Archive for the ‘truthers’ Tag

New “Truther” Lies Exposed

“Truther” A and his cohort, “Truther” B are once again showing what idiots “truthers” are.

They have once again brought up Richard Gage, head of AE911Truth as their “expert.”  There are quite a few problems, though.

             Scroll about a quarter of the way down the page here  and you will see that the number of high rises (ie, skyscrapers) Gage has designed is zilch, zero, nada.   Also, the same site  points out Gage has NO ORIGINAL WORK OF HIS OWN (emphasis mine) with respect to 9/11.

            This is also the same Gage who made this statement, found here: “Well that’s why they would have used thermite, which is a more silent, um, thermate, which is a special form of thermite with added sulfur, because obviously you wouldn’t want a whole bunch of explosions to be heard, even though they were, it’s not a perfect science. They have a hundred and eighteen witnesses just from those who were recorded in the oral histories.””  Hmm, seems to me that Gage is contradicting himself here. If the explosives are silent, then you aren’t going to be able to hear them and if you hear them, then they obviously aren’t silent.  Oh, and one other thing:  Thermite (or thermate) is NOT an explosive; it’s an INCENDIARY.

            Gage also ignores the difference between a static (stationary) load and a dynamic (moving) load (reference ).

            Gage also thinks that the fire departments foreknowledge of the WTC 7 collapse proves controlled demolition (source ). This quote from here explains what Gage thinks: “Gage also lists FDNY foreknowledge as partial evidence of controlled demolition of WTC 7. FDNY foreknowledge means, they knew the building was going to collapse. FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro made the decision to evacuate, he did not receive the evacuation order from some higher-ups. This means Chief Nigro had foreknowledge. This means Chief Nigro’s foreknowledge is evidence of controlled demolition. This means Chief Nigro is involved.”  Here’s a word of advice to Richard Gage and “truthers” in general: this is called a LOGICAL FALLACY.   This site  gives the following definition of a logical fallacy: “A logical fallacy is an element of an argument that is flawed, essentially rendering the line of reasoning, if not the entire argument, invalid.”  As an example, “Truther”  A stated that he looks to see who benefited from the 9/11 attack, implying that he thinks anyone who benefited from said attacks were behind them.  Again, this is not necessarily true.  If a rich relative dies in a car accident and leaves you all their money, obviously you benefited but you did not necessarily cause the car accident.
            Daniel Nigro explains his decision here  and as you can see, it was a JUDGEMENT call on his part. He was, as he put it, the “ranking fire officer.”

            This quote from here explains the REAL reason the firefighters anticipated the WTC 7 collapse: “ We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped.”  That’s NOT proof that the firefighters were in on a conspiracy.  Firefighters are trained to recognize the sound of a possible building collapse, among other things, as part of their jobs.

            I will have more on this in a future article, but as you can see, “truthers” are clearly sanity-challenged.

Oh, and on a different note, thank you to JennSierra of Fort Hard Knox (FHK) for helping me get this blog going


"Truthers" Cook their Stats

     Readers may remember “Truther” A, who I have mentioned previously. He is still continuing to make a compete fool of himself.  First of all, he thinks Rumsfeld should have been fired for acting as a first responder.  It doesn’t occur to him that in a situation like the Pentagon on 9/11, emergency personnel are going to want EVERY UNINJURED, ABLE-BODIED PERSON to assist them.  Also, it’s not unreasonable to expect that the secretary of defense would be knowledgeable in First Aid/CPR and possibly be First Responder certified, in which case, since he was at the Pentagon and therefore working, he would be REQUIRED BY LAW to help out.

     Next, he wonders why Pentagon alarms didn’t go off when the towers were hit. Flight 11 hit the north tower at about a quarter till 9 (reference ), Flight 175 hit the south tower about 15 minutes later (reference ).  Also, as we see here,  the hijacking of flight 77 occurred between 8:51 and 8:54, which was AFTER Flight 11 hit the first tower and they knew Flight 175 had been hijacked, so it’s entirely possible they lost track of Flight 77 in the confusion.  Furthermore, the same source  that after the second plane, American Airlines Flight 175 was hijacked, American Airlines ordered a nationwide grounding of all its aircraft.  However, Flight 77 was in an area of limited radar coverage when it was hijacked, plus the fact that the transponder was shut off, when both Indianapolis Air Traffic Control and American Airlines dispatchers tried unsuccessfully to contact Flight 77.  As a result, they  thought the plane crashed at around 10 after 9. Now why would you be worried about an aircraft you thought had already crashed?  Again, this does NOT prove a conspiracy;  it merely emphasizes what EVERYONE knows; confusion is common during a disaster. Oh, there is one other, far more obvious reason the Pentagon alarms never went off when the towers were hit: the towers were in New York City, which, as we see here, is a little over 200 miles away from Washington DC.

     He is also still going on about mini-nukes used at the WTC ( as is “Truther” B, also mentioned in an earlier article ),  despite the distinct lack of radiation fallout and an EMP pulse, the latter of which would have affected electronic devices all over the New York City area and then some. Of course the sad part about the continued claims of nukes at the WTC by “Truthers” A and B is that, as we see here, even “TRUTHERS” have debunked that one.

     Finally, it is time to expose the errors in “truther” math.  Both “Truther” A and “Truther” B provided this link  from the German magazine Welt der Wunder and claim it proves  “growing world doubts about 9/11.”

      However, Fellow Debunker 4, who readers will remember from my Nov 30, 2010 article, pointed out that this is based on the following article  and the “89.5% of German respondents” is actually only 2001 people who were subscribers to the magazine and answered the poll.  Fellow Debunker 4 was also kind enough to provide me with the following stats: Germany has a population of a little over 81,000,000 ( in actuality, as we see here, the population of Germany is actually 81,471,834, but I will use the 81,000,000 to simplify the math). The estimated number of subscribers to the magazine in question is 800,000, 2001 people responded to the poll, and out of those 2001, 1780 did not believe the 9/11 Commission report.  Now, let’s do the math.

     1780 people out of the 2001 people who responded to the poll did not believe the 9/11 Commission report. 1780/ 2001 times 100 is approximately 89%.

     Now, as for the number of people who responded to the poll out of the magazine subscribers, that is 2001/800,000 times 100 = 0.25 % of the subscribers that responded to the poll and as for the ones that didn’t believe the 9/11 Commission Report, that is 1789/800,000 times 100 = 0.22 %.

     Finally,  here’s what REALLY does the “truthers” in-  there are an estimated 800,000 subscribers to Welt der Wunder, however, Germany has a population of just over 81,000,000, so, the percentage of the German population that subscribes to this magazine is 800,000/81,000,000 times 100, which means that approximately 1 % of the German population subscribes to said magazine. Now, when we take the number of people who responded to the poll and dived it by the German population, we have 2001/81,000,000 = 0.002 % of the German population responded to the poll.  Last but not least, here are the results for the 1780 people who did NOT believe the 9/11 Commission Report: 1780/81,000,000 times 100, which again, indicates that a whopping 0.002% of the German population doubts the 9/11 Commission report.  Notice that is two THOUSANDTHS of 1 %.

      There’s a growing doubt all right- a growing doubt about the sanity of “truthers.”  Of course most of us know that “truthers” are Looney Tunes.

(picture from here)

Even More "Truther" Desperation

     “Truther” A, who has been mentioned previously is still managing to make a complete fool of himself.

     First, he wants to know about Hanjour’s flying skills, which we have explained to him MANY times, by this quote from “In 1996, Hanjour returned to the United States to pursue flight training, after being rejected by a Saudi flight school. He checked out flight schools in Florida, California, and Arizona; and he briefly started at a couple of them before returning to Saudi Arabia. In 1997, he returned to Florida and then, along with two friends, went back to Arizona and began his flight training there in earnest. After about three months, Hanjour was able to obtain his private pilot’s license. Several more months of training yielded him a commercial pilot certificate, issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in April 1999… Settling in Mesa, Hanjour began refresher training at his old school, Arizona Aviation. He wanted to train on multi-engine planes, but had difficulties because his English was not good enough. The instructor advised him to discontinue but Hanjour said he could not go home without completing the training. In early 2001, he started training on a Boeing 737 simulator at Pan Am International Flight Academy in Mesa. An instructor there found his work well below standard and discouraged him from continuing. Again, Hanjour persevered; he completed the initial training by the end of March 2001.”

     Next, he uses an article by AE911Truth, which, in typical “truther” fashion, compares apples to oranges by comparing the WTC to the Madrid Windsor tower.  However, as we see here, AE911Truth leaves out the following key differences: 1: No plane hit the Madrid Windsor Tower, 2: The Madrid Windsor Tower did NOT sustain severe structural damage before catching fire ( and before “truthers” say neither did WTC 7, that’s a lie. Refer to and you will see that NYFD Captain Chris Boyle, who, unlike the “truthers,” was actually there, stated that there was a hole about 20 stories high on the SOUTH side of the building.  Pictures “truthers” use are of the NORTH side), and 3) Unlike the WTC, the core of the Madrid Windsor tower was mostly concrete.  points out that the bit of steel the Madrid Windsor Tower DID have COMPLETELY collapsed on the upper technical floor.

            Then he provides this article stating that a career Army officer by the name of April Gallup is suing the Bush administration and claiming that there was no plane at the Pentagon.  There’s just one thing they don’t mention.  As we see from this quote from here: “Judge Chin has just dismissed the Gallop case. He said that the allegations are frivolous and based on fantasy and delusion.”  There’s a good reason for this-  if you will refer to an interview with April Gallup from July 13, 2006, you will see that she did originally said there was indeed a plane ( reference ). Simply put, she is clearly contradicting herself, which means that she is, by definition, LYING.

            Of course, during the aforementioned interview, when talking about restricted airspace, she neglects to mention that the Pentagon is NOT restricted air space due to the fact that it is EXTREMELY close to the approach for Ronald Reagan International Airport, which means that planes fly over the Pentagon all the time ( reference ).

            “Truther” A then provides this YouTube video  claiming there were underground explosions.  However, if you watch carefully from 8 seconds to 16 seconds, it is quite obvious to anyone with half a brain ( which is more than “truthers” have), that 1:  It is moving far too slowly to be an explosion, and 2:  it is merely dust and debris being kicked up in a violent collapse.  When called on this, “Truther’ A’s response was to sarcastically imply that dust from falling debris can’t go up.  Of course, when I provided the following YouTube videos here  and here of dust from collapsing buildings flying up, he completely ignored it as, like most “truthers,” he can’t be bothered with facts.

            Finally, “Truther” A uses this conspiracy site, which talks about The Project For The New American Century (PNAC), as “proof” of a conspiracy. There’s just one problem- the site claims the PNAC was written in September of 2000, which would make CLINTON the president at that time.  Also, the statement that it was written in September of 2000 is ITSELF a lie. One need only go to the PNAC  Web site  and one can see that it was, in point of fact, published on June 3, 1997, which means it had to have been written PRIOR to that date.  Logically, they had to write it before they published it. Now, since it is dated June 3, 1997( when, again, CLINTON was president), which is 3 years and 5 months BEFORE November of 2000 , there is NO WAY IN HELL they could have known what would happen a little over 3 years later.

             I know, I shouldn’t be confusing “truthers” with facts and logic like that.  I will say this much:  Normally, I’d feel guilty about torturing dumb animals but “truthers” just invite the abuse.

Pilotsfor911Truth NOT Truthful

     First, a hat tip to Refman Dave for providing me with the info regarding the two differing definitions of departure and arrival time between the aviation industry and air traffic control.

     “Truthers” A and B, who readers will remember from a previous article recently provided the following quote from  as “proof” of a conspiracy: “  02/28/11 – ( It has been reported that American Airlines Flight 77 departed Washington Dulles International Airport at approximately 08:20 AM on the morning of September 11, 2001 allegedly from Terminal Concourse D Gate 26 (1). However, the Flight Data Recorder positional data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board tells a very different story.

The below illustration is a diagram of Dulles Concourse D and their respective gates. It shows Gate D26 on the southwest corner of the terminal.


 Below is the raw lat/long plot based on the information as seen in the raw Flight Data Recorder file provided by the NTSB. As you can see there is an offset from the runway during departure. This is due to navigational errors associated with the device involved, called an Inertial Navigation System or INS.”

            However, Pilotsfor911Truth is NOT telling the truth.

            There are at least TWO lies and one omission.

Fellow Debunker 5, also from an earlier article  pointed  out the first lie with this statement, in his own words: “Actually no, the first lie is the location of the gate. They show gate D26 at the end of the terminal, however if you go to and the Dulles airports website and look at the concourse map you will see it’s down away from the end more opposite of gate D23.

Now another issue with this is that to show the correct path they overlaid the entire photo (transparent) over the original which gives it a double image and makes landmarks a bit hard to make out. Then they placed an image of the concourse they had over it. That image seemed to be place a little to the south.

Now when I took that image and cut out the supposed path and moved it the starting point appeared over the concourse about where gate D26 appears on the two concourse maps I found. Allowing for a margin of error and the fact that the line used is very wide (representing about 50 yards in width) I would say that this is a non issue.”

            The omission that Pilotsfor911Truth makes is that the Flight Data Recorder (FDR), also known as the black box, is supposed to automatically switch  on when the engines start and turn off when the engines go off ( source ). This, of course, makes sense as something can go wrong with the plane anytime from the point when the engines switch on to when they turn off.

            The other lie PilotsFor911Truth  makes with respect to Flight 77 is this, as we see from this quote from here: “  The flight was scheduled to depart at 08:10 am. Flight 77 pushed back from Gate D26 at 08:09 AM[17] and took off from Runway 30 at Dulles at 08:20 am.”  Note there were about 11 minutes from the time the plane pushed back to the time it took off.  Until the plane actually leaves the ground, it is STILL AT THE AIRPORT. In short, they left out the time it takes for the plane to taxi from the gate to the runway.

            A friend of mine with some experience in that area,Refman Dave , informed me via E-mail that there are two different definitions of departure and arrival time.   He informed me that the aviation industry ( meaning the pilots and crew) define departure time as when the plane pushes back from the gate and arrival time as when the plane has physically arrived at the gate, ceased all movement, and shut down the engines while Air Traffic Control defines departure time as when the wheels leave the ground and arrival time as when the wheels touch the ground.  In simpler terms, the aviation industry times arrival and departure from gate to gate while air traffic control times arrival and departure from airport to airport-  there IS  a difference.

             Refman Dave    also provided me with this statement:  “‘Ground time’ between the runways (at both ends of the flight) and the gates are “built in” to the departure and arrival times (to/from the gates!!) that are displayed to the public.

            I then asked him the following question, which is in lay man’s terms.”  So, IOW, the departure time I see displayed on the screen in the terminal is actually the “pushback” time  and if it’s say, a 10 minute taxi between the runway and the gate, if a plane is scheduled to arrive at 1:45 pm, that means the plane is actually scheduled to touch down at 1:35 pm, assuming it’s on schedule?

         Refman Dave   them confirmed that this was correct, and, assuming a 10 minute transit time between the gate and the runway and a 2-minute wait for clearance to take off and 1 minute for the wheels to leave the ground, the plane that is scheduled to depart at 12:00 does not actually leave the airport until 12:13 pm and, conversely, upon arrival, and assuming the same amount of time from touchdown to arrival at the gate   and engine shutdown, when the display says a  plane is scheduled to arrive at 1:15 pm, that means the plane is scheduled to be AT THE GATE WITH THE ENGINES OFF at 1:15 pm but actually touches down, meaning the plane is PHYSICALLY AT THE AIRPORT at 1:04 pm.  He further informed me that as long as the plane is within 15 minutes, up or down, from the scheduled arrival time, it is ON SCHEDULE.

            Obviously, like most “truthers,” Pilotsfor911Truth are suffering from a severe case of ED- Excessive Dishonesty;  they must have overdosed on Liagra.

 (picture from here )

New "Truther" Lies Exposed

Fellow Debunker 1, who readers will remember from an earlier article  sent me the following YouTube video for my analysis.

Here are the problems:

            If you know the building is going to be destroyed the next day and think the evidence would be destroyed along with it  and cannot possibly be recovered ( meaning you are unaware of the German company in question), why would you bother trying to cover it up? It seems like a lot of unnecessary work that could actually draw MORE attention to you.

            Just because some of the transfers may have been illegal, it does not necessarily follow that the government was aware of or behind the impending attacks.  There were plenty of businesses in the WTC- it would not be unreasonable to assume some of them were engaging in shady behavior.  The timing of the suspicious transactions does not necessarily make sense only if someone knew the attacks were coming- it COULD simply have been coincidence, although, admittedly, with that amount of money, coincidence is unlikely, and again, it does not necessarily follow that the government was behind it.  Logically, the government would want the data recovered to further the investigation and catch more culprits in order to stop more attacks. . Also, around 1 minute 8 seconds, they sound a little unsure.  If the DOD is sending it over there, it is not surprising that some of it would be classified top secret.  After all, some of the recovered data might provide more clues to the terrorists and you don’t want the enemy knowing you’re onto them.

            I know some “truthers” are looking to see who benefits from the attack because they can’t grasp the concept that just because someone benefits from something doesn’t mean they were behind it.  For example, if you have a rich relative that dies in a car accident and leaves you everything, then obviously, you’re benefiting from the accident.  However, more than likely you did NOT cause the car accident.  Also, using “truther” logic, the various “truthers” who have benefited financially from writing books claiming a conspiracy and so forth would have to have been behind it- obviously they aren’t.

            Furthermore, good luck getting insurance companies to agree to look the other way on something that would at the very least cost them tons of money, if not be outright cases of insurance fraud. At 3 minutes 45 seconds, they state that it leads to the suspicion that the speculators knew the attacks were coming. A suspicion is NOT proof and can be wrong.

            At 3 minutes 52 seconds, the guy states that “if it were insider trading, it must have been someone connected to Al Qaeda.”  This actually corroborates the government claim. Furthermore, we already know they Al Qaeda was already able to place sleeper agents in the United States in order to carry out the 9/11 attacks, so it would not be unreasonable to expect them to plant someone in the WTC or on Wall Street to engage in insider trading.  After all, like any other terrorist group, Al Qaeda needs money and that would be an excellent way for them to fund their operations.  I would not be at all surprised to learn that Al Qaeda did indeed plant one of their own with foreknowledge of the attacks on Wall Street with the orders to engage insider trading in order to finance more of their operations. After all, hiding in plain sight is often the best strategy.  In short, after watching the video in its entirety, it seems to me that it actually puts another dent in the “truther” argument.  

            Now, switching gears, another thing “truthers” use to “prove” a conspiracy is the fact that Bush remained at Booker School during the attacks.  provides this quote, which they obtained from here, stating the “truther” claims: “Given the Secret Service’s obligation to protect the President;

Given the Secret Service’s open line to the FAA and therefore its knowledge that a plane had been hijacked and subsequently ploughed into the World Trade Center;

Given the potentially deadly threat to President Bush if he proceeded to a public place, on schedule, as announced the day before and known to everyone in the region;

There is only one explanation for the Secret Service allowing President Bush to take the deadly risk of going to the Booker School on the morning of September 11th.

George Walker Bush knew the plans for 9-11. And because he knew those plans, he knew that nobody was going to attack the Booker School.”

   correctly points out that “truthers” contradict themselves due to the fact that you would require far too many people in on it to keep everything secret.

            “Truthers” also forget this little detail- after the second tower was hit, it was obvious we were under attack.  Obviously it doesn’t occur to “truthers” that there were other possibilities that the Secret Service had to take into account.  points out the following possibilities with this quote: “Perhaps there’s an alternative explanation for the actions of the security service, then. Maybe they weren’t sure where to take him, for instance. How did they know that the attackers might not be relying on Bush being moved? Perhaps there was a truck bomb waiting for Bush to be moved to the airport. Maybe there was an ambush planned there. What if Air Force One was the target? The Security Service staff at the school with Bush did not have an overview of what was going on, and as Bush was in an area that was secure on the ground, at least, then surely it’s reasonable to take time to consider where Bush should go next. And take guidance from someone who was in the loop, back at the White House.”  Hint to “truthers:” If you are under attack, it’s probably NOT a good idea to move the president around.  After all, it’s much more difficult to secure the skies than a school due to the fact that a school has a SLIGHTLY smaller area.  Also, anyone with an IQ above room temperature- which automatically eliminates “truthers-“  knows that Air Force One would have been an IRRESISTABLE target for the terrorists.

            As for Cheney’s account being vague and contradictory, that doesn’t prove squat-  after all, everything was happening very fast. Even young people can get confused when events happen fast and Cheney’s not exactly a spring chicken. In addition, confusion is normal in the chaos that occurs after a disaster.

            As for why Bush didn’t head back to D.C. immediately, there’s a good reason for that too.  Cheney was already there and when you are under attack you do NOT want the president and vice president in the same area.  It’s the same reason that the president and vice president NEVER travel together on the same aircraft carrier.  It’s called “covering your ass.”

            Once again, we see you should watch what you step in when walking behind “truthers” due to the cow patties they leave behind.

 (picture from here )

Posted February 25, 2011 by Victor Chabala in Real 9/11 Facts

Tagged with , , ,

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, they leave out They leave out this statement, also by Jamie McIntyre, which, as, 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 )


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

Tagged with , , ,

More "Truther" BS Exposed 2

         First, a slight correction to my previous article  and thank you to Lloyd Dolan for pointing it out with this statement “Sailors can be selected for Chief Warrant Officer 2 (Navy does not use WO1) who are Petty Officer First Class (E6) and are in the top half on the CPO promotion list. “  Again, before “truthers” try to capitalize on that, owning up to a mistake is called honesty, something “truthers” know nothing about.

Now, readers will remember “Truther” A from not only my previous article  but also other earlier articles.  Once again, “Truther” A has been making some of the most idiotic statements, even for a “truther.”

            He still insists that there was no damage caused by the upper floors caused by the impact zone, which is technically correct.  However, as Fellow Debunker 5 correctly, pointed out, damage was caused by the portion above the impact zone slamming into the portion below the impact zone.   This, is , of course, due to Newton’s Third Law of Motion which states that, “ If object A exerts a force on object B, then object B will exert a force on object A equal in magnitude but opposite in direction,”  or, in simpler terms, “ For every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction.”  Any physics book will tell you this.  Fellow Debunker 5 correctly pointed out that the upper section did fall in one section for 50-60 feet, then broke apart on impact.  He also pointed out to “Truther” A that the upper floors were constructed the same way as the lower floors.  This means that when the upper floors impacted the lower floors, the lower floors exerted the EXACT SAME AMOUNT OF FORCE on the upper floors that the upper floors exerted on them.  If the force was enough to crush the lower floors, then, per Newton’s Third Law, it was also enough to crush the upper floors. 

            “Truther” A is also claiming  that the Pentagon was bombed, while ignoring one little detail.  If a bomb had been planted,  most of the debris would have been outside, however r we know most of the rubble was INSIDE.

            He ignores the MANY eyewitnesses that SAW  a PLANE hit the Pentagon, and his usual cop-out is that eyewitness testimony is the least reliable form of testimony.  However, if you have ever seen the criminal justice classes demonstrate that, you will notice that it is only the description of the SUSPECT ( or object in the case of Flight 77) that varies-  the description of the actual event doesn’t. 

            Another fellow Debunker, who I will call Fellow Debunker 8 asked the same question of “Truther” A that we have been asking for ages:  If a 757 buzzed the Pentagon but never hit it, then WHERE THE HELL DID THE PLANE GO?  Was it zapped by a UFO?

 ( picture from here )

Maybe the Starship Enterprise grabbed it with a tractor bean or a Romulan warbird shot it down with disruptors?  Perhaps the crew and passengers were sent off with Captain Kirk wearing red shirts?

 (picture from here )

 (picture from here )

(picture from here )

Fellow Debunker 8 correctly points out that it’s rather difficult to hide something as large as a 757 and, since all aircraft were grounded after the 9/11 attacks, no matter WHAT the plane did, it would have been spotted. Fellow Debunker 8 states that the plane would have had to either land or crash because if it had made a beeline for another country, it would have shown up on a whole bunch of radars, both ours and foreign ones.

            “Truther” A’s response is that he thought they simply crashed the plane into the ocean.  This is when Fellow Debunker 9 chimed in with the OBVIOUS problem there:  It was MID-MORNING in one of the busiest sea lanes in the world, which means SOMEONE would have spotted it.

            On a related note, this is yet another area where “Truther” A has managed to contradict himself.  He has often stated that no more than 20 people were involved in the plot.  However, when Fellow Debunkers 8 and 9 pointed out the obvious problems with his statements that I mentioned in the previous 2 paragraphs, he states that his conspiracy theory would work if  everyone including the airline was in on it.  The contradictions between “Truther” A’s statements is obvious, but, I will of course elaborate.

            The problem is that in order to pull off the conspiracy, the pilots and their crews would have had to been told what was going on, as would the passengers and their families.  Logically, just the crew and passengers of just ONE plane, not including their families, could EASILY constitute more than 20 people.  The air traffic controllers would have had to have been informed as well, and, if the airline industry was in on it too, we have A LOT more than 20 people.  Now, factor in the people stuck in traffic near the Pentagon, and anyone out at sea, should the plane have been instructed to either ditch in the ocean or head to another country, and the number of people increases yet again.  For one thing, you would have had to tell anyone on the ships not to pay any attention to a plane diving into the ocean and let’s not forget people who live on or near the beach or who may have simply been at the beach that day.  Also, other countries would have needed to be informed should the plane have been told to head for another country.  There are numerous other people that would have needed to be in on the plan to pull it off, but as you can see, you would have needed FAR MORE THAN 20 PEOPLE to pull it off.

            “Truther” A then claims that they could have had remote controlled flight.  However, there is a problem with this as well. This quote from  indicates that problem: “To take an example of flying into the Pentagon, what would happen if you appear to be coming in too low? First, there would be a delay while the cameras on board the plane processed the image. There’s then a delay while the image is transmitted, and another while it’s displayed to the remote pilot. There’s a natural delay while he reacts to the situation, then another in transmitting his commands back to the plane, and another while it adjusts the control surfaces accordingly.”

The delay is several seconds, and that was in 2005, so we can assume some improvements since 2001, but if you consider several to mean 3 ( it could be more), that means a plane doing 500 MPH would go about four-tenths of a mile before it could react to what the remote pilot sees.”

            Clearly, “truthers” would do well to remember this old adage: “ It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

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

Tagged with , , ,