Debunking Penn and Teller's Bullshit! 9-11 episode
PharmaWhores: The Showtime Sting of Penn & Teller
Debunking the BBC's 9-11 Conspiracy Files
Factual back-up, sources, and further research materials.
The Sounds of Loud and Clear
They tested one steel beam that was just laying across a pit with a pool of jet fuel? It's interesting how they never mention that Underwriters Labs had created full scale models of the WTC floor sections, tested them in hotter and longer fires, and that they didn't collapse. Clearly the conditions were going to be different and have different results. Namely: the fact that their test was out in the open with plenty of oxygen fueling the fire while the Twin Towers clearly had oxygen starved fires; the fact that their beam wasn't attached to anything and therefore had far less support than in the WTC; and that they aren't clear how similar their beam was to the ones in the WTC. - Source: National Geographic Should Stick to Documentaries About Girls Who Cry Blood
Why the Towers Fell - An Exclusive Investigation into the Collapse of the World Trade Center (2002) by Garfield Kennedy and Larry Klein, directors
This video by NOVA presents FEMA's explanation for the total collapse of the Twin Towers. NOVA's companion website to the video is critiqued here. NOVA does not consider whether controlled demolition was involved. - Source
World Trade Center - Anatomy of the Collapse (2001) by Steve Spak ProductionsThis documentary uses computer graphics to explain the collapses of the Twin Towers. It blames a flaw in the design of the Twin Towers for their total collapse. A simulation of the initiation of a collapse explains that the floors held up the walls. It shows perimeter walls bowing out immediately following the severing of connections between the trusses under a floor and the walls. Like the NOVA special, this explanation is based on the truss failure theory, later abandoned by NIST. - Source
References Debunked:
"Skeptics" or Dupes? Skeptic Magazine Not So Skeptical on 9/11 Lies
Debunking Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies
"Popular Mechanics and the military should get their stories straight on NORAD! As it is, we have caught Popular Mechanics and the military lying about NORAD's true capabilities on 9/11." - Dean Jackson
The NORAD Papers--NORAD's Mission To Monitor and Control Territorial Airspace on 9/11
Scientific American's Dishonest AttackOn 911Research - a critique of Fahrenheit 2777: 9/11 has generated the mother of all conspiracy theories published in Scientific American
The Pentagon - The September 11th Attack
Official Pentagon Investigations - Sketchy Reports by Volunteer Investigators and Academics
BBC Hit Piece a Tissue of Lies, Bias and Emotional Manipulation
Critique of Manuel Garcia's The Physics of 9/11Critique of Manuel Garcia's The Thermodynamics of 9/11
Holocaust Denial Versus 9/11 Truth
Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation - added comments are in red
Reports Debunked:
Responses to NIST's FAQs
The Facts Speak For Themselves
"Here's a 'Debunking' of my article.
http://www.smoking-bun.com/?tag=jon-gold
Here's a short film I made about 'debunkers.'" - Source
The 9/11 Commission Cover up
FEMA's Investigation - The FEMA WTC Building Performance Study
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/04/wtc7-and-british-brainwashing.html
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/02/ultimate-proof-nist-is-lying-about-wtc7.html
References Debunked:
Keep Your Hats On: Keith Seffen's "Mathematical Model Of The WTC Collapse" Is Incoherent, Inappropriate, And Almost Meaningless
The BBC's The Third Tower
Reply to Protec's A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT
WTC 7 - the Case for no Collapse - Debunking the WTC 7 Conspiracy Theory of NIST - and some Thoughts how WTC 7 was destroyed
Critique of Manuel Garcia's Dark Fire The Fall of WTC 7
"Conspiracy Theory Videos"
Debunking '59 Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11'
Debunking the 59 Deceits: Deceits 50-59
Factual Back-Up For Fahrenheit 9/11
A detailed rebuttal to the film Screw Loose Change- Not Freakin' Again Edition.
Note: This critique only addresses the WTC, as many issues about the Pentagon, Shanksville, and the hijackers are geniuely misrepresented in Loose Change.
Hoax-Promoting Videos
In Plane Site
Loose Change (Editions 1,2)
9/11 Eyewitness
PentaCon
Constructive Criticism of the Films Loose Change 2nd Edition and 9/11 Mysteries
Factual back-up, sources, and further research materials.
Debates
News that the Democracy Now! radio show was scheduling a debate on 9/11/2006 between a spokesperson for the Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths and the creator of Loose Change Dylan Avery prompted the following letters
Democracy When? a timeline of Amy Goodman's not-so-good coverage which avoids 9/11 complicity and Peak Oil Wars
Debunking Mark Roberts
Excerpt from "Taming the Beast: A Short History of the AE911Truth Debates":
The next debate took place on June 18, 2008, between Richard Gage, AIA, and Mark Roberts (a.k.a 'Gravy” on the James Randi Educational Forum) on the TV access show “Hardfire” with host John Clifton, past chair of the Libertarian Party of New York. Mark Roberts, a New York tour guide, said he has “no specific expertise” in 9-11 matters but became interested in 2006 when he heard some of the “conspiracy theories” and found them “suspect.”Excerpt from "Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories" by Prof. Graeme MacQueen:
Roberts could barely contain his hostility towards Gage, accusing him of lying several times and impugning his motives. The ill will Roberts brings to the discussion is evident in many of his online posts where he goes by the name of “Gravy.” One such post on a James Randi Educational Forum refers to “Gage and his gang of lazy, lying, despicable creeps,” which indicates that he doesn’t just disagree with his opposition; he despises them.
Towards the beginning of the debate Roberts said of Gage, “He's got a 542-slide presentation that he encourages everyone to see on his website.... I found 311 false statements, 114 misleading statements, and 137 logical fallacies.” He did not elaborate. Roberts took the approach that NIST fully explained everything; that anomalies, such as witnesses hearing explosions, simply didn't happen or the witnesses were mistaken. He also said the evidence of foreknowledge that Building 7 would collapse was simply a matter of experts thinking the building might fall because it had been damaged.
Mark Roberts, for example, has set forth a detailed collection of collapse warnings, many of which are drawn from the oral histories of the New York Fire Department, [2] and has tried to use these to support his hypothesis of a natural collapse.[3] Ryan Mackey has used this material in a similar fashion.[4] Since I find Mackey’s reasoning more clear than Roberts’ I will take him in this paper as representative of this position.Response to Mark Roberts' “WTC Not a Demolition” video
He oughta know better: Mark Roberts and the iron spherules
Email debates, and more about Mark Roberts
Mark Roberts, an Apologist for EPA Lies
Mark Roberts: 9/11 "Debunker" or just Dishonest?
Factual back-up, sources, and further research materials.
Mock Debate: Strongest 9/11 Myth Arguments Crumble as Truth Prevails.
Debunking Dave Thomas, Ryan Mackey, and Zdenek Bazant et al.
And of course pretty much everything posted at the Debunking the Debunkers blog is a debate! If one searches our content for popular "debunkers" or their sites they will find refutations of much of their material.
Books
Books: The World Trade Center
Books: Other Topics
Google Books: Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory
Peer-Reviewed Papers
What you need to know about "Peer-review"
Anders Björkman Published in "The Journal of Engineering Mechanics"
Another Peer Reviewed Paper Published in Scientific Journal - 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust...'
James Gourley Published in "The Journal of Engineering Mechanics"
Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, and Steven E. Jones - Published in "The Environmentalist"
9-11 Truth Movement: Publication in a Peer-reviewed Civil Engineering Journal
Dr. Crockett Grabbe published in "The Journal of Engineering Mechanics"
9/11 Debunkers Hide From Slam Dunk Evidence Of Controlled Demolition
"The closed mind, if closed long enough, can be opened by nothing short of dynamite." - Johnson, Gerald W.
If nano-thermite can't do it dynamite doesn't stand a chance either!