Rebuttal to any conspiracy videos:

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

After all that, I ask you: Did you watch the video?

Notice how people that would normally be on your side are thinking twice and are not bashing? Any DIRECT commentary on what the video presented?

If not, your posts in here are not worth reading.

That is not my problem. Yeah, the real truth hurts and controverts the Pentagon conspiracy theory. The video is worthless. No need for me to re-invent the wheel so here is the best rebuttal ink. Take note of the jet debris.


http://home.planet.nl/%7Ereijd050/Jo...nsions_est.htm

Excerpt:

Part 8 - The witness testimonies

Keep in mind that the Pentagon has 25.000 people working there. A lot of these witnesses have high ranks in the army, navy and air force. Some of the witnesses were commercial airline pilots and many people in the neighborhood are familiar with military and commercial airplanes, since there are multiple military and commercial airfields close by. So, if all those witness testimonies form a coherent story, why then do so many people support the "theory" that an F16, missile or global hawk hit the Pentagon? The funniest thing is, that nobody even reported seeing any of those planes (or a missile). All of these quotes have been taken out of context. You don't believe me? Then read this table and follow the link at the bottom.

The amount of eye witnesses I gathered who stated they saw an object crash into the Pentagon. The vast majority of the still available ones. about 89
The amount of eye witnesses who reported seeing a plane and described it with words like: 'airliner', 'big', 'silver', 'roaring', etc.*** at least 45
The amount of eye witnesses who specifically said they saw an American Airlines jet. In all cases there's no indication the witnesses were talking about a small jet. at least 25
The amount of witnesses who reported the noise of the plane was very loud to deafening. at least 22
The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a plane running down light poles when crossing the the highways. at least 19
The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw and heard the plane went full throttle only at the last seconds. at least 12
The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a C-130H flying 30 seconds behind a jetliner. at least 11
The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw the plane had it's gear up. at least 6
The amount of eye witnesses who stated the plane had it's flaps up (not deployed). Witness 1 saw a 757, witness 2 and 4 both saw an American Airlines, witness 3 saw an American Airlines 757. No known witnesses stated the opposite. at least 4

The amount of eye witnesses who stated that they saw a small corporate jet, without doing any creative interpretating of the witness accounts. at least 2
The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a missile. What the person thought he heard isn't relevant! at least 0
The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a military jet fighter at the time of the crash. at least 0
The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a Global Hawk at the time of the crash. at least 0
The amount of witnesses who reported the plane was pretty quiet. (One of them acknowledged it was the shock. Another one saw it was an American Airlines jet, saw it had it's gears up and saw light poles being knocked down. Others were in their cars, all windows up and the radio on) at least 4
The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw the plane had it's gear down. (Indirect, said a wheel hit a pole) at least 1
The amount of witnesses who have said something that might point to the use of explosives or incendiaries. Update: This has all been explained to my satisfaction by General Benton K. Partin. You can read what he had to say about this in part 11 of this article. I only wonder about the two witnesses who said they smelled cordite, but that's about it. at least 25

*** This way you can get a good indication if they saw a large or a small plane. If someone just said: "I saw the plane and I saw it crash", it is not counted, even though chances are 99,9999% they were talking about a 757-223, also known as flight 77.

[lickem]

So i guess your posting is directed at the loose change 2nd edition video?
The article you just posted doesnt explain why there were no markings on the lawn, why the debris was not consistent with actual crashed Airliner debris, why that large peice of debris on the lawn isnt singed from the fireball, and look more closely at the parts photos, they dont match, they only look similiar.


The amount of eye witnesses I gathered who stated they saw an object crash into the Pentagon. The vast majority of the still available ones. about 89
The amount of eye witnesses who reported seeing a plane and described it with words like: 'airliner', 'big', 'silver', 'roaring', etc.*** at least 45
The amount of eye witnesses who specifically said they saw an American Airlines jet. In all cases there's no indication the witnesses were talking about a small jet. at least 25

Right and the pentagon doesnt have the ablilty to buy off its own people

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by lickem

So i guess your posting is directed at the loose change 2nd edition video?
The article you just posted doesnt explain why there were no markings on the lawn, why the debris was not consistent with actual crashed Airliner debris, why that large peice of debris on the lawn isnt singed from the fireball, and look more closely at the parts photos, they dont match, they only look similiar.


The amount of eye witnesses I gathered who stated they saw an object crash into the Pentagon. The vast majority of the still available ones. about 89
The amount of eye witnesses who reported seeing a plane and described it with words like: 'airliner', 'big', 'silver', 'roaring', etc.*** at least 45
The amount of eye witnesses who specifically said they saw an American Airlines jet. In all cases there's no indication the witnesses were talking about a small jet. at least 25

Right and the pentagon doesnt have the ablilty to buy off its own people

No I did not post this separately. It was split from the original post concerning the video by a Moderator. Reasons explained in the other post.

And no the U.S. government isn't smart enough to orchestrate a conspiracy of this magnitude. I spent over twenty years in uniform (Army) and worked at the Pentagon for two and lived in Alexandria, VA. The Pentagon is in Arlington, VA.

Other than the conspiracy video what personal first hand knowledge do you have of the facts?

See links below:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/91...witnesses.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm


Popular Mechanics: 9/11 Debunking the Myths

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=6&c=y

[GTP Dad]

Honestly, I did not watch the video because I don't want to waste my time. Most of the folks that believe that the government orchestrated the 9-11 tragedy will believe that the sky is falling and that there is human life on Mars.

There have been a lot of plane crashes in this country where the plane augered in at high speed and since they are made primarily of aluminum they totally decentigrate (sp). The fires that followed melted the majority of what was left and completely destroyed the human remains.

The way the world trade center was constructed enabled the heat from the burning jet fuel to weaken the steel superstructure, cut the outer structure that provided the majority of the structural support and gravity did the rest. The Pentagon was made of steel and stone and far more durable than the WTC that is why it faired much better.

As for those who believe that the government was responsible for 9-11, I suggest that you start looking under you bed for monsters the Easter bunny will be coming in a couple of weeks and Santa Claus comes on December 25th. My opinion on this stupidity!!!

[Raz_Kaz]

So if there's nothing to hide, then why's the government holding back on vital information that could put us all our looney asses in their place?

Why is only 5 frames shown instead of the actual footage?
Why did we get different reports from officials about what happened to the black boxes?
How come the list of terrorists released had many of them still alive? Too quick to just name off any arab?


There are too many holes in the story, too many mistakes for me to gobble up the entire thing.

[carrrnuttt]

And this is why I challenged you guys to actually watch the video, before posting about it in my thread.

As much propaganda you guys are pushing here, I'd like a detailed rebuttal to the scientifically proven arguments in the video.

If the science is somehow flawed, I'd like to see that responded to as well.

This video, THIS specific video, is VERY compelling. Like I said, even people who would side against such things normally have been left wondering. Even I, as much as I can't stand this administration, have ignored these types of vids, as I cannot get myself to believe such a massive betrayal.

This is why I'd like to see a solid rebuttal of the video, as opposed to the canned answers floating generically out there, which some of you guys are simply spewing back at us.

Maybe you guys are afraid to watch?

[carrrnuttt]

Also you guys might want to read some of the commentary about this video: http://digg.com/security/The_9_11_Co...y_Loose_Change_

That's a tech site, BTW.

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

Also you guys might want to read some of the commentary about this video: http://digg.com/security/The_9_11_Co...y_Loose_Change_

That's a tech site, BTW.

It might be helpful to post a link that works.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by bnaylor3400

It might be helpful to post a link that works.

Hmm.

Try these: Link1 / Link2

[TexasF355F1]

Have not watched it yet. Got into about firs 10 minutes then my parents started talking loud and i couldn't concentrate.

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

And this is why I challenged you guys to actually watch the video, before posting about it in my thread.

As much propaganda you guys are pushing here, I'd like a detailed rebuttal to the scientifically proven arguments in the video.

If the science is somehow flawed, I'd like to see that responded to as well.

This video, THIS specific video, is VERY compelling. Like I said, even people who would side against such things normally have been left wondering. Even I, as much as I can't stand this administration, have ignored these types of vids, as I cannot get myself to believe such a massive betrayal.

This is why I'd like to see a solid rebuttal of the video, as opposed to the canned answers floating generically out there, which some of you guys are simply spewing back at us.

Maybe you guys are afraid to watch?

I watched it and don't find it compelling. The burden of proof is on the conspiracy theory people not me. It is a hack job of the "In Plane Site" DVD by David von Kleist. It wouldn't hold up in any Courtroom in the U.S. and does not meet evidentiary standards. The rebuttal work has already been done. See links below.

Popular Mechanics: 9/11 Debunking the Myths

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=6&c=y[/quote]


Loose Change

An analysis

Michael B. Green, Ph.D.
Clinical Psychologist
Qualified Medical Examiner

Original: July 21, 2005
Updated: August 3, 2005

http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR...e_analysis.htm


What, Then, is Amiss With “Loose Change,” the New 9/11 DVD Promoted by FOX? <-------

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/12/1787340.php


The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory:
Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics
by Jim Hoffman

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html

Propaganda

In 2004 two videos promoting the no-757-crash theory were released: the Pentagon Strike Flash animation by Darren Williams, and the In Plane Site DVD by David von Kleist. While different in format, both share the following characteristics:

Both cherry-pick and de-contextualize eyewitness statements while ignoring the eyewitness consensus that a jetliner crashed. Both advance several of the faulty interpretations of photographic evidence that I debunk in the Pentagon Attack Errors section of 911review.com. Both use a kind of shock-and-awe presentation style to engage people emotionally rather than critically.

Whereas the much shorter Pentagon Strike functions primarily by selective and misleading presentation of evidence, In Plane Site presents patently ludicrous claims as fact. For example, von Kleist quotes a supposed expert from the Environmental Assessment Association as saying:

Looking at the total weight of this aircraft in conjunction with its velocity, the Pentagon should have been reduced to the thickness of a pancake.

The logical fallacies, misrepresentations of evidence, and propagandistic style of In Plane Site and Pentagon Strike contrast with a far more rational approach by other videos, websites, and books by 9/11 skeptics that use physical evidence to refute elements of the official story. Yet the no-757-crash videos have enjoyed a wider exposure than the other far more credible efforts. Snopes.com, an urban-legend debunking website, provides four links to the Pentagon strike animation on its Hunt the Boeing! page. Why are apologists for the official story promoting this video (if in a backhanded way)? Perhaps because the no-757-crash theory is more effective at bolstering the official story than undermining it.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by bnaylor3400

I watched it and don't find it compelling. The burden of proof is on the conspiracy theory people not me. It is a hack job of the "In Plane Site" DVD by David von Kleist.

You didn't watch shit.

Either that, or you chose to only pay attention to the parts you have a pre-written answer for.

What about the science? What happened to the titanium engines? Did they disentegrate too? They're certainly harder than the Pentagon walls, of where they never made a mark, and nothing short of a furnace could have melted them
down.

So let's just say on 9/11, the laws of physics were somehow turned off, and burning jet fuel improbably somehow managed to melt titanium...where'd the metal go? Did this physics-defying event also shrink the part of the plane that was supposed to be 12 feet in diameter to 3 feet? If the impact was enough to disentegrate one of the harder susbtances on the planet how did the official story report that 184 of the 189 (give or take) of the passengers were somehow IDENTIFIED ON SCENE.

What about those fires in skycrapers that burned longer than the WTC ever did? How come their steel did not "melt"? How did the towers fall in almost freefall speed, when it's own bulk below it should have at least slowed it down? That is, of course, if that part weren't already demolished.

What about all those people who reported explosions at the lower levels? The news crews? The firemen? The policemen? Are you saying that all these heroes who risked, and some who gave up their lives, along with people that were there lying, delusional sacks of shit?

What about the plane that was still flying overhead, when supposedly EVERYTHING was grounded at the point it was VIDEOTAPED in the sky? No explanations have ever been heard about that one.

Explain those away, piece-by-piece, find your "sources". I don't want some general answer, explain how that day somehow defied a lot of things, including physical science.

Originally Posted by bnaylor3400

It wouldn't hold up in any Courtroom in the U.S. and does not meet evidentiary standards. The rebuttal work has already been done. See links below.

Hey, you think those "missing" blackboxes, or Pentagon-area video-tapes hold something that *would* hold up in court? Wonder why they're missing?

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

You didn't watch shit.

Either that, or you chose to only pay attention to the parts you have a pre-written answer for.

What about the science? What happened to the titanium engines? Did they disentegrate too? They're certainly harder than the Pentagon walls, of where they never made a mark, and nothing short of a furnace could have melted them
down.

So let's just say on 9/11, the laws of physics were somehow turned off, and burning jet fuel improbably somehow managed to melt titanium...where'd the metal go? Did this physics-defying event also shrink the part of the plane that was supposed to be 12 feet in diameter to 3 feet? If the impact was enough to disentegrate one of the harder susbtances on the planet how did the official story report that 184 of the 189 (give or take) of the passengers were somehow IDENTIFIED ON SCENE.

What about those fires in skycrapers that burned longer than the WTC ever did? How come their steel did not "melt"? How did the towers fall in almost freefall speed, when it's own bulk below it should have at least slowed it down? That is, of course, if that part weren't already demolished.

What about all those people who reported explosions at the lower levels? The news crews? The firemen? The policemen? Are you saying that all these heroes who risked, and some who gave up their lives, along with people that were there lying, delusional sacks of shit?

What about the plane that was still flying overhead, when supposedly EVERYTHING was grounded at the point it was VIDEOTAPED in the sky? No explanations have ever been heard about that one.

Explain those away, piece-by-piece, find your "sources". I don't want some general answer, explain how that day somehow defied a lot of things, including physical science.



Hey, you think those "missing" blackboxes, or Pentagon-area video-tapes hold something that *would* hold up in court? Wonder why they're missing?

The 22 y.o. video creator (Avery) doesn't look like a rocket scientist to me and appears to have an agenda.

I took the time to watch the video, how about taking the time and reviewing all the rebuttal material.

The truth is out there and one day it will come out. Enough said.

[TexasF355F1]

Originally Posted by bnaylor3400

The 22 y.o. video creator (Avery) doesn't look like a rocket scientist to me and appears to have an agenda.

I took the time to watch the video, how about taking the time and reviewing all the rebuttal material.

The truth is out there and one day it will come out. Enough said.

Yea, he looks like a liberal. He actually looks like he if he painted his face white, he could be a mime.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by bnaylor3400

The 22 y.o. video creator (Avery) doesn't look like a rocket scientist to me and appears to have an agenda.

You are a buffoon if you don't think EVERYBODY involved in this has an agenda. Some good, some bad. I fail to see how attempting to discredit an administration that has proven nothing but bad for our country can be qualified as bad.

Originally Posted by bnaylor3400

I took the time to watch the video, how about taking the time and reviewing all the rebuttal material.

I did. As a matter of fact, I have seen more rebuttal material than conspiracy stuff. This is the one and only video I have seen in full, and the only one I have ever started a thread about.

All the rebuttals are doing is attempting to discredit people. Fine. I wouldn't trust strangers with something this serious. At least not right away.

But what about the science?

Would you care to discredit the science then? That is what threw me for a loop.

C'mon. I posted questions above. Care to respond?

November 12 2004

The following letter was sent today by Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Underwriters Laboratories is the company that certified the steel components used in the constuction of the World Trade Center towers. The information in this letter is of great importance.

Dr. Gayle,

Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel…burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse." The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building’s steel core to "soften and buckle." (5) Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.
This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and “chatter”.

Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.

1. http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory.html 2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187 3. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf 4. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php 5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf (pg 11) 6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf

Kevin Ryan

Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories A Division of Underwriters Laboratories

Originally Posted by bnaylor3400

The truth is out there and one day it will come out. Enough said.

Not enough has been said.