MH17: Evidence a Missile was Used. Shrapnel, etc.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Juha

Member
Haa, now I understand what you are trying to tell me.

There are some odds of fitting a MG. It can't be never rule out 100%.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Haa, now I understand what you are trying to tell me.

There are some odds of fitting a MG. It can't be never rule out 100%.
Highly unlikely and the damage probably wouldn't fool any experts into thinking it was a missile.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
Has the CT community (or RT for that matter) claimed that Ukraine has downgraded one of its jets to fire machine gun rounds, in order to make it appear to be a missile strike, which of course, it won't?

Nothing the CT community would say would surprise me though...
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Has the CT community (or RT for that matter) claimed that Ukraine has downgraded one of its jets to fire machine gun rounds, in order to make it appear to be a missile strike, which of course, it won't?

Nothing the CT community would say would surprise me though...
No, but if it is claimed that the damage looks like machine gun damage, then the evidence to support or refute that claim should be what machine gun damage looks like and not just saying it's a cannon or they can't fly that high. That doesn't prove or disprove that it is or isn't damage from a machine gun. It only makes it way less likely that an SU-25 did it.

Again, it's a silly theory but that never stopped anyone from claiming whatever suits them.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Here is supposedly "conclusive proof " that MH-17 was not shot down by a missile...and instead was shot down by Ukraine.

They use images taken from this thread:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014...laysian-airliner-buk-missile-ground-shot.html

... it’s based not on an absence of evidence, but on positive proof that the Ukrainian Government shot the plane down, and even proving how it was done. You will see this proof, right here, laid out in detail, for the first time.
Content from External Source
EDIT: Apparently, MetaBunk is a "propaganda site for the US regime" :D
 
Last edited:

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Here is supposedly "conclusive proof " that MH-17 was not shot down by a missile...and instead was shot down by Ukraine.

They use images taken from this thread:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014...laysian-airliner-buk-missile-ground-shot.html

... it’s based not on an absence of evidence, but on positive proof that the Ukrainian Government shot the plane down, and even proving how it was done. You will see this proof, right here, laid out in detail, for the first time.
Content from External Source
The picture they use of the A-10 with damage is on wiki and it says it was flak damage, not a SAM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II#Durability
The A-10's durability was shown on 7 April 2003 when Captain Kim Campbell, while flying overBaghdad during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, suffered extensive flak damage. Iraqi fire damaged an engine and crippled the hydraulic system, requiring the aircraft's stabilizer and flight controls to be operated via the 'manual reversion mode'. Despite this damage, Campbell flew the aircraft for nearly an hour and landed safely.[56][57]
Content from External Source
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Here is the account of the incident and it says it was an AA missile. (or sam)
http://web.archive.org/web/20090903200943/http://www.stripes.com/07/jun07/heroesweb/campbell.htm

As she rolled in on her target, and adjusted her position using the joystick in her right hand, Campbell’s thumb slipped over the “pickle button” at the top of the stick. A split-second before the Warthog hit the target her thumb pushed the button, and the rocket spat from the plane with a bright flash of flight.

With the throttle still full out, Campbell began to make her move up and away from the target. She was just beginning to move to her left, with the familiar, solid sensation of G-forces underneath her seat, “when I felt and heard a large explosion in the back of the aircraft.”

“There was no doubt in my mind,” she said. “I knew exactly what it was. I knew I’d been hit.”

It was an anti-aircraft missile, and the impact had sheared both hydraulic lines to her jet.
Content from External Source
 

Jason

Senior Member
Here is supposedly "conclusive proof " that MH-17 was not shot down by a missile...and instead was shot down by Ukraine.

They use images taken from this thread:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014...laysian-airliner-buk-missile-ground-shot.html

... it’s based not on an absence of evidence, but on positive proof that the Ukrainian Government shot the plane down, and even proving how it was done. You will see this proof, right here, laid out in detail, for the first time.
Content from External Source
EDIT: Apparently, MetaBunk is a "propaganda site for the US regime" :D
Evidence Is Now Conclusive: 2 Ukrainian Government Fighter-Jets Did Shoot Down that Malaysian Airliner. No ‘Buk’ Missile Ground-Shot.
Content from External Source
When did the second SU-25 enter the picture. I always thought this argument entailed one SU-25, NOT 2 of them.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Is the portion of the A-10 that has damage the portion that has the titanium armor? I know the cockpit is enclosed in it.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I mentioned this before,but I think a lot of the "exit" holes on MH17 are actually the aluminum skin being blown back from the underlying steel due to fragmentation and possible liquidification of aluminum.
 

Jason

Senior Member
Here is supposedly "conclusive proof " that MH-17 was not shot down by a missile...and instead was shot down by Ukraine.

They use images taken from this thread:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014...laysian-airliner-buk-missile-ground-shot.html

... it’s based not on an absence of evidence, but on positive proof that the Ukrainian Government shot the plane down, and even proving how it was done. You will see this proof, right here, laid out in detail, for the first time.
Content from External Source
EDIT: Apparently, MetaBunk is a "propaganda site for the US regime" :D
And correct me if I'm wrong, the Russians claim the SU-25 approached from the south west of MH17 and opened fire, how does the majority of damage appear to be in the "front" of the aircraft and the pilot side of the air craft.
 

KAT

Active Member
Evidence Is Now Conclusive: 2 Ukrainian Government Fighter-Jets Did Shoot Down that Malaysian Airliner. No ‘Buk’ Missile Ground-Shot.
Content from External Source
When did the second SU-25 enter the picture. I always thought this argument entailed one SU-25, NOT 2 of them.


There were two, all the way back on Day One. Remember Carlos the Spanish ATCO? So the possibility of both of them having a go was always there. Peter Haisenko just decided both must have been actively firing, to account for what, to him, looks like inside>outside shots on one panel of wreckage. He does not seem to have sought entry holes on the starboard side.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
I found this picture of an F-4 Phantom that has what appear to be bullet holes in it. Now those holes could have not been from combat but just someone shooting at it. But they don't appear to be from cannon fire and would probably be more like what machine gun fire from a .30 or .50 cal would look like.
It's just some random person Flickr and says it was taken in someones yard in Florida.
https://flic.kr/p/5eAqPr
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Here is supposedly "conclusive proof " that MH-17 was not shot down by a missile...and instead was shot down by Ukraine.

They use images taken from this thread:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014...laysian-airliner-buk-missile-ground-shot.html

Washington blog is a laugh isn't it - I mean look at this:
Although the fighter jets that were said to have been escorting the Malaysian plane into the war-zone were alleged to be SU-25 planes, a different type might have been used. SU-25s are designed to be flown up to 23,000 feet without an oxygen-mask, but can go much higher if the pilot does wear that mask, which was probably the case here.
Content from External Source
Clearly whoever is writing has no idea what they are talking about.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Remember Carlos the Spanish ATCO?
Full reply from Spanish embassy to The Spain Report via e-mail on the existence of "Carlos, @spainbuca, the Spanish air traffic controller" in Ukraine:

"This is not the first time we have been asked about him. This "Carlos" was also active during the Maidán revolution in Ukraine.

We have no knowledge of "Carlos" having been in Ukraine. There is no record of his passing through the Consulate, and no one from the (relatively small) Spanish colony knows him.

The airport where he supposedly worked for several years told us at the time that all of their air traffic controllers are Ukranian, and that in any case they have never employed any Spaniard for that or any other task.

Furthermore, the last information he was posting before the airline tragedy was of the same sort. He was saying, for example, that he lived in Kiev and had been threatened by radical extreme-right elements. No Spaniard or national of another country - to my knowledge - has ever been threatened in this country."http://www.sott.net/article/282281-Who-is-Carlos-the-Spanish-air-traffic-controller-in-Kiev
Content from External Source
Yet, the Ukrainian State Air Traffic Services Enterprise has informed StopFake that they do not have a flight operations officer with such name among their workers. Aleksei Pesternikov, deputy CEO of the Ukrainian State Air Traffic Services Enterprise has confirmed that all flight operations officers in the company are citizens of Ukraine.

Also, according to the Methodological recommendations on organisation and appointment of candidates for flight operations officers training, , only citizens of Ukraine can be trained (paragraph 2.3, subtitled «Citizenship»). In other words, a citizen of another country cannot be allowed to participate in the training, they would not be able to receive the license, without which it is impossible to work as a flight operations officer in Ukraine.
http://www.stopfake.org/en/lies-spa...-ukrainian-planes-involved-in-boeing-tragedy/
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:

BombDr

Senior Member.
I found this picture of an F-4 Phantom that has what appear to be bullet holes in it. Now those holes could have not been from combat but just someone shooting at it. But they don't appear to be from cannon fire and would probably be more like what machine gun fire from a .30 or .50 cal would look like.
It's just some random person Flickr and says it was taken in someones yard in Florida.
https://flic.kr/p/5eAqPr
I would agree that it was used as target practice (rather undignified for such a beautiful aircraft) and I would say that they are at least .50 Cal, using my super-efficient combat engineer's eye....
 

Jason

Senior Member
I would agree that it was used as target practice (rather undignified for such a beautiful aircraft) and I would say that they are at least .50 Cal, using my super-efficient combat engineer's eye....
Does distance also play a role in the size of the hole left after the bullet or what have you passes through it? So a .50 cal's hole within a 1000 meters "should" look differently than a .50 cal's hole from 3000 meters away.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Does distance also play a role in the size of the hole left after the bullet or what have you passes through it? So a .50 cal's hole within a 1000 meters "should" look differently than a .50 cal's hole from 3000 meters away.

I doubt it would over that distance. Eventually the bullet is going to slow down and start to tumble. And the trajectory would angle slightly downwards.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
Does distance also play a role in the size of the hole left after the bullet or what have you passes through it? So a .50 cal's hole within a 1000 meters "should" look differently than a .50 cal's hole from 3000 meters away.
Range could play a role in the penetrative power of the round, but as the target area is not constant its very hard to measure....
 

Danver

Member
And correct me if I'm wrong, the Russians claim the SU-25 approached from the south west of MH17 and opened fire, how does the majority of damage appear to be in the "front" of the aircraft and the pilot side of the air craft.

A pair of Su- 25s flying faster than a 777 ,intercepting it..,going a couple of miles ahead and then returning to shot the 777 Pilot who was the guy they hated..

Uhmmmm what part of this story tellls me that somebody is avoiding basic phisics laws and respect for less priviledged minds? :confused:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
A pair of Su- 25s flying faster than a 777 ,intercepting it..,going a couple of miles ahead and then returning...

And to repeat (one) of the reasons for the "Su-25" story being bunk...airplane performance specifications:


  • Service ceiling: 7,000 m (22,965 ft) clean, 5,000 m (16,000 ft) with max weapons
Content from External Source
Simply, absolutely impossible for those types of airplanes to intercept a B-777 that is cruising at 33,000 feet.
 

Hannibal

Member
The Ukraine does have a few SU-25M1 and some sources claim that this version can climb to 10 km:
http://www.redstar.gr/Foto_red/Eng/Aircraft/Su_25M1.html
Service ceiling, m 5.000-10.000
Content from External Source
But I have a different issue: speed.

According to the Sukhoi website the SU-25K has a maximum speed of 0,82 Mach at sea level.
http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su25k/lth/

Since the SU-25 was designed as Close Air Support I assume the speed is reduced in higher altitudes.

According to the Boeing website the Boeing 777 has a cruising speed of 0,84 Mach at 35.000 feet.
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/777family/pf/pf_lrproduct.page

So how should it be possible that the SU-25 climbs up to the Boeing 777 and performs multiple attacks if it should be way slower?
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
The Ukraine does have a few SU-25M1 and some sources claim that this version can climb to 10 km:

That would only be true if it was nearly out of fuel, and with hardly any armaments added as weight.

NOTE the other specs:

WEIGHT
Empty aircraft, kg
9.500
Normal take-off, kg
14.600
Maximum take-off, kg
17.600
Internal fuel, kg
5.000

Note the empty weight...then add the max fuel capacity. You arrive at the 14,500 kg "normal" figure. Even if the jet had (say) only 1,000 kg fuel, then its range and duration of flight would be severely limited.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
The Ukraine does have a few SU-25M1 and some sources claim that this version can climb to 10 km:
http://www.redstar.gr/Foto_red/Eng/Aircraft/Su_25M1.html
Service ceiling, m 5.000-10.000
Content from External Source

It is difficult to see how the M1 would have a different ceiling than the standard version - it has the same engines and same wing, so a 50% increase in service ceiling seems improbable - and a figure "5000m-10,000m" is kind of vague! :)
 

Sgt.Tinfoil

Member
It is difficult to see how the M1 would have a different ceiling than the standard version - it has the same engines and same wing, so a 50% increase in service ceiling seems improbable - and a figure "5000m-10,000m" is kind of vague!
I believe the service ceiling increase comes from the pressurized cabin which allows the pilot keep his conseusness in higher altitudes. I think those upgrades were made after the Afganistan war. Anyway heres a youtube video showing at 5:33 SU-25 flying in ~8700 meters. Note that Russia among few other countries uses meters in aviation not feet like most of the world.

Here is the link to importers specifications of SU-25M1 so we don't need to rely the old SU-25K specifications which are for the oldest model of Su-25 export version http://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/aviakosmicheskaya-tehnika/84-cy-25 It states there that Practical ceiling is 7000-10000 meters. It succest to me that indeed Ukraines army used SU-25M1 really can fly at 10km

EDIT: added link to producer/importers specifiacations of SU-25M1
 
Last edited:

BombDr

Senior Member.
That would only be true if it was nearly out of fuel, and with hardly any armaments added as weight.

NOTE the other specs:

WEIGHT
Empty aircraft, kg
9.500
Normal take-off, kg
14.600
Maximum take-off, kg
17.600
Internal fuel, kg
5.000

Note the empty weight...then add the max fuel capacity. You arrive at the 14,500 kg "normal" figure. Even if the jet had (say) only 1,000 kg fuel, then its range and duration of flight would be severely limited.

Like a lot of conspiracy theories, they choose the most complex and implausible explanation.

UAF has Su27 and MiG 29, which would be better options if one decided, for no logical reason, to dogfight an airliner... and even then, why use the gun when you have perfectly functional missiles....?
 

Hannibal

Member
Like a lot of conspiracy theories, they choose the most complex and implausible explanation.

UAF has Su27 and MiG 29, which would be better options if one decided, for no logical reason, to dogfight an airliner... and even then, why use the gun when you have perfectly functional missiles....?
To that I read the explanation, that a) the plane was allready in the air/the only possible plane to reach the Boeing in time and b) since it's a plane designed for close air support it was not outfitted with AA missiles at that time.

But I totally agree: the theory with the 1 (or 2) SU-25 is so full of 'whens' and 'ifs' that you wonder who should believe that.
 

Ray Von Geezer

Senior Member.
“The oxygen system was used to supply an air-oxygen mixture to the
pilot’s oxygen mask at altitudes in excess of 6,600ft (2,000m), while above
23,000ft (7,000m) only pure oxygen was provided.”
“During pre-planned strike missions, the Su-25 pilots were ordered to enter into steep
diving attack runs for bomb drops from 23,100 to 26,400ft (7,000 to 8,000m)
and even 29,700ft (9,000m), while minimum altitude to commence climb-out
after releasing the ordnance was required to be no lower than 14,850ft (4,500m).
There were some other issues caused by the transition to high-altitude
operations, such as the frequent health problems reported by the Frogfoot
pilots due to the aircraft’s non-pressurized cockpit; they suffered from the
rapid changes in the atmospheric pressure and the frequent use of pure oxygen
for breathing.”
Content from External Source
I noticed this has started popping up in comment sections on various sites to back the claim of SU-25 variants being able to reach 10,000m, attributed to this book - Sukhoi Su-25 Frogfoot By Alexander Mladenov

Previews of the quoted sections can be seen via Google books here and here. I haven't been able to access other pages, they may describe what modifications were required for the plane to reach 9000m, and context as to why it was necessary to fly that high. The section on dive bombing suggests it may be due to losses when making attack runs from lower altitudes.

It certainly seems to demonstrate that SU-25's have been able to reach up to 9,000m, and with at least some form of armament equipped as bombing runs are mentioned.

The full text from which the second quote is pulled says that the combat effectiveness of the plane was impacted, as well as the health of the pilots, suggesting that high altitude flying was undertaken only in exceptional circumstances, rather than normal operation.

Obviously, none of this is proof of an armed Su-25 being able to reach 10,000m as the Russians implied, nor does it address the Su-25's other weaknesses (max speed, weapon range etc) though other sections of the book might have further info.

Ray Von
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
To that I read the explanation, that a) the plane was allready in the air/the only possible plane to reach the Boeing in time and b) since it's a plane designed for close air support it was not outfitted with AA missiles at that time.
But I totally agree: the theory with the 1 (or 2) SU-25 is so full of 'whens' and 'ifs' that you wonder who should believe that.
Which brings up the question: Why were planes built for close air support in the air alone, rather than... I don't know, flying close air support? There were just the SU-25s, no bombers and if they were supporting other fighters those would have been the logical choice to take the plane down with a missile than to sends the support planes in to do it the hard way.

If you had a plane in the air alone in the airspace over a hostile force, wouldn't they not be a support unit? Or is my admittedly video game informed understanding of tactics incorrect?
 
Last edited:

Ray Von Geezer

Senior Member.
Which brings up the question: Why were planes built for close air support in the air alone, rather than... I don't know, flying close air support? There were just the SU-25s, no bombers and if they were supporting other fighters those would have been the logical choice to take the plane down with a missile than to sends the support planes in to do it the hard way.

If you had a plane in the air alone in the airspace over a hostile force, wouldn't they not be a support unit? Or is my admittedly video game informed understanding of tactics incorrect?
What's your understanding of "close air support"? AFAIK (and my knowledge is from videogames and movies too :) ) it means supporting ground troops, not escorting bombers or fighters.

Ray Von
 

Juha

Member
The Ukraine does have a few SU-25M1 and some sources claim that this version can climb to 10 km:
http://www.redstar.gr/Foto_red/Eng/Aircraft/Su_25M1.html
Service ceiling, m 5.000-10.000
Content from External Source
But I have a different issue: speed.

According to the Sukhoi website the SU-25K has a maximum speed of 0,82 Mach at sea level.
http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su25k/lth/

Since the SU-25 was designed as Close Air Support I assume the speed is reduced in higher altitudes.

According to the Boeing website the Boeing 777 has a cruising speed of 0,84 Mach at 35.000 feet.
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/777family/pf/pf_lrproduct.page

So how should it be possible that the SU-25 climbs up to the Boeing 777 and performs multiple attacks if it should be way slower?
And if we read that red star-link with thoughts, we see, that no mod's to engine. And "The project included the reinforcement of structural components, the installment of advanced electronic navigational equipment and a new cockpit with multiple function monitors." That mess adding weight. I'm sure that adding weight without adding power, doesn't make SU-25 go higher. (Bolding mine)
:)

And then mathematics: Service ceiling means, that after that, plane's ability to climb drops below 100ft/min. Climbing from 21000ft(7km) to 33000ft(10km) would take 120mins. And that's jus calculated with steady progress and is optimistic.
 
Last edited:

Jason

Senior Member
Which brings up the question: Why were planes built for close air support in the air alone, rather than... I don't know, flying close air support? There were just the SU-25s, no bombers and if they were supporting other fighters those would have been the logical choice to take the plane down with a missile than to sends the support planes in to do it the hard way.

If you had a plane in the air alone in the airspace over a hostile force, wouldn't they not be a support unit? Or is my admittedly video game informed understanding of tactics incorrect?
Not too mention, I don't get the whole argument of "the SU-25's mistakenly mistook the plane for Putin's plane" and thats why they shot it down. How many other Malaysian flights have flown across that country during this conflict, I would imagine a great deal. It makes absolutely ZERO sense. Firstly Ukranian ATC tracked the "commercial" airliner across it's entire country and ATC even gave it route changes. They knew it was a commercial airliner because of ACARS as well. Secondly, what good would've come out of shooting down a President and his staff out of the sky. It would've immediately entangled both countries into war, a war that the Ukranian government could never win in a million years. It would've been suicide for the Ukranian government. Russia would've unleashed everything they had on the Ukranian government, and there isn't a country in the world that would've stopped them. Mistake or no mistake, could you imagine if the US President's AirForce 1 was shot out of the sky.
 

Jason

Senior Member
Is it me, and I don't mean to judge, but this guy claiming to be "Carlos" looks Russian to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
M Claim: Robert Parry: Australian 60 Minutes fudged evidence to pin blame on Russia Flight MH17 21
Libertarian MH17 Evidence Video Time Stamped Before Crash Flight MH17 12
S Claim: Russian radar would have picked up MH17 missile Flight MH17 15
tadaaa MH17 Documentary from the BBC Flight MH17 81
U MH17 Missile/Plane Intersection Simulation Flight MH17 23
Mick West Almaz-Antey's Live BUK explosion tests Flight MH17 141
Bruce Lansberg Dutch Safety Board publish reports on MH17 crash, Tuesday Oct 13 Flight MH17 14
MikeC Dutch release draft report to involved parties Flight MH17 0
Herman Aven Confirmed Claim: disputed satelite imagery showing "changes in vegetation" Flight MH17 14
william wiley Does Damage to MH17 indicate or exclude a Particular Buk Launch Location? Flight MH17 662
Bruce Lansberg Claim: Jeroen Akkermans: Framents prove MH17 was shot down by a Russian made BUK Flight MH17 34
Bruce Lansberg Dutch Government discloses 245 official documents Flight MH17 0
M Debunked: this photo shows a Ukraine Mig-29 shot down MH17 Flight MH17 66
M Possible Shrapnel in MH17 Wreckage? Flight MH17 26
Bruce Lansberg Main prosecuter Westerbeke says metal particles have been found in the victims bodies and luggage Flight MH17 10
M Claim: Malaysian experts were shot at by Ukraine SU-25 and by GRAD Flight MH17 10
M Claim: MH17 was shot down by separatists using BUK stolen from Ukraine army Flight MH17 32
M What part of forward fuselage is this ? Flight MH17 1
R MH 370 Leroy Alexander? Flight MH17 1
M Solved: MH17: is this part of a missile? [Concrete Grinding Pads] Flight MH17 13
Ezswo Debunked: MH17 - 10 Previous Flightpaths Different From 17-7 Flight MH17 27
KAT MH17 - developments after a month - Aug 17 Flight MH17 4
Franckly Debunked: MH17 Air to air missile Assumption ? [Unrelated 35° angle] Flight MH17 25
Juha MH17 Hypotheses Flight MH17 159
WeeBee MH17: Pinpointing the precise location of the missile impact point Flight MH17 53
Jason Debunked: MH17: Supposed satellite video of missile launch [Fake] Flight MH17 14
Mick West Debunked: "Official Photoshopping" of MH17 photo [Window cover physically removed] Flight MH17 7
Brian Griffin Explained: MH17: Why Are There Expired "Pristine" Passports in the Wreckage? [Visa in Old Passport] Flight MH17 12
Mick West MH17: Video of flight activity before and after the crash Flight MH17 32
Josh Heuer MH17: Russia Claims Ukranian military plane flying nearby before incident Flight MH17 121
Mick West Debunked: MH17 Video Timestamped before the crash, and other timeline issues Flight MH17 8
Mick West Flight MH17 News Flight MH17 79
Gridlock Why was MH17 Flying Over The Conflict Region? Flight MH17 102
Leifer MH17.....claiming responsibility ? Flight MH17 19
C MH17 Malaysian 777 Carrying 295 People Shot Down Over Ukraine Flight MH17 410
Mauro How to calculate the odds of something being true vs. it being false, given the evidence (Bayesian inference) Practical Debunking 40
Marc Powell Debunked: FEMA reported finding evidence that steel had melted. 9/11 47
Mick West Debunked: Navid Keshavarz-Nia's Claims of "A Sudden Rise in Slope" as Election Fraud Evidence Election 2020 5
Joe Hill Beirut Explosion -- Evidence It Wasn't Just A Surface Explosion Current Events 21
Mick West Debunked: Pentagon has Evidence of "Off-World Vehicles Not Made on this Earth" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 14
C My girlfriend,Jungian Personality Theory and the Rabbit Hole (Dealing with Relationships) Escaping The Rabbit Hole 17
R "Breakthrough": U.S. Attorney Agrees to Present Evidence of WTC Demolition to Federal Grand Jury. 9/11 155
M How to Evaluate Specious Evidence (Like "Bubbles" in Space) Practical Debunking 6
novatron Explained: Unburned trees next to burned down structures as evidence of secret "energy weapons" Wildfires 122
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
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top