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.



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

“Truthers” still not interested in Facts

” Truthers” are still telling their usual lie that Bush did not do anything about the warnings he received regarding 9/11, while conveniently ignoring the FACT that all the warnings, including the PDB Memo, were EXTREMELY vague and didn’t say anything other than Bin Laden was determined to attack in the United States. That really wasn’t useful, seeing as how the US is kind of a big target. As we see here, the FBI said they could not corraborate the threats of hijackings. As you can clearly see, the PDB memo was really nothing more than a rather half-assed status report.  In order for Bush to have stopped the attacks, he would have needed to know the date and time, target,and method of attacks. Simply put, he would have needed to know where, when, and how. The PDB memo(and other warnings) did NOT answer any of those three questions. Simply saying Bin Laden was determined to strike in the US was about as helpful as telling someone to meet you at Starbucks.

Starbucks humor 3

Posted October 10, 2015 by Victor Chabala in Real 9/11 Facts

“Truthers” still don’t understand real world physics

Readers will remember “Truther” B from a previous article.

He is still expounding on the nuke theory ( despite the fact that even “truthers: have debunked it).  In addition, he alternating between claiming steel turned to dust or steel vaporized, which proves he is lying as he is contradicting himself. Last time I checked, dust was solid and vapor was gas. The fact remains that the steel did NEITHER of the two things he claims. It simply fell into a cloud of dust and debris. The fact is ANY time a building collapses, it’s going to kick up dust and debris.

His source is Veteran’s Today, which is NOT known for being an accurate or reliable source and the article simply repeats claims that I shot down in an earlier article.

I will, of course, recap- again, the order I address them in is not necessarily the order the article made the claims:


First, the claim that barium and strontium are never used in buildings are false.   As Fellow Debunker 5 pointed out, barium is used in steel and cast iron and may also be used as rat poison, and strontium is used in cathode ray tubes, such as those in computer monitors and TVs.

Second we have the claim that thorium and uranium should never be found in building rubble, which is also a lie. Thorium is often used in electronic equipment, specifically for coating the tungsten wires in said electronic equipment (reference).

Uranium is used in smoke detectors ( source).  Hmm, an office building couldn’t possibly have electronic equipment or smoke detectors in it.

Rather than digging through the rest of it, the sources can be found in one of my earlier articles, so here we go for the rest:  lithium can be found in cell phones in the form off lithium niobate and can also be found in various types of batteries, lanthanum can be used for lighting, optical fibers, etc, Yttrium can be used to produce the color red in TV picture tubes, tritium is often used in  exit signs and may also be used as a paint polymer, and last but not least, chromium can be a component of steel, as well as being a wood preservative among other things.

There is also the fact that ALL nuclear explosions will produce radiation and an electromagnetic pulse. A nuclear blast without either one of those is PHYSICALLY impossible.

When challenged as to where the EMP wasm “Truther” B’s response was to request someone show us the effect of an EMP, when it is fairly common knowlegde- at least to those of us who understand real world physics- that an EMP, while harmless to humans, will fry ANY electronics in the area.

“Truther” B’s response was any camera would do. However, as Fellow Debunker 5 pointed out, that’s NOT true. An old mechanical camera would not be affected by an EMP, however, a modern digital camera would be. Fellow Debunker 5 also points out, correctly, that it has been scientifically proven that ALL nuclear blasts emit a strong EMP, which plays hell with any electronics.

While EMP’s will fry electronics, it’s quite obvious that all “truther” statements are half-baked.


Posted February 23, 2015 by Victor Chabala in Mocking Truthers, Opinion, Real 9/11 Facts

“Truthers” run from Facts

It’s time once again to demonstrate that facts to “truthers” are like sunlight to vampires.

First, we have “Truther’ A, from a previous article.

In a fairly recent conversation with Fellow Debunker 4, also from an earlier article, ” Truther” A contradicted himself, like most “truthers.”    Originally, ” Truther” A said no plane hit the Pentagon ( he later goes back to that claim), but in the aforementioned conversation, he said that the Pentagon approach was “damn close to landing.”   Fellow Debunker 4 correctly pointed out that ” damn close to a landing” is a CRASH, or, as I put it, close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and nuclear weapons.

Later on, “Truther” A asked why the people driving by the Pentagon didn’t take pictures of the “alleged” airplane- his, words, NOT mine.

First, of all, there was NO alleged about it. As we see here NUMEROUS eyewitnesses SAW the plane hit

Fellow Debunker 4 correctly pointed out that, A: People generally don’t drive around with a camera sitting in the drivers seat ready to take a picture, and B; Cell phone camera’s weren’t commonly available until 2005 or 2006.

Another debunker, who I will call Fellow debunker 10 then pointed out some other obvious problems with trying to get a photo pf the plane before it slammed into the Pentagon: 1) The point where the plane flew over the road was about 800 ft ( about 244 meters) away from the Pentagon and the plane was going at 700 ft/second, which is 477 MPH ( 768 km/hr).  He further points out that in the time it would take someone to say, ‘Oh shit, something’s wrong,” grab the camera, and aim it, the plane would have already hit the Pentagon.  He further stated that in the time it took him to get his camera – which is on his cell phone-  it took him over 4 seconds to get his cell phone, get the camera running and focus on something and that a plane going at that speed could easily travel over half a mile in that time frame.  As a matter of fact, we can figure out how far the plane would have traveled in that time by using the good old fashioned distance = rate (time) (D =rt) equation.  We know the plane was going at about 700 ft/s and using the 4 second time frame, we can plug in the numbers and we see that in the 4 second time frame, a plane can travel 2800 feet, which is indeed about half a mile.

Fellow Debunker 4 also points out one thing that seems to elude “truthers” about their conspiracy theorys, which are all needlessly complicates- Occam’s Razor, which states, ” Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily,” ( reference) or to put it another way, ” Keep it simple, stupid.”

Now we will switch to “Truther” B, also from a previous article.

He thinks that the fact that the Pentagon ran a drill in November of 2000 ( his words, not mine) is more than a little strange.

Fellow Debunker 10 was quick to point out the flaw in that logic- he stated, ” So by that logic my company does fire drills occasionally, if we have a fire that would make it strange like the fire was staged.”

Here are some other problems with “Truther” B’s claims, found here: First of all, the drill was in OCTOBER of 2000, second it did NOT involve a hijacked airliner, and third, The Pentagon is right next to Ronald Reagan International Airport.  Hmm, being right next to a major airport couldn’t possibly have anything to do with planning for a plane crash, could it?

“Truther” B is also still going on about nukes used at the WTC despite the fact that it has been debunked MANY times.  He assumes that the steel turned to dust when those of us that use real world physics see the debris and dust billowing out of a collapsing building.

He also goes on about the thermite- never mind the fact that thermite is an INCENDIARY, not an explosive.

The problem is every single element “truthers” claim “proves” thermite or nukes is used in the normal construction of a building. As we see here, a USGS survey found the following elements in samples of WTC dust Silicon, Calcium, Magnesium, Sulfur, Iron, Aluminum, Carbon (organic and carbonate), Sodium, Potassium, Titanium, Manganese, and Phosphorus.and Steven Jones flagged Sulfur, Potassium, Titanium, Manganese as possible indicators of thermate or thermite.

The problem is every single one of those elements are elements that would normally be used in the construction of the building as I pointed out here

There is also the fact that there was no radiation and no EMP ( electromagnetic pulse) and a nuclear blast without either one of those things is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

Of course, “Truther” B also claims that gravity is a poor explanation as to why the buildings came down when it was actually the MAIN explanation. Then agan, as I pointed out in a previous article, ” Truther” B has no understanding of gravity.

Once again, we see that “truthers” use Roadrunner cartoon physics.

Roadrunner cartoon 2


Posted November 25, 2014 by Victor Chabala in Real 9/11 Facts

Black Friday Shopping on Thanksgiving is Hypocritical

I realize this is off the topic of the blog but with Thanksgiving being right around the corner, it needs to be said.

To those of you that participate in the “feeding frenzy” on Thanksgiving Day, 1: You should be ashamed of yourselves, and 2) You’re a bunch of hypocrites ( not necessarily in that order).

The reason you are a bunch of hypocrites is because on the very day you are SUPPOSED to be giving thanks for what you ALREADY have you are in line acting like a  bunch of rabid dogs for what you WANT.  Actually, I take that comment about rabid dogs back. Unlike you, rabid dogs at least have an excuse for their behavior.

As for the reason you should be ashamed of yourselves, that is twofold; 1 Essentially the same reason in the above paragraph, and 2) Because of you, the retail employees have to give up their holiday because you have to have that deal.

Before those of you that participate in that feeding frenzy say you’re giving up your holiday too, there is one key difference: Unlike the retail employees, you are CHOOSING to be there.

That being said, I do NOT hold the stores that open on Thanksgiving blameless- they are anything BUT blameless.  However, I hold those of you who participate in the aforementioned feeding frenzy far more to blame fo one very obvious reasons: The reason those stores keep opening on Thanksgiving is that because they keep making money off of YOU. If you didn’t participate in that Thanksgiving feeding frenzy, the stores wouldn’t make any money off of  it and they’d stop opening on Thanksgiving. It’s a self-correcting problem- of course, those of you that participate in that feeding frenzy are obviously too selfish to care.

Now, before anyone tries to compare retail employees working on Thanksgiving to emergency personnel, restaurant, hotel, and convenience store employees working on Thanksgiving, that is apples to oranges.

I will start with emergency personnel. Emergency personnel working on Thanksgiving ( or any other holiday, for that matter), is a NECESSITY. Hint: Emergencies don’t take days off. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that if you go into ANY of the fields that are considered emergency personnel ( police, firefighters, etc0, you KNOW those are professions that MUST operate 24/7, so one can argue that by choosing to be emergency personnel, they are volunteering to work holidays ( and they rotate holidays as well).

Now, as for restaurants, there are two reasons for them to be open on holidays – granted it’s usually just Denny’s and IHOP ( more so the former) that are open on holidays ( a lot of restaurants do close on holidays and I’m fine with that); 1) A lot of people have family get-togethers on holidays and it’s quite possible that the home of whoever is hosting the get-together is not large enough to accommodate everyone but a restaurant can, and 2) Emergency personnel still have to eat, and as busy as they can get on holidays, it may be more convenient for them to grab a bite at a restaurant rather than going all the way back to the station.

The reason for hotels to be open is the same as the first reason I gave with respect to restaurants.

Last, but not least, with respect to convenience stores, besides the obvious fact that there’s a REASON they’re called convenience stores, the emergency personnel who are busting their butts on the holidays may want to grab a quick snack or a cup of coffee between calls,and possibly answer the call of nature. That reason applies to gas stations as well.

Finally, there is one thing that I have to say to a couple groups of people ( there is more than that but if I listed every single crappy thing that the participants of the feeding frenzy did, it would take me at least a decade):

First, to those of you that, back in ’08, broke down the doors of a Walmart on Long Island and trampled an employee to death, were you born in a barn?  (reference)

Last but not least, to those of you who, back in 2011, stepped over a man who had just collapsed from a heart attack in a Target store in South Charleston. W.Va ( source), to continue shopping, YOU are the WORST of the lot and should be REALLY ashamed of yourselves as you REALLY missed the point of the holiday season.  What ever happened to helplng your fellow man?  It seems to me that you could have at least called 911 but that would obviously required morals on your part.

Posted October 30, 2014 by Victor Chabala in Real 9/11 Facts