Replies

"What's your rebuttal to this?"

Well, it's difficult to know where to start.
I see multiple lies in the 1st couple paragraphs.

"Just after the initial explosion at 8:31.07.5 PM, the aircraft
pitched up abruptly and climbed several thousand feet"

This is not consistant with the "black box" info, the witnesses in the air, or aeronautical engineering facts.

"The initial explosion was not seen by any known witnesses"

Not true. Witnesses (some highly experienced) on the ground AND in the air
saw initial and secondary explosions. To say that HUNDREDS of people who saw a
streak go UP were actually seeing one go DOWN is ridiculous. Also, NOT ONE witness
that has claimed to see a DOWNWARD streak other than that of the aircraft falling.

They are straining really hard to show why EVERYBODY was wrong
about what was seen and what the hard evidence indicates.

The best rebuttal that I have seen is from the "black box".
Pressure indicators showed EXACTLY what would be expected from an explosion
JUST OUTSIDE the skin of the aircraft and EXACTLY what would be expected
from the damage from a missile. Not what you would get from an exploding fuel tank.
That and the fact that they CANNOT get a fuel tank to blow up as they claimed
was the case pretty much puts their strained explaination where it belongs.
This ignores a LOT of additional evidence. Further details can be found on multiple sites and threads...
Details that are far more consistant with the facts than what these people try to claim.