9/11: Is this photo consistent with a progressive collapse?

Status
Not open for further replies.

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Verniage is an example of gravity driven progressive global collapse. No explosives required.
That is about as far as it goes with Verniage.
While the WTC7 did not suffer column on column impact as in Verniage, it did experience progressive collapses, first vertically as column 79 failed and brought a very large amount of rubble down onto the eastern end of the core, then horizontally along the core.
With the core thusly compromised the elevated foundation for the upper 40 storeys failed.


Again, Verniage is an example of initial collapse leading to global failure with only gravity driving the full collapse. However Verniage was not, afaik, introduced wrt WTC7 so your first question to Mick is without basis anyway.
Better now Aemilus?

,,,and as mentioned, and the reason I first addressed Verniage wrt the towers, this thread deals with the towers. WTC7 was introduced in this thread in error, imho. If my post did not answer your question then start another thread.

Hope Mick doesnt mind my stepping in.
 
Last edited:

hgfbob

Banned
Banned
Verniage is an example of gravity driven progressive global collapse. No explosives required.

but what they do do is REMOVE 40% to 60% of the load bearing capacity BELOW the floor the push to the side ahead of time....hence, 'controlled' demo.
 

hgfbob

Banned
Banned
Consider a car (the top of the building), with a foot on the accelerator (gravity)
.....That's not even in the same universe for a comparison. An engine needs fluids, spark and compression to keep operating with....it's rate of acceleration constantly changes. gravity does not...it is a CONSTANT!
The structure of the towers neither needed fluid, spark nor compression. But you can take out some supports of a building and it will still keep standing. Buildings are designed to stand tall and strong and resist collapse. Not fail and fall at the slightest loss of structure. Especially those towers.
 

hgfbob

Banned
Banned
And another thing I just though of (but probably was part of the debunking years ago):

If an explosion is powerful enough to throw a 2 ton girder 600 feet horizontally, surely that SAME explosion would also be powerful enough to propel smaller objects SEVERAL MILES in all directions?
oh.....kind a like finding 600 bone fragments from DIFFERENT individuals on the roof of the Bank building in 2007....correct me if I'm mistaken....but, if these people are being collapsed upon.....HOW do they find these EXTREMELY light pieces of bone on a nearby roof when they are under the tons of debris...INSIDE the building...
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
oh.....kind a like finding 600 bone fragments from DIFFERENT individuals on the roof of the Bank building in 2007....correct me if I'm mistaken....but, if these people are being collapsed upon.....HOW do they find these EXTREMELY light pieces of bone on a nearby roof when they are under the tons of debris...INSIDE the building...
Was it several miles away? It seems quite consistent with the observed ejecta.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
but what they do do is REMOVE 40% to 60% of the load bearing capacity BELOW the floor the push to the side ahead of time....hence, 'controlled' demo.
Well, agreed....in the case of "verniage" method.

But....when did we see this done? The day (11 September, 2001) began as usual that morning. The ATTACK by terrorist hijackers, using hijacked airplanes as weapons, was completely unexpected. Unanticipated (well, there were some in high levels of government who might have "anticipated" it....but they either were ignored or their concerns were not transmitted up the "chain"....).

The thirteenth anniversary is approaching. Is this relevant anymore?
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
oh.....kind a like finding 600 bone fragments from DIFFERENT individuals on the roof of the Bank building in 2007....correct me if I'm mistaken....but, if these people are being collapsed upon.....HOW do they find these EXTREMELY light pieces of bone on a nearby roof when they are under the tons of debris...INSIDE the building...
Because in ALL violent events, debris can travel WELL outside the radius of what you'd normally expect.

I'll use an "Ooops" moment that anyone with hard (not soft) contact lenses has encountered (sorry...it is just an example, not my best this AM):

MANY times when I "pop" out my hard contact lens, especially after a long day, it leaves my cornea and MISSES my hand, placed to catch it, just below my eye. THEN I have to search the floor, to find it. The distances that this little piece of plastic has travelled!!! (When I find it)....astonish me.

Anyone familiar with forensics investigation probably understands this already. The events of 9/11/2001 defy what is "commonly" understood, because they were so outside the extreme. Not even Hollywood imagined it. NOW (of course) in retrospect, the physics involved are being incorporated into CGI renderings. But, I veer OT.
 

Jason

Senior Member
oh.....kind a like finding 600 bone fragments from DIFFERENT individuals on the roof of the Bank building in 2007....correct me if I'm mistaken....but, if these people are being collapsed upon.....HOW do they find these EXTREMELY light pieces of bone on a nearby roof when they are under the tons of debris...INSIDE the building...
Deutsche Bank is/was located at ground zero
Here is the building 1997 photo;

Here is the damaged it suffered after the collapse of the twin towers

This is an overview of the site which you can clearly see Deutsche Bank behind the red crane to the right of photo

Here is a map that details the destruction and debri field due to the collapse of the towers on 911 from FEMA


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Bank_Building
 

Attachments

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
but what they do do is REMOVE 40% to 60% of the load bearing capacity BELOW the floor the push to the side ahead of time....hence, 'controlled' demo.
Wow, you couldnt be bothered to include one more sentence from the post of mine that you quoted?

I could also add that removing 40-60% of the load capability also requires removing much of the static and live load in the structure. Things like normal occupancy and furnishings don't go well with removing load capability. Thus "controlled" demolition.
 
Last edited:

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
.....That's not even in the same universe for a comparison. An engine needs fluids, spark and compression to keep operating with....it's rate of acceleration constantly changes. gravity does not...it is a CONSTANT!
The structure of the towers neither needed fluid, spark nor compression. But you can take out some supports of a building and it will still keep standing. Buildings are designed to stand tall and strong and resist collapse. Not fail and fall at the slightest loss of structure. Especially those towers.
The analogy seems to have completely escaped you. The force of gravity remains on every component of a structure, regardless of whether or not its still connected to that structure.
A structure is a collection of connected systems and subsystems that are themselves connected individual parts. The structure requires these parts to be in place. It can contend with removal of some connections but that is not infinite. Simplest example is the three legged stool. If it can support 600 pounds, it would be ridiculous to say that if you cut the seat through, next to one leg, that the stool will now support 400 pounds. The fact that the now unconnected leg is still in perfect shape is simply not a factor since its no longer part of the structure. Similarily if you destroyed only the seat it would not matter that all three legs are in pristine condition, they are no longer supported laterally by the seat and cannot be considered as load bearing in the least.
Your post belies an utter ignorance of engineering principles.
 
Last edited:

Hevach

Senior Member.
Buildings are designed to resist something they're expected to experience. No tall building had been hit by an airplane that large before. The largest airplane to have hit a skyscraper before 9/11 was a B-25 that hit the Empire State Building. That plane's maximum takeoff weight was less than just the weight of fuel in the tanks of the planes that hit the towers.

The assumption always was that this simply wouldn't happen. Plane strikes happened, but they were limited to small civilian planes and small military planes, which fly under different rules and often get away with breaking those rules, meaning they do pose a real risk to buildings. Commercial flights and large military planes, however, had more restrictive rules and didn't get forgiveness for ****ing around, hence why even after decades of air travel, even out of control and doomed airplanes had never endangered a skyscraper. And if that accident ever did come to pass, it's not the building owner's liability.

As for intentional attack, that had never happened either. Hundreds of planes had been hijacked, but they were either held for ransom or redirected to a new destination so the hijacker could defect or seek asylum, they weren't crashed into buildings.


It would have been an immense increase in construction cost (if it was even feasible at the time) to harden the building against an impact and fire so much larger than anything that had ever happened anywhere in the world outside of wartime. No profit minded construction company or real estate giant would have considered that a viable investment, and anyone with the clairvoyance to suggest it would be lynched by his own shareholders.
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
It was also much shorter building, only 5 above-ground floors. Short buildings are supported (and collapse) very differently than skyscrapers. Even if it weren't a hardened building, the damage would have looked a lot different.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
One point that many ignore, is that the Pentagon was a hardened building. That is why the damage was so different there
It was also much shorter building, only 5 above-ground floors. Short buildings are supported (and collapse) very differently than skyscrapers. Even if it weren't a hardened building, the damage would have looked a lot different.
In addition it was a masonry structure as opposed to a steel lattice work.
Only the outer ring was 'hardened' and specifically against external explosives such as car bombs.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
it was a masonry structure
The floors and pillars were reinforced concrete, grossly over-engineered. There may have been brick infill. It was built more like a multistory car park.

When the fuel/air explosion occurred it blew the floors upward, causing about a half-dozen of its massive r/c pillars to fail (for that particular reason, let alone impact reasons). The structure's great strength was unable to resist this pressure rise. It must have been a fuel/air detonation.

Fuel/air combustion inside a restricted or semi-sealed volume of air causes a pressure rise which increases combustion efficiency. Slow at first, the flame speed exceeds the speed of sound and a shock wave detonates the remaining fuel/air mixture exactly as if it were TNT. Or in a cylinder of a working diesel engine.

It is amazing that someone actually survived in that space. It is theorized that he stood coincidentally in a spot where positive and negative blast waves cancelled themselves out somewhat. I don't reckon there were many spaces like that.

Sorry, off-topic again. (Do I get a prize?).
 
Last edited:

hgfbob

Banned
Banned
Because in ALL violent events, debris can travel WELL outside the radius of what you'd normally expect.

how do the bone fragments get outside the people as the collapse is occurring when they are being covered by collapse debris?

"I'll use an "Ooops" moment that anyone with hard (not soft) contact lenses has encountered (sorry...it is just an example, not my best this AM...MANY times when I "pop" out my hard contact lens,)"

so,[skeletal] bones just pop out of ya too huh.....just like plastic lenses
 

hgfbob

Banned
Banned
Wow, you couldnt be bothered to include one more sentence from the post of mine that you quoted?
uhm...yer not the only bulb on the tree....and I have been saying that against the shills since 2008 when they first started posting the pathetic verniage videos....no disrespect....just saying.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
how do the bone fragments get outside the people as the collapse is occurring when they are being covered by collapse debris?

"I'll use an "Ooops" moment that anyone with hard (not soft) contact lenses has encountered (sorry...it is just an example, not my best this AM...MANY times when I "pop" out my hard contact lens,)"

so,[skeletal] bones just pop out of ya too huh.....just like plastic lenses
I fail to see why small, less dense, items could not be thrown out of the interior. Do you have anything other than personal incredulity to back up this?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
how do the bone fragments get outside the people as the collapse is occurring when they are being covered by collapse debris?

"I'll use an "Ooops" moment that anyone with hard (not soft) contact lenses has encountered (sorry...it is just an example, not my best this AM...MANY times when I "pop" out my hard contact lens,)"

so,[skeletal] bones just pop out of ya too huh.....just like plastic lenses
A body crushed between two 100 ton girders becomes a mush of flesh and shattered bones. Some of that lands on a rooftop, years later it's just bone fragments.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
uhm...yer not the only bulb on the tree....and I have been saying that against the shills since 2008 when they first started posting the pathetic verniage videos....no disrespect....just saying.
You completely changed the point I made. Changed it and ignored it.
Verniage is simply/only relevant in that it demonstrates a manner of global collapse which proceeds without explosives. Truthers say that is not possible.

I also addressed your point about removing a large percentage of load capability when Verniage is used.

BTW, just to clarify, are you calling me a "shill"? If so, how do you figure saying " no disrespect" exonerates you from such disrespect?
 

hgfbob

Banned
Banned
I fail to see why small, less dense, items could not be thrown out of the interior. Do you have anything other than personal incredulity to back up this?

because the lenses are not covered by a layer of meat wrapping.

"A structure is a collection of connected systems and subsystems that are themselves connected individual parts. "


a building is a number of redundant applications bound together to form a single unit...the larger the building the more redundancy is built into the system....load bearing capacity is also raised along with it's size



"Simplest example is the three legged stool."

[...]

attach the four legs of a chair to the floor..sit in it and knock out one of the legs..........wow.......25% of your load bearing support is gone, and your still sitting there...go figure

2005 NIST found 14.5% initial localized damage to the load bearing vertical support....


"they are no longer supported laterally by the seat"

lol......NO steel framed building depends on lateral support for it's load bearing capacity.

and what about the steel diagonal and cross bracing throughout?????.....you fail to mention them within a steel frame....they exist also....for every one direction of pull, you have multiple angles resisting that pull....there are many expected applications that are not shown on plans but is an expected practice.


[...]

[Admin: Edited for Politeness]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
attach the four legs of a chair to the floor..sit in it and knock out one of the legs..........wow.......25% of your load bearing support is gone, and your still sitting there...go figure
And now the remaining legs are carrying more weight, distributed in slightly different directions. Increasing their closeness to failure.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
because the lenses are not covered by a layer of meat wrapping.
So? I wasn't referring to contact lenses , I was referring to the ground meat and bone that results when a million tons of steel and concrete components mash human bodies. Why can that not be thrown outside the perimeter of the building? The people above the fire floors also were not in the center of the structure. They were trying to get air or had succumbed to toxic smoke, near the perimeter.

"A structure is a collection of connected systems and subsystems that are themselves connected individual parts. "


a building is a number of redundant applications bound together to form a single unit...the larger the building the more redundancy is built into the system....load bearing capacity is also raised along with it's size
Yes, load bearing capacity goes up because load is greater. That does not particularily garner greater resistance to failure.


"Simplest example is the three legged stool."

only to someone ignorant whom you can fool.

attach the four legs of a chair to the floor..sit in it and knock out one of the legs..........wow.......25% of your load bearing support is gone, and your still sitting there...go figure
If balanced just right yes. That's load redistribution. That cannot go on forever. If you had ten legs it would be able to suffer many failures before collapse. However while in some pattern of loss it would still stand after seven failures, in other patterns of loss it would suffer complete inability to remain standing after only four.
2005 NIST found 14.5% initial localized damage to the load bearing vertical support....
That ignores so much more that occurred after initial impacts and has nothing to do with progression to global collapse after collapse began.


"they are no longer supported laterally by the seat"

lol......NO steel framed building depends on lateral support for it's load bearing capacity.
This one absolutely did depend on the floor bracing between core and perimeter column structures. Would you contend that if the entire center of the tower were removed, that the perimeter could stand on its own?

and what about the steel diagonal and cross bracing throughout?????.....you fail to mention them within a steel frame....they exist also....for every one direction of pull, you have multiple angles resisting that pull....there are many expected applications that are not shown on plans but is an expected practice.
There was no diagonal bracing between floors.
The core columns were braced by the beams between them.
All braces have connections. Fail either a truss/beam or its connection to a column and that removes bracing.
Collapse initiation was brought about by continuing structural loss as a result of the fires. At this time the sum of all damage caused at the impact levels resulted in an inability of the structure to successfully redistribute the loads.
The upper section fell. The very fact that it fell indicates that column section above and below initial failure were no longer aligned.
Thus, when the upper mass impacted the lower section it did so with the vast majority of its mass and dynamic load impinging upon the for pans. The trusses and beams, and their connections to the columns were not designed to such a load which was an order of magnitude, iirc, greater than even the safety margin for those components.

So the collapse progresses past that first floor and hits the next one with more mass and, due to now increasing velocity, greater dynamic force.
Progressing though multiple floors the bracing between perimeter and core is violently removed. The intercore beams are stripped in similar fashion. The strength of the columns is completely bypassed by the progressive destruction of the floors.


[...]
(response to removed portion removed)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Because the building was in effect an explosion, as trapped air had to leave in some hurry.

Bone fragments and little pieces of jelly are easily accelerated by an air blast.
One need only step violently on a beetle and note that its remains do not stay within the confines of the sole of your shoe.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
"Simplest example is the three legged stool."
- attach the four legs
That's a very flagrant example of completely missing the point made. When you return perhaps you could discuss this.

The strength of the columns is completely bypassed by the progressive destruction of the floors.
The misalignment of which you write is entirely to the point.

The buckling of loaded slender columns within a tower structure guarantees a misalignment which will continue in (a brief) perpetuity.

Or, in other words, a perfectly-constructed infinite tower, once it meets this failure mode, will fail for ever.
 
Last edited:

Hevach

Senior Member.
The debris in that video was all accelerated by gravity. The explosions were not powerful enough, and ended several seconds before debris began to be ejected.

All the things that are supposed to be evidence of explosions are things that, in an actual controlled demolition, are NOT caused by explosions, but by the gravitational collapse following them.
 
Last edited:

Jason

Senior Member
The debris in that video was all accelerated by gravity. The explosions were not powerful enough, and ended several seconds before debris began to be ejected.

All the things that are supposed to be evidence of explosions are things that, in an actual controlled demolition, are NOT caused by explosions, but by the gravitational collapse following them.
Agreed, because in demos they use shaped charges to cut steel columns, not to blow up the building. People often equate a demolition with the building exploding, but if you watch a demo usually all you see are bright flashes, puffs of smoke, followed by an incredible crackling sound from the detonations. Then the building begins to collapse in on itself creating a huge plume of dust and debris that in some cases can travel a block or two from the demo. I attached a video of a demo as an example. You hear dozens of explosions going off and we're even able to catch a few bright flashes, and there is no visible dust or explosive energy seen leaving the building. Here it is
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Mick West asked a pertinent question (Post #990, just above):

"@Hitstirrer, we seem to be drifting a bit off topic here. Do you have an example of some piece of ejecta from 9/11 that you think can only have been propelled out by explosives?"

So, an answer would be nice. Adding a side-bar addendum here: In any of the events of building collapse on 9/11, where are the sounds of explosives? They seem to be abundantly absent.
 

hgfbob

Banned
Banned
However while in some pattern of loss it would still stand after seven failures, in other patterns of loss it would suffer complete inability to remain standing after only four......If balanced just right yes. That's load redistribution.

the towers were balanced just right and the load was redistributed after initial impacts......

14.5% localized and ASYMMETRICAL!

SHOW ME there can be symmetry through a complete asymmetrical collapse when there is resistance in the system...until then, you have no argument.

That ignores so much more that occurred after initial impacts and has nothing to do with progression to global collapse after collapse began.
oh please tell me what occurred AFTER impacts to compromise, EQUALLY, the remaining 240 load bearing columns on each towers impact floor that must simultaneously fail.

fire???...that requires supporting EVIDENCE....got any?

There was no diagonal bracing between floors.
there certainly is....and it runs within the webbing of the floor truss assemblies....


The core columns were braced by the beams between them.

and NO FLOORS above to crush-down upon them...what crushed the core?????

elevators, stairways and landing ALL go in between this LOAD BEARING CONTINUOUS vertical support laced with cross, diagonal and lateral bracing.....

where/what is the 'crush-down mechanism' for this?

NOT steel touching steel from the bedrock all the way to the hat truss....


Thus, when the upper mass impacted the lower section
WRONG!!!!

using the collapse to EXPLAIN the collapse huh...lol.....there are NO dynamics until the vertical support ALLOW it to occur......the only reason we are all here.....tell me bout the fires PRESENT that do all this work.


So the collapse progresses past that first floor

yea....we all see that.......tell me bout the FIRE that allows it to occur....why the 2005 NIST found no scientific reason for collapse....x2...


and the 2008 NIST hypothesized claim...a new physics phenomenon called LOW TEMP thermal expansion" makes this all possible...ONLY on 9-11......

Shyam Sunder at NIST technical briefing
tell me all about LOW TEMP thermal expansion.
 

GregMc

Senior Member.
a new physics phenomenon called LOW TEMP thermal expansion

New you say? I guess if that were true then it's possible railway engineers from centuries past left gaps in the rails just to make a nice clacking sound as the trains travelled along...
Fortunately for passengers, even centuries ago engineers knew that any raising or lowering of temperature in materials affects their dimensions
http://www.brighthubengineering.com/manufacturing-technology/38377-what-is-thermal-expansion/
http://classroom.synonym.com/calculate-thermal-expansion-steel-2705.html
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Please stay on topic. @hgfbob, if you want to debunk the science of low temperature thermal expansion, then feel free to start a new thread.

Or perhaps review this thread, where I discussed it with Tony Szamboti, member of AE911
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/th...eous-vs-mean-coefficient-of-thermal-exp.2557/

Even when he's disagreeing with me there (over a rather technical matter that eventually he agreed with) he does not dispute that thermal expansion occurs at all temperatures over the range 0°C to over 700°C
 

hgfbob

Banned
Banned
want to debunk the science of low temperature thermal expansion, then feel free to start a new thread.

I did...it went up for...'review' and never made it to the forum....go figure.

and this new phenomenon is officially claimed to be responsible for the so called....'progressive collapse'.....how it it not relevant???

but I won't mention it here again unless asked to.
 

hgfbob

Banned
Banned
One need only step violently on a beetle and note that its remains do not stay within the confines of the sole of your shoe.

since we are talking about 'LIKE' objects and gravity.....why don't you drop another beetle on it instead.....

can't reply back without adding an extraordinary OUTSIDE force to do your dirty work????
 

Jason

Senior Member
since we are talking about 'LIKE' objects and gravity.....why don't you drop another beetle on it instead.....

can't reply back without adding an extraordinary OUTSIDE force to do your dirty work????
You're missing the point Bob, the foot represents the dynamic loads of all the floors from above.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
P Claim: Man took photo of an alien spacecraft in 2016 UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 21
Mick West Blurry Shapes in a Campfire Photo UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 3
Z.W. Wolf "Drone" Photo over Colorado - Actually a Boeing 737 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 11
Mick West UFO Billboard in Montana Uses Photo of Identified Flying Object UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 4
igoddard Edited Photo of Ghislaine Maxwell at In-N-Out Current Events 120
Cassi O Chicago Skyline from Indiana Dunes, 33 miles away Flat Earth 12
Mick West Explained: "UFOS" in Donald Trump's Crowd Photo on 4th of July UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 3
Mick West Debunked: Photo with Sun Rays at Odd Angles Flat Earth 0
D Explained: Photo of 747 with Contrails Only on One Side [Fake, April Fool] Contrails and Chemtrails 21
Mick West A "Molten Metal" 9/11 Photo - Is Just Burning Paper 9/11 20
Mick West "Castle in the Sky" [Huawei phone digital glitch, 海市蜃楼 华为 ] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
Snake Plisken Two objects over Ribblehead Viaduct [Probably birds] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 4
Mick West Explained: Dark Streak UFO Photo - Barn Swallow + Motion Blur UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 0
F WHAT IS THIS LINE? (on my Super Blue Blood Moon Photo) - Smarter Every Day 188 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 11
FlightMuj Apollo 12 photo analysis shows Sun as bulb [claim] Conspiracy Theories 19
Royce Malphrus What is this? [unidentified object in photo from vehicle: lamp post] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 19
FlightMuj Explained: Photo from ISS shows "open window" [Scratch Cover] Flat Earth 2
Mick West Explained: Photo of "UFO" Used in Connection with Nimitz Incident [Balloon] UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 8
Joe Debunked: Iconic Charlottesville photo photoshopped; false flag Conspiracy Theories 29
T Help with Photo Of Dark Lines in Clouds needed. Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
deirdre NASA fakes Michael Collins' spacewalk photo (artistic representation of event) Science and Pseudoscience 23
S Explained: Why does this Apollo11 photo act so weirdly? Conspiracy Theories 13
Mick West How to Take a Photo of the Curve of the Horizon Flat Earth 103
N How can I debunk the orbs in this photo? UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 22
izz Does this photo show a too-small hole in the Pentagon? [No] 9/11 28
Mick West Analysis: Crathes Castle "Ghost" in Doorway Photo UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
C London bombings 7/7. Was official photo of bombers photoshopped? [No] Conspiracy Theories 6
Mick West Explaining the Ghost Boy in the Back Seat Photo with Occam's Razor UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 99
Mick West Calculating the height of something in a P900 photo when distance is known Flat Earth 59
M White streaks in photo? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 24
steve holmes I'm trying to ID the flight for this old photo of mine, Feb 19, 2014 5:25 pm Contrails and Chemtrails 5
Mick West What's the Highest Contrail You've Taken a Photo Of? Contrails and Chemtrails 8
drhex Explained: Apollo 17 Photo of Earth from Moon Seems too High Conspiracy Theories 16
Mick West Misleading: Detroit vs. Hiroshima Photo Comparisons General Discussion 13
deirdre Debunked: Blanketman photo proves Nice attack a false flag Conspiracy Theories 2
Jonathan Evans Explained: Jupiter Photos look the same [Composite photo] Flat Earth 5
Z.W. Wolf Debunked - Photo of Hitler and Henry Ford Together [actually Wilhelm Frick] General Discussion 3
C Debunked: Boston bombing recovery photo makes no sense from medical point of view Conspiracy Theories 47
keefe Photo of "Syrian opposition" General Discussion 3
Inanaz93 Photo Anomaly - Missing my face. UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 2
Mick West Debunked: Photo claiming to be Iraqi Chemical WMDs in Syria [Photo is actually in Utah] General Discussion 11
Mick West 1952 - Condensation Trails From Aircraft - With a 1937 Persistent Contrail Photo - Oldest Ever? Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Debunked: Ghost Photo in Stony River Hotel, Okato, NZ [Light in Fridge] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 5
ddddddddd Debunked: Photo of '777' transported in jungle [Old 737] Flight MH370 2
TWCobra Madisonstar Moon posts 59 year old photo of B47's contrailing. Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Trailspotter Fake photo with real looking EXIF Data Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 9
Mick West Explained: Hampton Court Ghost Photo [iPhone Panorama Glitch] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 8
Mick West Debunked: Cooper/Copper family ghost photo UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 127
derwoodii Claim: Photo shows control rats with tumors in Séralini study Conspiracy Theories 10
M Debunked: this photo shows a Ukraine Mig-29 shot down MH17 Flight MH17 66
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top