# Pilots for 9/11 Truth claim WTC airplanes would be uncontrollable at observed speeds

#### Tony Szamboti

##### Active Member
Last edited by a moderator:

#### MikeC

##### Closed Account
Really? Can you quote them and their reasons for disagreeing?

I know the Pilots for 911 Truth are right in what they are saying about the approach and impact speed causing serious control problems because of my background as a mechanical engineer in the aerospace industry. The dynamic air pressure is too great at 500 mph at sea level for human piloted control.

That's what powered flight controls are there for

#### MikeC

##### Closed Account
That's what powered flight controls are there for

In fact the problem with 767 controls at high speed is that they can OVER CONTROL the aircraft - providing so much control input that it stresses the airframe.

Therefore at high speed the outboard ailerons are locked out - being the furthest from the fuselage they provide the largest roll moment, and removing them from the system reduces the stress the control can put on the airframe.

Page 7 of this document (2.4 mb pdf)

#### Jeffrey Orling

##### Senior Member
So you don't have a counter point to what I said. I didn't think you would as the science is pretty straight forward. Have you seen this 6 minute video

Yes I saw it

#### Tony Szamboti

##### Active Member
In fact the problem with 767 controls at high speed is that they can OVER CONTROL the aircraft - providing so much control input that it stresses the airframe.

Therefore at high speed the outboard ailerons are locked out - being the furthest from the fuselage they provide the largest roll moment, and removing them from the system reduces the stress the control can put on the airframe.

Page 7 of this document (2.4 mb pdf)
Aileron lockout would not be enough at 500 mph at sea level. Those speeds are usually only used in airliners at high altitude, where pressure is significantly reduced and a high level of control is not needed either.

The air pressure at 500 mph at sea level is 10 times what it is at landing speeds because it is a function of velocity squared and air density. This is why the experienced pilots in the video could not hit the buildings in the simulator.

#### Bruno D.

##### Senior Member.
Let's say that inexperienced hijackers didnt't fly the planes to the buildings at 500mph. What's the theory?

- the hijackers were very experienced?
- the planes were remotely controlled?
- those weren't planes?
- all footages are tampered with?
- the official calculation of 500mph is wrong and it should be less than that?

Which of the options do you believe in particular, as there are so many versions that I always get confused?

#### Mick West

Staff member
Most of the AE911 folk seem to go for some kind of remote control, using advanced technology.

Staff member

#### Jeffrey Orling

##### Senior Member
I don't think the target would be hard to hit. The pentagon is the largest building in the world. The twin towers were among the tallest at the time and could be seen on a clear day from more than 50 miles away from ground level and probably 100 or more from a jet.

#### Mick West

Staff member
I don't think the target would be hard to hit. The pentagon is the largest building in the world. The twin towers were among the tallest at the time and could be seen on a clear day from more than 50 miles away from ground level and probably 100 or more from a jet.

It's not hard to hit at all, providing you have some control of the plane. That's the main focus of the argument.

#### Jeffrey Orling

##### Senior Member
Mick I am not someone who pilots planes... but the easier (larger) the target... the less precision is required and control is less critical I would think.

#### Mick West

Staff member
Mick I am not someone who pilots planes... but the easier (larger) the target... the less precision is required and control is less critical I would think.

Sure, but the argument is that the aerodynamic effects reach a tipping point at some speeds, making the plane entirely uncontrollable. Perhaps AE911 should fund a study to demonstrate this, as it would be unassailable proof.

How much might that cost, and why would they not want to do it?

#### Josh Heuer

##### Active Member
I don't think the target would be hard to hit. The pentagon is the largest building in the world. The twin towers were among the tallest at the time and could be seen on a clear day from more than 50 miles away from ground level and probably 100 or more from a jet.

Whoa...not trying to stray off topic here but...the Pentagon is the largest building in the world? I think this is far from true.

#### Mick West

Staff member
It's "the world's largest low-rise office building.", at the time of construction it was the largest office building in the world.

It's quite large, just not very tall.

https://pentagontours.osd.mil/

#### TWCobra

##### Senior Member.
Dan Govatos, the person making the claim about pilots not being able to hit the buildings, offers no evidence of that claim. Some background checking of him reveals some interesting facts which I will provide later.

MikeC is correct. The aileron lockout system reduces the aerodynamic effectiveness of the flight control forces at high speed. Only the inboard ailerons operate in that regime.

#### Hitstirrer

##### Active Member
This subject has become a bit of a circular argument that first of all has to accept some basic hard 'assumptions' on board to start to make any sense. For instance, if such planes are difficult to control at sea level, at such speeds, then the skill level of the pilot becomes very important in the debate. Experimentation using skilled pilots with hundreds of hours on these planes has shown that, in a simulator, they struggle to duplicate the amateurs success.

There are mysteries within mysteries too. If an amateur could see the towers from 50 miles out why did the first one fly down the Hudson rather than dive in straight ? Why go past the target and perform a stunningly accurate descending left turn ? Radar shows that the turn was done at very high speed, with a perfect arc, and no control corrections made to the course from the first setting of that turn to come exactly in line with the centre of its target.

Its like you driving a car down the side of a half mile wide runway at its maximum speed, and when you are level with a cone set at the opposite edge of the runway you set the steering wheel into a turn - dont adjust that turn at all - allow for understeer as you do that - and still at max speed, curve that half mile to strike the cone. No course adjustment allowed.

And an amateur did that when pros can't.

Im not sure that I agree that planes would be uncontrollable at observed speeds, but there is a big difference between controlling one, and carrying out incredibly difficult manouvers that were un-necessary if its far easier to simply point and hit from miles out. A similarly difficult diving turn occured at the Pentagon too. And there pilots also worry about the extra problem of ground effect coming into play, and say that at that speed and a few feet from the ground - wheels up - control would be well beyond their skill level if in manual flight.

Thats why @Mick West says that many people suspect some kind of remote or computer control at play. Open that can of worms at this point and start ten new threads.

#### Mick West

Staff member
Why go past the target and perform a stunningly accurate descending left turn ? Radar shows that the turn was done at very high speed, with a perfect arc, and no control corrections made to the course from the first setting of that turn to come exactly in line with the centre of its target.

Its like you driving a car down the side of a half mile wide runway at its maximum speed, and when you are level with a cone set at the opposite edge of the runway you set the steering wheel into a turn - dont adjust that turn at all - allow for understeer as you do that - and still at max speed, curve that half mile to strike the cone. No course adjustment allowed.

And an amateur did that when pros can't.

The Pentagon turn? They obviously did it because they were too high. It's a trivial descending 360. Set a bug on your heading indicator (i.e. note your current heading), ease off the power, bank to the right, wait until the heading comes back to the bug, then you are back where you started, but lower.

And as you can see from the actual track, it was not a very accurate 360, increased rate of turn at the apex, making it teardropped,

What exactly are the parameters that make you think this was difficult?

Or were you referring to the flight 175 turn? Which was even simpler?

#### Jeffrey Orling

##### Senior Member
This subject has become a bit of a circular argument that first of all has to accept some basic hard 'assumptions' on board to start to make any sense. For instance, if such planes are difficult to control at sea level, at such speeds, then the skill level of the pilot becomes very important in the debate. Experimentation using skilled pilots with hundreds of hours on these planes has shown that, in a simulator, they struggle to duplicate the amateurs success.

There are mysteries within mysteries too. If an amateur could see the towers from 50 miles out why did the first one fly down the Hudson rather than dive in straight ? Why go past the target and perform a stunningly accurate descending left turn ? Radar shows that the turn was done at very high speed, with a perfect arc, and no control corrections made to the course from the first setting of that turn to come exactly in line with the centre of its target.

Its like you driving a car down the side of a half mile wide runway at its maximum speed, and when you are level with a cone set at the opposite edge of the runway you set the steering wheel into a turn - dont adjust that turn at all - allow for understeer as you do that - and still at max speed, curve that half mile to strike the cone. No course adjustment allowed.

And an amateur did that when pros can't.

Im not sure that I agree that planes would be uncontrollable at observed speeds, but there is a big difference between controlling one, and carrying out incredibly difficult manouvers that were un-necessary if its far easier to simply point and hit from miles out. A similarly difficult diving turn occured at the Pentagon too. And there pilots also worry about the extra problem of ground effect coming into play, and say that at that speed and a few feet from the ground - wheels up - control would be well beyond their skill level if in manual flight.

Thats why @Mick West says that many people suspect some kind of remote or computer control at play. Open that can of worms at this point and start ten new threads.

You make all sorts of assumptions. The pilots obviously had no practice and it was a hit or miss. They happened to get 3 for three. Call it luck. The plane that flew into the south tower needed to approach from a southerly direction which would put 2wtc in front of (to the south of 1 wtc. And better to approach from the SE. This also put the sun behind them and if they were flying visual, a bright sun directly in your eyes makes it hard to see. You know this from driving as the sun sets on a brilliant day... That's what sun visors are for BTW.

I don't know the exact flight path but I would guess that the final was pretty much straight... after the wide turn to port. The plane also may have been making leeway against the NW wind and I think there were course corrections to prevent the plane from missing which it almost did.

The path makes sense to me. No suicide pilot would approach 2wtc from anything but the southern quadrant as he did.

There was nothing difficult about the pentagon turn. The target was huge and it probably didn't even matter where he impacted... All they wanted to do is hit the pentagon. The course was a wind circle so the pilot could loose altitude. He probably keep going around until he was low enough to turn harder to starboard for the strike. It is presumptuous to assume that the area struck was the intended one... Same with the towers. Just slam the plane into the target somewhere. With the towers they needed to be above floor 50 for quasi level flight because of all the other tall buildings around.

And finally they didn't care if they pushed the planes outside their flight profile in the last moments of flight... even a breaking up plane would cause the same damage (almost)... none of the kinetic energy of impact would have been lost if the structure of the plane was cracking from fatigue.

They needed marginal skills, apparently has experience flying and got lucking and hit the broad side of a barn in perfect weather.

#### Attachments

• Debris Plan Study.pdf
205.2 KB · Views: 584
Last edited:

#### MikeC

##### Closed Account
They needed marginal skills, apparently has experience flying and got lucking and hit the broad side of a barn in perfect weather.

Actually they had pilot licences - some of them had commercial pilots licences which require 200 hrs and had spent "hundreds of hours" in 727 simulators and even had time in 767 simulators. See https://www.metabunk.org/threads/9-11-flight-77-passenger-list-suspicious.1329/page-8#post-80432

They were not airline pilots - but they had better skills than "marginal".

Last edited:

#### TWCobra

##### Senior Member.
Experimentation using skilled pilots with hundreds of hours on these planes has shown that, in a simulator, they struggle to duplicate the amateurs success.

#### Tony Szamboti

##### Active Member
Sure, but the argument is that the aerodynamic effects reach a tipping point at some speeds, making the plane entirely uncontrollable. Perhaps AE911 should fund a study to demonstrate this, as it would be unassailable proof.

How much might that cost, and why would they not want to do it?
Mick, the list of things you think AE911 should do is starting to sound like a kid's Christmas list. Have you given it to them yet? If so, what was their reaction?

Last edited:

#### Tony Szamboti

##### Active Member
They were not airline pilots - but they had better skills than "marginal".
How would you know that? and how does that allow them to control the 767-200 planes well enough at high speed at sea level to hit relatively narrow targets like the twin towers, when the experienced pilots in the simulator could not do it in the slightly smaller 737 at those speeds at sea level?

Any little oversteer or understeer and they are not hitting them with the dynamic air pressure at 500 mph at sea level being 10 times what it is at landing speeds. That means 10 times the aircraft movement for a given control input. It is interesting that, in the simulator, the experienced pilots could hit the buildings once they slowed down to landing speeds.

Last edited:

#### TWCobra

##### Senior Member.
I am struggling to find the point here. If the speeds rendered the aircraft uncontrollable, then ANY method of control, whether manual, automatic or remote would have had the same effect. Obviously that was not so. The question is moot. The aircraft were controllable at those speeds.

#### TWCobra

##### Senior Member.
How would you know that? and how does that allow them to control the 767-200 planes well enough at high speed at sea level to hit relatively narrow targets like the twin towers, when the experienced pilots in the simulator could not do it in the slightly smaller 737 at those speeds at sea level?

Once again, Tony. Please supply proof of that other than the unverified statements of Dan Govatos.

#### Tony Szamboti

##### Active Member
I am struggling to find the point here. If the speeds rendered the aircraft uncontrollable, then ANY method of control, whether manual, automatic or remote would have had the same effect. Obviously that was not so. The question is moot. The aircraft were controllable at those speeds.
I did not say the aircraft were totally uncontrollable at 500 mph at sea level, just extraordinarily difficult to control, with enough precision to hit a relatively narrow target like the twin towers, with less than perfect human input. A machine can do things much more precisely and in a much more controlled manner than a human. A sinple example of that would be slicing a pepperoni stick by hand vs. using a slicer.

Last edited:

#### Tony Szamboti

##### Active Member
Once again, Tony. Please supply proof of that other than the unverified statements of Dan Govatos.
It is a simple question of engineering mechanics that for a given input at 500 mph at sea level, with a pressure which is 10 times that at landing speed, the movement of the aircraft is 10 times what it is for the same input at landing speed. So it would be 10 times more sensitive to input at 500 mph than at landing speed.

The inability of the experienced pilots to control the aircraft to the point where they could hit a relatively narrow target like the towers at high speed at sea level bears that out.

Last edited:

#### TWCobra

##### Senior Member.
Really?

This Dan Govatos on 9/11 pilots for truth.

Manager of Flying for Eastern Airlines? Really?

Eastern Airlines was his first job after graduating from Sparta. He was a flight engineer on the A300 for... well not a very long time at all because Eastern Airlines went bust soon after he joined.

This is his work history. http://www.airlineinfo.com/ostpdf30/263.pdf till 2000.

You can see the "Manager for Flying at Eastern Airlines" earned a little over 7000 bucks for 4 years at Eastern Airlines being their "Manager of Flying".

That is following by a series of grandiose titles at airlines that never got off the ground. The Director of Operations Training at Polar air is a GROUND JOB.

I have a this guys whole story and it shows a history of failed airlines and a string of different jobs lasting around 12 months in each. He is flying Biz jets at the moment and list one of his heroes on FB at Edward Snowden. he is a journeyman aviator; nothing wrong with that but listing his very first job, not just here but elsewhere, as Manager of Flying at Eastern Airlines shows a very questionable attempt at self-aggrandizement.

Just be aware of who you are quoting. Pilots for truth? He is already exposed as a liar.

Last edited:

#### Tony Szamboti

##### Active Member
Really?

This Dan Govatos on 9/11 pilots for truth.

Manager of Flying for Eastern Airlines? Really?

Eastern Airlines was his first job after graduating from Sparta. He was a flight engineer on the A300 for... well not a very long time at all because Eastern Airlines went bust soon after he joined.

This is his work history. http://www.airlineinfo.com/ostpdf30/263.pdf till 2000.

You can see the "Manager for Flying at Eastern Airlines" earned a little over 7000 bucks for 4 years at Eastern Airlines being their "Manager of Flying".

That is following by a series of grandiose titles at airlines that never got off the ground. The Director of Operations Training at Polar air is a GROUND JOB.

I have a this guys whole story and it shows a history of failed airlines and a string of different jobs lasting around 12 months in each. He is flying Biz jets at the moment and list one of his heroes on FB at Edward Snowden. he is a journeyman aviator; nothing wrong with that but listing his very first job, not just here but elsewhere, as Manager of Flying at Eastern Airlines shows a very questionable attempt at self-aggrandizement.

Just be aware of who you are quoting. Pilots for truth? He is already exposed as a liar.
From what you are saying here it seems you don't have a problem with using subjective and less than pertinent data to determine your thinking on a matter. I tend to prefer objective data if it is available, and it is in this case.

The reality is that the experience mentioned in the video provided in the original post here, about the pilots in the simulator not being able to control the aircraft well enough at high speed at sea level to hit the twin towers, fits the engineering mechanics.

Last edited:

#### Mick West

Staff member
Mick, the list of things you think AE911 should do is starting to sound like a kid's Christmas list. Have you given it to them yet? If so, what was their reaction?

They seemed quite open to the idea.

#### TWCobra

##### Senior Member.
From what you are saying here it seems you don't have a problem with using subjective and less than pertinent data to determine your thinking on a matter. I tend to prefer objective data if it is available, and it is in this case.

The reality is that the experience mentioned in the video provided in the original post here, about the pilots in the simulator not being able to control the aircraft well enough at high speed at sea level to hit the twin towers, fits the engineering mechanics.

That Govatos has been caught out in a lie is not subjective. He offers no proof of his assertion. Hitchens razor..That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

#### TWCobra

##### Senior Member.
9/11 pilots for truth trying have it both ways.

Using a non-certified simulator to claim impossibility of AA175 flight.

Claiming successful Dutch simulation was invalid for same reason.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/dutch_simulation_debunked

But they don't have an agenda here... of course not.

#### Cairenn

##### Senior Member.
If a pilot couldn't control it, why do think it could have been flown by remote control?

#### Alienentity

##### Active Member
Is this giant argument from incredulity an official position of AE911Truth?
If so, is this going to be part of the 'new investigation' they're calling for?

It seems like the game is 'we claim something and you have to prove us wrong. If you fail to prove a negative, we win'.

I read the page linked to by TWCobra; it reminds me of the truther reaction to Dr Millette's chip study, where, instead of accepting the reality that their claims are not the final word and that research is disagreeing with their conclusions, they go on full attack to discredit the research.
I'm sure Mr Balsamo doesn't appreciate the irony involved here.

#### Bill

##### Senior Member.

So you don't have a counter point to what I said. I didn't think you would as the science is pretty straight forward. Have you seen this 6 minute video
There is not actually any science in this video. There are a lot of unsubstantiated claims packaged to sound technically substantial. There is no real information about experimental protocols, no real presentation of the data collected beyond casual comments and a result that is unsubstantiated.

Edited for typos

Last edited:

#### Tony Szamboti

##### Active Member
There is not actually any science in this video. There are a lot of unsubstantiated claims packaged to sound technically substantial. There is no real information about experimental protocols, no real presentation of the data collected beyond casual comments and a result that is unsubstantiated.

Edited for typos
Can you tell us the dynamic air pressure at 500 mph at a 1,000 foot altitude and 160 mph (landing speed) at sea level?

#### Bill

##### Senior Member.
Can you tell us the dynamic air pressure at 500 mph at a 1,000 foot altitude and 160 mph (landing speed) at sea level?
That's irrelevant. There is nothing in that video dealing with dynamic air pressure. You also seem to be confusing engineering issues with science. I can tell you for incompressible dynamic flows it's a simple equation: q=1/2p(v squared). I would need to know the actual air pressure (it varies with temperature and other factors) at those altitudes for the time we are talking about. If you are dealing with compressible dynamic flows the equation becomes more complicated with additional variables involved. It's been 30 years since I had to worry about fluid dynamics. The point is this is engineering and not science. The video is scientific proof of nothing.
(Mick - How do I type equations with this system?)

#### Tony Szamboti

##### Active Member
That's irrelevant. There is nothing in that video dealing with dynamic air pressure. You also seem to be confusing engineering issues with science. I can tell you for incompressible dynamic flows it's a simple equation: q=1/2p(v squared). I would need to know the actual air pressure (it varies with temperature and other factors) at those altitudes for the time we are talking about. If you are dealing with compressible dynamic flows the equation becomes more complicated with additional variables involved. It's been 30 years since I had to worry about fluid dynamics. The point is this is engineering and not science. The video is scientific proof of nothing.
(Mick - How do I type equations with this system?)
Engineering is the application of science. It is hard to understand why you think they are so separate and distinct. I don't need to see the equations from you. I would like you to see what the air pressure at those speeds would be at or near sea level. There is a very large difference due to velocity being squared. Your values can be for any temperature as I want you to see the relative values and the enormous difference between what the dynamic pressure is at 500 mph and what it is at landing speeds. That is precisely why the experienced pilots in the simulator could not hit the buildings at high speed at or near sea level and it is certain that much lesser skilled hijackers would have a very difficult time doing it also.

#### Bill

##### Senior Member.
Engineering is the application of science. It is hard to understand why you think they are so separate and distinct. I don't need to see the equations from you. I would like you to see what the air pressure at those speeds would be at or near sea level. There is a very large difference due to velocity being squared. Your values can be for any temperature as I want you to see the relative values and the enormous difference between what the dynamic pressure is at 500 mph and what it is at landing speeds. That is precisely why the experienced pilots in the simulator could not hit the buildings at high speed at or near sea level and it is certain that much lesser skilled hijackers would have a very difficult time doing it also.
I think they are separate and distinct because I'm a former engineer that was engaged in scientific studies used in aircraft development. What was in that video was not science. It had no protocols, no definable measurements used in data collection and no results beyond anecdotal opinion. I'm not going to spend the time looking up air pressures to satisfy you. I've given you the basic equation. If it's that important to you you can look up the information, plug in the numbers and do the work.

#### TWCobra

##### Senior Member.
Engineering is the application of science. It is hard to understand why you think they are so separate and distinct. I don't need to see the equations from you. I would like you to see what the air pressure at those speeds would be at or near sea level. There is a very large difference due to velocity being squared. Your values can be for any temperature as I want you to see the relative values and the enormous difference between what the dynamic pressure is at 500 mph and what it is at landing speeds. That is precisely why the experienced pilots in the simulator could not hit the buildings at high speed at or near sea level and it is certain that much lesser skilled hijackers would have a very difficult time doing it also.

Tony, you appear to be saying that an aircraft like the 767 is not controllable at high speed by manual flying. Can you give an upper airspeed figure, beyond which that a 767 could not be hand flown?

#### MikeC

##### Closed Account
Tony, you appear to be saying that an aircraft like the 767 is not controllable at high speed by manual flying. Can you give an upper airspeed figure, beyond which that a 767 could not be hand flown?

That's a bit of a trick question.....the 767 does not have manual flight controls - they are all powered - stop trying to trap the poor guy with his own ignorance!!

#### Attachments

• 767.png
6.7 KB · Views: 423

Replies
94
Views
68K
Replies
325
Views
88K
Replies
287
Views
70K
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Pilots for 9/11 Truth-"Simulations" video debunked. 9/11 26
Debunked: Pilots Doctors and Scientists tell Truth about Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 67
9/11 P4T FDR analysis of flight 77 9/11 26
9/11 flight Simulations: United 175 9/11 8
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Weigh in on Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 132
EasyJet 737 incident debunks Pilot for 9/11 truth V-G diagram video 9/11 325
Debunked: Pilots for 9/11 truth WTC speeds 9/11 94
9/11: How hard is it to hit a building at 500mph? 9/11 930
Cigar Shaped UFO - March 23, 2021 Captured by commercial airline pilots Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6
Pilots report JetPack flyer...... Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 14
Cube in a Sphere UFO's Seen by Navy pilots. Radar Targets? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 17
"Team Chemtrail" & Chemtrail Pilots Anonymous Satirical Facebook Group Contrails and Chemtrails 22
G. Edward Griffin: Don't Blame the Pilots! Contrails and Chemtrails 52
FB: Airline Pilots Who Believe that Chemtrails are Real Contrails and Chemtrails 28
Question for the pilots here Contrails and Chemtrails 37
Jet Pilots Fear "Chemtrail" Attacks Contrails and Chemtrails 129
Debunked: Photo of pilots protesting chemtrails - it's Photoshopped Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Advocating violence against "Chemtrail" planes, pilots, scientists, and debunkers Contrails and Chemtrails 1762
Debunking resource: Engineers Assess the Truth in AE911Truth (Scott & Hamburger, 2021) 9/11 36
Debunked: 9/11 truth experts are knowledgeable professionals and their judgments are to be trusted 9/11 195
Debunked: Einstein wrote "blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth" Quotes Debunked 12
The Dumbing Down of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth 9/11 174
TFTRH #35 - Mike Santangelo: 9/11 Truth vs. B.S. Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
TFTRH #16: Adam Taylor – Retired 9/11 Truth Activist Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 0
ISO of Former Engineers and Architects Signatories of the A&E for 9/11 Truth Statement Escaping The Rabbit Hole 0
How Big is the Audience at 9/11 Truth Events? 9/11 4
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth - 990 Tax Returns, Employee Compensation 9/11 33
Has the 9/11 Truth Movement Stagnated? 9/11 129
Adam Taylor's Withdrawal from the 9/11 Truth Movement Escaping The Rabbit Hole 4
How to Prove Satellite Images are Real - Ground Truth Flat Earth 16
Ground Truth: Verifying Stellarium's Model of The Solar System Flat Earth 2
AE911 Truth Forced to Claim Plasco Collapse is an Inside Job 9/11 336
NYT article: How the Internet Is Loosening Our Grip on the Truth Practical Debunking 23
Debunked: 9/11 Truth New York Times Billboard Quote 9/11 53
Climate Scientist says "Scientists should consider stretching the truth": Stephen Schneider Quotes Debunked 2
Why don't Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Fund Research? 9/11 450
Debunked: Snowden uncovers shocking truth behind Chemtrails [Satire] Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Debate between Pilot Steven Kneussle and Mark McCandish on "The Truth denied" Contrails and Chemtrails 3
The Truth Denied: Evidence of deliberate disinformation in CHEMTRAILS KILL Group Contrails and Chemtrails 12
Understanding Truth Above All Else Conspiracy Theories 14
MKULTRA - Were children involved, and was the focus only to find a truth serum? Conspiracy Theories 7
buffdaddy3144: Recovering from 9/11 Truth and how it relates to Religion Escaping The Rabbit Hole 0
Debunk: imgur: "Boston Truth Revealed" Boston Marathon Bombings 84
Hi, I am a "truth-seeker" from Indonesia, and I really respect site like this! General Discussion 1
Attribution of Schopenhauer's Three Stages of Truth Quotes Debunked 8
Truth and lies: Conspiracy theories are running rampant thanks to modern technology General Discussion 3
Claim: chinless ghost photographed at a Police incident in Irvine, Ayrshire, Scotland Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 12
Claim: Vaccinated English adults under 60 are dying at twice the rate of unvaccinated people the same age Coronavirus COVID-19 25
Claim: adverse reactions in Covid vaccine trials are not being recorded Coronavirus COVID-19 55
Claim: Pfizer sponsors many mainstream TV shows (with the implication being that can lead to bad things) Coronavirus COVID-19 68
Related Articles