Main link: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11 I think this will be a good resource for the casual reader wondering what the heck "truthers" are talking about. Quick links: Flight 11and 175 http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11#Flights_11_.26_175 Flight 77 http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11#Flight_77 Flight 93 http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11#Flight_93 Miscellaneous conspiracies http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11#Miscellaneous Rationalwiki also has helpful rebutals of the most common 9/11 conspiracies, and well as informative external links: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11#External_links
You forgot this important page from that wonderful anonymous "debunking" site: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crank Crank is a pejorative term applied to someone who holds extremely unorthodox views on a subject and is often very vocal about these opinions And the "extremely unorthodox views"? They don't believe the OCT, those nasty cranks. Go figure. One of the board "trustees" is someone named FuzzyCatPotato, another is called Human. At least David Gerard is well known, everyone knows him/her, right? He claims he has a pet robot called Divabot who apparently needs to kill all the humans. You can't make this manure up, oh wait, someone did, an anonymous expert "debunker".
Some highlights regarding the Pentagon attacks, since that seems to be a hot topic on the forum right now: There is no conclusive video evidence that any aircraft hit the Pentagon The one video camera on the scene that was actually trained on the site of the crash was a time-lapse camera that flipped from a vague shot of the beginning of something incoming to a full-blown explosion. 9/11 truthers have argued that without a direct image of an airplane in the security footage, it can't be proven that what hit the Pentagon was actually a plane. They back up this claim by saying that there was no plane visible in the post-crash pictures. Adherents of this theory are sometimes called "no-planers," though the term has generally come to be associated with the biggest cranks in the movement who believe no planes hit the WTC either.[36] Rebuttal: There were six frames from a security camera showing impact released after a FOIA request.[37] Furthermore, there is photographic evidence of wreckage on the scene and eyewitness accounts of plane wreckage and damage consistent with a plane crash.[38] Essentially, the problem for no-planers is that the plane did not just hit the outside of the Pentagon, but actually penetrated some distance into the structure, some of which actually collapsed on top of the plane. Numerous witnesses saw it approach, the plane's wings took out several light posts on a nearby roadway on the way in, and plane components were scattered all over the Pentagon lawn. Also, although inconclusive (and "personal commentary") a photo was presented on a 9/11 truther website claiming that the "round" debris observed was not possibly the wheel of the alleged jetliner. However, it clearly was, albeit stripped of its outer edge. In any case, why would anyone expect a high-res video camera to be pointed at the exact spot where the plane hit? The intrinsic improbability of such a circumstance would make it direct evidence of a conspiracy, and no self-respecting conspiracy would allow evidence of its existence to remain.
This is nothing new. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=482877&p=1066792868#post1066792868 (excerpt) ------------------------------------------------------ There were six frames from a security camera showing impact released after a FOIA request.[37] Furthermore, there is photographic evidence of wreckage on the scene and eyewitness accounts of plane wreckage and damage consistent with a plane crash.[38] Essentially, the problem for no-planers is that the plane did not just hit the outside of the Pentagon, but actually penetrated some distance into the structure, some of which actually collapsed on top of the plane. Numerous witnesses saw it approach, the plane's wings took out several light posts on a nearby roadway on the way in, and plane components were scattered all over the Pentagon lawn. ------------------------------------------------------ All of this has been answered. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=482175&p=1066780017#post1066780017 http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=482175&p=1066780070#post1066780070 http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=482175&p=1066780237#post1066780237 http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=482175&page=2&p=1066780302#post1066780302 http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=482175&page=2&p=1066782729#post1066782729 http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=482175&p=1066779653#post1066779653 That article is sophistry because it assumes the truthers don't have answers for the points made. They're trying to take in the people who haven't seen the research.