Debunked: CIA studying Geoengineering, Climate Engineering, Weather Warfare

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Some recent reports make it seem like the CIA is funding some kind of secret weather weapon. The somewhat mainstream Mother Jones posted a story with this ridiculous graphic:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/07/cia-geoengineering-control-climate-change


It's ridiculous because it's a picture of a Tsunami, which was caused by an earthquake, and is absolutely nothing to do with either climate or the weather. The actual article is not too bad, but ends with a nod to conspiracy theorists.
HAARP, by the way, was recently shut down to lack of funding.

So what is the CIA's actual involvement. Here's what one of the panel members, Ken Caldeira says:
And the actual project:
So that's it. The CIA is not studying anything, they are just contributing the the funding a study on a topic that has potentially great geopolitical implications, and hence is of national security concern. It's no more nefarious than the studies they do on education demographics in Africa, or farming methods in Bangladesh, or anything else that goes into the World Factbook. They do it because global stability is an important part of American national security, and they need to know about anything that might effect it.
 
Last edited:

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Another bunk filled article by Alex Jones' patsy Steve Watson, a "creative writing" major in college.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/cia-is...y-security-impacts-of-geo-engineering/5343414

Notable instances of bunk:

Claim:

Indeed, as we reported last year, a Harvard University project experiment funded by Microsoft founder Bill Gates saw thousands of tonnes of sulphur particles sprayed over New Mexico as part of a geoengineering study, despite the fact that even staunch environmentalists have warned the process could have catastrophic effects on the earth’s eco-system.

Reality:

The story was "substantially fabricated".

Claim:

In 2008, a KSLA news investigation found that a substance that fell to earth from a high altitude chemtrail contained high levels of Barium (6.8 ppm) and Lead (8.2 ppm) as well as trace amounts of other chemicals including arsenic, chromium, cadmium, selenium and silver. Of these, all but one are metals, some are toxic while several are rarely or never found in nature.


Reality:

The reporter made a mistake and retracted the claim, no unusual levels were found.
 

moderateGOP

Active Member
I think GeoEngineering is going to be a pretty big industry in the 21st century. That is probably what the meeting was about as well.

Conspiracy Theorists for years, have been alluding to government contraptions such as HARRP or other theories that the government already controls the weather and uses natural disasters for false flag maneuvers.

Republicans for years have denied that Global Warming is happening and that it is all an effort to push big government legislation from the ideals of the hippies from the 1960s which a lot of them are in the position of power to be able to do so.

Liberals, in an almost religious push to convert people onto the go-green movement, have been crying since the 1960s that the world will be destroyed due to mankind’s careless and sometimes reckless environmental activities.

The truth lies somewhere in the middle of course, yet I have always believed that Global Warming is no big deal as the liberals make it out to be. I have always had faith in the scientific community that they will figure out a solution to the problem. Whether it’s underwater realty, humanity settling on other worlds, or maybe one day we actually will control the weather right here on Earth. That appears to be what this meeting was about...Yet, the CT's go all crazy like OMG OMG OMG Running around like a chicken with it's head chopped off.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The truth lies somewhere in the middle of course, yet I have always believed that Global Warming is no big deal as the liberals make it out to be. I have always had faith in the scientific community that they will figure out a solution to the problem.

That seems a bit odd, as the same scientific community you are looking to save the future is the same one you are ignoring about the urgency of doing something now.
 

moderateGOP

Active Member
That seems a bit odd, as the same scientific community you are looking to save the future is the same one you are ignoring about the urgency of doing something now.

I myself, can only do so much. It is ultimately up to the leaders of industry to make progress happen and to find new ways to do so. I believe you can't and shouldn't force everyone to go green because these options that I listed above are all attainable goals and/or short term solutions. They may be uncomfortable but so is the opposite. You can't control 7 Billion people.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I myself, can only do so much. It is ultimately up to the leaders of industry to make progress happen and to find new ways to do so. I believe you can't and shouldn't force everyone to go green because these options that I listed above are all attainable goals and/or short term solutions.

"underwater realty, humanity settling on other worlds, or maybe one day we actually will control the weather right" are not reasonable alternatives to reducing carbon emissions.
 

moderateGOP

Active Member
"underwater realty, humanity settling on other worlds, or maybe one day we actually will control the weather right" are not reasonable alternatives to reducing carbon emissions.

Neither is anything proposed currently. Raising taxes to fund green programs or green initiatives or green startup companies that fail horribly because the technology is not yet perfected, while "progressive" isn't smart business guidelines. This is why while completely supportive of Green technology, most major companies like Google, and Microsoft have stopped funding kooky environmental ventures. What we will see is Green Computing explode, cloud and paperless technologies increase and Geoengineering projects take off. However, if the world flood in 20-50 years like the global warming religious fear mongers claim, underwater homes could be a hard choice some people will have to make...
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Neither is anything proposed currently. Raising taxes to fund green programs or green initiatives or green startup companies that fail horribly because the technology is not yet perfected, while "progressive" isn't smart business guidelines. This is why while completely supportive of Green technology, most major companies like Google, and Microsoft have stopped funding kooky environmental ventures. What we will see is Green Computing explode, cloud and paperless technologies increase and Geoengineering projects take off. However, if the world flood in 20-50 years like the global warming religious fear mongers claim, underwater homes could be a hard choice some people will have to make...

Again though, this is contrary to the advice of the scientists you expect to save the world once it's been totally screwed. Adaptation is possible of course, but is vastly more costly, disruptive, and will kill millions more that addressing the problem now.

You don't need to fund green initiatives. You just need to reduce carbon emissions. Do it with legislation, like the clean air act.

Green computing will do nothing of significance - it's a small fraction of emissions, geoengineering is too risky to be a sensible option.
 

moderateGOP

Active Member
Again though, this is contrary to the advice of the scientists you expect to save the world once it's been totally screwed. Adaptation is possible of course, but is vastly more costly, disruptive, and will kill millions more that addressing the problem now.

You don't need to fund green initiatives. You just need to reduce carbon emissions. Do it with legislation, like the clean air act.

Green computing will do nothing of significance - it's a small fraction of emissions, geoengineering is too risky to be a sensible option.

Yeah, a piece of paper is going to be much more efficient at getting things done, than the creation of an entirely new industry. Especially when this Congress doesn't even read the laws that they pass! The world leaders cannot even decide on how much carbon emissions should be reduced by. Each country is at different stages of production and advancement. While we can limit our carbon emissions here in the US, places like China and Indian won't comply as easily. Because they are trying to build up their infrastructure.

What I mean is, half the time you don't know that you need a new industry until it's already created. Who would have thought in 1960, that computers would be on every desk and even in your pockets!!! That was fifty years ago. Who knows what technology will be around in 2060!

I don't like it when scientists try to lecture me about how I live my life as if I am some evil polluter especially when they seem to be in it to gain something for themselves rather than actually think of different ways to help save our "doomed" planet. The scientists' job once upon a time was to think of new ideas/inventions to help deal with problems. You can't just think that legislation is the answer. Because laws are meant to be broken. You can have the toughest environmental laws on the books and environmental disasters will still happen, probably moreso than now. I would buy an electric car and/or solar panels if they were practical and not so expensive.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I don't like it when scientists try to lecture me about how I live my life as if I am some evil polluter especially when they seem to be in it to gain something for themselves rather than actually think of different ways to help save our "doomed" planet. The scientists' job once upon a time was to think of new ideas/inventions to help deal with problems. You can't just think that legislation is the answer. Because laws are meant to be broken. You can have the toughest environmental laws on the books and environmental disasters will still happen, probably more so than now. I would buy an electric car and/or solar panels if they were practical and not so expensive.

Again, scientists are telling you that the only way to deal with problem is to reduce carbon emissions. You just go "oh, you'll figure something out", and they would respond, "but by then we'll be screwed".

The clean air acts around the world have worked very well in reducing pollution. Just set limits on industrial CO2 emissions. It's quite simple, and not even very expensive. It's incredibly short sighted not to do so. It's like smoking for 40 years, figuring that either the scientists will figure out how to cure you, or that you'll just adapt to life with 50% lung capacity.
 

moderateGOP

Active Member
Again, scientists are telling you that the only way to deal with problem is to reduce carbon emissions. You just go "oh, you'll figure something out", and they would respond, "but by then we'll be screwed".

The clean air acts around the world have worked very well in reducing pollution. Just set limits on industrial CO2 emissions. It's quite simple, and not even very expensive. It's incredibly short sighted not to do so. It's like smoking for 40 years, figuring that either the scientists will figure out how to cure you, or that you'll just adapt to life with 50% lung capacity.

Why do you continue to talk about carbon emissions as if they are the only things that matter? Wake up call. It's not!!! At least according to the Global Warming wackos. If limiting carbon emissions have worked "very well" then why are people still screaming that the world is going to end? I'm not ignoring it. I'm simply letting industry take care of it, like I did, with computers, hybrid cars, touchscreens, streaming video etc... I didn't know I needed any of these industries, but alas they make life so much simpler that it makes perfect sense that they are in existence.

And smoking is a choice. People who smoke do adapt to life with 50% lung capacity! Because often they are addicted and cannot stop but to allude that using electricity or oil is an addiction is pretty short sided as well. Oil is pretty much connected to everything! Come back to me when your scientists find a suitable replacement. Then, I'll listen. No, some corn oil substitute doesn't count either...
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Why do you continue to talk about carbon emissions as if they are the only things that matter? Wake up call. It's not!!! At least according to the Global Warming wackos. If limiting carbon emissions have worked "very well" then why are people still screaming that the world is going to end? I'm not ignoring it. I'm simply letting industry take care of it, like I did, with computers, hybrid cars, touchscreens, streaming video etc... I didn't know I needed any of these industries, but alas they make life so much simpler that it makes perfect sense that they are in existence.

Limiting carbon emission has not worked because carbon emission have not been limited. Without legislation industry is not going to stop polluting until it is too late. In economics this is called a "negative externality" which cannot be handled by market forces.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Negative

Letting industry take care of it will not work. Why do you think we have government regulation of pollution?
 

moderateGOP

Active Member
Limiting carbon emission has not worked because carbon emission have not been limited. Without legislation industry is not going to stop polluting until it is too late. In economics this is called a "negative externality" which cannot be handled by market forces.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Negative

Letting industry take care of it will not work. Why do you think we have government regulation of pollution?

You just told me that reducing carbon emissions have worked. So which is it? You can't have it both ways.
Also are you ok with the CIA and all these agencies talking about geoengineering? Because it seems like you are against it. Even though it seems to be a better discussion than talking about climate legislation which is in limbo because world leaders can't decide how much carbon emissions to reduce. But please feel free to continue to ignore this...
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You just told me that reducing carbon emissions have worked. So which is it? You can't have it both ways.
I did not say it had worked. Please quote where you think I said that.


Also are you ok with the CIA and all these agencies talking about geoengineering? Because it seems like you are against it.
I'm fine with them talking about it, because it seems likely that someone (perhaps another country) will try it at some point, so we need to understand it.

Even though it seems to be a better discussion than talking about climate legislation which is in limbo because world leaders can't decide how much carbon emissions to reduce. But please feel free to continue to ignore me...
Ignore you about what?
 

moderateGOP

Active Member
The clean air acts around the world have worked very well in reducing pollution. Just set limits on industrial CO2 emissions. It's quite simple, and not even very expensive. It's incredibly short sighted not to do so. It's like smoking for 40 years, figuring that either the scientists will figure out how to cure you, or that you'll just adapt to life with 50% lung capacity.

Right here.
 

moderateGOP

Active Member
I'm fine with them talking about it, because it seems likely that someone (perhaps another country) will try it at some point, so we need to understand it.

Ignore you about what?

Oh ok, so we should understand the industry, but we shouldn't even read/understand climate legislation full of pork?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Oh ok, so we should understand the industry, but we shouldn't even read/understand climate legislation full of pork?
What has one thing to do with the other? All legislation suffers from pork, that's not an excuse not to legislate. Pork is an entirely separate issue.

Bottom line: we need to reduce carbon emissions.
 

moderateGOP

Active Member
Bottom line: we need to reduce carbon emissions.

Short of banning building infrastructure and technological progress it won't help any. Ironically, this is the very thing Global Warming Alarmists claim is needed after passing the legislation to limit this. It's a completely hypocritical way of viewing the world. I think letting the government talk about creating new industries which corporations can use to their advantage to create new ways of reducing environmental disasters is a better more solid way of solving the issue. You're not going to reduce carbon emissions by legislation. Congress cannot even pass a budget!

What about all the industries that exist now, that we didn't even know we needed?

BTW, Carbon Dioxide is considered a heat trapping pollutant. So it's not different than pollution according to some.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Short of banning building infrastructure and technological progress it won't help any. Ironically, this is the very thing Global Warming Alarmists claim is needed after passing the legislation to limit this. It's a completely hypocritical way of viewing the world. I think letting the government talk about creating new industries which corporations can use to their advantage to create new ways of reducing environmental disasters is a better more solid way of solving the issue. You're not going to reduce carbon emissions by legislation. Congress cannot even pass a budget!
Then how did the clean air act work then? Was it "letting the government talk"? No, it was legal limits on emissions.

What about all the industries that exist now, that we didn't even know we needed?
What about them? We know we need to reduce carbon emissions. So why not do it?

BTW, Carbon Dioxide is considered a heat trapping pollutant. So it's not different than pollution according to some.
Indeed, and some would argue that the EPA should be able to regulate it.
 

moderateGOP

Active Member
1. Then how did the clean air act work then? Was it "letting the government talk"? No, it was legal limits on emissions.

2. What about them? We know we need to reduce carbon emissions. So why not do it?

1. I think saying the Clean Air Act worked is an opinion and cannot be verified by any factual standards. It's obviously not a solution, otherwise the global warming alarmists would be satisfied.
2. You just said the Clean Air Act worked, why are you now saying that it didn't? If it's your opinion that it's not enough, that's not really a sound solution to the problem. What is enough? Zero? Good luck getting people to agree to that. No world leader has been able to agree on how much carbon emissions needs to be reduced by, they just agree it needs to be reduced. Which isn't very scientific.

How about instead of bickering over these things we figure out new technologies to reduce environmental disasters and actual legislation on things that we can control! Like Oil Rig Safety? As I said in my first response to this, it's not a one sided solution that can solve the supposed problem. If Global Warming is caused by all those various complex factors, than it's going to take various complex solutions... proper legislation being only one of those things!
 

moderateGOP

Active Member
Another thing I find funny is that, the Scientists and the politicians say that we must act before it's too late. Well if it's ultimately up to them to decide on the science, solutions, and legislation about how to handle the issue, than why are they lecturing us? They need to come to an agreement about what legislation is needed and what carbon emissions need to be reduced by. Start by those two simple things, not some vague talking point about how, "Carbon emissions need to be reduced." That's not very specific and is only good for campaign fundraisers and cable TV...
 

neverknwo

Member
Climate Change is bunk to begin with and the several geo-engineering options scientists come up with aimed at weather manipulation to counter the Sun's radiation, it is never
going to alter the life cycle of a star. It never ceases to amaze me those who are afraid of the big bad sun and what they come up with to save humanity.

[Admin: off topic material removed]
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
1. I think saying the Clean Air Act worked is an opinion and cannot be verified by any factual standards. It's obviously not a solution, otherwise the global warming alarmists would be satisfied.
2. You just said the Clean Air Act worked, why are you now saying that it didn't? If it's your opinion that it's not enough, that's not really a sound solution to the problem. What is enough? Zero? Good luck getting people to agree to that. No world leader has been able to agree on how much carbon emissions needs to be reduced by, they just agree it needs to be reduced. Which isn't very scientific.

You are confusing two things. The clean air act address certain forms of pollution. It did not address carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gasses.

The CAA worked for those pollutants. They have been objectively reduced. This is known, proven, and measured. It is factual.

The CAA did not work for greenhouse gasses because it did not address them. If it had addressed them then it would have worked.

How about instead of bickering over these things we figure out new technologies to reduce environmental disasters and actual legislation on things that we can control! Like Oil Rig Safety? As I said in my first response to this, it's not a one sided solution that can solve the supposed problem. If Global Warming is caused by all those various complex factors, than it's going to take various complex solutions... proper legislation being only one of those things!

Legislation is the primary driver with negative externalities.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Another thing I find funny is that, the Scientists and the politicians say that we must act before it's too late. Well if it's ultimately up to them to decide on the science, solutions, and legislation about how to handle the issue, than why are they lecturing us? They need to come to an agreement about what legislation is needed and what carbon emissions need to be reduced by. Start by those two simple things, not some vague talking point about how, "Carbon emissions need to be reduced." That's not very specific and is only good for campaign fundraisers and cable TV...

The scientists are largely in agreement. It's the politicians that are the problem. Specifically those funded by energy and oil companies.
 

moderateGOP

Active Member
The scientists are largely in agreement. It's the politicians that are the problem. Specifically those funded by energy and oil companies.
As are politicians who are funded by green lobbyists wanting nothing but money in return with little to no care about the actual issue which are environmental disasters.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
As are politicians who are funded by green lobbyists wanting nothing but money in return with little to no care about the actual issue which are environmental disasters.

Many politicians are corrupt. This does not change the fact that we need to reduce carbon emissions.
 

moderateGOP

Active Member
Many politicians are corrupt. This does not change the fact that we need to reduce carbon emissions.

By how much? you all keep pointing out that it is working, so why isn't the planet being saved? Why aren't people, politicians, and global warming alarmists even remotely happy with the so-called progress they made?
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
1. I think saying the Clean Air Act worked is an opinion and cannot be verified by any factual standards.

It is an objective fact that Clean Air Act worked to reduce emissions of regulated pollutants.

It's obviously not a solution, otherwise the global warming alarmists would be satisfied.

Carbon dioxide hasn't been regulated under the Clean Air Act and industry groups are fighting to keep it that way, using a lot of the same rhetoric they've used to opposed regulating sulfur, nitrogen, etc...
 

moderateGOP

Active Member
It is an objective fact that Clean Air Act worked to reduce emissions of regulated pollutants.

Really? But I keep hearing that pollution needs to be stopped and carbon emissions needs to be reduced. I thought legislation worked? I don't think I need to tell debunkers about vague generalities
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
By how much? you all keep pointing out that it is working, so why isn't the planet being saved? Why aren't people, politicians, and global warming alarmists even remotely happy with the so-called progress they made?

Do you understand the distinction between the pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act, and Carbon Dioxide?

Do you understand that what is working is the reduction in those pollutants, and NOT any reduction in carbon dioxide.

How much? 350 ppm would be good: http://350.org/en/understanding-350
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
Really? But I keep hearing that pollution needs to be stopped and carbon emissions needs to be reduced. I thought legislation worked? I don't think I need to tell debunkers about vague generalities

I'll repeat myself from a portion of my post you must have missed:

Carbon dioxide hasn't been regulated under the Clean Air Act and industry groups are fighting to keep it that way, using a lot of the same rhetoric they've used to opposed regulating sulfur, nitrogen, etc...

I made some typographical errors in that sentence but it should be clear enough.

It is an objective fact that the Clean Air Act worked to reduce emissions of regulated pollutants. Why would similar legislation absolutely not work for carbon dioxide? Cap and Trade reduced sulfur. Why wouldn't it work for CO2?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'm still not hearing any cheers that the world is now saved because the CAA did so much to help it! Ok, but that is your opinion. Does anyone actually have a consensus about how much? No...didn't think so.

Do you understand that CO2 was not covered by the clean air act? You seem to be missing this rather key point, and I don't think the conversation can really progress until you address it.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Here's objectively what the clean air act has done:
http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/peg/understand.html
Note it has not addressed CO2. Hence it has not saved the world from global warming.
 

moderateGOP

Active Member
Note it has not addressed CO2. Hence it has not saved the world from global warming.

You keep running around in circles. First you say that pollutants and carbon emissions need to be curbed. Now you say that even though the CAA is good and works, it doesn't save the world from Global Warming. Only legislation of CO2 can save the world from Global Warming when it is considered among scientists now to be a pollutant. I think it is you who needs to get facts straight here...
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You keep running around in circles. First you say that pollutants and carbon emissions need to be curbed. Now you say that even though the CAA is good and works, it doesn't save the world from Global Warming. Only legislation of CO2 can save the world from Global Warming when it is considered among scientists now to be a pollutant. I think it is you who needs to get facts straight here...

Do you understand the distinction between CO2 and the pollutants covered (and reduced) by the CAA?

If you don't address this question I'm going to assume you are just trolling, and ban you for a week.
 

moderateGOP

Active Member
Do you understand the distinction between CO2 and the pollutants covered (and reduced) by the CAA?

If you don't address this question I'm going to assume you are just trolling, and ban you for a week.

Why do you keep asking the same question as if I do not know? Was I not making a clear distinction between CO2 and pollutants in my other posts?
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West Debunked: Pentagon has Evidence of "Off-World Vehicles Not Made on this Earth" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 14
derrick06 Debunked: United Nations creates a "NWO" website Conspiracy Theories 2
N Debunked: Google Mail icon shows linkage to Freemasons Conspiracy Theories 4
Mendel Debunked: The WHO did not take the Taiwan CDC seriously Coronavirus COVID-19 0
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mendel Debunked: Radar Waves Affect Clouds General Discussion 0
Pumpernickel Need Debunking: Foucault's Pendulum debunked through Mach's principle (the Earth is a static object in the center of the Universe) Science and Pseudoscience 16
M Ufos arrive to the central zone of Chile. (Debunked). Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Jesse3959 FE Debunked with water tube level - 187 foot building 21.2 miles away below eye level Flat Earth 0
H Debunked: Cadillac Mountain from 220 miles Flat Earth 7
Jesse3959 FE Claim Debunked: JTolan Epic Gravity Experiment - Flat earther disproves Perspective! (or his instruments.) Flat Earth 0
Mick West Debunked: DoD prepares for martial law in CONUS: Conspiracy Theories 0
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
A Debunked: NASA tampered with the original television audio of the Apollo 11 moon landing Conspiracy Theories 1
Greylandra Debunked: media headline "Judea declares war on Germany" [boycott] Conspiracy Theories 20
Mick West Discovery Channel's "Contact: Declassified Breakthrough" was debunked 2.5 years ago UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 8
Joe Hill Debunked: "The North Face of Building 7 Was Pulled Inward" 9/11 66
A Debunked : Fake Set Moon Landing with TV Camera and Stairs Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Debunked: Photo with Sun Rays at Odd Angles Flat Earth 0
Staffan Debunked: Wikileaks releases unused footage of moon landing (Capricorn One movie scenes) Conspiracy Theories 2
Mick West Debunked: Neil deGrasse Tyson : "That Stuff is Flat" Flat Earth 10
Mendel Debunked: Air Map of the World 1945 is a flat Earth map Flat Earth 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Trees being cut down "because they block 5G" (tree replacement in Belgium) 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 44
deirdre Debunked: Exemption from military service doc proves Jews had foreknowledge of WW2 (fake leaflet) General Discussion 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Obama called Michelle "Michael" in a speech. (Referring to Michael Mullen Jr) Quotes Debunked 0
Rory Debunked: 120-mile shot of San Jacinto proves flat earth Flat Earth 39
Rory Debunked: The Lunar Cycle affects birth rates Health and Quackery 26
Rory Debunked: Study shows link between menstrual cycle and the moon Health and Quackery 30
novatron Debunked: California Wildfires Match the Exactly Path of the Proposed Rail System Wildfires 3
Rory Debunked: "You must love yourself before you love another" - fake Buddha quote Quotes Debunked 7
W Debunked: Qanon claims there have been 51k sealed indictments filed this year. Current Events 11
K Debunked: Audio of David Rockefeller "leaked" speech in 1991 [Audio Simulation] General Discussion 2
tadaaa Debunked: Fake photos-Novichok attack Russian 'agents' (side by side gates) General Discussion 34
Mick West Debunked: XYO Device Replacing GPS, Saving $2 Million a Day General Discussion 23
Mick West Debunked: "Tip Top" as a QAnon Clue from Trump [He's said it before] Conspiracy Theories 3
Whitebeard Debunked: Nibiru FOUND? Mysterious gigantic rogue planet spotted lurking outside our solar system Science and Pseudoscience 1
Mick West Debunked: "There Exists a Shadowy Government" — Daniel Inouye Quotes Debunked 0
Mick West Debunked: Delta Lambda Compression General Discussion 16
MisterB Debunked: Isle of Man from Blackpool at water level proves flat earth [refraction] Flat Earth 19
JFDee Debunked: Wernher von Braun confirmed that rockets can't leave earth Conspiracy Theories 23
Mick West Debunked: Missing $21 Trillion / $6.5 Trillion / $2.3 Trillion - Journal Vouchers Conspiracy Theories 33
MikeG Debunked: Obamacare Article 54 (Satire FB Page) General Discussion 2
Mick West Debunked: "Deadly Ultraviolet UV-C and UV-B Penetration to Earth’s Surface:" [Stray Light] Contrails and Chemtrails 32
Astro Debunked: Apollo Lunar Module Hatch Too Small for Spacesuit Science and Pseudoscience 0
Mick West Debunked: NIST's Lack of Explanation for WTC7 Freefall [They Have One - Column Buckling] 9/11 38
Jedo Debunked: WTC7 was the only building not on the WTC block that had a fire on 9/11 9/11 0
Mick West Debunked: Thermite Slag on WTC beams [Oxy Cutting Slag] 9/11 2
Mick West Debunked: The WTC 9/11 Angle Cut Column. [Not Thermite, Cut Later] 9/11 137
Mick West Debunked: AE911Truth's Analysis of Slag Residue from WTC Debris 9/11 20
Dan Wilson Debunked: Steven Crowder: The AIDS epidemic was a hoax Health and Quackery 9
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top