9/11 Youtube video... needs debunking.

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It seems to just be all the 9/11 "truth" claims reduced to buzzwords and compressed into one video.

Volume of evidence is not actually a good indicator of truth, if all the evidence is weak.

Pick one claim, look up the existing debunking on the internet, then explain why that is insufficient.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
One element of the official story: "The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building." NIST If that's true then I wonder why people don't figure out a way to cause more symmetrical collapses using office fires and so forth? It would seem to be a lot cheaper than using explosives. Apparently if they could just figure out where to put the office furniture and papers to cause the steel to expand then that might bring the building down into its own footprint.. yes?

Seems like people must be wasting a lot of money due to lack of knowledge and expertise with respect to engineering a way to use papers and furniture (and flammable donuts, I'd imagine...) to demolish steel frame buildings, etc.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You seem to be just presenting an argument from personal incredulity.

Explain why the fires could not have done what NIST claims they did. Include numbers in your explanation.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
It seems to me that the burden of physical or mathematical "proof" is on those who are proposing an unprecedented or almost miraculous event. But if an incredible and almost miraculous event of this sort can take place then it seems to me that people should figure out ways to engineer it in order to save money on explosives and so forth. On a side note, you seem to be blaming me personally for the fact that the official story about office fires and so forth is really quite incredible.

Unfortunately I have to get back to work. But here's an interesting idea, what would the physics and numbers look like that would "prove" to you that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition? Have you provided them and included the numbers in your explanatory framework somewhere? After all, it wouldn't make any sense for me to provide numbers for anything but the official story if you're just going to move goal posts later. In other words, do rigorously specified "goal posts" of physics and math in your mind really exist in the first place? If it was a controlled demolition, what evidence and proof would convince you of it?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It seems to me that the burden of physical or mathematical "proof" is on those who are proposing an unprecedented or almost miraculous event. But if an incredible and almost miraculous event of this sort can take place then it seems to me that people should figure out ways to engineer it in order to save money on explosives and so forth. On a side note, you seem to be blaming me personally for the fact that the official story about office fires and so forth is really quite incredible.

Unfortunately I have to get back to work. But here's an interesting idea, what would the physics and numbers look like that would "prove" to you that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition? Have you provided them and included the numbers in your explanatory framework somewhere? After all, it wouldn't make any sense for me to provide numbers for anything but the official story if you're just going to move goal posts later. In other words, do rigorously specified "goal posts" of physics and math in your mind really exist in the first place? If it was a controlled demolition, what evidence and proof would convince you of it?
The thing is, you can always contrive a controlled demolition scenario that simulates the collapse by fire. Instead of saying "the fire caused the weakening of columns A,B,C..., the unseating of joint X, and inevitable collapse", you can simply replace the word "fire" with "thermite", and you have the same result.

One can always counter an objection to a conspiracy theory by simply incorporating it into the theory. It's an unfortunate result of debunking that it gives rise to "debunk-resistant" forms of the theory. With chemtrails, when it's pointed out that normal contrails can persist and spread, the theory mutates to include short trails and invisible trails as being chemtrails.

Your theory is not that explosives mimicked the effects of fire. But that the fire could not have possibly caused the results that were seen, and that what we see is something different to fire. So to demonstrate this, you need to show why fire could not have caused the effects. Occam's Razor applies here. Do not introduce new entities unnecessarily.

So the numbers that would make me start to suspect that WTC7 was a controlled demolition would basically be anything that does not fit the NIST report.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
The thing is, you can always contrive a controlled demolition scenario that simulates the collapse by fire.
Couldn't you always have a fire scenario that simulates collapse by controlled demolition? Although it would seem to me that the key difference would be that you're talking about an unprecedented event, therefore the burden of proof is on you with respect to providing the math and physics and the evidence that an almost miraculous event took place.

Instead of saying "the fire caused the weakening of columns A,B,C..., the unseating of joint X, and inevitable collapse", you can simply replace the word "fire" with "thermite"...
Here is my attitude about thermite:

It's an unfortunate result of debunking that it gives rise to "debunk-resistant" forms of the theory. With chemtrails, when it's pointed out that normal contrails can persist and spread, the theory mutates to include short trails and invisible trails as being chemtrails.
Indeed. So that's why it's important to ask someone who believes in what amounts to bunk what evidence or mathematical and physical proof and so forth would supposedly falsify their theory. Because everything else is just going to give rise to a more "debunk-resistant" theory, depending on the level of their epistemic inertia (for whatever reason).

....anything that does not fit the NIST report.
Anything... could you be more specific? So far it would seem that you're saying that anything specified in the NIST report is a valid theory, while everything outside of it or not even mentioned in it is bunk.

I really should be working. Not sure why we always think this stuff is important. It isn't. It doesn't really matter what we think about it. As one operative in the American Empire put it: "You're merely reacting to what we do now. We'll leave you to study what we've already done as we create new events and new history." Or something like that. I think it was attributed to Karl Rove but it was probably someone else. Point being, the truth and what we think probably doesn't really matter anyway. So I don't know about other people but I do this debunk/bunk stuff for entertainment as we wait for the theatrical production of the next events.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Couldn't you always have a fire scenario that simulates collapse by controlled demolition?
No, absolutely not. This is what a controlled demolition looks (and sounds) like, and there's no way of simulating this with fire.




Anything... could you be more specific?
Why? You asked what I would considered evidence of controlled demolition, and I said anything that could not have been caused by the fire. It does not matter what it actually is.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
This is what a controlled demolition looks (and sounds) like, and there's no way of simulating this with fire.
There might be, imagine if finding a way of simulating it is just a matter of imagination and telling some intelligent people to run some simulations to show that it's "possible." Not that it's even likely, just that it's "possible" according to their imaginations or way of simulating things to come to the only conclusion that will allow them to keep receiving a pay check.

Regardless... there's "no way" and absolute statements of that sort are questionable, especially given that you're in the process of trying to support the official story of an unprecedented and almost miraculous event. (Maybe that's true. Seems unlikely...)

After all.. according to the official story and the best official simulations that money can buy, apparently there is a way that office fires (I wonder if imaginary exploding donuts were entered into the equation?) and so forth can cause the collapse of a steel frame building into its own foot print at nearly free fall speeds.



...anything that could not have been caused by the fire.
And the fires are normal office fires?
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Listening to your video reminded me of this: ​ On lunch break, no time to vet it. I watched some of them a while ago.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
And they didn't fall into their footprints, either. If you look at the pictures of WTC 7, you can see its facade draped over it like a scarf. That doesn't happen in a controlled demolition.

Folks interpreted their fall as a controlled demolition, because that is what had to compare it to. Once you stop and look at a controlled demo, next to the towers falling, one can see a lot of differences.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Perhaps you could explain why you are so incredulous about the observed fires causing the collapse?
My personal level of epistemic inertia has little to do with it. If a steel frame building collapsed due to office fires then the event is, indeed, incredible... according to external sources and precedents that have little to do with me. It would truly be incredible in the sense that it would be unprecedented, almost a miraculous coincidence, etc. (Too bad for the military industrial complex and its banksters that the third plane never got there. Because then they could hire people to imagine/simulate that the jet fuel did it all and they could have included WTC 7 in the best simulations that money could buy too.)

You asked what I would considered evidence of controlled demolition, and I said anything that could not have been caused by the fire. It does not matter what it actually is.
This is worth revisiting because you say "could not possibly" or something along those lines when trying to demonstrate that your theory is falsifiable but ironically that's the language of unfalsifiable theories. Not to mention that such reasoning begins to give you license to imagine/simulate things about columns and so forth instead of beginning with the most likely explanation based on the evidence.

Again, what evidence would falsify your rather imaginative theory about office fires causing a symmetrical collapse of a steel frame building and so forth? What are the numbers involved in the claim "could not possibly have been caused by the fire" according to you? What's the evidence of "could not have been" look like in your mind... or is that your imagination? More important than the issue of falsifiability, why aren't you beginning with the most likely explanation that has well documented precedents and so forth and seeking to confirm it instead of trying to imagine any possible scenario (or nearly miraculous event) in which the collapse was caused by fire? (Speaking of Ockham's razor, it would seem that your imagination could use a trim with respect to the imaginary energy stored in burning donuts and office supplies... at least, that's what I'd imagine.)
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Folks interpreted their fall as a controlled demolition, because that is what had to compare it to.
Or perhaps it's because they weren't paid to imagine things or create simulations and scenarios with a single endpoint (denial of demolition) in mind.

Once you stop and look at a controlled demo, next to the towers falling, one can see a lot of differences.
There are plenty of controlled demolitions with a lot of differences between them, depending on the professionalism and so on of those who did it.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
My personal level of epistemic inertia has little to do with it.
But it does. You keep making statements implying there was not enough fire to cause the building to fail in the way it did. You even make jokes about it (exploding donuts). But you don't back it up with anything other than incredulity.

Now, we know a number of things beyond any doubt:

A) The building was on fire for hours
B) It collapsed.

We also know a few other facts

C) Steel loses strength when heated
D) Steel expands when heated

So the obvious inference is that the fires caused the collapse. If we then read the NIST report we see lots of analysis of the extent of the fire, and the potential damage to connections and beams, comparisons to other building fires, and analysis of the sequence of the collapse. All of that fits the theory that the fire caused the collapse.

But you come along and say "no no, exploding donuts, lol".

So which explanation do I go with?

https://www.metabunk.org/files/NCSTAR_1-9_WTC7_unlocked.pdf

 
Last edited:

Cairenn

Senior Member.
The fires were not the only problem. Two of the buildings had planes fly into them, the other one had parts of a burning building fall on it.

There is NO evidence of any way that the buildings could have been imploded. It would have taken an expert company to do it and months to set it up.

And above all, they didn't collapse like an imploded building does.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
So the obvious inference is that the fires caused the collapse.
A) Barry Jennings... RIP, the timeline is important, isn't it? Let alone the premature announcements...*
B) Yeah.

C) Loses strength isn't the equivalent of the full structural failure that can be observed in controlled demolitions.
D) People heard the detonations and there were Israelis arrested on the day of the attacks with explosives in their vans, etc.

If we then read the NIST report we see lots of analysis of the extent of the fire, and the potential damage to connections and beams, comparisons to other building fires, and analysis of the sequence of the collapse.
Or perhaps you see a lot of otherwise intelligence people working to imagine things or create simulations to support the only possible conclusion that they could come to no matter what the most likely explanation for the evidence was.

All of that fits the theory that the fire caused the collapse.
The documented fact that Israelis were caught with explosives and so forth doesn't fit with the rather imaginative theory that fire caused the collapse.

But you come along and say "no no, exploding donuts, lol".
It's not my fault that the things that people are willing to imagine are often a joke. In any event, unfalsifiable theories usually begin with "could not possibly" and so forth... to borrow your unfalsifiable logic: "If you could show me something that could not possibly be caused by a controlled demolition, then that would falsify that theory. And by could not possibly, I mean whatever I can possibly imagine." Etc. There's a difference between imagining things and evidence.

So which explanation do I go with?
The exploding donuts?

*E.g.
Further evidence of foreknowledge of WTC 7's collapse was provided by premature news reports, in which this building's collapse was announced before it actually occurred. These reports evidently began "at about 4:15," when CNN's Aaron Brown said: "We are getting information now that... Building 7... has either collapsed or is collapsing." This was over an hour before the building actually did collapse (at 5:21). Additional premature announcements came from the BBC. 4:53pm, the BBC's Radio Five Live said it had reports "that another large building has collapsed just over an hour ago." At 4:54, the BBC's domestic television news channel announced the collapse. Then at about 5:10, BBC World repeated this announcement. It even provided an explanation of why the building had collapsed, saying: "[T]his wasn't the result of a new attack but because the building had been weakened during this morning's attack." Finally, at 5:14, BBC reporter Jane Standley was seen announcing the collapse of the Salomon Brothers building—the other name for WTC 7—while it could still be seen standing in the background.'*
In February 2007, a video containing some of this news footage, especially of the BBC's premature reporting, was placed on the internet. After it had evoked an enormous amount of discussion and "lots of emails" to the BBC, Richard Porter, the head of news for BBC World, responded on his blog, writing:​
We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.... If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error—no more than that.​
This was a manifestly inadequate response (as shown by viewers' responses to it, which numbered almost 600 by the end of 2007). It was obvious that the BBC's announcement was "an error." The question was: How could such an error—announcing the collapse almost 30 minutes before it happened—have occurred?[...]​
...why would such agencies have been reporting the collapse approximately 30 or even—in the case of CNN-60 minutes before it happened? Porter's only explanation was to "point to [the] confusing and chaotic situation on the ground." This second blog entry by Porter evoked over 600 responses, most of which found his explanation inadequate.​
Porter could have offered a somewhat plausible explanation by suggesting that the rumor that WTC 7 was going to collapse, which had been circulating for several hours, at some point became changed, through misunderstanding, into the rumor that it had already collapsed.​
If we accept this explanation, which the BBC could have offered, we might conclude that the premature announcement of the collapse by the news media adds nothing to what we have already established, namely, that Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management had spread the word several hours in advance that WTC 7 was going to collapse.
Even with that interpretation, however, the premature announcements were not insignificant, because they revealed in a dramatic and memorable fashion the fact that someone knew in advance that Building 7 was going to collapse. This is important because, given the salient facts—that WTC 7 had not been hit by a plane, that no steel-framed high-rise building had ever collapsed because of fire alone, that WTC 7 had fires on only a few floors, and that some of the other still-standing WTC buildings had suffered far worse damage—there should have been no reason to expect WTC 7 to collapse. (The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Report about 9/11 is Unscientific and False by David Ray Griffin: 114-116)
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
I was just watching that video about the explosions and all the eye witness testimony of explosions that sound just like those in controlled demolitions. Your video of controlled demolitions reminded me of it.

No matter, it was probably just some exploding donuts.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I was just watching that video about the explosions and all the eye witness testimony of explosions that sound just like those in controlled demolitions. Your video of controlled demolitions reminded me of it.
Why was there no actual recorded audio of explosions immediately preceding the collapse of WTC7?

And again, why exactly are you discounting the fire theory? What exactly does not fit?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It's not my fault that the things that people are willing to imagine are often a joke. In any event, unfalsifiable theories usually begin with "could not possibly" and so forth... to borrow your unfalsifiable logic: "If you could show me something that could not possibly be caused by a controlled demolition, then that would falsify that theory. And by could not possibly, I mean whatever I can possibly imagine." Etc. There's a difference between imagining things and evidence.
Okay then, show me some evidence of something that's at least a small bit inconsistent with a collapse due to fire.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Why are there no explosions audible here?
Sounds to me like there is one a few seconds in, even with that distorted and poor quality audio.

Why were there so many other audible explosions that sound just like your own video of controlled demolitions?

Okay then, show me some evidence of something that's at least a small bit inconsistent with a collapse due to fire.
What evidence have you shown for the only possibility that you can imagine despite the evidence and despite the fact that your imaginary hypothesis doesn't line up with documented evidence that has been unearthed due to FOI requests and so on (e.g. Israelis found with explosive residues in vans* and building passes and maps of the area... not to mention $4,000 in their shoes and tickets to leave the country within the week... etc.etc.).

Also worth noting, why would they basically ship all the evidence away without investigating it thoroughly and with all possibilities in mind first? National $ecurity? (After all, that way people paid to imagine things could cut down on the imaginary scenarios and simulations to illustrate the only conclusion that they could possibly come to later.) Think about it from the perspective of anyone that knew, though... what are you going to do, overturn the entire world order and shift geopolitics around? They didn't do that for other cases of Israeli false flag attacks like the USS Liberty and so forth, so it should come as no surprise that they didn't do it with respect to 911 either.

*Note the police scanner evidence, etc. also:

The Fox News report on the Israeli spy networks involved in 911 has been scrubbed from their website but you could look it up if you're actually interested in the truth and not the bunk usually given to the military/industrial/mainstream media (inc.). A broader perspective on all the available evidence is why there's no need to imagine miraculous events that almost seem to defy the laws of physics or to try to create "simulations" in which people can imagine that they see evidence in an imaginary/simulated world. (I.e. that what seems like clear evidence of a controlled demolition actually isn't evidence at all... and so forth. After all... isn't trying to imagine things to come to a conclusion no matter what the evidence actually is... bunk?)
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
I wonder what people are imagining that NIST would actually do. What did you expect them to do, report that there was a controlled demolition and overturn their government or the geopolitical world as we know it? Seriously. Better to believe in exploding donuts, etc...
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Oops. That was actually the wrong video. There's a better one of the police scanner audio, etc.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Sounds to me like there is one a few seconds in, even with that distorted and poor quality audio.
Just one? One that sounds more like wind on the microphone?

Compare to the audio of actual controlled demolitions.


Clearly if explosives were used, they must be some kind of silent explosives.

But still, you've not pointed out a single thing that's inconsistent with collapse by fire.

Why is this?
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
My personal level of epistemic inertia has little to do with it. If a steel frame building collapsed due to office fires then the event is, indeed, incredible..
You keep mentioning the office fires. It was a bit more than office fires. In the case of WTC 1 and 2, there were two large planes that were full of fuel, in the case of WTC 7, it was also a case of flaming parts buildings 1 and 2 falling onto it. Maybe it was the imaginary incendiary donuts, however I don't think you could provide proof of them.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
D) People heard the detonations and there were Israelis arrested on the day of the attacks with explosives in their vans, etc.
Do you think these Israelis wired the entire building with explosives that morning?

Or perhaps you see a lot of otherwise intelligence people working to imagine things or create simulations to support the only possible conclusion that they could come to no matter what the most likely explanation for the evidence was.
And yet you imagine exploding donuts. . .
What the NIST did was extrapolate from the events that occurred, using the material that were on the site (steel, sheetrock, burning fuel. . . for example)
 

Ron J

Active Member
Or perhaps it's because they weren't paid to imagine things or create simulations and scenarios with a single endpoint (denial of demolition) in mind.



There are plenty of controlled demolitions with a lot of differences between them, depending on the professionalism and so on of those who did it.

I am not being paid and WTC7 looked like a collapsing building.

I don't see any reason to secretly demo WTC7 in the first place. The building had no more importance than WTC 4, 5, and 6 had. The collapse of the building was a footnote on the day, nothing more. The collapse of WTC7 did not result in the war in Afghanistan or anything else that came after.

If the building could be demoed on short notice, there was no reason not to announce it. David Chandler in his audio analysis youtube that you posted, makes some plot out of the fact that it was known for hours that WTC7 was expected to fall. He claims the fire department was used- no the fire department decided it was too dangerous to fight the fire. There was no set up, no cover story, just Chandler's active imagination.

The simple fact is that it doesn't matter to anything whether WTC7 collapsed or not. Personally what i remember about that day is waking up to the radio talking about the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon, then turning on the TV just after WTC2 had fallen. Then less than half an hour later i watched WTC1 on live TV as it collapsed. I am sure i saw a replay of it, but i don't even recall if i saw WTC7 collapse live on TV.
 

Drew

Active Member
I am not being paid and WTC7 looked like a collapsing building.

I don't see any reason to secretly demo WTC7 in the first place. The building had no more importance than WTC 4, 5, and 6 had. The collapse of the building was a footnote on the day, nothing more. The collapse of WTC7 did not result in the war in Afghanistan or anything else that came after.

If the building could be demoed on short notice, there was no reason not to announce it. David Chandler in his audio analysis youtube that you posted, makes some plot out of the fact that it was known for hours that WTC7 was expected to fall. He claims the fire department was used- no the fire department decided it was too dangerous to fight the fire. There was no set up, no cover story, just Chandler's active imagination.

The simple fact is that it doesn't matter to anything whether WTC7 collapsed or not. Personally what i remember about that day is waking up to the radio talking about the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon, then turning on the TV just after WTC2 had fallen. Then less than half an hour later i watched WTC1 on live TV as it collapsed. I am sure i saw a replay of it, but i don't even recall if i saw WTC7 collapse live on TV.
Right. This is a great point — cui bono from a supposed controlled demolition of WTC-7 hours after the fact? Some kind of icing on the cake.

As I recall, the Truthers make something of the fact that WTC7 included financial firms (mostly Salomon Smith Barney) and various Federal and municipal government offices including the IRS, Secret Service, the NY OEM, and most significantly to their lights, the CIA.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Trailblazer Video of helicopter leaving "chemtrail"? Contrails and Chemtrails 8
Trailblazer Excellent video of vortices and aerodynamic contrails Contrails and Chemtrails 10
Gridlock Russian DashCam 'Explosion' General Discussion 6
FreiZeitGeist New Video-Series on YouTube: "Chemtrails DEBUNKED - Aluminum Edition" Contrails and Chemtrails 0
JFDee NY Times Article about YouTube CT Study General Discussion 2
Mick West YouTube's Changes Reduce Watch Time of Borderline Content and Harmful Misinformation by 70% Practical Debunking 38
Rory Unidentified "space vehicle" Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 8
Mick West YouTube adds Encyclopedia Britannica article on Contrails to "Chemtrail" Videos Contrails and Chemtrails 18
Mick West Alex Jones Deplatforming and Related Conspiracy Theories Current Events 49
Mick West Perspective on the popularity of conspiracy theories. Practical Debunking 23
Mick West Debunked: Corbett Report Targeted by Google/Youtube Conspiracy Theories 37
Whitebeard Martymer 81 Practical Debunking 4
Leifer Posting a YouTube loop ? Site Feedback & News 13
derwoodii Debunked: Strange lights above Canberra: (Photoshop mistake) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Trailblazer Identified: Chemtrails Project UK's "chemtrail plane" (Air France A340) Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Trailblazer "Black aerosol" spray over the Netherlands (contrail shadow at sunset) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 1
Trailblazer Debunked: "The Snake" non-commercial chemtrail plane (China Eastern A330) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 33
Chew Very useful website - Youtube closed captioning to text file Practical Debunking 0
TruthSeeker YouTube claim: "Massive Methane Foam Worldwide" True or False UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 14
scombrid Youtube claims that tree disease is from Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Danny55 Humour on Youtube Conspiracy Theories 1
Trigger Hippie YouTube: Calling all WHISTLE BLOWERS! Conspiracy Theories 7
scombrid attempted youtube debunk and just get blocked as usual Contrails and Chemtrails 20
M Fast moving object "intersecting clouds" in Hungarian YouTuber's video [Insect] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 2
U Looking for debunkings of the “Plandemic” video Coronavirus COVID-19 17
Jesse3959 Being seen from space - methods to demonstrate that sats are real and provide live video? Flat Earth 6
R Claim: Apollo 15-17 Live TV Feed - Antenna signal would be interrupted from all the violent shaking when Astronauts touch the buggy General Discussion 26
J Identifying the Mountains in JTolan's "Rocky Mountains" IR Video Flat Earth 31
Mick West Explained: RARE Video Footage of "Alien Space Craft" WATCHING ISS Astronaut! UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 0
Wizard Mexican UFO Video? [Oil Rigs] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
Mick West Original Flir1, Gimbal, and Go Fast UFO "Raw" Video Files UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 33
Mick West Simulating the Nimitz UFO video as a blurry plane UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 51
jarlrmai UFO video in Arizona from Reddit Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 22
Trailblazer Explained: video of concentric circular "chemtrails" (E-3 Sentry AWACS plane, Feb 1 2019) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 3
Mick West Old USAF "UFO" Video Mentioned By Chris Mellon Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 15
mudr0 Need Debunking: Video claiming zigzaggin objects and movement prove EVA filmed in pool General Discussion 33
Ravi Utah Drone video of UFO [Probably an insect] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 126
Mick West Blowing out Candles with a Single Punch General Discussion 47
Mick West Some New-ish WTC7 Photos (and video?) Corner Damage 9/11 6
B Bob Lazar 1989 Video Analysis Method UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 1
MisterB Debunked: Isle of Man from Blackpool at water level proves flat earth [refraction] Flat Earth 19
Mick West NYT: GIMBAL Video of U.S. Navy Jet Encounter with Unknown Object UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 452
deirdre Debunked: Lights chasing each other carving holes in clouds (fake video, fallstreak holes) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 17
StarGazer SpaceX Falcon 9 Captures Video of its own Contrail from Space UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 17
T FE balloon video curvature analysis using Blender Flat Earth 4
Mick West Explained: Viral Video of 787 Leaving Thick Contrails with Forced Perspective Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 1
Astro Debunked: Astronaut's Arm Fades During ISS Video Proving "Green Screening" Science and Pseudoscience 1
Trailblazer Jet Airways intercept video "UFO" (airliner, flight LH998 or LH66?) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 14
penk CNN Greenscreened a guy on a ship? [No] General Discussion 12
Mick West Explained: Chilean Navy "UFO" video - Aerodynamic Contrails, Flight IB6830 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 186
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top