Evidence for the Buk missile launch site

Jason

Senior Member
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...es-which-may-lead-to-missile-launch-site.html. There's a video of the reporter in the link that I can't copy.

A reporter from the Telegraph claims to have possibly found the missile launch site 12 miles from the border of Russia and in the area of the town of Snizhnoye, from where imagery released by the United States suggests an SA-11 missile was fired from a Buk mobile rocket launcher against the civilian aircraft.






So the reporter says the evidence isn't conclusive but a good place to start
 

Trailspotter

Senior Member.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...es-which-may-lead-to-missile-launch-site.html. There's a video of the reporter in the link that I can't copy.

A reporter from the Telegraph claims to have possibly found the missile launch site 12 miles from the border of Russia and in the area of the town of Snizhnoye, from where imagery released by the United States suggests an SA-11 missile was fired from a Buk mobile rocket launcher against the civilian aircraft.



So the reporter says the evidence isn't conclusive but a good place to start
In a related thread I have already given a link to the BBC Russian Service reportage about their searching for the BUK in the same area without success. A few hours ago they published a new reportage about two Ukrainian Su-25 having been shot down right there today. There are plenty of other weapons at this site that could leave scorching marks on the ground.
 
Last edited:

Jason

Senior Member
In a related thread I have already given a link to the BBC Russian Service reportage about their searching for the BUK in the same area without success. A few hours ago they published a new reportage about two Ukrainian Su-25 having been shot down right there today. There are plenty of other weapons that could live scorching marks on the ground.
I agree the reporter said it was inconclusive, but there was evidence of water bottles and melted plastics near this area where there was scorched earth which led him to believe it was the best candidate... Agreeably, he isn't a forensic investigator.
 

Bill

Senior Member.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...es-which-may-lead-to-missile-launch-site.html. There's a video of the reporter in the link that I can't copy.

A reporter from the Telegraph claims to have possibly found the missile launch site 12 miles from the border of Russia and in the area of the town of Snizhnoye, from where imagery released by the United States suggests an SA-11 missile was fired from a Buk mobile rocket launcher against the civilian aircraft.






So the reporter says the evidence isn't conclusive but a good place to start
Doesn't the launch appearing almost vertical depend on where you are standing in relation to the launch when the picture is taken? A launch that is seen as 45 degrees when viewed from 90 or 270 degrees may appear vertical when viewed from 0 or 180 degrees. All I can really say from that picture of a launch is that it went up.
 

Juha

Member
What are the squiggly lines in the clouds. Is that the outline of a city or roads, or is it the path the plane took or perhaps the missile?
Borders and coastlines.
Or my red "circle"? :)
That's my artistic performance about crash site, approx. :)
 

Morty

New Member
An anonymous pro-Russian chap has done an analysis which comes to the conclusion that Ukrainian forces shot MH17 down with a Buk missile. It's a few weeks old, I don't know if it has been looked at here at metabunk yet.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByibNV3SiUoobnpCVDduaHVORHM/edit?pli=1

I haven't been able to get my head around the geographical factors involved (in combination with all them funny Russky town names!), but if anyone feels like some sport, it's there to be debunked.

One problem I do have with his analysis though, is his conclusion (due to the damage on the top side of MH17's left wing) that the missile approached the plane from ~45 degrees to the right. The damage we've seen on the left side of the cockpit would seem to speak strongly against that.
 

KAT

Active Member
It's well written except for spelling lose "loose". He offers some interesting alternative firing points, but his evidence seems no stronger than anyone else's.

First he describes the effect on the plane, saying it can fly another 20 or 30 km that way. Then draws diagram showing 5 km between the first and last debris fields. And omits the middle one which makes the total flight distance longer but still only 1/3 of his supposed possible distance).

Photos from all 3 had been geolocated by the time he wrote it, as he refers to a Telegraph map which came out after the 3 villages had been identified. The debris shows the plane turned from southeast to northeast, which is an indication of the direction the blast came from -- NORTH of the flight path. So his south-of-path BUK locations don't make much sense. At least he correctly places the flight path further north than most other analysts.

BIG problem here. ZERO shrapnel damage on starboard side, plenty on port side. Evidently he is counting on "It is doubtful the starboard side will ever be found".

He then puts forth the SU-25 cannon theory, using the "left wing graze" images, which were originally proposed IIRC by Russia to support a Ukranian SU-25 shoot-down. BUT on that version, the scrape on the wing was an air to air continuous rod mark, and was fired from near the wing tip. This guy used it to support a shot from starboard front theory, the scrape being shrapnel that overshot the mark. (I believe to be from the main fan cowling).

For both scenarios , he attributes the port side damage to EXIT holes (based on a few appearing to be curled outwards). And his weapon of choice is a mixed-round 30m cannon.

He then eliminates two BUK positions as being to close, and should have produced damage on the top surfaces of the plane, as he insists BUKs must explode above the target.

OKAY. He examines all the then current theories, adds a few of his own, then demolishes them all. The aim is to make Sniznhe impossible, this being where the separatists allegedly fired from. He offers a choice of air to air missile or cannon fire from a Ukrainian plane.

OKAY OKAY I KNOW WHO THIS GUY IS.

He goes into a moderate anti-Kiev rant at the end. And mentions a nickname of a blogger (a very good one with good information) who's published other work from this guy before. OKAY. He is a separatist, at least by sympathy. I am not sure he actually lives there. Either he is, or his work is translated by, a bilingual Ukrainian Russian grown up in an English speaking country. Australia and Canada have sizable such populations. Families that emigrated to flee persecution tend to remember and keep track. It can take to the second generation born in the new land to not get involved; child migrant might.

His report does not stand up. If it was air to air, which I don''t entirely discount, it was from the port front, and a MIG not an SU. It don't think it will ever be found out.
 

JustMe

New Member
You missed one of his main points, which is, that the "Telegraph" site was out of range, and even out of range of the radar.

The other issue,starboard or port hit is not that relevant in my view. In the end, these are 2 lines in a 3D space, and hence it could explode anywhere on any side. For a hit on the left side from Shakhtar, the trajectory would have crossed underneath.

Further, a Russian expert thinks, that a BUK missile is unlikely, because:

"However, a guided missile launched by a Buk missile system leaves behind a specific smoke trail as it flies, like a comet. In daylight this trail can be clearly seen within a radius of 20-25 kilometers from the missile system. It cannot remain unnoticed. There are no eyewitnesses to confirm there was any. No one reported a launch."

"The holes left by the strike elements on the Boeing's outer skin indicate that the warhead blew up from below and sideways. A Buk missile strikes the target from above."

"A Buk missile leaves no large holes and does not tear the plane's outer skin the way we could see on television."

http://rbth.com/news/2014/07/29/boe..._system_unlikely_-_military_expert_38607.html
 

JustMe

New Member
I compiled all information which I would regard as reliable or fact. My conclusion is

A Shot down by Kiev
B US knows it
C Possibly with intent


1. Photos of the wreckage

A missile explosion is very likely, very likely near the cockpit and likely on the left side.

Additional machine canon hits are unlikely, but cannot be excluded

2. Russian data

I would consider Russian data reliable. Though we are in a propaganda war, handing out fabrications to investigators would have been very likely and triumphantly exposed by the US. As nothing of that sort happened, I regard the US reaction as a silent confirmation. Later, I will talk about additional leaked US intelligence confirming this point.

Russian data tells us that

a. There has been another Ukrainian military plane in proximity of about 3-5 km

b. There were several Ukrainian BUKs in the area, radars were turned on, they were operative and had been moved close to rebel positions on the very day of the shoot-down and they were removed, when the satellite flew over again the next day.

c. That a US spy satellite, capable of providing high resolution images, was flying over the scene at the time of the shoot-down.

3. Eyewitnesses

Eyewitnesses may make errors and may not tell the truth. However, I would consider their report reliable, because it was presented on the BBC, which is not known to be biased in favour of Russia or the rebels, and because all witnesses tell the same story.

Eyewitnesses support 2a, that there was a military aircraft, probably below the airliner. None of the eyewitnesses reported an exhaust fume trail of a surface to air missile.


4. Physics

The rebel BUK site (Snizhne), as purported by the Telegraph and a US intelligence cartoon, was out of range of hitting or even discovering the approaching airplane.

Three Ukrainian BUK sites, however, were active and in range, and one of them (Shakhtar) appears to have been well positioned to shot down the airliner matching the wreckage profile.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByibNV3SiUoobnpCVDduaHVORHM/edit?pli=1

5. US Intelligence Leak

US intelligence officers have leaked to Robert Parry, a US award winning investigative journalist, that

"What I’ve been told by one source, who has provided accurate information on similar matters in the past, is that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms."

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/

Further,

"But I’m now told that U.S. intelligence analysts ... are concentrating on the scenario of a willful Ukrainian shoot-down of the plane, albeit possibly not knowing its actual identity."

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/03/flight-17-shoot-down-scenario-shifts/

6. US Data

Though the US is in a propaganda war and despite having pushed its allies into sanctions, the most drastic of them after the shoot-down, the US did not present any evidence to support their claims apart from social media information posted by unknown individuals with unknown background.

It is very likely that the US would have presented evidence to support their claims, that a). the airliner was shot down by rebels and b). the BUK was delivered to them by Russia, if they had such evidence.

It is therefore very likely that such evidence does not exist.

7. US History

In the 2 previous, most similar cases, the shoot-down of KAL007 by the Sovjets over Siberia and Iran Air 655 by the USS Vincences, we know that the US lied to the public.

a. In the case of KAL007 the US even altered the transcript of intercepted communication to produce the impression of a willful, murderous attack.

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/29/obama-should-release-ukraine-evidence/

b. In the case of Iran Air 655, the US lied about the circumstances of the shoot-down, that the captain ignored commands, chased Iranian small boats into Iranian waters and then unprovokedly fired on them and finally shot down the airplane in Iranian airspace on its regular route.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

c. Nine former US intelligence officers have signed a letter to president Obama stating that secretary Kerry was already not telling the truth to the public about the Sarin attack in Syria:

"We are hearing indirectly from some of our former colleagues that what Secretary Kerry is peddling does not square with the real intelligence."

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/29/obama-should-release-ukraine-evidence/

8. Russian military expert

A Russian military expert reminds that a

"However, a guided missile launched by a Buk missile system leaves behind a specific smoke trail as it flies, like a comet. In daylight this trail can be clearly seen within a radius of 20-25 kilometers from the missile system. It cannot remain unnoticed. There are no eyewitnesses to confirm there was any. No one reported a launch."

"The holes left by the strike elements on the Boeing's outer skin indicate that the warhead blew up from below and sideways. A Buk missile strikes the target from above."

"A Buk missile leaves no large holes and does not tear the plane's outer skin the way we could see on television."

http://rbth.com/news/2014/07/29/boe..._system_unlikely_-_military_expert_38607.html
 

Jason

Senior Member
2. Russian data

I would consider Russian data reliable. Though we are in a propaganda war, handing out fabrications to investigators would have been very likely and triumphantly exposed by the US. As nothing of that sort happened, I regard the US reaction as a silent confirmation. Later, I will talk about additional leaked US intelligence confirming this point.
Did Russia even give the investigators any intelligence or information pertaining to the downed MH 17. Or was everything they shared done on RT news to create CTs
 

Viking

New Member
-I would consider Russian data reliable.
-a. There has been another Ukrainian military plane in proximity of about 3-5 km
-There were several Ukrainian BUKs in the area
-Eyewitnesses support 2a, that there was a military aircraft, probably below the airliner.
-Three Ukrainian BUK sites, however, were active and in range
-battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms.
-In the case of KAL007
-a Buk missile system leaves behind a specific smoke trail as it flies
I would not, i.e. changes in wiki by kreml to support the theory.

And actually they saw airborne object leaving MH17 right _after_ explosion that did not have transponder for identification. It could also been the cockpit falling off. Maybe deliberately incorrect estimate.

As you mentioned, explosion is in front part of plane and missile came either right under or from distance front. Missile from behind would have exploded the tail due to proximity fuse. All Ukraine BUKs were behind the plane and there are evidence of i.e. Volvo-BUK in rebel area.

It is not possible to see even 60m jet plane at 33000ft not to speak of telling that smaller object below is a military plane.

As earlier, wrong direction, missile come from front. There is quite comprehensive explanation of location east of Torez, 28km from petropavlika where I believe the hit happened - not way before. "Torso does not fly". The document you provided assumes that hit was some 40km before landing this is not plausible - consider torn roof, lost cockpit and lost engine(s). I actually made some calculations and believe that the hit was very close to Petropavlika.

Hearsay? Satelite cameras are unbelieveable and they can surely tell location but telling the difference of army outfits, wow. I think little more evidence is needed. Especially when rebels probably also use ukrainian army clothes.

Wasn't it Yuri Andropov's government who denied that russians shot downed the plane and tried to hinder examinations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007?

Yes it does leave smoketrail, but you have to be quite near to see it, on higher altitude, higher speed the trail is not so evident.
 

Jason

Senior Member
I would not, i.e. changes in wiki by kreml to support the theory.

And actually they saw airborne object leaving MH17 right _after_ explosion that did not have transponder for identification. It could also been the cockpit falling off. Maybe deliberately incorrect estimate.

As you mentioned, explosion is in front part of plane and missile came either right under or from distance front. Missile from behind would have exploded the tail due to proximity fuse. All Ukraine BUKs were behind the plane and there are evidence of i.e. Volvo-BUK in rebel area.

It is not possible to see even 60m jet plane at 33000ft not to speak of telling that smaller object below is a military plane.

As earlier, wrong direction, missile come from front. There is quite comprehensive explanation of location east of Torez, 28km from petropavlika where I believe the hit happened - not way before. "Torso does not fly". The document you provided assumes that hit was some 40km before landing this is not plausible - consider torn roof, lost cockpit and lost engine(s). I actually made some calculations and believe that the hit was very close to Petropavlika.

Hearsay? Satelite cameras are unbelieveable and they can surely tell location but telling the difference of army outfits, wow. I think little more evidence is needed. Especially when rebels probably also use ukrainian army clothes.

Wasn't it Yuri Andropov's government who denied that russians shot downed the plane and tried to hinder examinations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007?

Yes it does leave smoketrail, but you have to be quite near to see it, on higher altitude, higher speed the trail is not so evident.
I agree its fairly obvious the separatist and or Russians were involved in the debacle. It would be nice to know the exact coordinates for the Buk system launch site, but I don't need to know where it is to understand that Kiev had nothing to do with this. All of the news that came out of Russia was reactionary and RT news http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RT was the largest promoter of the Kremlin's take on what transpired. The biggest tell for me was when the Russian military went on RT news and tried explaining how there was a SU 25 in the area that shot down mh17. Knowing full well these planes could never climb to 10000 meters, so what did they do. They went into Wiki to change the max ceiling of these planes. Come on, its actually an amateur move to be honest with you not too mention how their propaganda machine contorted the events for MH17 in Wiki. It's a disgrace to the families that lost loved ones but its obvioulsy an accomplishment for their propaganda machine. They've succeeded in twisting the truth and implanting doubt.
 

Juha

Member
I compiled all information which I would regard as reliable or fact. My conclusion is

A Shot down by Kiev
B US knows it
C Possibly with intent

1. Photos of the wreckage
A missile explosion is very likely, very likely near the cockpit and likely on the left side.
- Like from forward coming BUK, as you said yourself. Very typical BUK attack pattern.


2. Russian data
- Russian data fails at identifying the place of very BUK launcher. That's why whole data is doubtful.

Russian data tells us that

a. There has been another Ukrainian military plane in proximity of about 3-5 km
- No, there's no indication what it is. Just a argue, without any proofs.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/mh...ane-flying-nearby-before-incident.3993/page-2

b. There were several Ukrainian BUKs in the area, radars were turned on, they were operative and had been moved close to rebel positions on the very day of the shoot-down and they were removed, when the satellite flew over again the next day.
-What they were looking for? Separatist didn't have planes. Just for tracking MH17? Why they didn't shoot then, when the radars were on? Cloudy day, how could they took the satellite image at 17.7?

c. That a US spy satellite, capable of providing high resolution images, was flying over the scene at the time of the shoot-down.
- Cloudy day, nice pictures from the clouds.

3. Eyewitnesses
- Cloudy day. We people tend not to see trough them.

4. Physics
- Closest BUK sighting at 17.7.14 was at Torez. 6 miles from crash site.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-buk-launcher-trucked-out-of-ukraine.3977/page-3

5. US Intelligence Leak
-Consotiumnews as a source, well... not very trustworthy.

6. US Data
It is therefore very likely that such evidence does not exist.
- Evidence may exist, but not for us. Classified info is classified info. Satellite/thermal image resolutions are secrets, that's very easy to understand.

7. US History

Sovjets/Russians has also a very interesting history at lying/tampering proofs.
Finnish winter war started from "Mainilan laukaus", which was their own artillery. They purposely shot their own troops with their own artillery at Mainila. Then they claimed that the artillery was Finnish, cut the diplomatics and rushed over the border.

At present days, theres been lots of going on in Chetchenya, Georgia and some other places. Some of the small countries has Russian general as a minister.

8. Russian military expert
- It was a cloudy day. Don't know how low the clouds was, but anyway it wouldn't been very far-sighted.
There were some eyewitnesses, but how reliable, that's the question.

Satellite image from 17.7.2014 11:35CET

 

JustMe

New Member
The map in the report from the Dutch Safety Board now clearly suggests, that the impact was at the front top RIGHT side.

http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/ckg2-g8-dd45.gif

The reason is, that the parts with the largest holes (left side cockpit below window, cockpit roof) were found to the North of the flightpath, a huge deviation only explicable by the force of an explosion from the right side.

http://assets.wallstreet-online.de/_media/3216/board/20140910214537-boeing.png?env=live


Top position, because the holes in the top appear to be entrance holes.

Then, the big holes in that famous cockpit left side piece are EXIT holes (though there may still be additional entry holes from a machine canon).

This is then consistent with a shoot down by a Ukrainian BUK as reported by Russia and investigated here:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByibNV3SiUoobnpCVDduaHVORHM/edit?pli=1

It is also consistent with the information leaked to Robert Parry from US intelligence sources:

"What I’ve been told by one source, who has provided accurate information on similar matters in the past, is that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms."

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/

Further,

"But I’m now told that U.S. intelligence analysts ... are concentrating on the scenario of a willful Ukrainian shoot-down of the plane, albeit possibly not knowing its actual identity."

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/03/flight-17-shoot-down-scenario-shifts/
 

JustMe

New Member
5. US Intelligence Leak
-Consotiumnews as a source, well... not very trustworthy.
Robert Parry is an award winning investigative journalist at consortiumnews

He is very well connected with US intelligence officers, easily proven by the fact that nine former US intelligence officers chose his website to write a letter to president Obama stating and signing with their names that secretary Kerry was not telling the truth to the public about the Sarin attack in Syria:

"We are hearing indirectly from some of our former colleagues that what Secretary Kerry is peddling does not square with the real intelligence."

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/29/obama-should-release-ukraine-evidence/
 

Bill

Senior Member.
Robert Parry is an award winning investigative journalist at consortiumnews

He is very well connected with US intelligence officers, easily proven by the fact that nine former US intelligence officers chose his website to write a letter to president Obama stating and signing with their names that secretary Kerry was not telling the truth to the public about the Sarin attack in Syria:

"We are hearing indirectly from some of our former colleagues that what Secretary Kerry is peddling does not square with the real intelligence."

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/29/obama-should-release-ukraine-evidence/
I have to agree with Juha about Consortium News.

Robert Parry seems to have little desire for objective journalism. His overriding narrative seems to be Republicans/Conservatives/Neocons are responsible for anything that goes wrong and if it happens under a Democratic president or if a Democrat doesn't get re-elected the Republicans/Conservatives/Neocons are guilty of malfeasance. Look at his October Surprise series for an example.
http://consortiumnews.com/the-new-october-surprise-series/
He also has a bad habit of making claims based on unnamed intelligence sources that will talk only to him and retired sources that are currently out of the the loop. This makes if hard to verify his claims.

The consortium site is less a news reporting site than it is a long series of opinion pieces designed to create a message. Parry claims he finds this kind of reporting offensive in journalism and that it is the reason he now edits this blog instead of working for a major publication but he fails to recognize it in himself.

If you don't want to read the October Surprise series jut read his about page on the Consortium News site. He makes it clear that his interest is wrong doings on the part of Republicans/Conservatives/Neocons while giving a pass to Democrats other than to say their problems are rooted in the actions of Republicans/Conservatives/Neocons.

Then he ask for a donation.
http://consortiumnews.com/about/

Judging by his bibliography I could get just as objective reporting from Ann Coulter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Parry_(journalist)
 

triumph61

Member
I found this Separist Map http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/kot_ivanov/71733898/730/730_900.jpg
It is also found at the End of the Page and published at 18.July. (click to the Map and look at the Bottom)
http://andresh.ru/novorossia/map-war/1090--15072014.html
It shows the situation between 15.-18. July in that Region. The Boing Accident is placed at wrong point. It has to be more in the north. But we know this place were the separist placed it. It is this one.
http://rt.com/files/news/2a/94/c0/00/snimok_ekrana_2014-07-21_v_18.47.57.png
In Maps https://www.google.fr/maps/place/Do...2!3m1!1s0x40e0909500919a2d:0x36335efdc5856f84

But the Sattelit Pic was published three days later at 21.7. by the Russian Press Briefing. Is it random that the Separist placed the Boing downing exact at THIS place or did they make a mistake and show the place of the Buks?
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
TEEJ MH17: Evidence a Missile was Used. Shrapnel, etc. Flight MH17 448
C My girlfriend,Jungian Personality Theory and the Rabbit Hole (Dealing with Relationships) Escaping The Rabbit Hole 1
R "Breakthrough": U.S. Attorney Agrees to Present Evidence of WTC Demolition to Federal Grand Jury. 9/11 153
M How to Evaluate Specious Evidence (Like "Bubbles" in Space) Practical Debunking 6
Mick West Explained: Unburned trees next to burned down structures as evidence of secret "energy weapons" Wildfires 119
Everett Anderson Standard Atmospheric Refraction: Empirical Evidence and Derivation Flat Earth 18
deirdre J.Marvin Herndon tries to pass off Bird Poop as evidence of "chemtrail" spraying Contrails and Chemtrails 24
MikeC Claim: New Zealand quakes man made...... Conspiracy Theories 4
Bill Statler "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence": practical problems using this argument Practical Debunking 3
Mick West When Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence in Conspiracy Theories Practical Debunking 35
Jonathan Evans Gyroscopes as Evidence for a Spherical and Rotating Earth Flat Earth 4
Inti Claims that compass “symbols” are evidence of Masonic involvement Conspiracy Theories 8
Michael Mitchell Claim: Evidence for use of "Breaching Round" at Sandy Hook Sandy Hook 23
Mackdog Justice Scalia death: No autopsy as evidence of conspiracy Conspiracy Theories 15
Mick West Debunked: AnonSec's NASA Hack, Global Hawk Hijack, Evidence of Chemtrails [Public Domain Data] General Discussion 32
deirdre Debunked:'Everyone must Check In Sign' evidence of FEMA Drill Sandy Hook 25
Jay Reynolds Government of Cyprus said to find no evidence of spraying Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Blues63 The Angle Cut at Ground Zero: Clean up or evidence ofa CD? 9/11 13
Rob Can the weapon system used be determined from the available evidence? Flight MH17 40
M Claim: Robert Parry: Australian 60 Minutes fudged evidence to pin blame on Russia Flight MH17 21
Oystein Debunked: "WTC7 Sound Evidence of Explosions" by Chandler/AE911T 9/11 31
ColtCabana United States v. Tsarnaev Evidence Boston Marathon Bombings 3
MikeC Oregon's milky rain - evidence of weather warfare? Contrails and Chemtrails 6
TWCobra Chemtrail evidence that would stand up in court Contrails and Chemtrails 20
Leifer Has the accusation of "shills" become an independant conspiracy ? Conspiracy Theories 89
Mick West Claim: New 9/11 Survivor Provides Explosive New Evidence 9/11 59
Ladym "Smoking Gun" evidence of chemtrails? Contrails and Chemtrails 55
Libertarian MH17 Evidence Video Time Stamped Before Crash Flight MH17 12
Mick West Debunked: Patents. As Evidence of Chemtrails, Geoengineering, Existence, Operability, or Intent Contrails and Chemtrails 62
mrfintoil Debunked: "Welsbach" Patent 5003186 as Evidence for "Chemtrails" Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Josh Heuer 9/11: Any Evidence for remote controlled planes? 9/11 91
Mick West Debunked: Iron Microspheres in 9/11 WTC Dust as Evidence for Thermite 9/11 743
hiper Does Seismic Evidence Imply Controlled Demolition on 9/11 9/11 101
A Evidence of Prior Knowledge of a Planned Attack 9/11 4
Nick " Evidence of deliberate disinformation in CHEMTRAILS KILL Group." Contrails and Chemtrails 1
David Fraser The Truth Denied: Evidence of deliberate disinformation in CHEMTRAILS KILL Group Contrails and Chemtrails 12
Jay Reynolds Chemtrailer looked for evidence but finds nothing reliable. Escaping The Rabbit Hole 0
Mick West Debunked: Global Dimming vs. Global Brightening, as evidence for Geoengineering or Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 66
MikeC Video that does actually support hypothesis with evidence Contrails and Chemtrails 1
mynym Evidence that Osama Bin Laden was involved in 9/11 9/11 69
Critical Thinker Deliberately misleading vs. misinformed/misunderstand valid evidence/logic People Debunked 3
Gail Tree and other plant problems as evidence for chemtrails? Contrails and Chemtrails 153
Mick West Tip: Ask for Evidence, Don't Ask for Proof Practical Debunking 0
Cairenn a funny - Nicholas Cage Vampire Evidence General Discussion 1
Oxymoron 9/11: PNAC Motive and Opportunity as evidence of an inside job 9/11 332
HappyMonday Chemtrails - New Evidence Contrails and Chemtrails 6
O "Where's your evidence of chemtrails?" Contrails and Chemtrails 38
Mat Is there any high quality evidence of chemtrails? Contrails and Chemtrails 31
Danny55 Rosalind Peterson says no evidence of chemtrails (was: Did anyone listen to Roxy?) Contrails and Chemtrails 63
Spongebob New analysis of 9/11 radar and video evidence 9/11 6
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top