Does Damage to MH17 indicate or exclude a Particular Buk Launch Location?

Ole

Member
You should carefully read wikipedia. For example, 9M38 and 9M38M1 is different missile - first have burn time 15 sec, another have burn time raised to 19 sec. It give to missile additional 5 km range and 2 km alt.
That sounds reasonable. The engine would shut down after 19 km slant range (probably a little less taking into account the acceleration phase). At an angle of 45° that would be after 13.3 km ground track at an altitude of 13300m. I see no contradiction to the flight profiles provided by AA.
 

Ole

Member
it very close to mine, lol
bye-bye Z missile
4. AA based calculation of range for S missile on geo-location which give variation on FoV on missile trail, but dont give confirmed position.
.
The 3D Graphic you endorse has the BUK at an inclination of ~25°. That would imply the S missile was launched at a distance of ~15km which is within the city limits of Torez. You aren't proposing that?
 
Last edited:
1. AA give wrong fragment distribution.
2. AA give wrong range from Z to plane and about elevation angle of missile
3. AA give wrong targetting point for Z missile.
4. AA based calculation of range for S missile on geo-location which give variation on FoV on missile trail, but dont give confirmed position.
If the missile came from Snizhne how come we have no evidence of any fragment damage to the right wing? none at all. And why do we have no fragment exit holes on the right side of the cockpit?

why is Snizhne even a candidate???

[...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Robert E

New Member
This is an interesting photo. It seems there are two shrapnel holes in opposite direction!

I am not sure which of two hole seems to be caused by shrapnel from which side, just replying to make sure we having a common interpretation of what we actually see.

When i saw the hole in the centre i remembered reading something of a typical type of disforming when a hot shrapnel hits a metal surface.

My analysis:Analysis 001b.PNG

RED:
at the edge of the hole we see a disforming which is typical for impact with a hot metal peace. The edge is very slighty elivated above the original surface. This hapens because the hot shrapnel actually melts the metal of the plane.
My source for this (quote in Dutch):
"Een opvallend kenmerk van het fragment zijn cirkelvormige verdiepingen aan het oppervlak met randen die boven de oorspronkelijke oppervlakte van het fragment uitstijgen."
Translated in English:
"A striking feature of the fragment are circular recesses on the surface with edges that go beyond the original area of the fragment." (with "fragment" is ment a piece of the planeskin, not a fragment as a part of the missile or shrapnel)

BLUE:
Cracklines, i am sure about "RED" but less sure about the blue cracklines. The two cracklines look to be only apearing in the top layer of this piece of the plane.
The same article also mentiones cracklines in the paintlayer of the investigated piece of the plane:
In Dutch:
"De coating vertoont mechanische inbreukschade en is aan de randen van het fragment gescheurd."
Ïn English:
"The coating exhibits infringement mechanical damage and is torn at the edges of the fragment."

Source for Red and Blue:
www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/binnenland/buk-raket-bewezen-fotos-videos-en-analyses (section of fragment 5)

Based on the Red and Blue "damage" i assume the pink line/arrow is the direction (horizontal angle) where the shrapnel came from, within reasonable margins of course. I have no idea about the vertical angle.

About the second hole in the right top of the original photo, i have just general ideas, but i see not enough details (too dark because of the shade) to recognize anything on which i could make an analysis.
 

ad_2015

Member
The 3D Graphic you endorse has the BUK at an inclination of ~25°. That would imply the S missile was launched at a distance of ~15km which is within the city limits of Torez. You aren't proposing that?
Why im should answer about 25 degree if it is not my calculation?
Position of BUK near Snizhne still unknown.
Bellingcat make geolocation by missile trail photo, but it is direction (even beam) without certain position of TELAR and range from MH17 killpoint.

My opinion is launch was possible from one place on this beam. For example, point 48.026818, 38.693527 have enough range for receive elevation 20-30 degree.
 

jonnyH

Senior Member.

jonnyH

Senior Member.
why is Snizhne even a candidate???
Because what we do not know creates a range of uncertainty which makes it impossible to exclude the possibility.

We do not know the correct blast dynamics.
We do not know whether the "lancet" exists.
We do not know whether the missile took a straight or curved path.
We do not know whether missing fuselage is damaged or not.
We do not know whether the holes in the pictures are frag or crash damage.

To conclude as you have requires you to make assumptions about all these things that may not be correct.

Somewhere up-thread people have been making the case for Z or S on the basis of the same damage. This is perfectly possible as both sides are using different assumptions to reach their conclusions.

I think arguing for either Z or S is going about things the wrong way. You need to look at the evidence and see where it takes you, apply a variety of assumptions and work out the range of possibilities, not start from a conclusion and seek evidence to support it as folks seem to be doing.
 

mvdb22

Member
Because what we do not know creates a range of uncertainty which makes it impossible to exclude the possibility.

I think arguing for either Z or S is going about things the wrong way. You need to look at the evidence and see where it takes you, apply a variety of assumptions and work out the range of possibilities, not start from a conclusion and seek evidence to support it as folks seem to be doing.
Agree with what you say. There are a lot of uncertain aspects. To start there is very little information available in open source which learns us more about the BUK missile system. What information can be trusted and what is disinformation? As internet researcher we just lack the experience and knowledge. However common sense, physics and doing a lot of research will provide a better insight. It just takes a lot of time.

>>We do not know whether the holes in the pictures are frag or crash damage.
There is a clear differentiator. Holes in thick metal which show molten metal is for sure fragment damage. The damage to the outher skin could be caused by other sources. Damage to the inner side like cockpit floor is almost sure fragment damage.
 
There are many squarish shaped holes that indicate buk fragments. Many of these are in the cockpit and their presence shows a buk missile is responsible.
So if these squarish holes are evidence of fragments when we see them in the cockpit then they are also evidence of buk fragments in other places.

Does anyone have a bet
 
Because what we do not know creates a range of uncertainty which makes it impossible to exclude the possibility.

We do not know the correct blast dynamics.
We do not know whether the "lancet" exists.
We do not know whether the missile took a straight or curved path.
We do not know whether missing fuselage is damaged or not.
We do not know whether the holes in the pictures are frag or crash damage.

To conclude as you have requires you to make assumptions about all these things that may not be correct.

Somewhere up-thread people have been making the case for Z or S on the basis of the same damage. This is perfectly possible as both sides are using different assumptions to reach their conclusions.

I think arguing for either Z or S is going about things the wrong way. You need to look at the evidence and see where it takes you, apply a variety of assumptions and work out the range of possibilities, not start from a conclusion and seek evidence to support it as folks seem to be doing.
So why is Snizhne a candidate. Why is it better than 100 other places? Z is obviously better because we see damage in all the places it should be. But we are getting off topic , so I don't think discussing lack of evidence is appropriate here. If there is a way we can I'm happy to but it may be suited to another forum, and I appreciate the scope and calibre of discussion here so will leave it
 

Herman Aven

Member
Because what we do not know creates a range of uncertainty which makes it impossible to exclude the possibility.

We do not know the correct blast dynamics.
We do not know whether the "lancet" exists.
We do not know whether the missile took a straight or curved path.
We do not know whether missing fuselage is damaged or not.
We do not know whether the holes in the pictures are frag or crash damage.

It's also important with these kind of analyses to indicate which kind of path would lead to agreement on issues like "correct blast dynamics" or "lancet shape". Since the (not publicly) released detailed specification by the manufacturer will remain suspect simply because of the politics and the only source of hard data of all the experiments, field tests and realistic models would be that same manufacturer, a real problem is forming here because one can simply apply alternative blast dynamics, different lancet or cone shapes, missile paths, to fit some alternative theory. This then would lead to little certainty overall when forming a theory.

I think arguing for either Z or S is going about things the wrong way. You need to look at the evidence and see where it takes you, apply a variety of assumptions and work out the range of possibilities, not start from a conclusion and seek evidence to support it as folks seem to be doing.
Not only I completely agree with this, I'd like to point out that even the coordinator of the international investigation team, Dutch prosecutor Fred Westerbeke, who must have access to way more information and experts than anyone else takes still a very careful approach: "...being shot down by a Buk missile system remains the most likely scenario, but added that the investigators have not yet ruled out all other possible causes" Associated Press June 30, 2015 (New York Times). That might be legal speech though.

Indeed one better focus on ruling out possibilities instead of adding more and more potentials. At some point all the evidence pointing to the same course of events will mount. But there will always be some circumstantial evidence pointing other directions, coincidences, freaky black swans, counter-intuitive events and a lot of perspective shifting. Not to mention any powerful actor potentially muddying the waters with a certain amount of manipulated (satellite) imagery, video, recordings, witness statements and so on. Logic and the laws of physics at least are harder to modify.
 

jonnyH

Senior Member.
So why is Snizhne a candidate. Why is it better than 100 other places?
My point is that on the basis of the evidence presented in this thread alone, Snizhne is no better than "100 other places". It was AA who bring up the other evidence for Snizhne in their presentation in order to dismiss it, I assume that is why it is being discussed as a possibility here even though the evidence we have isn't clear enough for us to make that distinction.
Z is obviously better because we see damage in all the places it should be
There you go again. I could equally say:

"S is obviously better because we see damage in all the places it should be."

because I am working on different assumptions about the blast profile, missile path and missing fuselage. We would both be wrong of course, because neither is "obviously better" if we are only taking into account the frag damage.
But we are getting off topic , so I don't think discussing lack of evidence is appropriate here
The topic is "Does damage to MH17 indicate or exclude a particular BUK launch location?" Whether or not there is enough evidence to accurately calculate the position, angle of attack, blast profile and path of the missile is absolutely central to the question as to whether the damage can be taken to indicate or exclude anything.
 
Last edited:

jonnyH

Senior Member.
There is a clear differentiator. Holes in thick metal which show molten metal is for sure fragment damage.
I agree with you here, but for how many of the holes do we have images with enough detail to be able to make this call? Does this amount to a large enough sample of the overall damage for our analysis to have statistical significance? Does the manner in which we have selected the sample of damage to analyse introduce bias?
 

Herman Aven

Member
A engine nacelle (the forward ring of the Boeing 777 Rolls Royce engine) in the reconstruction hangar show the letters ONT. This might give us a clue which engine it is! Anyone has closeup photos of the Rolls Royce Trent engines?
My suspicion is that the letters are OINT and my guess would be then the word POINT. A quick browse shows that word at least several times on the Trent 500 (see image). Perhaps someone with more patient or knowledge can find example for Trent 800.

 

Herman Aven

Member
... I am working on different assumptions about the blast profile, missile path and missing fuselage.
Assumptions which should be somewhat substantiated. And I haven't seen any of that for blast profiles, normal BUK missile behavior and guidance or warhead shrapnel distribution, amount and speed. Not counting the attempt to simulate fragment cloud vectors. In my view dismissing the manufacturer's data creates a huge gap of what now to assume instead. The best available option would be to first demonstrate how the claims of the manufacturer would not add up when taken all the data as supplied. But to just introduce different data sets from sources which prove to be hard to verify in terms of accuracy or if it actually applies to the specific designs of the weapon system, that will end up with endless speculation. A real swamp with no exit!
 

jonnyH

Senior Member.
The best available option would be to first demonstrate how the claims of the manufacturer would not add up when taken all the data as supplied.
See posts 70-86 in this thread, we have done that, the figures provided by AA are inconsistent with each other.
 

ad_2015

Member
So why is Snizhne a candidate. Why is it better than 100 other places? Z is obviously better because we see damage in all the places it should be. But we are getting off topic , so I don't think discussing lack of evidence is appropriate here. If there is a way we can I'm happy to but it may be suited to another forum, and I appreciate the scope and calibre of discussion here so will leave it
Missile from Z cannot do such damages like co-pilot chair holes and damage on cabin roof.
You guys forgot about next:
1. Dynamic field of strike elements dont have angles more then 20 degree with plane course
2. Dynamic field of strike elements have shape of expanding ring in 3D
3. Detonation point already passed co-pilot
4. Lancet with direction to axis of plane and to left cannot cut right side of cabine (in really both sides together)
Almaz-Antey give good simple picture with wrong disc (lancet) and impossible location of missile so all believe in this fake.
 

Ole

Member

If you look at this photo. it becomes quite clear the layout of the reconstruction is already fixed. Look at the lines on the floor marking the perimeter of the wing. The way the whole wreckage is arranged IMHO leaves little doubt that this is the port engine. Interesting too, that no space appears to be allocated for the starboard wing.
 

Herman Aven

Member
See posts 70-86 in this thread, we have done that, the figures provided by AA are inconsistent with each other.

Ummm, who is we? The committee who decided things in your favor possible? Is it really enough to just draw up a few diagrams using classical physics completely void of any real world elements of actual HE effects at given speeds, wave and pressure fronts, drag, fluid dynamics and so on? It's an interesting challenge but please excuse me of not accepting what is supplied so far as convincing or final!

Also later in the thread for example at post #156 (after your stated "evidence") Mick still wrote that what needs discussing is " most specifically the conflict between the static and dynamic fragment distribution diagrams that cast doubt on the accuracy of AA's interpretation". That's sounds like a better approach but I think it will be very hard to challenge a manufacturer's claim of actual shrapnel behavior without a mountain of experimental data, simulations and complex mathematics. Simplifying it all to some consumer grade easy-to-digest 101 is not going to cut it.
 

ad_2015

Member
Ummm, who is we? The committee who decided things in your favor possible? Is it really enough to just draw up a few diagrams using classical physics completely void of any real world elements of actual HE effects at given speeds, wave and pressure fronts, drag, fluid dynamics and so on? It's an interesting challenge but please excuse me of not accepting what is supplied so far as convincing or final!

Also later in the thread for example at post #156 (after your stated "evidence") Mick still wrote that what needs discussing is " most specifically the conflict between the static and dynamic fragment distribution diagrams that cast doubt on the accuracy of AA's interpretation". That's sounds like a better approach but I think it will be very hard to challenge a manufacturer's claim of actual shrapnel behavior without a mountain of experimental data, simulations and complex mathematics. Simplifying it all to some consumer grade easy-to-digest 101 is not going to cut it.
Im sorry, but what experimentation u need for vector addition? it is basic of any movement and AA can interpretate anything what they want, but our Galaxy have vector summ of missile, plane and splinters speeds.
AA give enough info about static field - heavy pellets between 68 and 112 degree, light pellets between 72 and 124 degree. It even give clear picture how affect top-positioned primer on median angle of pellets. Heavy pellets have same 90 degree to missile axis (not affected), when light pellets receive deviation of median angle to backward on 8 degree.
It have reasons in real physic - heavy pellets have lesser speed (inner layer first transmit energy to outer layer) and receive final direction when all explosive detonated, light pellets move much faster and affected by delay in detonation of bottom edge of explosive and forming gas cloud.
Another confirmation for Mick West simulation im given with graphical draw for Soviet Union 9Zh51 warhead - inclination of warhead give move disclosure angles to backward, but vector adddition of missile speed and plane move all strike elements in forward directions.
More experiments? Open any book about air-defense missile warheads (or artillery shells) and found how splinters distributed on high speed. But no, we need to trust in AA falsification because they produce it. Yes, they produce it. And situated in country which involved in war conflict. And this country already falsified sat pictures, Su-25 tracking etc. AA said why they provide "info" - they want cancel sanction against them. Little trick for successful business.
 

jonnyH

Senior Member.
Ummm, who is we? The committee who decided things in your favor possible? Is it really enough to just draw up a few diagrams using classical physics completely void of any real world elements of actual HE effects at given speeds, wave and pressure fronts, drag, fluid dynamics and so on? It's an interesting challenge but please excuse me of not accepting what is supplied so far as convincing or final!
I didn't say it was final, I am arguing from uncertainty, at what point have I made that unclear? The thing is the uncertainty is not based on any preconceptions about the source but on the fact that there is, as you quote Mick stating, "conflict" in the data from AA. Are you saying that factoring in "wave and pressure fronts, drag, fluid dynamics and so on" can resolve that conflict?
Also later in the thread for example at post #156 (after your stated "evidence") Mick still wrote that what needs discussing is " most specifically the conflict between the static and dynamic fragment distribution diagrams that cast doubt on the accuracy of AA's interpretation". That's sounds like a better approach...
I am making the same point as Mick makes here so I don't see the problem. You sound like you agree with what he is saying.
... but I think it will be very hard to challenge a manufacturer's claim of actual shrapnel behavior without a mountain of experimental data, simulations and complex mathematics. Simplifying it all to some consumer grade easy-to-digest 101 is not going to cut it.
I agree with all of that, but "Simplifying it all to some consumer grade easy-to-digest 101" is exactly what AA have done in their public presentation and thats what we are discussing, we don't have weapons grade information in the first place.
 

Master Yoda

New Member
but I think it will be very hard to challenge a manufacturer's claim of actual shrapnel behavior without a mountain of experimental data, simulations and complex mathematics.

Very hard indeed, but absolutely necessary. Manufacturers usually tend to say what's best for them, if they or their owners could get into trouble otherwise. Otherwise Toyota/GM et all wouldn't have paid a single $ for their erratic brakes etc. and all the cases there would have been dismissed as the driver's faults, not?
 

mvdb22

Member
If you look at this photo. it becomes quite clear the layout of the reconstruction is already fixed. Look at the lines on the floor marking the perimeter of the wing. The way the whole wreckage is arranged IMHO leaves little doubt that this is the port engine. Interesting too, that no space appears to be allocated for the starboard wing.
Good observation. If the Snizhne fragment distribution looks like this, why would the Dutch Safety Board focus on the left wing and engine? Even more remarkable is that the engine nacelle of the right engine was not shipped to the Netherlands.
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17...debris-for-reconstruction-in-the-netherlands/


snizhne.jpg
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
Is it really enough to just draw up a few diagrams using classical physics completely void of any real world elements of actual HE effects at given speeds, wave and pressure fronts, drag, fluid dynamics and so on? It's an interesting challenge but please excuse me of not accepting what is supplied so far as convincing or final!
So what else would you accept? We could in theory at least auto fly a number of 777's along a similar heading and at the same altitude as MH17 and bring them down with a number of different SAM systems fired from different locations and compare the results....

...but there are a shed load of issues with this that makes it not in anyway practical, so we have to resort to physics. unless you can suggest a better method its the best we have.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Please refrain for avocacy, politicizing, or accusations of lying or propaganda. That's just going to lead to endless tit-for-tat discussions. If this continued, such posts will be deleted, and the posters will be removed from the thread. Focus on the evidence.
 

Herman Aven

Member
Good observation. If the Snizhne fragment distribution looks like this, why would the Dutch Safety Board focus on the left wing and engine? Even more remarkable is that the engine nacelle of the right engine was not shipped to the Netherlands.
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17...debris-for-reconstruction-in-the-netherlands/

That article is from December 17 2014. The complete recovery mission only finished recently despite some articles claiming the same in 2014. But following the mainstream news closely over the last few months would clearly have showed more missions were sent over 2015. This appears to have been because of the ongoing fighting still. They might have prioritized certain parts over others?

It's unclear if the wing or engine were transported during these later missions, I cannot find yet an inventory or photo journal but they might exist somewhere.

Some links

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-16/mh17-wreckage-recovery-human-remains/6396700
Updated April 16, 2015 14:05:12
A team of investigators have finally gained access to the last unexamined wreckage of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 in the hope of recovering body parts of the remaining two victims, nine months after the flight crashed in Ukraine...."Our goal is to do everything in our power to bring back human remains, personal belongings and parts of the wreckage to the Netherlands," he said.​

http://www.nltimes.nl/2015/04/30/mh17-salvage-mission-officially-ended/
MH17 salvage mission officially ended
Apr 30, 2015
A large amount of remains and belongings of the victims as well as wreckage of the plane
has been salvaged since the repatriation mission was resumed earlier this month. But Aalbersberg does not rule out that more may turn up in the future. “We can not guarantee that everything has been found, but well the certainty that we have done everything possible.”​
 
Last edited:

Herman Aven

Member
Another confirmation for Mick West simulation im given with graphical draw for Soviet Union 9Zh51 warhead
That was from a 1950's missile right?

But no, we need to trust in AA falsification because they produce it. Yes, they produce it. And situated in country which involved in war conflict. And this country already falsified sat pictures, Su-25 tracking etc. AA said why they provide "info" - they want cancel sanction against them. Little trick for successful business.
That sounds like a collage of conspiracy theories as of yet unproven. And it shouldn't be a factor in this case. The complete pattern of impacts will be revealed by the international investigators to whom AA also presented and submitted their full documentation, not just their press release pack I suppose. There is no reason to make up any trajectories: they will be clear from the evidence! Missile flight trajectory might be another subject but a few locations might become excluded nevertheless. It will become clear by simple substraction.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
That sounds like a collage of conspiracy theories as of yet unproven.

The list of factors is proven AFAIK - Russia is involved in a war situation, it did suggest a Ukrainian Su25 was in the area, and it has been shown to have provided incorrect information about pictures.

none of these are any evidence that "Russia did it" of course, but they serve to make people distrustful of Russia as a source of accurate information. For some people this means taking a closer look at anything the Russians say......for others it means dismissing it all as propaganda. And for others it is a bit of both.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The list of factors is proven AFAIK - Russia is involved in a war situation, it did suggest a Ukrainian Su25 was in the area, and it has been shown to have provided incorrect information about pictures.

none of these are any evidence that "Russia did it" of course, but they serve to make people distrustful of Russia as a source of accurate information. For some people this means taking a closer look at anything the Russians say......for others it means dismissing it all as propaganda. And for others it is a bit of both.

Veering off topic. Again, let's look at the evidence, not get into a Russian pro/con discussion.
 
Is this from the left engine too?

It (the hole) looks very much like it could be fragment damage.
Can we line that hole up with the front shot, if it's the same part as in post #451?

added in edit: Here is another shot though it's hard to make much out.
 
Last edited:

Ole

Member
Is this from the left engine too?

It (the hole) looks very much like it could be fragment damage.
Can we line that hole up with the front shot, if it's the same part as in post #451?
vlcsnap-2015-07-02-08h04m47s239_.jpg

IMHO it's the identical part, the hole in the picture from the maize field is the same as the one at 10 o'clock in the hangar. You have to go 5 sections to 9 o'clock and there is a double crosspiece. Two sections above the hole (11 o'clock) there is a section with soot. The part in the maize field has the same features.

from here (1:53):
More pictures:
http://joostniemoller.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/P1460386.jpg
http://images0.tcdn.nl/binnenland/article23753618.ece/BINARY/u/MH17+wrakstukken+Gilze+Rijen.jpg
 
Last edited:

Ole

Member
Ole, not sure why you are drawing lines on this picture.
The green lines make at least some sense with the prolonged damage in the skin section below, but the red lines are less obvious.
Especially since you did not picture the entire piece.
I didn't draw the lines, just linked in the the photo because it convieniantly demonstrates the location of that part. Actually the author of the post is of the same opinion as you concerning the lines, that's why he used two different colors. Yet the scratch at the AoA sensor makes those red line plausible.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Edward Current Does the beginning part of Gimbal debunk the claim that the object rotates? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 13
T How much research does a truther have to do to get any respect around here? 9/11 170
W What exactly does “Explained:” mean in a thread title? Site Feedback & News 2
S Does this video footage show a dragon (sea serpent) attacking a manatee? [No] Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 4
Jeff Semenak Does Benford's Law apply to Elections? Election 2020 2
P What does "genuine UFO" mean in the Condon Committee report General Discussion 5
Edward Current Needs Debunking: That the GPS does not implement time corrections from Einstein's relativity Science and Pseudoscience 7
Mick West What does "Off-World" mean to the US Military? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 17
J Why Does the Sun Rise and Set In a Straight Line? Flat Earth 14
Joe Hill WTC7: Does This "Look Like" a Controlled Implosion? 9/11 45
J Does google earth pro simulate refraction [No] Flat Earth 7
brad fuller Does the inverse-square law apply to the flat-earth debunking tool chest? Flat Earth 4
creatonez Explained: Why the Earth does not look oblate in photos from space Flat Earth 5
Mick West Why Does the Atmosphere Not Fly off into the Vacuum of Space? Flat Earth 21
Mick West What does the Flat Earth Look Like From Space, with Perspective? Flat Earth 19
Tom Binney Does my FE Debunk in this case make sense to you guys? Practical Debunking 23
ConfusedHominid Need Debunking (Claim): Metabunk Curve Calculator Does Not Calculate for Angular Size Flat Earth 13
S Explained: Why does this Apollo11 photo act so weirdly? Conspiracy Theories 13
FolsomG10 Does Zooming in Change How Much of Something is Hidden by the Horizon [No] Flat Earth 54
Mick West Explained: Why a Spirit Level on a Plane Does Not Show Curvature "Corrections" Flat Earth 98
Trailblazer Why does Polaris appear stationary on a rotating Earth? Flat Earth 16
izz Does this photo show a too-small hole in the Pentagon? [No] 9/11 28
Supreme Logic Why does the equator stay warm all year? Conspiracy Theories 7
P Does Orlando victim switch legs when he switches languages [No] Conspiracy Theories 8
Rory Does the Earth's Curvature Vary with Latitude? [No, not significantly] Flat Earth 34
Z.W. Wolf Does Sundial Disprove Flat Earth? Flat Earth 17
Gamolon Does Mick West's WTC model meet the Heiwa Challenge? 9/11 25
aka How does this Domino Tower Collapse relate to 9/11 Collapses 9/11 75
mrfintoil Study: When Debunking Scientific Myths Fails (and When It Does Not) Practical Debunking 3
Tony Szamboti Does the exclusion of stiffness from Nordenson's falling girder calculations demonstrate anything? 9/11 288
Hama Neggs Where does "Scientist" end and "debunker" begin? Practical Debunking 16
Steve Funk Does Guy McPherson believe in chemtrails? [No] Contrails and Chemtrails 21
Ogmion Does DNA emit light General Discussion 8
T How Does This Failed Demolition Relate to the Collapse of the WTC Towers? 9/11 14
Leifer Erin Brokovich does not believe in chemtrails. Contrails and Chemtrails 64
Trailblazer SkyderALERT: where does the money go? Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Leifer does Social Media + Ego help drive conspiracy theories ? General Discussion 63
David Fraser Super/subscript, how does one do it? Site Feedback & News 4
qed Why does the Lunar Lander leave not tracks Conspiracy Theories 44
Mick West The Johnson and Johnson Settlement, where does it fit in the conspiracy world Conspiracy Theories 13
qed Does concrete melt? 9/11 84
hiper Does Seismic Evidence Imply Controlled Demolition on 9/11 9/11 101
Mick West How Much Does Metabunk.org Cost to Run? Site Feedback & News 17
MikeC Video that does actually support hypothesis with evidence Contrails and Chemtrails 1
fonestar Why does JFK's Head go back after he's shot from the back? [warning: contains gore] Conspiracy Theories 178
Cairenn How much does a storm weigh? Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Mick West Does NIST not testing for explosives and not testing WTC7 steel invalidate everything 9/11 246
Mick West How Much Money Does Alex Jones Make? People Debunked 17
Critical Thinker What does Greenpeace think about chemtrails? Contrails and Chemtrails 34
iKnowWhoYouAre why does this site even exist? General Discussion 134
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top