Debunked: WTC Towers Fell in Their Own Footprints

SR1419

Senior Member
Of course it is normal if the building has not been stripped to its bones beforehand. Where on earth would you expect the material to go? You think it would evaporate and disappear into thin air do you?
Sorry Oxy- you are just digging a deeper hole and exposing your..er...lack of knowledge...regarding typical building implosions.

Building implosions are designed so that the material is collapsed in on itself- creating as small a debris field as possible.

They do not have large parts of the facade of the building, the steel infrastructure ejected out in a massive EXplosion scattering debris for blocks.

Of course, you completely ignored the questions:

Can you show ANY controlled demolition that looks even remotely like this?

Can you show Any demolition that has material exploding up and outward?

If its normal you will be able to show similar examples.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Can you show ANY controlled demolition that looks even remotely like this?

Can you show Any demolition that has material exploding up and outward?

Its NOT normal for any controlled demo.
There's actually no material "exploding up" in the WTC. It all goes down and some of it also goes outwards.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
And of course there ARE demolitions that look like the WTC collapse (albeit a lot smaller), but for some reason OXY says they do not:

 
Last edited:

SR1419

Senior Member
There's actually no material "exploding up" in the WTC. It all goes down and some of it also goes outwards.
I guess I can see that- its seems like some of the dust/smoke is going up and I assume some material was in that...and a few small pieces in the pics look to in an upward trajectory- but I see what you mean.

The point remains is that the behavior of the material in the collapse is counter to what is strived for in "normal" demolitions using explosives (aside from not toppling over)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I guess I can see that- its seems like some of the dust/smoke is going up and I assume some material was in that...and a few small pieces in the pics look to in an upward trajectory- but I see what you mean.

The point remains is that the behavior of the material in the collapse is counter to what is strived for in "normal" demolitions using explosives (aside from not toppling over)

Yes, it's not an implosion, which is what a normal demolition would be. It's also not bottom up, which is what normal demolition would be. It also lacked noise of explosives, and any evidence in the rubble of explosives. Collapse also started on the floors that were on fire, meaning there were no explosives on those floors.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Watch the actual collapse initiation. What does it look like is happening?



It's initially a partial collapse. The area above the impact point, and to the right collapses, at the floors that that damaged and/or are on fire. That collapse happens about half a second before the entire top of the building comes down. By the time the block is hitting undamaged floors, it's already dropped around 8 floors.
 
Last edited:

Pete Tar

Senior Member
Have the forces been calculated, ie, the weight of the section above the impact, how much force it would bring down to the area just below it, and the blow-out (initial explosion of material) associated with it?

Edit. is that a fall of two floors before the bottom line of fire?
 

RolandD

Active Member
I think the main problem is that we perceive buildings like the WTC as rigid structures, much like a jenga tower as Oxy referred to eariler. Skyscrapers are rigid, only as long as their structural elements remain in place. Once a few key pieces are gone, it's more like a house of cards falling down. Another thing to keep in mind is that gravity pulls straight down. There were no others forces pushing things sideways.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
It is strange that people expect their common sense/logic experience of things at ground-level scales should apply to something that is on such a massive scale and far and beyond anything they have ever experienced in their daily life.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Yes, it's not an implosion, which is what a normal demolition would be.
I don't get where you say an 'implosion' is a 'normal demolition'. Implosions are specialist demolitions not 'normal'. Also 'implosions' require massive advance deconstruction and weakening and vacating an area of material to allow other material to 'go into' the space.

It's also not bottom up, which is what normal demolition would be.
Agreed but it is entirely possible to sequence downward explosions and how many and how big would they need to be?

Your view, AFAICS, is that they collapsed due to fire fatigue of the beams. 7 is put down to a single beam failing.

My view is, for them to fall so symetrically and totally, they would need to be aided by taking out some key support. I do not see that would require a large amount of explosives to help it on it's way.

Yes it was 'messy' compared to a demolition which goes well but they were all very 'surgical' for 3 random collapses especially considering the way the top was nearly falling off on 2 at one point and the beam in 7 was way off to the side. In fact, considering their size, they were cleaner than some failed demolitions.

I would only call it a 'partial collapse' if it stopped for a reasonable time, at least a few minutes. What I see is a continuation of the collapse.

It also lacked noise of explosives, and any evidence in the rubble of explosives. Collapse also started on the floors that were on fire, meaning there were no explosives on those floors.
Which is why some theorise about 'exotic substances'. Also there is no way to prove completely that the 'compression puffs' were not some form of explosion. You recognise yourself that accounts of explosions could be falling debris but appear not to consider it the other way round. Why one way only?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I think the main problem is that we perceive buildings like the WTC as rigid structures, much like a jenga tower as Oxy referred to eariler. Skyscrapers are rigid, only as long as their structural elements remain in place. Once a few key pieces are gone, it's more like a house of cards falling down. Another thing to keep in mind is that gravity pulls straight down. There were no others forces pushing things sideways.
Yes gravity only pulls down but 'the house of cards', when it falls never 'falls into a pack of cards', there are many forces at work and things will naturally spread out rather than funnel in.

Also the falling debris is hitting the solid building under it and will take the path of least resistance... around it. Imagine using a jetter pointing straight down on a solid object, it would take the path of least resistance but may also damage or erode the object it is hitting.
 

JRBids

Senior Member
If you can get ANY demolition expert to 'collapse' a wtc like Genga pile in a controlled demolition, (not moving one piece at a time:)), directly into it's own footprint I will concede the point and publicly apologise.

How about that.

If you cannot, perhaps you would like to do the honourable thing :)

Reach your aim and claim your prize:


There's no airspace in a Jenga pile.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It is strange that people expect their common sense/logic experience of things at ground-level scales should apply to something that is on such a massive scale and far and beyond anything they have ever experienced in their daily life.
I don't think it's really that strange. People are used to "scale models" being used of various things, and the vast majority of people simply don't have the experience of comparing physics at various scales, especially largely different scales. When people hear that an ant can carry 100x it's own weight, they just think "wow, ants are really strong", when really it should be "wow, ants are really small". If you scaled an ant up to human size, it would not be able to lift it's own limbs, and would just collapse and die. It's just not something people are familiar with, so it's not really strange that people don't get it.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
Also there is no way to prove completely that the 'compression puffs' were not some form of explosion.
The weight and energy of the floors above the compression cloud could be estimated to at least rule out physical impossibility of it being caused by compression.
Although a 'compression cloud' does seem a fairly nebulous thing to calculate correctly.
 

RolandD

Active Member
Yes gravity only pulls down but 'the house of cards', when it falls never 'falls into a pack of cards', there are many forces at work and things will naturally spread out rather than funnel in.

Also the falling debris is hitting the solid building under it and will take the path of least resistance... around it. Imagine using a jetter pointing straight down on a solid object, it would take the path of least resistance but may also damage or erode the object it is hitting.
But, it isn't a 'solid' building. By that point, there are hundreds of tons of material impacting areas which weren't meant to support that much weight.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
There's no airspace in a Jenga pile.
You are missing the point. That picture is to represent the 'result' of the tower collapsed in it's own footprint.

It would need building up first, with spaces in between to a greater height. Then to be imploded... leaving the nice neat pile in its own footprint.

I am simply demonstrating how impossible it would be... beyond physics but is it beyond Metabunk Metaphysics?

Steel falling and melting due to kinetic energy

Aluminium tubes cutting through solid steel.

Knives that cannot cut butter. Butter that cuts knives. Where does it end?

A single support column failing only on one side of a massive high rise office results in a perfectly symmetrical collapse of entire building. Albeit we are led to believe an asymetric internal collapse which no one has seen and no data is provided for, has previously taken place inside.

Concrete that is so soft it offers no resistance

It's all in a days work here at Metabunk
 

JRBids

Senior Member
You are missing the point. That picture is to represent the 'result' of the tower collapsed in it's own footprint.

It would need building up first, with spaces in between to a greater height. Then to be imploded... leaving the nice neat pile in its own footprint.

I am simply demonstrating how impossible it would be... beyond physics but is it beyond Metabunk Metaphysics?

Steel falling and melting due to kinetic energy

Aluminium tubes cutting through solid steel.

Knives that cannot cut butter. Butter that cuts knives. Where does it end?

A single support column failing only on one side of a massive high rise office results in a perfectly symmetrical collapse of entire building. Albeit we are led to believe an asymetric internal collapse which no one has seen and no data is provided for, has previously taken place inside.

Concrete that is so soft it offers no resistance

It's all in a days work here at Metabunk
Your analogy with jenga still makes not sense.

Now you're throwing back all the previously debunked material, presenting it in the same simplistic, erroneous manner. I.e.: Aluminum tubes that cut through solid steel. You might as well be a creationist trumpeting "If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys, ha ha?" over and over again at various points in a discussion. "Falling in its own footprint" is defined by you as a house of cards ending up back in the pack. "One single column falling and resulting in a perfectly symmetrical collapse."

As you say, all in a days work: the bunk flying over and over and around and around, and you have shown absolutely no proof to support any of your "theories". And it will never end, because you will never stop JAQing off, there will always be something that looks fishy, does not look feasible, looks like something else.

Help me to understand what it is to you that is so troubling about the events of that day, and what exactly you think happened, in a nutshell.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
"One single column falling and resulting in a perfectly symmetrical collapse."

As you say, all in a days work: the bunk flying over and over and around and around, and you have shown absolutely no proof to support any of your "theories".
You're quite right, there's absolutely no proof to support the above 'theory'. Only issue being its not Oxy's theory, it's what NIST pumped out in their computer 'recreation' of the events... which seems to rather directly suggest a single column collapse led to a long chain-reaction of internal failures that brought down the whole building. You ever see it? It's pretty convincing. It just has no readily apparent basis in reality, especially given they wont release the data with which they compiled it.

Help me to understand what it is to you that is so troubling about the events of that day,
What wasn't troubling about them...?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
But, it isn't a 'solid' building. By that point, there are hundreds of tons of material impacting areas which weren't meant to support that much weight.
No building is 'solid', otherwise it would not be a building, it would be an obelisk!

However, as evidenced by statements after the 93 bombing, those buildings were designed to withstand a direct hit from a fully fueled 707 traveling at 600 mph and the resultant fire. At no time was it envisaged that they would totally collapse.

Naturally, given that they did collapse, the architect is hardly likely to disagree with the NIST findings which exonerate... he therefore recanted and said 707, traveling slowly, (lost in fog :)), low on fuel. Really, strange parameters to set don't you think, as they were looking to factor in the worst case scenario :confused:

I wonder if he would be working on the massive high rises he currently is working on, if he had disagreed with NIST.

NB Rhetorical question.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
And if you were to scale that up, the Jenga pile would be about 10,000x as strong as the towers. It's a meaningless comparison.
New uses for Jenga... 'Don't panic...this building is built from Jenga blocks and we all know Jenga doesn't collapse' :confused: More Metaphysics?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
However, as evidenced by statements after the 93 bombing, those buildings were designed to withstand a direct hit from a fully fueled 707 traveling at 600 mph and the resultant fire. At no time was it envisaged that they would totally collapse.
They were not DESIGNED to withstand that. They did some calculation to see what would happen in an impact, and they found that it looked like the building would not collapse from the impact. This seems to have been mostly an extension of the wind load calculations.

And indeed the towers did not collapse. They held up very well, even though it was a bigger plane that hit them.

They DID NOT design the buildings to withstand the stripping of the fire insulation, and the fire. Not only was the stripping of the insulation not considered (that we have any evidence of), there was no real way at the time (in the 1960s) to simulate the effects of an hour long fire on multiple floors.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
New uses for Jenga... 'Don't panic...this building is built from Jenga blocks and we all know Jenga doesn't collapse' :confused: More Metaphysics?
No. Real physics. Things simply do not scale as you would expect.

One of the problems of the WTC collapse videos is that they are generally from some distance away. So it kind of looks like a little model. You don't get a sense of what is actually happening in the collapse.

Try to imagine it from inside instead:


See the vast area of unsupported ceiling? Think about the 20 floors above it? The huge weight, thousands of tons of steel. What happens when you remove all those colums on the outside, and start to weaken the columns in the center? What happens when the upper block starts to fall. Picture it, standing in the office above. What happens as those thousands of tons come down from floor to ceiling?
 
Last edited:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
They were not DESIGNED to withstand that. They did some calculation to see what would happen in an impact, and they found that it looked like the building would not collapse from the impact. This seems to have been mostly an extension of the wind load calculations.
They must have just been bigging themselves up after the bombing then

And indeed the towers did not collapse. They held up very well, even though it was a bigger plane that hit them.
Mick please, listen to yourself... that is perfect Orwellian 'Newspeak'

They DID NOT design the buildings to withstand the stripping of the fire insulation, and the fire. Not only was the stripping of the insulation not considered (that we have any evidence of), there was no real way at the time (in the 1960s) to simulate the effects of an hour long fire on multiple floors.
So they were designed to withstand a 707, low on fuel and traveling slowly as the pilot squints through the fog, and then collapse after an hour or so due to the resultant fires.

That's called planning ?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
What's newspeak about that? They did not collapse from the impact, so that aspect of the calculations was correct.

They obvious did not plan for them to collapse after a fire. They just did not design them to withstand this precise type of fire.

Perhaps you could point me to the evidence that indicates they DID consider this exact type of fire?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
What's newspeak about that? They did not collapse from the impact, so that aspect of the calculations was correct.

They obvious did not plan for them to collapse after a fire. They just did not design them to withstand this precise type of fire.

Perhaps you could point me to the evidence that indicates they DID consider this exact type of fire?
It is Newspeak because, and I should not need to be saying this, no one designs a building to withstand an aircraft hit and does not take into account the result.

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/3873416/1/

 
Last edited by a moderator:

JRBids

Senior Member
You're quite right, there's absolutely no proof to support the above 'theory'. Only issue being its not Oxy's theory, it's what NIST pumped out in their computer 'recreation' of the events... which seems to rather directly suggest a single column collapse led to a long chain-reaction of internal failures that brought down the whole building. You ever see it? It's pretty convincing. It just has no readily apparent basis in reality, especially given they wont release the data with which they compiled it.


What wasn't troubling about them...?
The failure had to BEGIN somewhere, don't you agree?

Perhaps I wasn't clear: what was troubling about them that would point to something OTHER than some terrorists hijacked planes and caused death and destruction.
 

JRBids

Senior Member
However, as evidenced by statements after the 93 bombing, those buildings were designed to withstand a direct hit from a fully fueled 707 traveling at 600 mph and the resultant fire. At no time was it envisaged that they would totally collapse.
The buildings weren't hit by a 707 were they?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
They were hit by 767's which are slightly heavier but not much in it.
And they did not collapse from the impact. It's rather a moot point. You need to establish exactly what analysis there was of damage from fire, and if they anticipated this type of fire. Your long excerpt above seems to indicate they did not.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
The failure had to BEGIN somewhere, don't you agree?
Surely. But before I put any faith in it, I'd like to know that the CG 'recreation' portraying how the failure took place, something which took NIST 7 years to produce, hasn't been pulled out of a computer technician's ass based on the exterior appearance of the collapse as video-taped in order to fit the official story. As I mentioned in previous threads, that they released this CG 'recreation' with an unquestionably fictional account of 'what would have happened' if the building hadn't taken damage from the collapse of the towers, in which the collapse for some inexplicable reason is initiated in the exact same place and yet progresses in a far more chaotic, far less 'demolition'-like fashion, increases my doubt of the 'recreation', as if the second video is an absolute fiction (which it unquestionably is) what proof is there that the first isn't? Especially considering NIST won't share the data with which it compiled this 'recreation'.

Perhaps I wasn't clear: what was troubling about them that would point to something OTHER than some terrorists hijacked planes and caused death and destruction.
That they managed to successfully circumvent the most powerful security force on the planet multiple times at multiple stages, that they somehow managed to knock down 3 buildings with 2 planes in some fucked up 'seven-ten split' many consider beyond belief, and that in the direct wake of the attack investigations began on the wrong foot, and went stumbling suspiciously toward gross inadequacy from there.... not to mention the fact there's been absolutely no blame/accountability assigned to those who allowed the attack to take place, (one would at least expect minor charges of criminal negligence to the security personnel or airport security policy makers who allowed multiple hijackers to board single planes carrying weapons) and the Administration and organizations that failed that day had, rather than suffer scrutiny, punishment, or restructuring, been granted all the more power, reach, and political 'confidence'. There's also a whole host of terribly suspicious coincidences surrounding the people involved that have never been investigated, and efforts to 'follow the money' have been deliberately halted with no real explanation as to why, beyond the ludicrous and offensive notion that 'it doesn't matter.', as stated in the 9/11 commission.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
That they managed to successfully circumvent the most powerful security force on the planet multiple times at multiple stages

You keep saying things like that, and it sounds awesome, but what does it actually entail? Just two ordinary things.

1) Getting into the US
2) Getting on a plane

How exactly were those things in any way difficult?
 

Grieves

Senior Member
How exactly were those things in any way difficult?
I've had a fair level of difficulty with each in the past, and I'm a white yuppie with a Canadian passport and no box-cutters/pepper-spray to speak of, typically only flying a few-hundred miles or so, and without my name (so far as I know) in any FBI/CIA databases.


Just two ordinary things.

1) Getting into the US
2) Getting on a plane
*with box cutters, pepper spray, and a plot to wreak havoc on a nation specifically alerted of such a threat and with all the power and influence to respond to it with overwhelming force. Immigrating from Saudi-Arabia, Egypt and Lebanon into the USA is extremely difficult now, but it was by no stretch of the imagination a cake-walk in 2000. There are conditions which apparently some of the hijackers didn't meet, and tests which some of the hijackers apparently didn't succeed at, and yet somehow the vast majority of them managed to get state-side anyway. This would absolutely not have been an easy feat, requiring little coordination. There has been and remains a strong belief amongst many pertinent professionals that it wouldn't have been possible without the help of Saudi-Arabian authorities.

I met a guy who'd just immigrated from Lebanon once. I was waiting for a bus, and he got off one in a rage at the driver, who refused to give him a transfer, as you're supposed to ask for one as you get on, not as you get off, which this guy had absolutely no way of knowing. He started screaming and shouting about how this was supposed to be a land of tolerance and opportunity, and seems to him instead to be the very land of racism. He then started shouting about how afraid we are of his people blowing things up, and how no wonder they're blowing things up with the way the west works... at which point I saw folks start looking rather nervous/getting on their cellphones urgently. When I saw the cops on approach down the busy Main-street, I approached the guy, introduced myself, asked him where he was from. "I am from LEBANON!" he shouted out, not at me but at the sky, and before the cops could track him down I invited him for a beer. He agreed, rapidly calmed, and we had a pretty decent, albeit brief discussion about his situation. The story, albeit brief, he gave me of the process of his immigration made my own difficulties with international travel sound like the whines of a spoiled child.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Surely. But before I put any faith in it, I'd like to know that the CG 'recreation' portraying how the failure took place, something which took NIST 7 years to produce, hasn't been pulled out of a computer technician's ass based on the exterior appearance of the collapse as video-taped in order to fit the official story. As I mentioned in previous threads, that they released this CG 'recreation' with an unquestionably fictional account of 'what would have happened' if the building hadn't taken damage from the collapse of the towers, in which the collapse for some inexplicable reason is initiated in the exact same place and yet progresses in a far more chaotic, far less 'demolition'-like fashion, increases my doubt of the 'recreation', as if the second video is an absolute fiction (which it unquestionably is) what proof is there that the first isn't? Especially considering NIST won't share the data with which it compiled this 'recreation'.
I'd agree it would be better if they released the data, but I don't share your incredulity with the simulations.



Remember the collapse is really in two stages. The interior structure collapses and then the extrior skin. The difference is in the way the skin collapses.

The building with damage forms a kink where the damage is. Which makes the skin collapse from the bottom down. The building without damage retains the stiffness at the bottom, so the skin folds in from the top.


 
Last edited:

SR1419

Senior Member
I've had a fair level of difficulty with each in the past,
Despite your anecdotes, it is fairly common for people from other countries to visit for work or pleasure or to immigrate to the United States.

These are the numbers of people who immigrated to the US from the respective countries in 1999.

Lebanon: 3,040

Egypt: 4,429

Saudi Arabia: 763


http://www.dhs.gov/fiscal-year-1999-statistical-yearbook-0


The fact that some of the potential hijackers didn't get in runs contrary to the idea that they had help.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
I think the figure is 15/19, isn't it?
Despite your anecdotes, it is fairly common for people from other countries to visit for work or pleasure or to immigrate to the United States.

These are the numbers of people who immigrated to the US from the respective countries in 1999.

Lebanon: 3,040

Egypt: 4,429

Saudi Arabia: 763
Have a similar list of those who were turned down in their efforts to immigrate from those countries? Haven't been able to google anything up just yet, and Friday night approaches so I'm not going to try to hard... but I'd bet my evenings beers that those figures are significantly larger.

The fact that some of the potential hijackers didn't get in runs contrary to the idea that they had help.
I don't see how considering the large majority of them, so far as we know, did get in in spite of discrepancies in their applications. In any event, I can't begin to imagine how such an effort would have been made without help. Its not as if Osama and 19 guys were sitting around smoking the hookah when OBL came up with a crazy plot, the 19 guys said 'yeah man, lets do it...!!' and they all started immigrating with ease the next day.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Non-immigrant visa totals 10/2000-10/2001: Egypt - 50,138 Lebanon - 28,440 Saudi Arabia - 46,636 http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2001_NIV_Detail_Table.pdf
B Visa refusal rate by nation 2006:
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY06.pdf
Egypt 32.9%
Lebanon 26.9%
Saudi Arabia 11.3%

But really it seems like the visa approval process was pretty sloppy back then, particularly with introduction of "visa express"

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130051&page=1

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/terror/articles/visa011212.htm
 

Paradigm_shift

New Member
How would you expect them to fall? The part that fell straight down was heavy, it wasn't going to blow over, it was going to fall straight. It then pancaked the floors underneath. What did you expect.
NIST does not support the pancake theory. That has been debunked.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
NIST does not support the pancake theory. That has been debunked.
The early"Pancake Theory" is different from the vernacular usage of the term. Clearly when one floor failed it would fall on the lower floor, which people (including engineers) often refer to as pancaking. The older "debunked" theory was about the initiation of the collapse, not the progression. See
#8:

https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
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 13
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 30
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
Dan Wilson Debunked: Infowars product damages sperm Health and Quackery 2
Mick West Debunked: Corbett Report Targeted by Google/Youtube Conspiracy Theories 37
Mick West Debunked: US "False Flag" Plan to Start War with the USSR [Cuba Intervention Pretext Idea] Conspiracy Theories 1
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top