Lies of AE911Truth Exposed 2
June 30, 2009 by Victor Chabala
Filed under News/Op-Ed
More research at this site exposes yet more lies by the Architects and Engineers for 911Truth ( AE911Truth):
Go about three-quarters of the way down the page here, and you’ll see the claims made by David Chandler, who is a high school physics teacher, NOT an architect or engineer.
This site provides this quote from David Chandler from here: “NIST has now officially accepted that WTC7 came down with the acceleration of gravity, but they still couch it as a phase in a 5.4 second interval they claim matches the 5.4 seconds required for their model to collapse 18 floors.”
However, like most CT’s, Chandler is being dishonest.
As we see here, WTC 7 did NOT come down with the acceleration of gravity ( i.e., freefall)- in point of fact it took 40% longer to collapse than it would have at freefall speed.
Furthermore, NIST went into more- and better- detail as they have more precise equipment than Chandler, and , yes, they did find a period of 2.25 seconds where WTC 7 fell at freefall speeds ( Hint: 2.25 seconds does not the entire event make). However, what Chandler and the rest of the “truthers” won’t tell you is that in those 5.4 seconds of the roofline’s collapse, there is a period both before and after the 2.25 seconds where there is a period of SIGNIFICANT resistance- and Chandlers OWN MEASUREMENTS show EXACTLY THE SAME THING ( reference) Hint: If, as Chandler and other “truthers” claim, the NIST is lying, and Chandlers own numbers match the NIST, then, logically, Chandler would have to be lying as well.
As for the controlled demolition theory, Richard Gage, founder of AE911Truth often quotes Danny Jowenko, a Dutch expert on controlled demolition to “prove” controlled demolition ( source).
While it is true that Jowenko says WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, and Gage is not misquoting Jowenko on WTC 7, there is one tiny little detail Gage doesn’t want you to know: Jowenko believes, correctly, that the Twin Towers came down on their own ( source).
Furthermore, as we see here, Jowenko is first shown a video of Silversteins “pull it” statement, which, of course, would logically affect his view of the WTC 7 collapse, then this site provides the interview with Jowenko in 3 videos.
Of course, if you go to the 4th video here, you’ll see the TRUTH about Silversteins “pull it” quote.
At about 25 seconds into the 4th video ( the one that Gage did NOT show Jowenko and is actually the SAME PBS Special “Truthers” like to use when misquoting Silverstein), you here Silverstein saying he got a call from the FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMANDER ( source ).
At about 46 seconds, we see the details “truthers” leave out- pull it in demolition means pulling the building away from another one with cables, and this video ( which also happens to be the same one Alex Jones uses) shows the heavy construction equipment getting ready to pull WTC 6 down with cables ( source).
Scroll down a little farther here, and you’ll see that Jowenko is only given select information.
This quote from here tells the truth: “Jowenko is then shown a video of the building falling. There is no indication whether he is shown the complete collapse or a video starting at the favorite cut-in spot favored by Gage and similar conspiracy theorists.
He is also shown a simple drawing of the building’s placement of core columns. He is given no information about the cantilevered section to the north, or the crucial transfer trusses in the area of column 79.
Other bits of information are given to him here and there, and the interviewer appears to have pages of the FEMA report on WTC 7 on the table. Close to the end, he’s shown the FEMA estimate of column damage. But Jowenko basically refers to the video, the Silverstein quote, and the column drawing during the interview. He certainly has never seen the Final Report from NIST on WTC 7.
Experts who have examined much more evidence than that presented to Jowenko have concluded that 7 World Trade fell due to damage to its unusual structure by thermal expansion of structural elements.”
In short, despite it’s name, The Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth are about as interested in the truth as OJ is in finding the real killers.
![[del.icio.us]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[Fark]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/fark.png)
![[Google]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/google.png)
![[Mixx]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/mixx.png)
![[MySpace]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/myspace.png)
![[Newsvine]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/newsvine.png)
![[Propeller]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/propeller.png)
![[Reddit]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/reddit.png)
![[Slashdot]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/slashdot.png)
![[Sphere]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/sphere.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Twitter]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
![[Yahoo!]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/yahoo.png)
![[Email]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
Lies of AE911Truth Exposed
June 30, 2009 by Victor Chabala
Filed under News/Op-Ed
It is time to bring the lies of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 “Truth” (AE911Truth) to light.
First, as we see, here, AE911Truth claims that over 24,000 Architects and engineers came face to face with the truth. However, as this site points out, if you go to AE911Truth’s own site, you’ll see they only added 50 new petitioners, and if you watch the videos from AE911Truth’s own Web site, you’ll see that only 4 of those 50 were architects or engineers.
As we see here, that means the actual percentage of Architects and Engineers that are members of AE911Truth is a whopping 0.000166%.
In addition, if you go a little further down the Web site here, you will see even more evidence of Ae911Truth’s deception. The owner of this Web site (who I might add is, as we see here, by his OWN ADMISSION, a LIBERAL who, again, by his OWN ADMISSION, is more than willing to believe the worst of the Bush Administration. However, unlike AE911Truth, the “Scholars” for 9/11 “Truth,” etc, he is, at least, an honest researcher) points out that a little further research shows that there’s a problem with the Architects and Engineers for 911Truth’s claim to have 640 architects and engineers asking for a new investigation. In point of fact, that total of 640 includes architect and engineering students, as well as other people who work in those offices ( Hint: People who work in those offices aren’t necessarily architects or engineers- they could be secretaries). In point of fact, when everyone except those with licenses and degrees is excluded, there are only 284 names, and that’s with a broad definition of engineer- there are landscape and electrical engineers on that list (source). Scroll further down this site, and you will see that AE911Truth is again using the Beijing skyscraper fire just last February to “prove” their point.
AE911Truth states’ that the Beijing skyscraper was comparable in size to WTC 7, which is technically true, but this site points out some details that AE911Truth leaves out: 1) The skyscraper in question was REINFORCED CONCRETE and steel, much like the new WTC 7 will be- and concrete is far more resistant to fire than steel. This site also makes an aside that the “truthers” who support a controlled demolition of the WTC use the Madrid Windsor fire and make a big deal out of the fact that it didn’t collapse, while ignoring the fact that the steel in the Madrid Windsor fire DID melt, and it’s the reinforced concrete that survived, 2) The Beijing skyscraper was built by Arup AFTER conducting an EXTENSIVE study of the WTC collapses, and 3) The Beijing skyscraper was built to withstand major earthquakes. If it’s built to withstand the huge earthquakes that often occur China ( and the Pacific Rim ( aka, the “Ring of Fire”) in general, how is fire going to bother it?
Oh, and one other detail: As I pointed out in a previous article, there are two other differences as well: 1) The Beijing fire was fought, and 2) Unlike WTC 1,2, and &, the Beijing skyscraper did NOT suffer SEVERE structural damage before catching fires.
When it comes to honesty, AE911Truth makes Bill Clinton look like a Boy Scout.
In Defense of Glenn Beck on Holocaust Museum Shooter
June 16, 2009 by Victor Chabala
Filed under News/Op-Ed
It’s once again time to confuse “truthers” with facts.
As we see at this forum, “truthers” are getting on Glenn Beck’s case for his statements about the Holocaust Museum shooter, Von Brunn and 9/11 “Truthers.”
The first post at said forum states that Glen Beck compared the Holocaust Museum shooter to a 9/11 “Truther.”
Once again, the “truthers” are lying. I happened to catch the radio show, and what Glenn Beck REALLY said was that Von Brunn WAS a 9/11 “truther. Before we go any further, Glenn Beck also stated, as am I, that we are NOT saying that all “truthers” are like the Holocaust Museum shooter.
Before “truthers” say Beck was lying, in point of fact, Glenn Beck was telling the TRUTH about the Holocaust Museum shooter being a 9/11 “Truther.” As for where Glenn Beck got his information that Von Brunn was a 9/11 “Truther”, anyone who bothered listening to Glenn Becks radio show (or probably watching that segment of his TV show in it’s ENTIRETY), would know that the information about Von Brunn being a 9/11 ‘Truther” came from Von Brunn’s own Web site.
Furthermore, as we see from this quote here,
“Von Brunn was the 9,196th person to sign the ‘Petition of Solidarity’ hosted on the website Justicefor911.org, which claims it is sponsored in part by the organization 911Truth.org.”
Go here and you will see that the Holocaust Museum shooter’s views are far more in line with the left than the right.
Once again, the “truthers” are lying. Then again, the “truther” motto is “if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.”
Yet More “Truther” Deception
June 2, 2009 by Victor Chabala
Filed under News/Op-Ed
It’s time to expose the “truthers” for the liars they are, once again.
If you go here, the first post provides two Youtube videos.
Watch the first Youtube video and you will notice that the video cuts out on certain words, at about 10-12 seconds into the video, and again about 20 seconds in, making it rather obvious that someone just took clips of news interviews and selectively edited it. Furthermore, look at the bottom of the screen, and you’ll see the following statements at the bottom of the screen: At 10 seconds, the bottom of the screen reads, “ Five years since 9/11, conspiracy theories persist.
At about 16 seconds, the statement changes to, “ Theory: Al Qaeda is not responsible for 9/11 attacks.”
Also, at 12 seconds, the guy on the left hand side, says he thinks he has a pretty good understanding of what happened on 9/11. Then there’s a rather obvious edit, making it clear that someone purposely cut some stuff out.
At 37 seconds into the video, they have a Fox News woman saying they mistakenly ran the wrong video to accompany the story, and they apologize for the error. However, if you look closely, you’ll see that, 1) it’s extremely blurry, which is yet another indication of poor editing, or possibly something like the copy of a copy effect, 2) the one picture you can see reasonably well doesn’t seem to have anything to do with 9/11. And 3) News networks inadvertently run the wrong video to go with the story all the time. There’s nothing suspicious about that at all; it’s called human error.
Next, we have the following Youtube video, found here.
At about 13- 18 seconds, you see something heading towards the World Trade Center from the upper right-hand corner of the screen, and the video questions it being a Boeing 767. However, as you can see, the object in question is too far away to allow one to make out any details.
At 26, they make a big deal about the camera switch, but, since it’s fairly obvious that it was more than likely the second plane hitting, the camera switch isn’t really a surprise.
At 2 minutes, 7 seconds, it makes a big deal of a black spot between the towers. Number one, if you look where the arrow is pointing, you really can’t see the black spot very well. Number two, about 2 seconds later, you see an explosion just below where the arrow is pointing, at about the spot the second plane hit, so, logic dictates that that black spot we briefly see between the towers, if it was there at all, was more than likely the second plane. Before someone points out that the plane would not have been black, depending on one’s position relative to the towers, the plane, and the sun, (as well as one’s distance from the towers) the plane might have appeared black.
Between 5 and 6 minutes, the video switches to the Pentagon, and takes a quote by Mike Walters out of context at 5 minutes and 46 seconds to 5 minutes and 52 seconds. Mike Walters CLEARLY says he saw a plane, an AMERICAN AIRLINES JET, and said he was thinking, this doesn’t add up, the plane’s flying really low. “Truthers” only bother with the first part of that sentence. However, when one looks at the ENTIRE STATEMENT, it’s pretty obvious he’s referring to the low altitude of said plane.
Mike Walters did NOT say it was a cruise it was LIKE a cruise missile with wings. Hint to the 9/11 “Truth” Movement; that’s called a simile. Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary provides the following definition of a simile: “a figure of speech comparing two unlike things that is often introduced by like or as.”
At 6 minutes, and 4 seconds, Mike Walters states that he could CLEARLY see the AA on the side of the plane.
At 6 minutes, and 14 seconds, they use the usual lie that that there could not have been a plane since the security cameras at the Pentagon did not pick up a plane.
Of course, there are two problems with that claim: One, the frame rate of a security camera is only 1 or 2 frames per second, which is NOT enough to capture a speeding airliner, and 2) Last time I checked, security cameras tend to point DOWN, not up.
If the 9/11 “Truth” Movement really believes these Youtube videos are accurate, then I have a bridge I’d like to sell them- it has a very nice view of Brooklyn.
“Truthers” Repeat Same Old Lies
May 3, 2009 by Victor Chabala
Filed under News/Op-Ed
We have yet more “truther” lies found at this forum.
The forum starts with an excerpt claiming the usual thermitic materials lie by Steven Jones and others. It’s not really that surprising to find iron oxide ( more specifically, iron (III) oxide), also known as rust , in an area that has been subjected to intense heat. A post about ¾ of the way down the same page says something about thermite exploding. Hint: Thermite is NOT an explosive; it’s an INCINDIARY. In addition, every single element that supposedly “proves thermite can be accounted for as elements that are used in constructing a building ( source). In point of fact, silicon, aluminum, calcium, magnesium, sodium, and other elements are from glass fibers, gypsum ( the drywall) accounts for calcium and sulfate, and so forth. Things like titanium, lead, etc can be explained by paint, and the organic carbon can be explained by paper, wallboard binder (reference).
The first post at this forum claims the WTC imploded. As we see here, the drop zone for the debirs implies OUTWARD motion. In addition Brent Blanchard points out, large amounts of debris was strewn all over the place for blocks around the WTC, meaning that the debris went OUT, not in. Hint: Outward motion is a result of an EXPLOSION. As for what caused it, as Brent Blanchard states, the WTC was mostly air, which is a gas. I myself have pointed out a basic scientific principle called Boyle’s Law, which has to do with the behavior of gases. As any chemistry book will tell you, Boyles Law states that volume is inversely proportional to pressure, or V = 1/P ( sometimes written as P1V1 = P2V2). Now, seeing as how the WTC was collapsing, the volume was clearly decreasing, and, per Boyles Law, if the volume decreases, the pressure has to increase, resulting in anything in the way being pushed out.
The 5th post here claims that NIST was reluctantly forced to admit to 2.25 seconds of freefall by a high school physics teacher. This is an outright lie. In point of fact, the NIST predicted a brief period of freefall for SOME of the exterior. The entire core failed first, and the exterior buckled as a result of being tall, slender, and unsupported. This means very little energy is lost in mid-air, and resulting in the descent being at “free-fall speed,” or so close to it that we cannot tell from a video. In short, said high school physics teacher did not discover anything NIST didn’t already know.
Furthermore, as we see here, the east penthouse of World Trade Center 7 began collapsing about 8.2 seconds before the north wall started collapsing, which took at least another seven seconds, for a total of at least 15.2 seconds, meaning that the total collapse time is 40 percent slower than it would be had the collapse proceeded at free-fall speed for the entire time. Only mentioning the initial 2.25 seconds is an example of the typical dishonest “truther” tactic of quote mining.
The “truthers” may want to try a little something the rest of us call research and fact checking.
“Truthers” Display Their Ignorance
April 14, 2009 by Victor Chabala
Filed under News/Op-Ed
(Hat-tip to Jenn for pointing me in this direction)
If one wants to see a display of “truther” stupidity, one need only go here.
The first post at the above link sends you to an LA Times picture of the CCTV fire in Beijing earlier this year.
However, as I pointed out in a previous article, there are a few details “truthers” leave out. The details they leave out is that, unlike WTC 7, the CCTV fire was fought (source), and the CCTV Tower in Beijing did NOT suffer SEVERE structural damage before catching fire, while TC 7 did (reference ).
The first post at said forum also repeats the freefall lie and says that there was a piddling fire in WTC 7, when, in point of fact, one of the firefighters, Hayden, said there was a (emphasis is mine) “HEAVY body of fire in there.” (source).
The fourth post here claims that all three buildings collapsed in a neat little pile. This is, of course, a lie. If you go here, you will see a diagram of the debris drop zone-as you can see, the zone covers about 2-3 square blocks. That’s a strange definition of a neat little pile.
I have also noticed that the 9-11 “Truth” Movement has often claimed thermite/thermate was used, while ignoring the fact that thermite/thermate is an INCINDIARY, NOT an explosive. There’s a difference. Furthermore, as I pointed out here, despite Steven Jones’ claim of finding uncommon elements indicating thermite/thermate use, there are plenty plausible of explanations for said elements that do not involve the use of thermite/thermate. After all, heat is a catalyst for many chemical reactions and we know the WTC was smoldering for quite some time. In point of fact, every single one of those elements can be accounted for as elements that are used in constructing a building (source source).
I have noticed that “truthers” have yet to explain how you’re going to get sufficient explosives to bring down two 110-story buildings and one 47-story building into said buildings without getting caught, when there are people there 24/7 (hint: it was called the WORLD Trade Center for a reason). Did the Starship Enterprise beam the explosives into the WTC?
While we’re at it, I noticed “truthers” didn’t have a problem with the official version when the WTC was bombed in 1993, the Khobar Towers bombing 1996, the Embassy bombings in 1998, or the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in 2000. So, if Bush is to blame for 9/11/01, who’s to blame for the bombings that occurred under the Clinton administration? Did Bush use a time-turner to go back in time and set those up? Oh, wait, this is real life, not a Harry Potter film.
Even More “Truther” Stupidity
March 24, 2009 by Victor Chabala
Filed under News/Op-Ed
Once again, it’s time to expose “truthers” for the liars and morons they are. I will focus on WTC 7, although I do have one question for Rosie O’Donnell and anyone who agrees with her claim that fire can’t melt steel: If fire can’t melt steel, then why do they fireproof it?
Anyway, going back to my 12/14/07 article, we have plenty of the REAL facts about the WTC 7 collapse.
While it is true that WTC 7 was NOT hit by a plane, it DID suffer impact damage. As we see from Brent Blanchard’s 8/8/06 Implosionworld.com article,WTC 7 was hit by debris from the collapsing North Tower and was hit by tons of debris falling from a fairly significant height, causing significant structural damage, combined with the fact that it caught fire.
Furthermore, Loose Change claims that all the buildings around WTC 7 were undamaged, while WTC 7 collapsed into a little pile in 6 seconds. This is, of course, a lie. In point of fact, the nearby Verizon building was badly damaged by the collapsing north tower and Fiterman Hall suffered such severe damage that it had to be demolished. In addition, the collapse was NOT sudden and actually took about 18 seconds (source).
Oh, and as we see here the fires in WTC 7 were NOT small and, as this site indicates, the damage to WTC 7 was NOT minimal- a 20-story hole in a 47-story building is pretty severe damage.
As I pointed out in my last article, “truthers” have been comparing the 2/9/09 CCTV tower fire in Beijing to WTC 7, while ignoring these two details: 1) The fire in Beijing was fought (source), and 2) The CCTV tower did NOT suffer SEVERE structural damage before catching fire, unlike WTC 7.
Last but not least, “truthers” like to use the famous “pull it “ quote in an effort to prove that Silverstein demolished WTC 7 deliberately. Their “proof” is a quote taken from a 2002 PBS documentary, and the full quote is provided here from wtc7liesgooglepages: “’I remember getting a call from the 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 then we watched the building collapse.’”
Even the 9/11 “Truth” Movement acknowledges that Silverstein was talking to the fire department ( reference).
This, of course, shows another problem with the “truther” claims. As we see here, Silverstein had insured WTC 7 against terrorism, which given the history of the World Trade Center, was not surprising. After the 1993 WTC bombing only a complete idiot, or a “truther” ( oh, wait, there’s no difference between the two) would NOT have done so.
In addition, after the attacks, Silverstein filed a claim, which again, is not surprising ( source).
Getting back to the PBS interview and the 9/11 “Truth” Movements claim that Silverstein admitted to having WTC 7 demolished on national television, here’s a little hint for the 9/11 “Truth” Movement: If Silverstein had deliberately had WTC 7 demolished after taking out insurance, as you claim he did, that would be a little thing we call insurance fraud. Why would ANYONE admit to insurance fraud on national television? The dumbest person on the face of the earth wouldn’t be THAT stupid- heck, even “truthers” aren’t THAT dumb.
Beijing CCTV Fire vs WTC 7 fire
March 7, 2009 by Victor Chabala
Filed under News/Op-Ed
Lately, “truthers have been using the CCTV fire that occurred in Beijing at 8:27 pm, Tuesday, February 9th to “prove” their assertion that the collapse of WTC 7 was controlled demolition. Their “proof” is that the CCTV building, which was steel-framed, was comparable in size to WTC 7. While that statement is technically true, a little extra digging reveals that, as usual, the “truthers” left out a few details.
The first difference is that, as we see here, the fire in Beijing was fought. In addition to being fought, that fire was eventually brought under control. Granted, it took six hours to do so, but that was only because Beijing doesn’t have the specialized firefighting equipment required to extinguish a high-rise fire without actually entering the building and no firefighting equipment had been installed inside the CCTV building- the fact remains, however, that that fire was brought under control, and, presumably, extinguished (source).
The fires in WTC 7 (and the twin towers, for that matter), were another story. In point of fact, World Trade Center 7 had INTENSE, OUT OF CONTROL fires on MULTIPLE floors and those fires were NOT fought, as we see from this quote by Deputy fire Chief Pete Hayden when asked if there was heavy fire in WTC 7, found here: “Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it.”
Before “truthers” seize on the very first sentence, notice that Hayden said there was not a heavy fire in WTC 7 RIGHT AWAY. Those two words change the whole meaning.
The other difference is this: The CCTV tower in Beijing did NOT suffer SEVERE structural damage before catching fire.
WTC 7, on the other hand, did suffer significant structural damage before catching fire. As we see here, according to Captain Chris Boyle of the New York Fire Department- who was actually there on 9/11- WTC 7 had a TWENTY-STORY hole in the SOUTH side (reference). Hint: A 20-story-hole in a 47-story building is NOT minor damage.
Clearly, members of the 9/11 “Truth” Movement have their tinfoil hats on a little too tight.
Air Pork One…?
March 1, 2009 by Victor Chabala
Filed under Entertainment, Featured
From the Oministry of Hope and Change, we have a new definition for “Air Pork One.”
Exposing “Truther” Lies 5
February 17, 2009 by Victor Chabala
Filed under News/Op-Ed
See Exposing “Truther” Lies, Exposing “Truther” Lies 2, Exposing “Truther” Lies 3, and Exposing “Truther” Lies 4.
I believe I last left off with “truther” lie/misquote # 11, so I’ll pick up with lie/misquote 12 from here.
Lie number 12 is the claim that NIST changed their story and said the buildings did not pancake ( source).
The fact is the NIST NEVER said pancaking caused the collapse- in point of fact, the pancaking occurred AFTER the collapse had begun (reference).
This quote from here shows what NIST REALLY said: “Failure of the gusset plate welded to the top of the truss chord was again almost exclusively observed regardless of location. This may be a result of overloading the lower floors as the floors above were ‘pancaking’“.
Furthermore, as this source indicates, the NIST focused on the time period from when the planes hit the towers to the beginning of the collapse. Oh, and the NIST did NOT need to study the behavior of the collapse because every single paper that was peer-reviewed by widely respected scientific journals- which does NOT include the Journal of 911 Studies- about the WTC collapse shows that the extremely large weight of the upper sections of the twin towers would result in lower sections being crushed by the upper sections, which is EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED ( reference).
Lie number 13 is Silverstein’s “ pull it” quote, where “truthers” insist that is a demolition term ( source).
This is a lie- pull is a firefighting term, meaning to remove a team of firefighters from the building. In addition, this source provides two facts which are UNDISPUTED by either side: 1) Silverstein was talking to the fire commander, and 2) Neither Silverstein nor the fire commander are in the business of demolition.
Lie number 14 is the claim that WTC 7 had only a few small fires ( source).
In point of fact, there was a ton of smoke coming from the south side of WTC 7, and firefighters reported fires on multiple floors ( reference).
Lie 15 is that WTC 7 had little or no damage ( source).
This is a blatant lie- and before any “truther” points me to a conspiracy site showing the undamaged side of WTC 7, conspiracy sites always show the north side of WTC 7 when it was the SOUTH side that was damaged (source).
Oh, and as for the so-called minor damage, this quote by fire captain Chris Boyle, found here tells the truth: “A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. “Hint to 911 “Truth” Movement: A 20-story hole in a 47-story building is NOT minor damage.
Oh, while we’re at it, here’s a challenge for “truthers.” If you will refer to Brent Blanchard’s 8/8/06 Implosionworld.com article, you will notice that WTC 7 was hit by debris from the collapsing North Tower and was hit by tons of debris falling from a significant height and causing rather severe structural damage. Anyway, here’s the challenge: Take a 47-story steel-framed building with a “tube-in-a-tube” design, fling massive amounts of extremely hot debris at it from a great height, causing severe structural damage, then set the building on fire and let it burn from mid-morning to late afternoon, early evening without bothering to fight the fire and see what happens. I’ll guarantee you there’s NO WAY IN HELL that the building would remain standing.
Exposing “Truther” lies 4
January 25, 2009 by Victor Chabala
Filed under News/Op-Ed
See Exposing “Truther Lies, Exposing “Truther” Lies 2, and Exposing “Truther” Lies 3.
It’s been a while, but it’s now time to expose a few more “truther” lies/misquotes found here.
Lie/Misquote number 8 is that Kevin Ryan, formerly of Underwriters Laboratory says the steel that didn’t fail in the towers was certified by UL (reference).
Here is the REAL truth: 1) Underwriters Laboratory does NOT certify steel; they certify assemblies, of which fireproofing on the steel was a part, 2) Kevin Ryan was a water tester and was NEVER involved with the collapse investigation, 3) Ryan was fired from UL for making false statements, 4) The steel assembly that had ½ inch fireproofing was only rated for 45 minutes, and 5) UL NEVER tested steel without fireproofing (source).
Lie/Misquote number 9 is that the lease owner had to remove asbestos from the towers, which would have cost a rather significant sum of money (reference).
However, as we see here , WTC 1 only had asbestos up to the 38th floor (encapsulated, I might add), and there was no asbestos whatsoever in WTC 2. Furthermore, as the previous link points out, one does NOT need to remove asbestos, only seal it with a spray-on sealer.
Lie number 10 is that the towers never reached full occupancy (reference).
As we see here, as of February of 2001, the WTC occupancy rate was 98%- and in January of 1997, Real-Estate Director Cherrie Nanning stated that 97 % occupancy would be considered full occupancy.
Lie number 11 is the “truther” claim that photos and videos of the bowed columns were a result of light refraction (source).
As usual. “truthers” ignore the basic laws of physics. Here are the real facts: 1) The many TV cameras in the area before the collapse- and after the airplane impact- were at numerous different angles. Since light refraction will change with the person who’s observing it, it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for every single camera to have shown the refraction in the same way regardless of angle (reference and source), 2) Videos only show bowing on one side of the building; if it had been heat, it would have been shown on ALL sides of the building, and 3) Every single piece of video evidence shows the columns being pulled in violently when the collapse began, meaning there’s NO POSSIBLE WAY for it to be refracted light (source)
Clearly, we have more Roadrunner Cartoon physics from the “truthers.”
Exposing “Truther” Lies 3
December 21, 2008 by Victor Chabala
Filed under News/Op-Ed
See Exposing “Truther” Lies and Exposing “Truther” Lies 2
Here are yet more “truther” lies and/or misquotes, found here.
Lie/misquote number 6 is that the Madrid and Caracas fires were longer, yet those buildings never collapsed (source).
What the 911 “Truth” Movement neglects to mention is that those two buildings had a DIFFERENT design than the World Trade Center. For one thing, neither one of those buildings were a “tube in a tube” design (reference).
The REAL facts about the Madrid Windsor tower fire are here.
Yes, said fire lasted for 26 hours. However, what “truthers” don’t mention is that the first collapse occurred 2 ½ hours after the fire began. As for why it did not collapse completely, that, of course, is because of the different design: The core and everything under the 17th floor was reinforced concrete (source ). The picture at the top of the page here shows the aftermath of the fire: It’s the reinforced concrete core that you see in said picture- the steel is gone because, just as in the case of the Twin Towers, it weakened and collapsed at the start of the fire. (source).
Conspiracy theorists have recently started using the Parque Central fire in Caracas as well, but that is also different because: 1) unlike WTC 7, the fires began on the upper floors ( the WTC 7 fires started on the lower floors, and 2) Unlike the Twin Towers, this building did NOT have a tube-in-a-tube design. The columns were also designed differently (source).
Oh, and one other difference- the fire in Caracas was aggressively fought for a period of time, the WTC fires weren’t (reference).
Lie/ misquote 7 is that the Twin Towers were designed to withstand more than one aircraft impact (reference).
Fact # 1: NIST NEVER said the impact destroyed the towers.
Fact # 2: In point of fact, the towers DID survive the impact. It was a COMBINATON of impact, fire, and lack of fireproofing that caused the collapse (source).
Obviously, the impact damaged many perimeter columns, and while it is true that the impact cut the aircraft to pieces, the fact remains that the speed- or more accurately, velocity- of the aircraft cut through the steel rather easily (source). Hint: It’s not the collision itself that causes damage- it’s the energy released in the collision.
Furthermore, not all of the jet fuel was released in the fireball on impact. In point of fact, eyewitnesses reported the jet fuel created curtains of fire as it poured down from the impact area. The jet fuel merely got the fires going. NIST NEVER said the jet fuel brought down the buildings (reference).
This quote from here makes the point quite nicely: “It was never the NIST’s contention that the jet fuel brought down the buildings as conspiracy theorists suggest. Conspiracy theorists use this as a straw man. They say the jet fuel couldn’t have bowed the columns and sagged trusses. Just as lighter fluid doesn’t cook your meat in a barbeque, the jet fuel didn’t sag the trusses or bow the columns. You also can’t leave this important factor out either. Conspiracy theorists say the columns couldn’t have bowed and the trusses couldn’t have sagged because the jet fuel wasn’t hot enough and was used up within about 15 minutes of impact. That’s like saying your meat didn’t cook in your barbeque because the lighter fluid burns too quickly. All the jet fuel did was act as lighter fluid and intensify the fire for about 15 minutes.”
As usual, “truthers” insist on using cartoon physics.
Exposing “Truther” Lies 2
November 22, 2008 by Victor Chabala
Filed under News/Op-Ed
Continuing from my previous article, here are some more lies told by “truthers,” found here.
Lie number four is that explosives were brought in during the power downs. However, as this site points out, there are two problems with that: 1) it takes months to do a controlled demolition of much SMALLER buildings. This link here points out that the 2004 demolition of the DC convention center took months with large crews placing explosives on 500 or more columns- and said crews stuck out like a sore thumb. In addition, the demolition of buildings 9 and 23 in Kodak Park in Rochester, New York involved a similar effort- and also involved the use of heavy equipment ( source). This site further points out that there’s no way anyone could pull that off without being noticed and there were people at the WTC 24/7.
The second problem is that there is no reliable source to confirm said power down ( reference).
The main source conspiracy theories use for their power-down theory is Scott Forbes ( source).
Scott Forbes, however, worked in WTC 2, which is where the power down was- and it only occurred on the upper floors of ONE BUILDING. Forbes is quoted as saying they had regular fire drills but not an unusual number ( source). Hint: There’s nothing unusual- or suspicious- about fire drills. In addition, Forbes said he never even thought about WTC 1 ( reference).
As we see here, there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to place explosives in THREE buildings during a 26-hour power down that only occurred on the upper floors of ONE building.
Lie number 5 is that a fireman said there were only two small fires on the 78th floor of the south tower ( source).
This link provides the following facts: 1) The 78th floor was the lowest impact floor, 2) only a wingtip entered that floor, 3) The 78th floor was a sky lobby, so there wasn’t a whole lot of stuff to burn, 4) the floors above the 78th floor had a lot more combustible material.
This site also points out that just because the fires on the 78th floor were small just before the collapse doesn’t mean there weren’t larger fires earlier. The fire is going to follow the fuel ( by fuel, I mean anything combustible) and fire does have a tendency to climb due to the following physical FACTS: 1) Fire is hot and, 2) Heat rises.
Once again, we see that members of the 911 “Truth” Movement need to cut back on that special egg nog.