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

TWCobra

Senior Member.
Here is the reconstruction of Fl 175 by Cj Newsom. Look at the final approach and explain what required such huge skills.

 

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
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.




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.
It can be proven that an infant can't drive a car down the expressway, no matter how much you might insist they did it because that is who you needed to say did it to make your story work.

There is no chance that the aircraft were under manual control when they were being flown into the buildings. The fact that they weren't nosing straight for the building proves that alone.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
.
There is no chance that the aircraft were under manual control when they were being flown into the buildings. The fact that they weren't nosing straight for the building proves that alone.

Actually it proves they were. The last second manoeuvring points to a human pilot who misjudged the drift caused by the crosswind. The autopilot doesn't react that quickly and would have corrected for drift on the run in... As would any mythical added guidance system.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
There is no chance that the aircraft were under manual control when they were being flown into the buildings. The fact that they weren't nosing straight for the building proves that alone.


Such absolute certainty makes you sound like someone immune to reason.

Can you explain why 'they weren't nosing straight for the building' proves it? What does that even mean?
 

Alienentity

Active Member
It can be proven that an infant can't drive a car down the expressway, no matter how much you might insist they did it because that is who you needed to say did it to make your story work.

There is no chance that the aircraft were under manual control when they were being flown into the buildings. The fact that they weren't nosing straight for the building proves that alone.
Strawman argument Tony. It fails. No infant would get a valid driver's license. The hijacker pilots were certified, and spent a lot of time in planes and in simulators.
Of course you're not going to address this fact.

You say there was no chance, we say there was. And you have no way of 'proving' your point. Unlike you, we can indeed show that the aircraft would be controllable at that speed. We've disproved your bare assertion, but I expect you'll ignore it or handwave it away.

Now you're attempting to shift the goalposts and claim that they would have to nose straight in if human piloted? Wow, that's a two-for-one fallacy. Well done but no dice.
Agree with TWCobra - you've dug the hole for yourself and your argument is nonsensical. And to boot you're not an aeronautical engineer or a pilot, so you aren't qualified to say what could or could not happen. Sorry, I don't believe you.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
Actually it proves they were. The last second manoeuvring points to a human pilot who misjudged the drift caused by the crosswind. The autopilot doesn't react that quickly and would have corrected for drift on the run in... As would any mythical added guidance system.
And a remote-control operator would face the same problem without benefit of being there.... it makes the mythical phantom control seem ever more incredible.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
Anyway, Tony's objections are red herrings in terms of this thread because we have evidence that the planes would be controllable. The approaches were steady and did not require huge adjustments, just minor corrections. To claim that a human can't do that is basically to claim that a human can't fly a jet. I mean a human with a pilot's license and some experience, not just a random civilian.
 

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
Strawman argument Tony. It fails. No infant would get a valid driver's license. The hijacker pilots were certified, and spent a lot of time in planes and in simulators.
Of course you're not going to address this fact.

You say there was no chance, we say there was. And you have no way of 'proving' your point. Unlike you, we can indeed show that the aircraft would be controllable at that speed. We've disproved your bare assertion, but I expect you'll ignore it or handwave it away.

Now you're attempting to shift the goalposts and claim that they would have to nose straight in if human piloted? Wow, that's a two-for-one fallacy. Well done but no dice.
Agree with TWCobra - you've dug the hole for yourself and your argument is nonsensical. And to boot you're not an aeronautical engineer or a pilot, so you aren't qualified to say what could or could not happen. Sorry, I don't believe you.
Are you saying the hijackers that are alleged to have hit the World Trade Center towers were certified to fly 767-200s? If so, by whom? The flight instructors I have heard talk about them say they were very poor pilots who had trouble in small planes.

I am saying the high speed maneuvers of the hijacked aircraft at sea level that were observed were not performed by humans using manual control. Humans using manual control would have naturally nosed straight towards the buildings from a distance. They didn't and it does not matter whether or not you believe it. You would only be one of many who are still in denial on this issue, in spite of clear logic and evidence.

I am a mechanical engineer who has worked in the aerospace industry for most of his career. Saying I am not an aeronautical engineer and therefore don't know anything about it is nonsense. Aeronautical engineering is a subset of mechanical engineering.
 
Last edited:

OneWhiteEye

Senior Member
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"?
Given Tony's historical reliance on dismissing inconvenient arguments from anonymous sources based solely on their anonymity, I found this most interesting.
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
I realize that this is purely anecdotal, but I can tell you from my own personal experience in flight sims, that while its difficult to fly an aircraft into the towers, it can be done by inexperienced pilots (at least in simulations). Ive never had a day's flight training or experience and I was able to recreate it myself. Its a real pain in the ass, but seeing as this was an unconventional event, flying by unconventional methods worked. If you're determined enough and have enough common sense to figure out how the controls work you can find a way to do it.
 

Bruno D.

Senior Member.
Are you saying the hijackers that are alleged to have hit the World Trade Center towers were certified to fly 767-200s? If so, by whom? The flight instructors I have heard talk about them say they were very poor pilots who had trouble in small planes.

I am saying the high speed maneuvers of the hijacked aircraft at sea level that were observed were not performed by humans using manual control. Humans using manual control would have naturally nosed straight towards the buildings from a distance. They didn't and it does not matter whether or not you believe it. You would only be one of many who are still in denial on this issue, in spite of clear logic and evidence.

I am a mechanical engineer who has worked in the aerospace industry for most of his career. Saying I am not an aeronautical engineer and therefore don't know anything about it is nonsense. Aeronautical engineering is a subset of mechanical engineering.
Tony, why do you believe an automatic system would be programmed to nose down at the last seconds instead of going a straight 3D line? Aren't imperfections at the trajectory a signal of human control instead of computer control?
 

Rico

Senior Member.
Are you saying the hijackers that are alleged to have hit the World Trade Center towers were certified to fly 767-200s? If so, by whom? The flight instructors I have heard talk about them say they were very poor pilots who had trouble in small planes.

I am saying the high speed maneuvers of the hijacked aircraft at sea level that were observed were not performed by humans using manual control. Humans using manual control would have naturally nosed straight towards the buildings from a distance. They didn't and it does not matter whether or not you believe it. You would only be one of many who are still in denial on this issue, in spite of clear logic and evidence.

I am a mechanical engineer who has worked in the aerospace industry for most of his career. Saying I am not an aeronautical engineer and therefore don't know anything about it is nonsense. Aeronautical engineering is a subset of mechanical engineering.

A 767-200 type rating isn't exactly a mandatory item to know how to pitch, roll, or yaw a 767, and at least some of these guys have been in simulators for larger aircraft before. Your point about the opinion's of flight instructors has very little bearing on the competency of the hijackers in performing their maneuver(s), since they weren't exactly trying to fly safe. I can teach a new student with average intelligence to pitch, roll, yaw, and point an aircraft in a desired direction within 30 minutes, and usually it only takes less than five.

The problem with your argument pertaining to the high speed maneuver is that it couldn't be done by a machine in such a way either. The actual flight path, and the bank angle when the aircraft hit their mark suggests human error. And heck, the basic autopilot on those aircraft generally don't command more than 30 degrees angle of bank anyways, where at least one of the aircraft clearly exceeded those parameters.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
Are you saying the hijackers that are alleged to have hit the World Trade Center towers were certified to fly 767-200s? If so, by whom? The flight instructors I have heard talk about them say they were very poor pilots who had trouble in small planes.
Tony, your argument has already failed. Why are you bothering to keep up with it? It's not necessary to get officially qualified in order for a trained pilot to fly those aircraft. They would have studied the controls and cockpit layout, and used some simulators as well.
You're coming dangerously close to claiming that you've proved a negative. It's not possible, even if your objections are valid. In this case your objections are somewhat irrelevant to the task they were performing. They didn't need to be officially sanctioned in those aircraft, period.


I am saying the high speed maneuvers of the hijacked aircraft at sea level that were observed were not performed by humans using manual control. Humans using manual control would have naturally nosed straight towards the buildings from a distance.
I think that's nonsense, and you are not qualified to make such blanket declarations.

I am a mechanical engineer who has worked in the aerospace industry for most of his career.
You're not a test pilot, or a 767 pilot either. Yet you seem to think you know what could or couldn't be done by people who you've never met and really don't know much about.
How many hours did they spend on simulators going over the mission? You don't know.
Did they use Microsoft flight simulator to practice the route over and over? You don't know that either.

What direct work experience do you have relating to flight control systems, electronics, autopilot programming, aircraft performance evaluation and design etc? Anything? It doesn't sound like it to me.

If you make the claim that you're an expert in all these things, you'd better list your direct work experience.
 

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
Tony, your argument has already failed. Why are you bothering to keep up with it? It's not necessary to get officially qualified in order for a trained pilot to fly those aircraft. They would have studied the controls and cockpit layout, and used some simulators as well.
You're coming dangerously close to claiming that you've proved a negative. It's not possible, even if your objections are valid. In this case your objections are somewhat irrelevant to the task they were performing. They didn't need to be officially sanctioned in those aircraft, period.



I think that's nonsense, and you are not qualified to make such blanket declarations.


You're not a test pilot, or a 767 pilot either. Yet you seem to think you know what could or couldn't be done by people who you've never met and really don't know much about.
How many hours did they spend on simulators going over the mission? You don't know.
Did they use Microsoft flight simulator to practice the route over and over? You don't know that either.

What direct work experience do you have relating to flight control systems, electronics, autopilot programming, aircraft performance evaluation and design etc? Anything? It doesn't sound like it to me.

If you make the claim that you're an expert in all these things, you'd better list your direct work experience.
I do have some level of experience and/or knowledge in all of the things you mention.

The use of Microsoft flight simulator will not provide the difficulty in performing high speed maneuvers with an airliner at sea level due to high dynamic pressure.
 

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
Can you comment on this graphic Tony, particularly the marking at bottom extreme right and what it represents for your position?

I believe the values are in TAS but I am checking that.

http://www.airinformatics.com/787_FT_Summary.html

It looks like the recommended airspeed limit at 1,000 to 2,000 feet would be less than 300 knots, not the 360 knots you had mentioned earlier.

The aircraft involved in the tower impacts would have been at the absolute extreme of your chart and there is no discussion about the ability to perform precise maneuvers/adjustments in the few higher speed samples at the lower right.

This chart actually supports what I am saying about having difficulty with precision maneuvers/adjustments at 500 mph (427 knots) at sea level in a large airliner.
 
Last edited:

TWCobra

Senior Member.
You didn't read it very well. There are safety factors in a test program. The high speeds are achieved by diving the aircraft, therefore those tests cannot be done recovering at sea level. That is self evident.
The VMO is 350 at all altitudes.

There is a marker at 1000 feet (WTC height) slightly less than 450 knots and the one at 2700 feet that I mentioned before. So they took the aircraft to 135 knots above VMO at 2700 feet. According to you that is impossible.. and yet, there it is.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
This is not the actual VG diagram envelope for use by line pilots. It is the record of where the airframe has been for test flying purposes and to clear the design flight envelope with the required safety margins and apparently quite a bit more.
 

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
You didn't read it very well. There are safety factors in a test program. The high speeds are achieved by diving the aircraft, therefore those tests cannot be done recovering at sea level. That is self evident.
The VMO is 350 at all altitudes.

There is a marker at 1000 feet (WTC height) slightly less than 450 knots and the one at 2700 feet that I mentioned before. So they took the aircraft to 135 knots above VMO at 2700 feet. According to you that is impossible.. and yet, there it is.
I am talking about the ability to make precise adjustments being very difficult at high speed at sea level in an airliner, and you are talking about aircraft survivability. They are two different things. I have not said the aircraft could not survive or be flown at those speeds at sea level, just that they could not be maneuvered in a precise way via manual control, as the high dynamic air pressure would produce large forces on the control surfaces and any little oversteer would generate significant undesired directional changes of the aircraft.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
I am talking about the ability to make precise adjustments being very difficult at high speed at sea level in an airliner, and you are talking about aircraft survivability. They are two different things. I have not said the aircraft could not survive those speeds at sea level.

How do you know the test crews found this difficult?
 

Bruno D.

Senior Member.
I am talking about the ability to make precise adjustments being very difficult at high speed at sea level in an airliner, and you are talking about aircraft survivability. They are two different things. I have not said the aircraft could not survive or be flown at those speeds at sea level, just that they could not be maneuvered in a precise way via manual control, as the high dynamic air pressure would produce large forces on the control surfaces and any little oversteer would generate significant undesired directional changes of the aircraft.

Tony, why do you believe an automatic system would be programmed to nose down at the last seconds instead of going a straight 3D line? Aren't imperfections at the trajectory a signal of human control instead of computer control?
 

Alienentity

Active Member
I do have some level of experience and/or knowledge in all of the things you mention.

The use of Microsoft flight simulator will not provide the difficulty in performing high speed maneuvers with an airliner at sea level due to high dynamic pressure.
So Tony, you've worked as an engineer on what systems of the Boeing 767? Let's be specific about your claims regarding this aircraft.

Can you give a technical reason why the flight sim, presuming it uses a model of the 767, would not provide the difficulty? What about the software model differs from the actual aircraft?

I really don't think you know what you're talking about.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
X-Plane incorporates dynamic pressure. Someone should give it a go in that.
http://www.x-plane.com/desktop/how-x-plane-works/
 

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
So Tony, you've worked as an engineer on what systems of the Boeing 767? Let's be specific about your claims regarding this aircraft.

Can you give a technical reason why the flight sim, presuming it uses a model of the 767, would not provide the difficulty? What about the software model differs from the actual aircraft?

I really don't think you know what you're talking about.
Read the sections on control sensitivity and dynamic stability in the attached pdf about Microsoft Flight simulator and flight dynamics and you will find they don't have access to the specifics which would be paramount in control at high speed at sea level. So like I said, Microsoft Flight Simulator could not have replicated the control problems which would occur for high speed precise maneuvers at sea level in an airliner.
 

Attachments

  • Flight Dynamics for Microsoft Flight Simulator.pdf
    221.1 KB · Views: 6,918

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Read the sections on control sensitivity and dynamic stability in the attached pdf about Microsoft Flight simulator and flight dynamics and you will find they don't have access to the specifics which would be paramount in control at high speed at sea level. So like I said, Microsoft Flight Simulator could not have replicated the control problems which would occur for high speed precise maneuvers at sea level in an airliner.

Maybe not, but it looks like X-Plane certainly would.

Can you be a little more precise about what "high speed precise maneuvers" you are referring to? Because I don't really see any. Do you just mean keeping lined up with the tower?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Reference:
https://www.metabunk.org/sk/Radar_Data_Impact_Speed_StudyAA11_UA175_1.pdf

There's clearly no issue with AA11, as the speed was relatively low, and even the last few seconds of acceleration were under 450 knots.


UA175 was much faster, but again accelerated at the end.


Note there is very little deviation in the heading during the descent. No "precise maneuvers", just keeping it lined up - which you do with a series of tiny adjustments regardless of speed. And it was already lined up at 28,000 feet.
 

Bruno D.

Senior Member.
Reference:
https://www.metabunk.org/sk/Radar_Data_Impact_Speed_StudyAA11_UA175_1.pdf

There's clearly no issue with AA11, as the speed was relatively low, and even the last few seconds of acceleration were under 450 knots.


UA175 was much faster, but again accelerated at the end.


Note there is very little deviation in the heading during the descent. No "precise maneuvers", just keeping it lined up - which you do with a series of tiny adjustments regardless of speed. And it was already lined up at 28,000 feet.

In order to make these graphs perfect, the only other information would be a map view of the last 2:30 min showing the path from above. Does anyone have that? (sorry if this was presented at other threads)
 

Mumbles

Active Member
Are you saying the hijackers that are alleged to have hit the World Trade Center towers were certified to fly 767-200s?

I'm not sure anyone is saying that, but the key point is they didn't need to be. I don't have a type rating in any aircraft, or even a PPL, but I have had a few (supervised) hours at the controls of various light aircraft, and hundreds of hours on various PC and console simulators (which I can attest as fact improved my real world flying ability), as well as a session in an actual B737 simulator. You give me a trimmed up aircraft in the cruise, and a heading to fly in clear and calm conditions as existed on 9/11, and I can do that without too much trouble. I have done it in fact. If all you need to do is navigate to a readily identifiable landmark, centre it on the windscreen and firewall the aircraft into it, the amount of skill and experience required (compared to that needed to safely recover or the aircraft) drops dramatically.
 
Last edited:

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
I'm not sure anyone is saying that, but the key point is they didn't need to be. I don't have a type rating in any aircraft, or even a PPL, but I have had a few (supervised) hours at the controls of various light aircraft, and hundreds of hours on various PC and console simulators (which I can attest as fact improved my real world flying ability), as well as a session in an actual B737 simulator. You give me a trimmed up aircraft in the cruise, and a heading to fly in clear and calm conditions as existed on 9/11, and I can do that without too much trouble. I have done it in fact. If all you need to do is navigate to a readily identifiable landmark, centre it on the windscreen and firewall the aircraft into it, the amount of skill and experience required (compared to that needed to safely recover or the aircraft) drops dramatically.
I think you are being a little too generous with yourself. There is a separate rating for multi-engine aircraft, where the engine axis does not align with the fuselage, for a reason and it isn't given out based on simulators used on personal computers. It does not sound like you have that rating.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
There is a separate rating for multi-engine aircraft, where the engine axis does not align with the fuselage, for a reason .

Can you explain what that has to do with flying around with simple navigation, and then flying into a building?

All the basics of flying a small single engine aircraft in the air translated to large craft. You steer, you trim, you adjust the throttle. That's it.
 

Bruno D.

Senior Member.
I am talking about the ability to make precise adjustments being very difficult at high speed at sea level in an airliner, and you are talking about aircraft survivability. They are two different things. I have not said the aircraft could not survive or be flown at those speeds at sea level, just that they could not be maneuvered in a precise way via manual control, as the high dynamic air pressure would produce large forces on the control surfaces and any little oversteer would generate significant undesired directional changes of the aircraft.
Tony, based on posts 108 and 110 from Mick, where do you see precise adjustments? Aren't they basically only nosing down during 2.5 min? I see only generic adjustments "point and go" style to correct little imperfections at the trajectory. Also on this subject, aren't imperfections at the trajectory a signal of human control instead of computer control?
 

Mumbles

Active Member
I think you are being a little too generous with yourself. There is a separate rating for multi-engine aircraft, where the engine axis does not align with the fuselage, for a reason and it isn't given out based on simulators used on personal computers. It does not sound like you have that rating.

Yup, that would be the bit where I said "I don't have a type rating in any aircraft, or even a PPL". However the statement I made about taking control of an aircraft was referring to real life, not a sim. Have you ever flown an aircraft Tony? If you understand the basics it isn't all that hard if you don't have to worry about the tricky parts like taking off or landing, and those basics will apply to any conventional fixed wing aircraft.

I'm well aware of the different kinds of licensing and ratings, and the difference between single and multi-engine configurations, but your insistence on some kind of type rating being required to achieve the results of 9/11 is fast becoming a strawman.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Yup, that would be the bit where I said "I don't have a type rating in any aircraft, or even a PPL". However the statement I made about taking control of an aircraft was referring to real life, not a sim. Have you ever flown an aircraft Tony? If you understand the basics it isn't all that hard if you don't have to worry about the tricky parts like taking off or landing, and those basics will apply to any conventional fixed wing aircraft.

And remember these guys DID have plenty of practice - commercial pilots licences and 727 and 767 simulator time!
 

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
Maybe not, but it looks like X-Plane certainly would.

Can you be a little more precise about what "high speed precise maneuvers" you are referring to? Because I don't really see any. Do you just mean keeping lined up with the tower?
Are you now claiming the hijackers could have used X-plane?
Can you explain what that has to do with flying around with simple navigation, and then flying into a building?

All the basics of flying a small single engine aircraft in the air translated to large craft. You steer, you trim, you adjust the throttle. That's it.
The reason a separate rating for an aircraft with engines not aligned with the fuselage is that situation is not as easy to control and the necessary responses require experience in an aircraft with offset engines. People who want to say it would be easy for anyone with a little small aircraft training and use of Microsoft Simulator or an equivalent to then just navigate and fly a large commercial airliner are talking out of their hat.
 

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
Tony, based on posts 108 and 110 from Mick, where do you see precise adjustments? Aren't they basically only nosing down during 2.5 min? I see only generic adjustments "point and go" style to correct little imperfections at the trajectory. Also on this subject, aren't imperfections at the trajectory a signal of human control instead of computer control?
The south tower aircraft had two very precise adjustments/maneuvers in the last five seconds.
 

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
Yup, that would be the bit where I said "I don't have a type rating in any aircraft, or even a PPL". However the statement I made about taking control of an aircraft was referring to real life, not a sim. Have you ever flown an aircraft Tony? If you understand the basics it isn't all that hard if you don't have to worry about the tricky parts like taking off or landing, and those basics will apply to any conventional fixed wing aircraft.

I'm well aware of the different kinds of licensing and ratings, and the difference between single and multi-engine configurations, but your insistence on some kind of type rating being required to achieve the results of 9/11 is fast becoming a strawman.
I have flown a private plane. I was also an aircraft mechanic in the U.S. Navy.

The basics of controlling an aircraft without experience in it aren't as simple as you want to say. There is a reason the airlines certify pilots for specific aircraft. That is because it takes time to develop a feel for its response characteristics. You are discounting that here in what appears to be an emotional appeal that it would have been easy for anyone to just point and shoot. That is not true.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Are you now claiming the hijackers could have used X-plane?

No, I'm saying that we can now use X-Plane to demonstrate the extend of any variation in controllability at high speeds and low altitudes.

The reason a separate rating for an aircraft with engines not aligned with the fuselage is that situation is not as easy to control and the necessary responses require experience in an aircraft with offset engines. People who want to say it would be easy for anyone with a little small aircraft training and use of Microsoft Simulator or an equivalent to then just navigate and fly a large commercial airliner are talking out of their hat.

Those people include very experienced pilots. But perhaps you could give more detail here - what exactly is more difficult? Be precise.
 
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 65
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