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

TWCobra

Senior Member.
Ok then....Manual as in the pilot operating the controls rather than an autopilot...

Tony, you should be aware that there is no airspeed in the 767 flight envelope above which manual flight is prohibited. So with a VMO of 360 knots, a pilot can safely hand fly at those speeds. I have personally hand flown it above the limit after an inadvertent airspeed excursion above VMO climbing into a jetstream. The aircraft handled perfectly.

You should also be aware that test pilots must demonstrate the airframe is safe and that an average pilot can safely recover from the Design Dive speed (VD), which in the case of the 767 is 420 knots. This is done manually flying the aircraft.

You should also be aware that 767 recurrent simulator training includes what is call Unusual Attitude recoveries. UA recoveries are done (in my airline at least) with the pilot looking away from the controls whilst the other pilot has a bit of fun by placing the aircraft in some extreme attitude, including inverted. The pilot must then look up, recognise the attitude and apply a recovery manoeuvre. I have gone well beyond VMO/MMO in these simulations. How far past I cannot say because the airspeed indicator (from memory) doesn't go much beyond 400 knots. Whatever the structural considerations at those speeds, the aircraft handles fine.

I am not an engineer like MikeC so I cannot speak for how the flight control system is finessed. But it operates comfortably at extreme speeds.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
The 767 elevator system has an artificial feel system with a direct dynamic pressure input (Q) into the artificial feel computer. That is how it is done; changing the airspeed changes the feel of the elevator controls.

The feel system increases the force required to make a control input as airspeed increases. This is specifically to avoid overstresses caused by large control inputs from hydraulically operated flight controls.

http://www.princeton.edu/~stengel/MAE331Lecture16.pdf

767 flight controls.JPG
 
Last edited:

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
The 767 elevator system has an artificial feel system with a direct dynamic pressure input (Q) into the artificial feel computer. That is how it is done; changing the airspeed changes the feel of the elevator controls.

The feel system increases the force required to make a control input as airspeed increases. This is specifically to avoid overstresses caused by large control inputs from hydraulically operated flight controls.

http://www.princeton.edu/~stengel/MAE331Lecture16.pdf

767 flight controls.JPG
I understand there is a feel system which increases resistance to inputs with airspeed, but it does not allow for precision, which would be very difficult at the high dynamic pressures at 500 mph at sea level. In fact, it decreases the resolution of control to some degree. It is more meant for maintaining straight and level flight at high speed at altitude.

There is good reason the pilots in the simulators could not easily hit the buildings at 500 mph at sea level and could only do it when they were at landing speeds. Anyone saying it would have been easy to do does not understand the mechanics involved.
 

Bill

Senior Member.
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!!;)
I understand there is a feel system which increases resistance to inputs with airspeed, but it does not allow for precision, which would be very difficult at the high dynamic pressures at 500 mph at sea level. In fact, it decreases the resolution of control to some degree. It is more meant for maintaining straight and level flight at high speed at altitude.

There is good reason the pilots in the simulators could not easily hit the buildings at 500 mph at sea level and could only do it when they were at landing speeds. Anyone saying it would have been easy to do does not understand the mechanics involved.
So explain the mechanics involved and what we don't understand. Feel free to go into the physics and the various engineering issues. Several of us here have engineering backgrounds and have worked with aircraft so the math and technical jargon won't be an issue.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
I understand there is a feel system which increases resistance to inputs with airspeed, but it does not allow for precision, which would be very difficult at the high dynamic pressures at 500 mph at sea level. In fact, it decreases the resolution of control to some degree. It is more meant for maintaining straight and level flight at high speed at altitude.

There is good reason the pilots in the simulators could not easily hit the buildings at 500 mph at sea level and could only do it when they were at landing speeds. Anyone saying it would have been easy to do does not understand the mechanics involved.

How do you know it doesn't allow for precision? Have you flown a 767 at high speed? I have.

The feel system is used to avoid over stressing the aircraft at high IAS. It allows smooth control inputs, but the aircraft is perfectly controllable. You statement about being designed for straight and level at high altitude is a bit silly. Aircraft don't generally have high IAS at high altitude and airliners are generally not hand flown at cruise altitude. There the main control problem there is that if you have to hand fly it, the combination of high momentum caused by the high TAS of the aircraft and the lack of damping caused by the relatively low IAS. Damping from higher dynamic pressure is also a factor at lower altitude. It helps avoid the over controlling.

You haven't addressed my statements. If high dynamic pressure was dangerous at high IAS there would be limits on how fast you could hand fly. There aren't. Test pilots hand flew it to 420 knots. The requirement there was to prove an average pilot could recover from a jet upset and not break the airframe.

If you are going to quote the statements of Dan Govatos re: the simulator, maybe you should do a bit of a background search on him first. Maybe you can find why what he claimed is so compelling... or maybe why it isnt.

More to come on that.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
So explain the mechanics involved and what we don't understand. Feel free to go into the physics and the various engineering issues. Several of us here have engineering backgrounds and have worked with aircraft so the math and technical jargon won't be an issue.

I don't know what you don't understand - I was replying to a post from someone else and not to anything you might have suggested.
 

Bill

Senior Member.
I don't know what you don't understand - I was replying to a post from someone else and not to anything you might have suggested.
Sorry - I missed that you were in the top part of that. I thought I was responding to Szamboti comments about understanding the mechanics. Didn't mean to get you caught in there.
 

Rico

Senior Member.
...There is good reason the pilots in the simulators could not easily hit the buildings at 500 mph at sea level and could only do it when they were at landing speeds. Anyone saying it would have been easy to do does not understand the mechanics involved.

When I last dabbled on this topic (which was quite some time ago), I believe there were also simulator trials where it was indeed possible to hit a building at the reported high speeds. So on the topic of simulators, the accuracy of which machine can hit a building is in question. Beyond the various classifications of simulators, I don't really know what kind of criteria and detail designers put into their machines, but I do have to ask: have you considered the possibility that the simulators used simply weren't meant to simulate flight beyond the limitations of say, an overspeed?

As far as the "mechanics involved," I think the burden of proof will be on you to explain why it can't be done. When it comes to precision, the planes are not unlike a speeding bullet hurling through the air. To me, it's pretty much point and shoot, and doesn't really require any superhuman skill to perform unless the so called "mechanics involved" would significantly alter the trajectory or otherwise render the aircraft uncontrollable. On that note, if the aircraft was uncontrollable, then the alternatives are as follows: 1) all three aircraft that stuck their marks on 9/11 were simply lucky; 2) the aircraft that stuck their marks didn't exist; 3) there was some other means of controlling the aircraft.

The second and third alternatives have been brought up a few times in these forums, though they carry the burden of complexity and also some pretty creative imaginings which limit the plausible outcome. The second one is almost in the realm of science fiction and John Lear himself came up with that one. This leaves the first alternative, or the outcome where in fact it wasn't all luck.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
It appears that it was apparently a bit of luck (a lot?) and not as difficult as Tony believes it to be... the only of the three possibilities which make any sense in this world.
 

xenon

Active Member
Now deceased Professional Pilot Philip Marshall (rated in 727,737,747,757 and 767) relates his attempts to duplicate Flight 77 in a simulator starting @ 16:28 on Coast 2 Coast. It took him 4 tries.

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Now deceased Professional Pilot Philip Marshall (rated in 727,737,747,757 and 767) relates his attempts to duplicate Flight 77 in a simulator starting @ 16:28 on Coast 2 Coast. It took him 4 tries.


He does not say it was uncontrollable. He says he forgot to trim the nose down, so he missed the first time.
 

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
He does not say it was uncontrollable. He says he forgot to trim the nose down, so he missed the first time.
Phil Marshall probably didn't realize that trimming the nose down before attempting to hit a building was probably only taught in the suicide hijacker training course. I would bet that if he had been able to take that course he would have never forgotten to trim the nose down and would have surely hit the buildings the first time every time in the simulator.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
Any pilot knows you have to trim forward when applying thrust in these aircraft. Even the hijacker.

Marshall argues his points rather strangely for a pilot. Trimming is self evident. He claims the workload for a single pilot is enormous and he wouldn't like to do it, forgetting that it is part of the endorsement sequence for a 2 pilot aircraft. Pilot incapacitation is probably the emergency that happens most often and the workload using automation and ATC assistance is very manageable.

The workload IS enormous if you hand fly and try to tick every safety box.... which Hanjour wasn't.

He also states that a 757 has 60000 lb thrust engines. The most powerful engine on the 75 is the Rolls Royce version, fitted to the UA aircraft and rated at 43500 lb. Thats a strange error for a supposed expert. I picked it up instantly.

Tony, you still haven't replied regarding my statements on limits on IAS for hand flying. The FAA certification requirements for high speed characteristics can be found here and are well worth a read.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Indeed, trimming down is obvious. And (based on my personal experience flying) particularly so to someone with recent training in small planes, where you trim all the time. Trimming would be an instinctual thing if the nose started to rise, and you were fighting to keep it down.
 

Bill

Senior Member.
Phil Marshall probably didn't realize that trimming the nose down before attempting to hit a building was probably only taught in the suicide hijacker training course. I would bet that if he had been able to take that course he would have never forgotten to trim the nose down and would have surely hit the buildings the first time every time in the simulator.
I'm still waiting for you to explain what we don't understand about the mechanics of flight, aircraft or simulators. I also haven't heard you answer for the dynamic pressure problem. You kept repeating "dynamic pressure " like it was important and I gave you a simple equation to solve for one kind of dynamic pressure. If the answer is integral to your argument I would think you would want to throw those numbers back at us and explain their importance
 
Last edited:

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
I'm still waiting for you to explain what we don't understand about the mechanics of flight, aircraft or simulators. I also haven't heard you answer for the dynamic pressure problem. You kept repeating "dynamic pressure " like it was important and I gave you a simple equation to solve for one kind of dynamic pressure. If the answer is integral to your argument I would think you would want to throw those numbers back at us and explain their importance
I didn't need you to give me an equation for dynamic air pressure. It is a function of air density and velocity squared.

The mechanics involved are that the forces on the control surfaces are 10 times greater at 500 mph at sea level than they are at landing speeds for a given stick input. The moments about the three aircraft axes are then 10 times greater for a given stick movement and aileron control lockout and stick feel are nowhere near enough to compensate for it. These things are meant for high speed cruising at altitude, to help maintain straight and level flight, not for high speed maneuvering at sea level. There is no airliner designed for high speed maneuvering at sea level.

There is a good physical reason experienced airline pilots had a very hard time hitting the buildings at 500 mph at sea level in simulators, whether you and some others here accept it or not. To say it would have been easy is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:

Bill

Senior Member.
I didn't need you to give me an equation for dynamic air pressure. It is a function of air density and velocity squared.

The mechanics involved are that the forces on the control surfaces are 10 times greater at 500 mph at sea level than they are at landing speeds for a given stick input. The moments about the three aircraft axes are then 10 times greater for a given stick movement and aileron control lockout and stick feel are nowhere near enough to compensate for it. These things are meant for high speed cruising at altitude, to help maintain straight and level flight, not for high speed maneuvering at sea level. There is no airliner designed for high speed maneuvering at sea level.

There is a good physical reason experienced airline pilots had a very hard time hitting the buildings at 500 mph at sea level in simulators, whether you and some others here accept it or not. To say it would have been easy is ridiculous.
So no numbers, just generalities.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
I didn't need you to give me an equation for dynamic air pressure. It is a function of air density and velocity squared.

The mechanics involved are that the forces on the control surfaces are 10 times greater at 500 mph at sea level than they are at landing speeds for a given stick input. The moments about the three aircraft axes are then 10 times greater for a given stick movement and aileron control lockout and stick feel are nowhere near enough to compensate for it. These things are meant for high speed cruising at altitude, to help maintain straight and level flight, not for high speed maneuvering at sea level. There is no airliner designed for high speed maneuvering at sea level.

There is a good physical reason experienced airline pilots had a very hard time hitting the buildings at 500 mph at sea level in simulators, whether you and some others here accept it or not. To say it would have been easy is ridiculous.

Tony, endlessly quoting your opinion without backing it up doesn't prove anything.

You are plain wrong when you cite that elevator feel and aileron lockout system are for maintaining straight and level at high altitude. The autopilot flies the aircraft at high altitude due to the difficulties of accurately maintaining altitude caused by the momentum of high TAS and lack of aerodynamic damping. You don't need the same stick input to achieve the same rate of change in different flight speed conditions; therefore the feel system limits the ability for large stick inputs at high speed because they are not needed.

Did you read FAR part 25?

The 767 is designed to operate with NO restrictions at 360 knots at sea level. Its design dive speed is 420 knots KEAS. Recoveries from those speeds are hand flown; the automatics cannot handle them. Why do you ignore these facts?
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
The other thing you ignore is that right along with the increased moments from the higher speed is the increased effectiveness of controls at higher speeds. Therefore as I said, you don't need the same control movement at higher speeds to achieve the same result. That is why feel systems are there, to stop inadvertent large control movements at high speeds.
 

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
Tony, endlessly quoting your opinion without backing it up doesn't prove anything.

You are plain wrong when you cite that elevator feel and aileron lockout system are for maintaining straight and level at high altitude. The autopilot flies the aircraft at high altitude due to the difficulties of accurately maintaining altitude caused by the momentum of high TAS and lack of aerodynamic damping. You don't need the same stick input to achieve the same rate of change in different flight speed conditions; therefore the feel system limits the ability for large stick inputs at high speed because they are not needed.

Did you read FAR part 25?

The 767 is designed to operate with NO restrictions at 360 knots at sea level. Its design dive speed is 420 knots KEAS. Recoveries from those speeds are hand flown; the automatics cannot handle them. Why do you ignore these facts?
Recovering from a dive or flying at 360 knots isn't trying to hit a 207 foot wide building at high speed at sea level. High speed at sea level, with 10 times the pressure on the control surfaces, causes control to be nearly ridiculously difficult for fine maneuvers. Nobody is saying you can't fly at sea level at those speeds. The experienced pilots in the simulators were flying at high speed at sea level, but could not hit the buildings. They could only hit them when they slowed down to landing speeds. It is about resolution and stick feel and aileron control both make that much less, in addition to the forces on the control surfaces being much greater for a given movement.

A german engineer did a video about the south tower aircraft approach and compared any manual flying there to driving a car on ice at 300 mph and aiming for a parking spot. His screen name on the Internet is Achimspok. Look up his video.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Recovering rom a dive or flying at 360 knots isn't trying to hit a 207 foot wide building at high speed at sea level. High speed at sea level, with 10 times the pressure on the control surfaces, causes control to be nearly ridiculously difficult for fine maneuvers. Nobody is saying you can't fly at sea level at those speeds. The experienced pilots in the simulators were flying at high speed at sea level, but could not hit the buildings. They could only hit them when they slowed down to landing speeds. It is about resolution and stick feel and aileron control both make that much less, in addition to the forces on the control surfaces being much greater for a given movement.

A german engineer did a video about the south tower aircraft approach and compared any manual flying there to driving a car on ice at 300 mph and aiming for a parking spot. His screen name on the Internet is Achimspok. Look up his video.

Maybe AE911 should finance a study to demonstrate this.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Seriously though. If all you have is a few random "experts" pontificating on the internet about how hard something is, then you've got nothing. It just seems like one pilot vs. another.

There was discussion a while ago of canvassing pilots in a pilots forum, to ask them how hard they thought the flying was, given the observed speeds and maneuvers. Maybe that should be pursued. A simple multiple choice survey would suffice. You just need a statistically valid sample, 100 would be good.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Seriously though. If all you have is a few random "experts" pontificating on the internet about how hard something is, then you've got nothing. It just seems like one pilot vs. another.

There was discussion a while ago of canvassing pilots in a pilots forum, to ask them how hard they thought the flying was, given the observed speeds and maneuvers. Maybe that should be pursued. A simple multiple choice survey would suffice. You just need a statistically valid sample, 100 would be good.
The survey format is complete . . . all it takes is someone to get permission to launch it on an aviation Forum . . . which I was unable to accomplish . . .
 

Alienentity

Active Member
causes control to be nearly ridiculously difficult for fine maneuvers.
And yet the hijacker pilots managed it. Your protestations are in vain since you simply can't prove they didn't fly the planes.
This is futile - you can't prove a negative.


A german engineer did a video about the south tower aircraft approach and compared any manual flying there to driving a car on ice at 300 mph and aiming for a parking spot. His screen name on the Internet is Achimspok. Look up his video.

He's not a pilot either, neither are you. Not only that I'm familiar with 'achimspok'. He's a full-on 9/11 truther who believes that explosives went off in WTC 7 and in the basement of WTC 1 and 2; he buys into most of the major 9/11 myths like fake passports, planted debris and he even denies the extent of the fires in WTC 7. I remember him pretending that the smoke coming from the S side of WTC 7 was from adjacent buildings. The list of his half-crazy beliefs is long.
So in this arena his credibility for me is about zero.

But of course, that's the kind of judgement required to believe in the remote-control jet theory. :/

Here's a recreation of the flight path in realtime done by cjnewson88. The view of the towers is excellent during the long dive. I'm sure the hijackers weren't worried about any possible structural damage to the aircraft but the maneuver was not violent.
Most of the simulations I looked at done by 9/11 Truthers have them approaching the towers from the wrong altitude and speed anyway.

Maybe it was difficult, but it wasn't impossible.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
The survey format is complete . . . all it takes is someone to get permission to launch it on an aviation Forum . . . which I was unable to accomplish . . .
Here it is . . . anyone who wants to take a whack at getting it on an aviation Forum . . . you have my permission . . . :D

 
Last edited:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Here are the results from a conspiracy Forum . . .

 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Here is an idea. Locate 10 non biased flight students with comparable training to the hijackers. Set up the 9/11 scenario in a stimulator, preferably without being obvious what it is. Make it a test of skill of some sort and offer a money prize to any that could do it.
 

Bill

Senior Member.
Here are the results from a conspiracy Forum . . .

It's more fun to read the comments.
 

Buildy

Member
flight students with comparable training to the hijackers.

That would be me... kinda

I'll be in the official Air Canada Dash 8 Sim on Tuesday morning at YVR. I realize the Dash 8 Sim is not the same thing but would there be any questions anyone can think of that I could ask the techs or other personnel there? I know they definitely have a 767 sim there as well.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
That would be me... kinda

I'll be in the official Air Canada Dash 8 Sim on Tuesday morning at YVR. I realize the Dash 8 Sim is not the same thing but would there be any questions anyone can think of that I could ask the techs or other personnel there? I know they definitely have a 767 sim there as well.

If you can link them to the cjnewson recreation they can understand the approach properly. I'd be interested in their comments for sure. I posted it above.
I don't think there's any consensus that it's not possible to do what the hijackers did on 9/11. Seeing that it's possible then Occam's Razor supports that scenario over more hypothetical ones.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
Myths are usually created by embellishing true stories, sometimes they're just plain fantasy. In the case of the hijacker pilots, it's often said (as in the comment above) that Hanjour couldn't even fly a Cessna, yet he obtained his 'FAA commercial pilot certificate in April 1999, getting a "satisfactory" rating from the examiner'!

Also, in Feb 2001 he started 'Advanced Simulator Training' in Mesa, AZ. There are many details about his and the other's efforts on this chronology. Looks like they rented small planes to fly the airspace they needed to know for the attacks (Washington and Hudson Corridor) and spent months on simulators of jets.

I came across this assessment by a professional pilot, Giulio Bernacchia:

 

Alienentity

Active Member
For reference, here is a page on Giulio Bernacchia. His resumé includes flying for the Italian Air Force, commercial airline, even NATO AWACS planes.

I'm almost certain your average 9/11 Truther has no idea of his observations, they'll never come across them on conspiracy websites.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
I just found this article Simulator Proves “Impossible Speed” was “probable” for Flt 11 and Flt 175 (http://archive.is/CuiGR) showing that the 767 could easily fly at the reported speeds with control.
Done on a certified simulator. This debunks both PFT's and Tony's claims, unless they're going to call him a liar.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

TWCobra

Senior Member.
Recovering rom a dive or flying at 360 knots isn't trying to hit a 207 foot wide building at high speed at sea level. High speed at sea level, with 10 times the pressure on the control surfaces, causes control to be nearly ridiculously difficult for fine maneuvers. Nobody is saying you can't fly at sea level at those speeds. The experienced pilots in the simulators were flying at high speed at sea level, but could not hit the buildings. They could only hit them when they slowed down to landing speeds. It is about resolution and stick feel and aileron control both make that much less, in addition to the forces on the control surfaces being much greater for a given movement.

A german engineer did a video about the south tower aircraft approach and compared any manual flying there to driving a car on ice at 300 mph and aiming for a parking spot. His screen name on the Internet is Achimspok. Look up his video.

Tony you parrot the same lines without any proof. What experienced pilots? Give us some names. Show us the video? Give us their flying hours at the time?

Dan Govatos was the person making those claims. No evidence supplied. I dont wish to get into ad hominem attacks here but Dan Govatos makes a few interesting claims about himself that are easily proven to be massive lies. Get back to via PM if you want those.

Your "10 times the pressure on the control surfaces...." ad nauseum claim. The pressure on the control surfaces is countered by three 3000 psi hydraulic systems that drive the control surfaces. The hydraulics can easily counter those forces at high speed so the feel systems are added to require more pressure through the stick. The kicker is that at high speed you don't need large control deflections to control the aircraft.

I have flown the aircraft in question near VMO at low level and way past it in the simulator, and you quote a German engineer at me? When are you going to provide a any evidence for what you claim apart from " somebody else said"?

Once again read the requirements of the FAR25 certification tests. If you want proof that the aircraft is stable and requires no great skill or control force to fly at speeds way above VMO, it is actually written in the requirements and tested/proven by Boeing.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
TWCobra Pilots for 9/11 Truth-"Simulations" video debunked. 9/11 26
Joe Kerr Debunked: Pilots Doctors and Scientists tell Truth about Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 67
C 9/11 P4T FDR analysis of flight 77 9/11 26
M 9/11 flight Simulations: United 175 9/11 8
SpaceCowboy Pilots For 9/11 Truth Weigh in on Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 132
TWCobra EasyJet 737 incident debunks Pilot for 9/11 truth V-G diagram video 9/11 325
TWCobra Debunked: Pilots for 9/11 truth WTC speeds 9/11 94
lee h oswald 9/11: How hard is it to hit a building at 500mph? 9/11 930
flarkey Cigar Shaped UFO - March 23, 2021 Captured by commercial airline pilots Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6
Leifer Pilots report JetPack flyer...... Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 14
Mick West Cube in a Sphere UFO's Seen by Navy pilots. Radar Targets? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 17
KC-10FE "Team Chemtrail" & Chemtrail Pilots Anonymous Satirical Facebook Group Contrails and Chemtrails 22
Mick West G. Edward Griffin: Don't Blame the Pilots! Contrails and Chemtrails 52
FreiZeitGeist FB: Airline Pilots Who Believe that Chemtrails are Real Contrails and Chemtrails 28
JRBids Question for the pilots here Contrails and Chemtrails 37
Jay Reynolds Jet Pilots Fear "Chemtrail" Attacks Contrails and Chemtrails 129
TWCobra Debunked: Photo of pilots protesting chemtrails - it's Photoshopped Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Advocating violence against "Chemtrail" planes, pilots, scientists, and debunkers Contrails and Chemtrails 1762
Oystein Debunking resource: Engineers Assess the Truth in AE911Truth (Scott & Hamburger, 2021) 9/11 36
Marc Powell Debunked: 9/11 truth experts are knowledgeable professionals and their judgments are to be trusted 9/11 195
Rory Debunked: Einstein wrote "blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth" Quotes Debunked 12
Mick West The Dumbing Down of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth 9/11 174
Mick West TFTRH #35 - Mike Santangelo: 9/11 Truth vs. B.S. Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Mick West TFTRH #16: Adam Taylor – Retired 9/11 Truth Activist Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 0
M ISO of Former Engineers and Architects Signatories of the A&E for 9/11 Truth Statement Escaping The Rabbit Hole 0
Nada Truther How Big is the Audience at 9/11 Truth Events? 9/11 4
Mick West Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth - 990 Tax Returns, Employee Compensation 9/11 33
Mick West Has the 9/11 Truth Movement Stagnated? 9/11 129
Mick West Adam Taylor's Withdrawal from the 9/11 Truth Movement Escaping The Rabbit Hole 4
Mick West How to Prove Satellite Images are Real - Ground Truth Flat Earth 16
Mick West Ground Truth: Verifying Stellarium's Model of The Solar System Flat Earth 2
Mick West AE911 Truth Forced to Claim Plasco Collapse is an Inside Job 9/11 336
SR1419 NYT article: How the Internet Is Loosening Our Grip on the Truth Practical Debunking 23
Mick West Debunked: 9/11 Truth New York Times Billboard Quote 9/11 53
deirdre Climate Scientist says "Scientists should consider stretching the truth": Stephen Schneider Quotes Debunked 2
Mick West Why don't Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Fund Research? 9/11 450
Mick West Debunked: Snowden uncovers shocking truth behind Chemtrails [Satire] Contrails and Chemtrails 4
FreiZeitGeist Debate between Pilot Steven Kneussle and Mark McCandish on "The Truth denied" Contrails and Chemtrails 3
David Fraser The Truth Denied: Evidence of deliberate disinformation in CHEMTRAILS KILL Group Contrails and Chemtrails 12
T Understanding Truth Above All Else Conspiracy Theories 14
Joe Newman MKULTRA - Were children involved, and was the focus only to find a truth serum? Conspiracy Theories 7
Mick West buffdaddy3144: Recovering from 9/11 Truth and how it relates to Religion Escaping The Rabbit Hole 0
Rroval Debunk: imgur: "Boston Truth Revealed" Boston Marathon Bombings 84
N Hi, I am a "truth-seeker" from Indonesia, and I really respect site like this! General Discussion 1
HappyMonday Attribution of Schopenhauer's Three Stages of Truth Quotes Debunked 8
Mick West Truth and lies: Conspiracy theories are running rampant thanks to modern technology General Discussion 3
Mythic Suns Claim: chinless ghost photographed at a Police incident in Irvine, Ayrshire, Scotland Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 12
S Claim: Vaccinated English adults under 60 are dying at twice the rate of unvaccinated people the same age Coronavirus COVID-19 25
Rory Claim: adverse reactions in Covid vaccine trials are not being recorded Coronavirus COVID-19 63
Rory Claim: Pfizer sponsors many mainstream TV shows (with the implication being that can lead to bad things) Coronavirus COVID-19 68
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top