Debunked: Iron Microspheres in 9/11 WTC Dust as Evidence for Thermite

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
You really havn't thought this through have you. Do you not realise that many people are fiercely trying to rebutt it. They have reached out in all directions to do that. But failed. And you still focus on the messenger rather than the message.

As Ms. Pileni said about this publication:

 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
As Ms. Pileni said about this publication:


Yes.

I assume that you mistakenly pressed 'Post Reply' before you had finished.

And you meant to add another paragraph addressing the content of the paper, as requested many times now.

Please do that.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Yes.

I assume that you mistakenly pressed 'Post Reply' before you had finished.

And you meant to add another paragraph addressing the content of the paper, as requested many times now.

Please do that.

Remember about the snark? Ms. Pileni speaks for me. It was not in a peer reviewed journal. I'm done with this.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
Remember about the snark? Ms. Pileni speaks for me. It was not in a peer reviewed journal. I'm done with this.

Me too. You clearly have no intention of dealing with the content of that paper, and prefer to attack the means that it was delivered.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
Can you give some examples?

Apart from the general hand waving in debunk sites there have been a few amateur laboratory attempts and one or two more professional ones. All fizzled out. The latest serious effort was begun by The James Randi Educational Foundation ( JREF ) who raised funds from their membership to duplicate the nanothermite work and publish a rebuttal and force the withdrawal of Harrit's paper. Rev Chris Mohr put his weight behind the project and hired Dr James Millette, promising great results. In February 2012 Rev Mohr announced that the work was complete and would be published soon in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

As this link shows, that was nealy two years ago and it seems that they have been unable to get it though peer review or find a journal to carry it until that has been done. JREF has now taken a very low profile on this subject and hoping that we will all forget about their failed attempt. A full account of that saga is in this blog.

http://911debunkers.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/millette-chip-study-debunked-and-buried.html
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Apart from the general hand waving in debunk sites there have been a few amateur laboratory attempts and one or two more professional ones. All fizzled out. The latest serious effort was begun by The James Randi Educational Foundation ( JREF ) who raised funds from their membership to duplicate the nanothermite work and publish a rebuttal and force the withdrawal of Harrit's paper. Rev Chris Mohr put his weight behind the project and hired Dr James Millette, promising great results. In February 2012 Rev Mohr announced that the work was complete and would be published soon in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Quite amusing you place so much stock in it not being peer reviewed, when quite clearly your paper was not.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
This debate has raged for years

No it hasn't. There is no sensible debate that iron microsphere's form from molten iron and are a common and predictable residue from any activity that involves hot iron and friction. Hence their presence at the WTC is neither unexpected nor indicative of anything in particular.

The only "debate" is from people who refuse to accept that this is just simple physics.

and I see no merit in a 'groundhog' debate.

So why did you promptly engage in one??
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
Quite amusing you place so much stock in it not being peer reviewed, when quite clearly your paper was not.

So once again you infer that the reviewer, who was a 'peer' of the paper writers, wasn't either qualified to review the paper as a peer, or was being less than professional or biased. Peer review isnt anything more than a review by a peer or another person with higher qualifications. To claim that it wasn't peer reviewed and passed by those people is simply wrong. Its a matter of record that a peer review took place. If such peer review raises doubts about the methology or conclusions then the paper cannot be published. As seems to be the case with Dr Millette's paper.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So once again you infer that the reviewer, who was a 'peer' of the paper writers, wasn't either qualified to review the paper as a peer, or was being less than professional or biased.

I'm not inferring it. I'm saying it. While he was qualified on paper, he was obviously not qualified either in terms of conflicts of interest, or basic skill level. He thinks that the chemtrail theorists make a reasonable case. And he has some frankly stupid ideas about the Pentagon being hit by a missile from a fighter jet.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
There is no sensible debate that iron microsphere's form from molten iron and are a common and predictable residue from any activity that involves hot iron and friction. Hence their presence at the WTC is neither unexpected nor indicative of anything in particular.

As you say, a very small background content of such spheres is normally present in dust in industrial areas where steelwork such as you describe has occured over years. But that is normally less than 0.5%. Whereas the dust in Manhattan after 9/11 was nearer to 6%. So, saying that it was 'not indicative of anything in particular' goes against RJ Lee's opinion who were very surprised at the % seen. In fact they came to use that as a 'marker' to identify 9/11 dust samples from all others.

Its both the unusual % seen and the fact that it was almost pure iron that is the mystery - not that some microspheres can exist in a city built from steel.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
I'm not inferring it. I'm saying it. While he was qualified on paper, he was obviously not qualified either in terms of conflicts of interest, or basic skill level. He thinks that the chemtrail theorists make a reasonable case. And he has some frankly stupid ideas about the Pentagon being hit by a missile from a fighter jet.

All three points being the basis for threads elsewhere.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
As you say, a very small background content of such spheres is normally present in dust in industrial areas where steelwork such as you describe has occured over years.
Correct.

But that is normally less than 0.5%. Whereas the dust in Manhattan after 9/11 was nearer to 6%. So, saying that it was 'not indicative of anything in particular' goes against RJ Lee's opinion who were very surprised at the % seen. In fact they came to use that as a 'marker' to identify 9/11 dust samples from all others.
Possibly because 200 concrete/steel floors had just slid down a hundred pure steel columns for an eighth of a mile at speeds reaching 120 mph, without any lubrication.

Its both the unusual % seen and the fact that it was almost pure iron that is the mystery - not that some microspheres can exist in a city built from steel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A36_steel
That's the structural steel used.
"Almost pure"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel
Yes, almost pure. Then a thought experiment.

A heavily-loaded steel surface sliding rapidly down another steel surface, dumping gouts of kinetic energy into heat in the metal, and scattering small intensely-hot fragments of steel, some of which are hot enough to vaporize and burn. They do so, depleting the local oxygen environment, so some of these small condensations of structural steel ("almost pure" iron) become microspheres of "almost pure" iron, in fact, so much so that "they came to use that as a 'marker' to identify 9/11 dust samples from all others".

Unsurprisingly. Friction does that to steel.
 
Last edited:

MikeC

Closed Account
As you say, a very small background content of such spheres is normally present in dust in industrial areas where steelwork such as you describe has occured over years. But that is normally less than 0.5%.
source?

Whereas the dust in Manhattan after 9/11 was nearer to 6%.

Ah - so that would appear to be the RJ Lee report prepared for the Deutch Bank - available here??

they compared "normal" dust as being from a "normal office" - not an industrial site. they found iron sphere's to comprise about 0.04% of it (table 3 of the reference, page 24)

So, saying that it was 'not indicative of anything in particular' goes against RJ Lee's opinion who were very surprised at the % seen.

And they said they were expected byproducts.

(page 5)

In fact they came to use that as a 'marker' to identify 9/11 dust samples from all others.

Microspheres of various substances were ONE of the characteristics of "9/11 dust" compared with normal office dust - the microsphere materials included iron, zinc, lead and silicates.

there were other markers of 9/11 dust - including
Chrysotile asbestos
mineral wool
Gypsum
partially burned or melted plastic

Its both the unusual % seen and the fact that it was almost pure iron that is the mystery - not that some microspheres can exist in a city built from steel.

no - neither the volume nor the composition were a mystery in the RJ Lee report.

they make no comment at all about the purity of the iron microspheres that I can see - their comment about iron is this:

(Page 16 - my emphasis added)

(page 17)

and

(page 19)

they compared "normal" dust as being from a "normal office" - not an industrial site. they found iron sphere's to comprise about 0.04% of it (table 3 of the reference, page 24)

the "9/11" dust also had vastly more mineral wool, vermiculite, gypsum, chrysolite, and a lot less "Class C" particles defined as "common building background particles" (page 23)

The report summary states:

Iron doesn't even rate a specific mention - being covered by the reference to "spherical particles"

In the report the analysis of the various materials found is always found to be consistent with the makeup of the building and its contents, and the temperatures that were involved.

To put it in simple terms - the dust composition was as expected.
 
Last edited:

Hitstirrer

Active Member
RJ Lee report --"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles."


Melted.

A very large volume of microspheres, estimated as many tons, the result of heat high enough to melt steel.

In fact evidence of molten Molybdenum was found also. Check out the melting temperature of that !

And NIST itself has asserted that there was no possibility of steel melting in fires, fed by office furniture in an open environment.

Jazzy had a theory that :- "Possibly 200 concrete/steel floors had just slid down a hundred pure steel columns for an eighth of a mile at speeds reaching 120 mph, without any lubrication." - causing friction, and generating tons of microspheres that were then distributed equally amongst all the dust over miles of Manhattan. That appears to stem from the pancake theory that was hastily discarded by NIST very early on. They realised that 'sliding down columns' raised a large problem.

I might be able to take this clear evidence of heat high enough to melt steel, if the source of that could be explained to me better.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
I might be able to take this clear evidence of heat high enough to melt steel, if the source of that could be explained to me better.
Friction has always been able to melt and vaporize steel. It always will be able to do so. That isn't a theory, but a physical fact which you shouldn't deny.
I thought I had already demonstrated to you that billions of microspheres can be produced from a cubic centimeter of steel. Items that small are easily distributed by air movement in smoke. An argument from incredulity only works if everyone else agrees that you are aware of the world around you, so I recommend that you should get out more.
 
Last edited:

MikeC

Closed Account
Ever used a grinding wheel? Those sparks coming off are molten or even burning metal - all don by friction. And yet the material you hold usually does not get hot enough to feel (unless it is small or you are grinding for a long time).

Molybdenum is a relatively common alloy element in steel, and yes, molybdenum has a high melting point and moly steels are used for high temperature applications.

However consider how many Moly spherules were found: 1. ONE. (as mentioned in
Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction (link is to a 1.3mb download)
Steven E. Jones, Jeffrey Farrer, Gregory S. Jenkins, Frank Legge, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan,
Daniel Farnsworth, and Crockett Grabbe.)

Where did ONE molybdenum spherule come from? I do not know......but I would require more evidence than someone saying "it must have been thermite because it melted molybdenum" for me to conclude that in deed it must have been thermite - there was a LOT of energy present in that building - and to say that nowhere was the temperature raised enough to melt molybdenum in small amounts, or even that it was not present BEFORE the building was demolished requires evidence - not assertion!
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
Friction has always been able to melt and vaporize steel. It always will be able to do so. That isn't a theory, but a physical fact which you shouldn't deny.I thought I had already demonstrated to you that billions of microspheres can be produced from a cubic centimeter of steel. Items that small are easily distributed by air movement in smoke. An argument from incredulity only works if everyone else agrees that you are aware of the world around you, so I recommend that you should get out more..

So you cling to your friction theory I see. I can see how that would work of course. I can envisage a situation where for instance one steel element is forced against another and sparks fly off. In fact in one of the rare times I left the house ( thank you for that recommendation by the way ) I have experienced being hit by a shower of such sparks from a grinder. They were hot.

But is that what RJ Lee is saying ? They had a chance to explain that steel was seen to be molten from friction, as beams and girders rubbed against each other. But they didn't. They just said 'molten'. Now 'molten' to me means 'molten' and not 'a shower of sparks'.

In any case, doesnt friction require a large difference in speed between the two items interacting with each other ? Items falling together in a chaotic manner under gravity, tend to collide, and fly part, rather than force themselves together long enough to create sufficient heat to melt. Not impossible of course, but unlikely in my opinion.

I just find your' friction' explanation for the very regular distribution of such a high % of iron rich microspheres seen all over Manhattan that day to be highly questionable. Its just one opinion against another of course.

And I therefore seek a better explanation for the molten steel to satisfy my curiosity.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
Ever used a grinding wheel? Those sparks coming off are molten or even burning metal - all don by friction. And yet the material you hold usually does not get hot enough to feel (unless it is small or you are grinding for a long time).

Molybdenum is a relatively common alloy element in steel, and yes, molybdenum has a high melting point and moly steels are used for high temperature applications.

However consider how many Moly spherules were found: 1. ONE. Where did ONE molybdenum spherule come from? ....................or even that it was not present BEFORE the building was demolished requires evidence - not assertion!

A grinding wheel ? I have !! The sparks were hot !! And caused by the enormous difference between the speed of the wheel and the item I was forcing against it. Two points there. #1 Massive difference in relative speed and #2 the two items being forced together long enough to create enough frictional heat to achieve the intended result. Can gravity do that when the items said to be causing friction are falling together ? Thats the bit I find hard to accept you see.

And as to one molybdenum microsphere. Yes - just one from about seven small samples from various parts of NY. I find it merely 'interesting' that one was found, because as you say, it may have been there for many years before 2001. And may well have been the only such sphere for hundreds of miles, that just happened to be in the few samples collected. Thats possible of course. I keep buying lottery tickets on that basis.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A36_steel
That's the structural steel used.

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/cfr/ibr/003/astm.a36.1997.pdf much better resource for the spec of A36 steel here. There were at least 12 grades of structural steel used in the towers, not just A36.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/cfr/ibr/003/astm.a36.1997.pdf much better resource for the spec of A36 steel here. There were at least 12 grades of structural steel used in the towers, not just A36.
I knew you would come up with more. Hardly any of them would be high-carbon steels, as you should well know. The point is that low carbon steel is very nearly pure iron, and the microspheres were a natural product of friction between the structural steel surfaces and were found, as to be expected, in an environment which has just experienced three of the hugest collapses of any steel constructions there have ever been.

I can see how that would work of course. I can envisage a situation where for instance one steel element is forced against another and sparks fly off. In fact in one of the rare times I left the house.
Now take that "for instance" and use your imagination to "Fermi" calculate the number of such events in a tower collapse. Do the sum.

steel was seen to be molten from friction
I just linked you a vid showing just that. There is no particularly high surface speed involved there.

Now 'molten' to me means 'molten' and not 'a shower of sparks'.
What is a spark?

In any case, doesnt friction require a large difference in speed between the two items interacting with each other?
I just linked you a vid showing just that. There is no particularly high surface speed involved there.

Items falling together in a chaotic manner under gravity, tend to collide, and fly part, rather than force themselves together long enough to create sufficient heat to melt. Not impossible of course, but unlikely in my opinion.
Correct. Well, no, it isn't. It's only correct for free-falling objects colliding with other free-falling objects.

These falling objects were continually meeting non-falling objects and colliding with them. It's when they had to slow or come to a stop there would have been a problem. Did they slow, then come to a stop?

There again, I believe that you believe the hundred plus floors reached ground zero without touching the sides, so-to-speak. Hm.

And never "pancaked" into each other on the way down, even though the bottom of the moving heap was obviously slower than the top. Marvelous.

Its just one opinion against another of course.
Isn't it just.

And I therefore seek a better explanation for the molten steel to satisfy my curiosity.
Define "better".
 
Last edited:

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
I knew you would come up with more.
You're welcome.
Jazzy, maybe you should look at comminution and try to work it out from there. I can see more heat being generated in a buckling situation that in a collision situation as regards to the towers.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member

Have you got ANY idea of the forces at play in that video ?

To produce that as evidence that loose steel elements falling together under gravity, and clattering against each other, could melt the places where they touch - as in that video - is ridiculous. I liked the 'musak' in that vid though - quite cool.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Any explanation other than your own.
I said define "better".

maybe you should look at comminution and try to work it out from there. I can see more heat being generated in a buckling situation that in a collision situation as regards to the towers.
I agree. But we were talking about microspheres.
Have you got ANY idea of the forces at play in that video?
Yes. They were a damn sight less than those in the towers, which had an equivalent potential energy value, in the steel alone, of 95 tons of TNT.

To produce that as evidence that loose steel elements falling together under gravity, and clattering against each other, could melt the places where they touch - as in that video - is ridiculous.
Then stop thinking it. Instead, read what I have written.


.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
I said define "better".

Better = having more merit.

, read what I have written.

Like this nugget of gold ?

Jazzy quote " Possibly because 200 concrete/steel floors had just slid down a hundred pure steel columns for an eighth of a mile at speeds reaching 120 mph, without any lubrication."

Slid down for 1/8th of a mile ? At speeds relative to each other of 120mph differential whilst 'sliding' ? How does that work ? The cores were disappearing at the same rate as the rest of the building. Any 'sliding' discussions were discarded during the pancake theory's demise.

Introducing a video of enormous forces, both rotational and lateral forces, - to support a view that chaotic friction events with elements bouncing around would do the same - is just a poor choice of supporting evidence.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jazzy

Closed Account
Better = having more merit.
That's better.

Slid down for 1/8th of a mile?
1/8th mile is 680 feet. How high were the towers? 1360 feet.

At speeds relative to each other of 120mph differential whilst 'sliding'? How does that work?
"Speeds reaching 120 mph" means speeds reaching 120 mph.

The cores were disappearing at the same rate as the rest of the building.
"The cores were disappearing"? How does that work? Friction?

Any 'sliding' discussions were discarded during the pancake theory's demise.
You haven't answered my questions save with evasions. Tell me how the floors "never "pancaked" into each other on the way down, even though the bottom of the moving heap was obviously slower than the top".

Introducing a video of enormous forces, both rotational and lateral forces, - to support a view that chaotic friction events with elements bouncing around would do the same - is just a poor choice of supporting evidence.
You are still not reading my posts sufficiently accurately to give other than misleading answers.
 
Last edited:

Hitstirrer

Active Member
Tell me how the floors "never "pancaked" into each other.

Its not me saying that - its NIST, who you seem to disagree with. They dropped the pancake idea very early on when it was pointed out to them that there wern't 80+ floors piled on top of each other. And with that theory in shreds it also dispenses with any 120mph sliding down intact columns theory. But if you wish to disagree with the official story, start your own thread in here to be debunked.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I think we can all agree that at some point in the collapse some steel would have been forced against other steel and concrete, creating friction and sparks. Some, but certainly not all iron microspheres would result from this.

So you are arguing about quantity. Hence you need to use some figures, and some math.

But really the bottom line is that there are multiple ways you can get iron microsphere, both pre-existing, from the fire, and from the collapse.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
I think we can all agree that at some point in the collapse some steel would have been forced against other steel and concrete, creating friction and sparks. Some, but certainly not all iron microspheres would result from this.

So you are arguing about quantity. Hence you need to use some figures, and some math.

But really the bottom line is that there are multiple ways you can get iron microsphere, both pre-existing, from the fire, and from the collapse.

I agree entirely.

Your first suggestion about 'pre-existing' is correct. We know that its usually below 0.5%. Almost all of the background particles in this catagory come from grinding, welding, and cutting work, where the sparks hit the ground whilst still very hot and therefore do not form perfect spheres. Under a microscope they are usually irregularly shaped.

Your second catagory of 'fire' opens up a real can of worms about how a fire can melt steel, in an open environment, in the first place. Then such particles need to fall without striking anything as they cool, so that surface tension can pull the molten iron droplets into spheres ( actually slightly pear shaped ).

Your third suggestion, that collapse, and the interaction of steel striking steel, would throw off sparks is also correct. For those sparks to form spheres from this action you would also need them to be falling freely without striking anything as they cooled. Also, as you say above :- "Some, but certainly not all iron microspheres would result from this" -- logically that means that 'fire' must be responsible for the remainder. And that returns to the problem over fire melting steel.

You urge us to do some maths. Without data that isn't possible. If you accept that 'not all' result from collapse, then you have to accept that fire was responsible. But as fire cannot do that we have an impasse. Unless you consider the possibility of a thermetic reaction having a role that is.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You urge us to do some maths. Without data that isn't possible. If you accept that 'not all' result from collapse, then you have to accept that fire was responsible. But as fire cannot do that we have an impasse. Unless you consider the possibility of a thermetic reaction having a role that is.

But as has been quite clearly demonstrated, fire CAN do it. And other things too.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
But as has been quite clearly demonstrated, fire CAN do it. And other things too.

Hydrocarbon based fire, in an open environment, can melt steel ? I think that you need to provide proof of that claim.
But as has been quite clearly demonstrated, fire CAN do it. And other things too.

Fire can indeed do a lot of things. It can soften steel and cause deformations and twisting. It can lead to the failure of connections due to thermal expansion. Your claim that fire can produce iron rich microspheres means that you claim that fire can melt steel.

But a hydrocarbon based fire in an open environment cannot melt steel - as you very well know.

And in this thread we are discussing iron rich microspheres resulting from molten steel.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
A grinding wheel ? I have !! The sparks were hot !! And caused by the enormous difference between the speed of the wheel and the item I was forcing against it. Two points there. #1 Massive difference in relative speed and #2 the two items being forced together long enough to create enough frictional heat to achieve the intended result. Can gravity do that when the items said to be causing friction are falling together ? Thats the bit I find hard to accept you see.

How long is the edge of a grinding wheel against the metal - a very small fraction of a second - and that is enough to heat VERY SMALL pieces of metal red hot.

And how fast is a grinding wheel rotating? Well you can work that out easily enough - if you have a 6" wheel the circumference is about 20", and if it is rotating at 1000 rpm then that is 20,000 inches per minute. There are about 63,000 inches in a mile, so each 100 rpm is about 1/3 mile per minute - roughly 20 mph.

Feel free to scale up for any given size or speed, or correct my math if wrong! :)

Of course it does not heat all the metal - it does not even heat every piece of metal dust it removes red how (or white or whatever) - most of them do NOT spark.

So you already know that it does not take very long

And as to one molybdenum microsphere. Yes - just one from about seven small samples from various parts of NY. I find it merely 'interesting' that one was found, because as you say, it may have been there for many years before 2001. And may well have been the only such sphere for hundreds of miles, that just happened to be in the few samples collected. Thats possible of course. I keep buying lottery tickets on that basis.

and that basis is what? Show me the maths for this uncertainty that you imply please -= because otherwise you are still just asserting stuff.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
OK I get it. You don't want to be serious. Burning flakes of rust and steel wool is the best you can do.

It's all that is needed. There was a lot of rust on the towers - similar to the amount of primer paint.

If you are claiming that this will not account for what was found in combination with other sources), then present some numbers.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
How long is the edge of a grinding wheel against the metal - a very small fraction of a second - and that is enough to heat VERY SMALL pieces of metal red hot.

OK. I get the message from you both. Neither of you want to be serious here. Its either steel wool or a debate over probabilities of a lottery and how fast a grinding wheel rotates at. I will leave you to it.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I just replicated the steel wool experiment with a butane lighter, and found that hydrocarbon fire can actually melt steel.

This does not suggest the towers were made of steel wool. It simply demonstrates that small pieces of iron produced by rusting and friction can turn into microspheres at normal fire temperatures.

 
Last edited:

MikeC

Closed Account
OK. I get the message from you both. Neither of you want to be serious here. Its either steel wool or a debate over probabilities of a lottery and how fast a grinding wheel rotates at. I will leave you to it.

that is just plain insulting - I provided a very rational and evidence based post about the time that it takes for a grinding wheel to heat sparks - something you say you are familiar with, and you think that means that I am not wanting to be serious?

feel free to do [...] then - because I can't be bothered [...] any more.

[...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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