two seasons ago, Zelena ( the Wicked Witch of the West) used magic to trick Robin Hood into having sex with her. Hint: That is, in point of fact, rape. So, to recap, murder, cheating and rape didn’t set them off but a kiss between two women did?!    I would also suggest One Million Moms read the ORIGINAL Grimm Brother’s Fairy Tales, which are not only FAR from innocent but also make today’s slasher films look tame. The Fairy Tales we read today have been toned down considerably.

Also, if One Million Moms is so upset about gay rights and businesses and such that support gay rights, I suggest they shut down their Facebook page as Facebook supports gay rights. Apparently, they don’t see the irony of that.

Apparently, One Million Mom’s doesn’t realize that, by being so judgmental, they’re ignoring the part of the Bible that says, ”

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”

Oh, and it might also interest them to know that all that anger, aka wrath, they’re displaying over these issues makes them guilty of one of the 7 deadly sins. It should also be pointed out that their faith can’t be that strong if it’s threatened by a TV show or 2.

Hint to One Million Moms:  By drawing all this attention to Once Upon a Time, you are INCREASING their viewership because people want to see what all the fuss is about. You’d know that if you understood human nature.

Last but not least, One Million Moms, nobody is forcing you to watch. Here’s a wild idea for you: If you don’t like what’s on TV, either change the channel or turn the TV OFF.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to watch Once Upon a Time, check out Lucifer, and make some dinner reservations at Olive Garden.

 

 

 

Posted April 25, 2016 by Victor Chabala in Real 9/11 Facts

More “Truther” lies and hypocrisy

 Once again , it is time to expose the lies and hypocrisy of “truthers.”  Recently, I had a new “truther,” who I will cal “Truther E”, do a granny hit and run on my forum dedicated to exposing their lies. One thing “Truther” E did was essentially say that I should at least have some respect for those who lost loved ones in the attacks. The following photo is my response to “Truther” E:

 

pot meet kettle

 

Another thing “Truther” E said is that he lived 10 minutes outside of DC on 9/11 and he never saw any plane, tail etc.

There are several problems with this. 1) 10 minutes outside of DC is NOT the same as in DC, plus he wasn’t necessarily anywhere near the Pentagon when the plane hit. 2) As we see here, eyewitnesses SAW the plane hit. In addition, there were plenty of plane parts both on the Pentagon lawn and inside the Pentagon. As we see here, most of the plane went INSIDE the Pentagon. The site in question provides eyewitness accounts of people who hauled the plane parts out of the Pentagon, including the hub of an airplane wheel about 3/4 of the way down the page.

As for the size of the hole in the Pentagon, this site points out, correctly, that a speeding aircraft slamming into is NOT going to leave an exact outline of itself. The site further points out that, as many eyewitnesses, who SAW the plane hit, stated, the plane crashed and skidded along the ground before hitting the Pentagon. In this case, the wings, which are designed to be as light as possible, would have already been disintegrating before hitting the building but still caused significant damage to the Pentagon ( reference).

Oh, and before any “Truther” says that disintegration means the wings wwere no longer there, that is false. Here is the definition of disintegrate, according to Merriam Webster:,

”  Full Definition of disintegrate

  1. transitive verb

    1:  to break or decompose into constituent elements, parts, or small particles

    2:  to destroy the unity or integrity of

  2. intransitive verb

    1:  to break or separate into constituent elements or parts

    2:  to lose unity or integrity by or as if by breaking into parts

    3:  to undergo a change in composition <an atomic nucleus that disintegrates because of radioactivity>”

In short, despite the fact that the wings disintegrated, the entire mass of the wings would still be there as per the Law of Conservation of Mass, which,as any physics book will tell you, states that , ” Matter can neither be transormed nor destroyed, only transformed. That means regardless of the change in matter, the MASS (which is the amount of matter) NEVER changes.   Since the mass of the wings would still be there, albeit no longer attached to the planes, the wings ( or, more accurately, pieces of thee wings), would still be going at the same speed the plane was when it hit. To put it another way, “truthers” need to quit taking physics lessons from Roadrunner cartoons. Also, the Pentagon is in VIRGINIA, not Washington DC.

 

 

Roadrunner cartoon 2

 

Oh, and  before “”truthers” say the wreckage was planted there, seeing as how everyone was gaping at the Pentagon ( plus it was the middle of rush hour) that would have been IMPOSSIBLE for them to do without getting caught, unless the Starship Enterpise beamed the wreckage there.

 

Starship Enterprise

 

 

 

 

 

 

. Next, we have “Truther” B, who readers will remember from a previous article

He is continuing the “truther” lie that Silverstein deliberately demolished WTC 7 and admitted to it on live TV. His source is Veterans Today , which as I pointed out in a previous article, is a source that is NOT known for accuracy or honesty. In point of fact, they are less accurate than your average tabloid, and that’s insulting tabloids.

The Veteran’s Today article in question claims Silverstein desgined a new WTC 7 in April of 2000 and even provides a video. The problem is the video clearly starts in the middle of the speech, meaning it was taken out of context, as “truthers” tend to do.

As I mentioned in one of my earliest articles, “truthers” point to the fact that Silverstein insured WTC 7 against terrorist attacks as proof that he was aware it would be attacked. The problem is that the WTC was attacked by terrorists in 2003, so it is not only expected but also logical to insure it against terrorism. Only a complete idiot or a “truther” ( oh, wait, that’s the same thing) wouldn’t have done so.

In addition, if the “truther” claim was right ( which it isn’t), that would mean that Silverstein admitted to insurance fraud on live television. Why would ANYONE admit to committing insurance fraud on live TV. The dumbest people on the face of the earth aren’t THAT dumb. Hell, even “truthers” aren’t THAT dumb.

Oh, and we have this quote from Silverstein found here: ” I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, “We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.” And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”

Even “truthers” admit Silverstein was talking to the fire department, so the 2 possible interpretations are, 1) ” We’ve had such a terrible loss of life that it would be a good idea to get the firefighters out of there,” or 2) ” We’ve had such a terrible loss of life that it would be a good idea to blow up my building.” Logic ( something that escapes “truthers”) dictates that the first interpretation makes a lot more sense.

Once again, we see that “truthers” run away from facts faster than Bill Clinton dropping his pants around an intern.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted March 21, 2016 by Victor Chabala in Mocking Truthers, Opinion, Real 9/11 Facts

“Truthers” Still Comparing Apples to Oranges

Once again, “truthers” insist on comparing apples to oranges.

“Truther” B, from a previous article uses this link comparing the Address Hotel Fire in Dubai on December 31, 2015 to the WTC on 9/11/01.  A high school friend of mine who also knows that “truthers” are full of more crap than a toilet at Taco Bell also informed me of this latest bit of “truther” stupidity this past Monday, January 4, 2016, so hat tip to her as she brought it to my attention first.

Anyway, here are some key differences:

First, unlike the WTC, the Address Hotel did NOT have fully fueled airliners deliberately slam into it at full speed or, in the case of WTC 7, as Brent Blanchard of Protec pointed out, had tons of debris,  from the collapsing North Tower carve a hole about halfway up the side.

Second, in the case of the WTC, as we see here, the impact of the planes took out the pipes that supplied the water to the sprinkler system. In addition, as the NIST mentions, the sprinkler sysem in the WTC was designed to handle a fire of up to 1500 square feet on ONE floor, not the 40,000 square feet spread over several floors ( this is for BOTH towers). That is about 27 times MORE than what the sprinkler system was meant to handle, provided it was UNDAMAGED, which it wasn’t. As the aforementioned site  states, even if the sprinkler system had been fully functional, it would NOT have been able to handle the WTC fires.

Third, the Address Hotel fire was fought, the WTC fires were not ( source). In addition, it was the COMBINATION of the impact of the airliners, dislodging of the fireproofing from said impact, and severe unfought fires on SEVERAL floors that brought the WTC down (reference).

Fourth, “Truthers” say jet fuel, which burns at between 800-1500 degrees Fahrenheit ( 427-816 degrees Celsius) is not hot enough to melt steel, which melts at 2750 degrees Fahrenheit (1510 degrees Celsius) . While this is technically true, what “truthers” neglect to mention is that; 1) They’re the ONLY ones who said steel melted, and 2) The steel didn’t need to melt, only weaken.

In point of fact, as we see here, steel loses about half its strength at 1100 degrees Fahrenheit ( 593 degrees Celsius), which is well within the temperature range that jet fuel burns.  This quote from here sums it up nicely: ” However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn’t need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. “I have never seen melted steel in a building fire,” says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. “But I’ve seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks.”

Last but not least when confronted on it by being told 1) the WTC and the Address Hotel were not the same building and 2) how the steel is used makes a difference, his response was, ” It’s the same steel” and “It’s still steel,” respectively. There is just one problem with that. If you put a steel beam in the water, it sinks, however if you have a boat made of steel, it floats and it’s still steel.

Once again, we see that the “truthers” arguments are invalid.

 

invalid-argument

Posted January 10, 2016 by Victor Chabala in Mocking Truthers, Real 9/11 Facts

“Truthers” Lack Logic

 

“Truthers” are STILL going on about that “missing” 2.3 trillion dollars at the Pentagon and claiming that Cheney admitted it on September 10, 2001.

However, as we see here, the money was NOT missing, they simply couldn’t track it, which is NOT the same thing.

Furthermore, as we see at the same site, a defense audit conducted in the fiscal year of 1999, which was from October 1, 1998-September 30, 1999, noticed that very problem and said that the various balances, transactions, etc, were not adequately documented. Again, that is NOT the same thing as missing. Oh, and as I mentioned, fiscal 1999 was from October 1, 1998 to September 30, 1999? Hmm,  now who was president and vice president at that time? Oh, that’s right, Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Also, I am not saying Clinton and Gore were responsible either. Bureaucracy is bureaucracy, no matter where you go.

Oh, and here’s the clinching argument AGAINST the “truther” claim that Bush and Cheney were covering up wrongdoing and admitted to a cover up on September 10, 2001: If you’re guilty of any sort of wrongdoing and know the evidence is going to be destroyed on a certain date, why would you admit to a cover up the day before?  Hint: That kind of defeats the purpose of a cover up. In the words of Mr. Spock, this particular argument of the “truthers” is “highly illogical.”

 

Mr Spock highly illogical

 

 

 

 

Posted November 17, 2015 by Victor Chabala in Real 9/11 Facts