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

SpaceCowboy

Rob Balsamo of P4T
Banned
As I have already said....this is off-topic.

WeedWhacker, you made the following claim in this thread above,

"On the B767, there ARE ailerons outboard, near the wingtips....except, these outboard ailerons DO NOT ACTIVATE unless.... the airspeed is below a certain range."

I have asked you multiple times to provide such an "airspeed range" in which you claimed above.

Why are you unable to provide such speed ranges? And furthermore, why do you consider my question "off-topic" when it was you who in fact made the claim in this very thread?

Can you or can you not provide the speed ranges for the B767 outboard aileron lockout and the reasons for the manufacturer locking such control surfaces?

If you continue to evade this question, why should anyone listen to you?
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
WeedWhacker, you made the follwing claim in this thread above,
"On the B767, there ARE ailerons outboard, near the wingtips....except, these outboard ailerons DO NOT ACTIVATE unless.... the airspeed is below a certain range."

Yeah....so, I simplified it in a post. Is this a crime?


Can you or can you not provide the speed ranges for the B767 outboard aileron lockout and the reasons for the manufacturer locking such control surfaces?

When in a "clean wing" configuration, the Outboard ailerons lock out in the vicinity of 240 Knots....there are parameters either way, and it depends on whether you are accelerating, or decelerating. Again, this is irrelevant to this discussion, which is about "contollability at high airspeeds". Correct?

AS TO the manufacturer's reason? I can only speculate, but it is likely associated with the phenomenon of "aileron reversal"....a problem first noticed MANY years ago, and since designed out of modern airliners' wing structures.
 

SpaceCowboy

Rob Balsamo of P4T
Banned
...the Outboard ailerons lock out in the vicinity of 240 Knots....

"in the vicinity of....?" lol

Ok, well, finally you posted a number. Was that so hard?

Are you willing to put your name on that claim as have the many pilots at P4T who have put their names to their claims? Or are you just going to continually attack them from the comfort of your anonymity while tap dancing around your claims without providing any sources for your claims?

I notice you bash John Lear in this thread. Are you the same "weedwhacker" from ATS who believes in UFO'S? Who later had to change his name to "ProudBird" due to the fact you thoroughly discredited your "weedwhacker" name?

AS TO the manufacturer's reason? I can only speculate, but it is likely associated with the phenomenon of "aileron reversal"....a problem first noticed MANY years ago, and since designed out of modern airliners' wing structures.

False, aileron reversal is different from control reversal. The reason the manufacturer locks out the outboard ailerons (and rudder... elevator displacement), on many different types of aircraft as speed increases, is because of not only control issues, but if such "throw" were introduced into a high speed relative wind, it would rip the airplane apart.

For example, one aircraft I flew limited rudder deflection at 160 KCAS (exactly... not "in the vicinity of...")... because if it was not limited, the whole empannage would rip from the airframe.

And this is also the reason why manufacturers set ultimate limits such as Vmo and Vd.
 

SpaceCowboy

Rob Balsamo of P4T
Banned
What is your point with the locked-out aileron controls? What does it have to do with whether the impacting aircraft were controllable or not? Please try not to get up my nose here. Stay on topic, please.

Manufacturers set limitations based on wind tunnel and flight testing. Boeing locks out the outboard ailerons above certain speeds due to the fact the airplane cannot be controlled using the outboard ailerons above such speeds.

The same manufacturer sets higher limitations such as Vmo and Vd because the aircraft cannot be controlled above those speeds using the inboard ailerons (after the outboards have been locked), elevators, trim... etc. Not to mention the fact of the onset of flutter.

Have you read through this site?

http://theflyingengineer.com/tag/vdmd/

Have you seen the video included?

Have you noticed the test pilots shaking in their seats when attempting flight out to Vd?

Have you noticed the airplane actually had to be modified to reach Vd?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Manufacturers set limitations based on wind tunnel and flight testing. Boeing locks out the outboard ailerons above certain speeds due to the fact the airplane cannot be controlled using the outboard ailerons above such speeds.

The same manufacturer sets higher limitations such as Vmo and Vd because the aircraft cannot be controlled above those speeds using the inboard ailerons (after the outboards have been locked), elevators, trim... etc. Not to mention the fact of the onset of flutter.

Have you read through this site?

http://theflyingengineer.com/tag/vdmd/

Have you seen the video included?

Have you noticed the test pilots shaking in their seats when attempting flight out to Vd?

Have you noticed the airplane actually had to be modified to reach Vd?
So is your point some or all 911 aircraft were modified to be able to hit their targets ?
 

SpaceCowboy

Rob Balsamo of P4T
Banned
So is your point some or all 911 aircraft were modified to be able to hit their targets ?

My point is this....

Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe who have gathered together for one purpose. We are committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001. Our main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots. We do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, we are focused on determining the truth of that fateful day based on solid data and facts -- since 9/11/2001 is the catalyst for many of the events shaping our world today -- and the United States Government does not seem to be very forthcoming with answers or facts.


We do not accept the 9/11 Commission Report -- a Commission admittedly "set up to fail" according to the Chairman himself, nor "hypothesis" as a satisfactory explanation for the continued gross violation(s) of the United States Constitution being committed by Government agencies, and the sacrifice every American has made and continue to make -- some more than others.


We stand with the numerous other growing organizations of Firefighters, Medical Professionals, Lawyers, Scholars, Military Officers, Veterans, Religious and Political Leaders, along side Survivors, family members of the victims -- family members of soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice -- including the many Ground Zero workers who are now ill or have passed away, when we ask for a true, new independent investigation into the events of 9/11.


Thank you for taking the time to inform yourself.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Manufacturers set limitations based on wind tunnel and flight testing. Boeing locks out the outboard ailerons above certain speeds due to the fact the airplane cannot be controlled using the outboard ailerons above such speeds.
So what. It can still be fully controlled without using them.

The same manufacturer sets higher limitations such as Vmo and Vd because the aircraft cannot be controlled above those speeds using the inboard ailerons (after the outboards have been locked), elevators, trim... etc. Not to mention the fact of the onset of flutter.
That isn't why the limitations are set. They are set because above such speeds control inputs plus atmospheric turbulence (which aren't so predictable) may take airframe deflections or stresses beyond range.

Static loads are designed for and computed up to Mach 0.94, at which point trans-sonic instability tends to kick in. This means that the 757 and the 767s could have been very gently steered through still air at 720 mph or 625 knots.

Passenger planes which have been pointed vertically straight down by their pilots from cruising altitude have been known to exceed the speed of sound without disintegrating.

Have you etc.
No, but similar.

Have you noticed the test pilots shaking in their seats when attempting flight out to Vd?
I certainly would if I was doing that. No-one before you has tried what you are about to try.

Have you noticed the airplane actually had to be modified to reach Vd?
That wouldn't surprise me. I would sense a need for larger air brakes, for a start.

So what is your point? Oh, I see. You don't have a point on this topic. Thanks for the time-waster.
 
Last edited:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
My point is this....

Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe who have gathered together for one purpose. We are committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001. Our main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots. We do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, we are focused on determining the truth of that fateful day based on solid data and facts -- since 9/11/2001 is the catalyst for many of the events shaping our world today -- and the United States Government does not seem to be very forthcoming with answers or facts.

We do not accept the 9/11 Commission Report -- a Commission admittedly "set up to fail" according to the Chairman himself, nor "hypothesis" as a satisfactory explanation for the continued gross violation(s) of the United States Constitution being committed by Government agencies, and the sacrifice every American has made and continue to make -- some more than others.

We stand with the numerous other growing organizations of Firefighters, Medical Professionals, Lawyers, Scholars, Military Officers, Veterans, Religious and Political Leaders, along side Survivors, family members of the victims -- family members of soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice -- including the many Ground Zero workers who are now ill or have passed away, when we ask for a true, new independent investigation into the events of 9/11.

Thank you for taking the time to inform yourself.
Metabunk deals with the examination of issues that can be explained, examined, and determined to be fact or bunk. You need to identify an issue to be examined. We do not normally deal in generalities, we deal in specifics as much as possible. If your issue is aircraft can not be controlled in sufficient manner at the speeds observed in 911, the obvious answer is they were and did.
 

SpaceCowboy

Rob Balsamo of P4T
Banned
So what. It can still be fully controlled without using them.

It can? At what speeds? How can an airplane possibly be controlled above limitations set by the manufacturer based on wind tunnel and flight testing? Why would any manufacturer lockout any flight control surface if it can be used? Why would any manufacturer set any limitation for anything?

How much flight time do you have?


That isn't why the limitations are set. They are set because above such speeds control inputs plus atmospheric turbulence (which isn't so predictable) may take airframe deflections or stresses beyond range.

False

Static loads are designed for and computed up to Mach 0.94, at which point trans-sonic instability tends to kick in. This means that the 757 and the 767s could have been very gently steered through still air at 720 mph or 625 knots.

Clearly you are unfamiliar with Dynamic loads and pressure.... and the purposes for EAS.

Passenger planes which have been pointed vertically straight down by their pilots from cruising altitude have been known to exceed the speed of sound without disintegrating.

Really? Which ones?



No-one before you has tried what you are about to try.

Clearly you know nothing regarding flight test certification. I recommend you google Flutter Testing.


So what is your point?





need more?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
It can? At what speeds? How can an airplane possibly be controlled above limitations set by the manufacturer based on wind tunnel and flight testing? Why would any manufacturer lockout any flight control surface if it can be used? Why would any manufacturer set any limitation for anything?

How much flight time do you have?




False



Clearly you are unfamiliar with Dynamic loads and pressure.... and the purposes for EAS.



Really? Which ones?





Clearly you know nothing regarding flight test certification. I recommend you google Flutter Testing.





need more?

Why don't you just show your evidence which proves him wrong instead of alluding to things elsewhere? Just show it if you think can rebutt it.
 

SpaceCowboy

Rob Balsamo of P4T
Banned
If your issue is aircraft can not be controlled in sufficient manner at the speeds observed in 911, the obvious answer is they were and did.

That is not my claim. Clearly the aircraft were controlled and hit their target. The issue is.... were they standard 757/767 aircraft as alleged. The performance figures suggest otherwise. I suppose this is the reason why none of the 9/11 Aircraft have ever been positively identified via serial/part numbers?
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I'm sorry, I must have missed it.

Did you actually specify a speed range for the outboard aileron lockout feature of the 767? If so, can you please post a link to such a speed range in Knots? KCAS? KIAS?

He answered that he wasn't going to give a figure because it is off topic.

You might not like eth answer - clearly it was not the one you were after, but it was an answer.

And if you are keen on finding out the figure why not research it yourself.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Manufacturers set limitations based on wind tunnel and flight testing. Boeing locks out the outboard ailerons above certain speeds due to the fact the airplane cannot be controlled using the outboard ailerons above such speeds.

No, that is not true.

they set limits because the loadings from using those controls at high speed would bee too high for the structure.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
That is not my claim. Clearly the aircraft were controlled and hit their target. The issue is.... were they standard 757/767 aircraft as alleged. The performance figures suggest otherwise. I suppose this is the reason why none of the 9/11 Aircraft have ever been positively identified via serial/part numbers?
So you are claiming the aircraft had to be modified. OK now we have something to debate. What were the modifications and how were they accomplished?
 

SpaceCowboy

Rob Balsamo of P4T
Banned
Why don't you just show your evidence which proves him wrong instead of alluding to things elsewhere? Just show it if you think can rebutt it.

He is the one who claims that aircraft can be controlled well above Vmo and Vd with outboard aileron lockout. However, he has not provided one example. In fact, I have provided several eamples where this is not possible.

How do you expect me to prove a negative? Why do you not demand the same standard for those who claim a 767 can be controllable and stable at Vd+90 knots?
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
Your VG diagram is incorrect. Please amend EA990 to VD+23 and 2.1G with an annotation that it was structurally sound at that point. Also please in include the Easy jet aircraft at 1.7 G and Vd+44 with the annotation (still flying today after landing undamaged).

Quote: How much flying time do you have?

Appeal to authority. straw man? Welcome to the forum Robert.
 
Last edited:

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
"in the vicinity of....?" lol

Ok, well, finally you posted a number. Was that so hard?

Are you willing to put your name on that claim as have the many pilots at P4T who have put their names to their claims? Or are you just going to continually attack them from the comfort of your anonymity while tap dancing around your claims without providing any sources for your claims?

I notice you bash John Lear in this thread. Are you the same "weedwhacker" from ATS who believes in UFO'S? Who later had to change his name to "ProudBird" due to the fact you thoroughly discredited your "weedwhacker" name?



False, aileron reversal is different from control reversal. The reason the manufacturer locks out the outboard ailerons (and rudder... elevator displacement), on many different types of aircraft as speed increases, is because of not only control issues, but if such "throw" were introduced into a high speed relative wind, it would rip the airplane apart.

For example, one aircraft I flew limited rudder deflection at 160 KCAS (exactly... not "in the vicinity of...")... because if it was not limited, the whole empannage would rip from the airframe.

And this is also the reason why manufacturers set ultimate limits such as Vmo and Vd.


I see a lot of pedantics here. Now, could you please stay on topic?

Oh and BTW...when I post, I assume I am speaking to a non-pilot, so I choose words that a layperson (such as yourself, maybe?) can understand easily.
 
Last edited:

Jazzy

Closed Account
How can an airplane possibly be controlled above limitations set by the manufacturer based on wind tunnel and flight testing?
Control forces increase as the square of the speed. This means if you double your speed you need only a quarter of the control area for a given force. This is the reason why surfaces are split up and the hydraulic pressures are taken down progressively with speed increase. Nobody wants increased aerodynamic and control forces with increase of speed in a passenger plane. Everyone wants control effectiveness to continue below stall speed.

Why would any manufacturer lockout any flight control surface if it can be used? Why would any manufacturer set any limitation for anything?
Answered in a previous post. Try re-reading it.

How much flight time do you have?
How long have you been an aeronautical engineer and industrial designer?

Because?

Clearly you are unfamiliar with Dynamic loads and pressure.... and the purposes for EAS.
You might prove your familiarity by reading what I write.

Really? Which ones?
There are more.

Clearly you know nothing regarding flight test certification.
Because?




need more?
Didn't need it at all. The airframe design will be such that Vd = 0.94 Mach, where trans-sonic fluttering sets in. In the case of the HP146 above, conservative calculations and low trans-sonic instability allowed it to exceed 1.0 Mach.

Your diagram doesn't take into account external aerodynamic forces, so Va isn't the point up to which one could certify the airframe to be safe. You didn't mention it, so I know exactly where you are coming from.
 
Last edited:

SpaceCowboy

Rob Balsamo of P4T
Banned
Didn't need it at all. The airframe design will be such that Vd = 0.94 Mach, where trans-sonic fluttering sets in.

Are you saying that flutter does not occur in any structure unless exceeding Mach .94? And that Mach .94 is the flutter limit for all aircraft (and structures)?

lol...
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Are you saying that flutter does not occur in any structure unless exceeding Mach .94? And that Mach .94 is the flutter limit for all aircraft (and structures)? lol...
Only you appear to believe that. Instabilities can always be triggered by unpredictable events such that even the same airframe would produce a range of results. The 0.94 Mach is worked towards. Beyond it are swiftly diminishing returns.

And that approach is consistent with maintaining 500+ mph high altitude cruise conditions for contemporary passenger aircraft and is common across the industry. It produces a certified rugged aircraft which will never disintegrate, no matter what normal combination of internal or external forces it meets, within its operational envelope.

A typical airframe's maximum allowable straight-line airspeed, if it can generate the power to achieve it, is normally limited to 70% of the above. But nobody will admit it. :)
 
Last edited:

SpaceCowboy

Rob Balsamo of P4T
Banned
Only you appear to believe that.

lol... false. The readers can read who brought up "flutter" at .94 Mach.

Instabilities can always be triggered by unpredictable events such that even the same airframe would produce a range of results. The 0.94 Mach is worked towards. Beyond it are swiftly diminishing returns.

Hey 'Einstein", are you aware that Vd (it's actually called Md at such speeds) for the 767 is .91 Mach?

If so, why did you claim that Vd = .94 Mach?


And that approach is consistent with maintaining 500+ mph high altitude cruise conditions

Todays Commercial/Charter/Corporate jet aircraft fly at much higher airspeeds than "500+ mph" at high altitude cruise.

lol.... it seems like you are stuck in the 60's?

]for contemporary passenger aircraft and is common across the industry. It produces a certified rugged aircraft which will never disintegrate, no matter what normal combination of internal or external forces it meets, within its operational envelope.

Ok, if you say so Champ. But you may want to actually learn how to understand Jet travel before you continue further.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Are you saying that flutter does not occur in any structure unless exceeding Mach .94? And that Mach .94 is the flutter limit for all aircraft (and structures)?

lol...

Oh wait....you are attempting to claim aerodynamic flutter as pertains to the airplanes (I.E., AAL 11 and UAL 175) on 9/11?

Because, in your quote (above) you specifically reference a speed of Mach .94

Hmmm....OK....what is the speed range estimate for UAL 175? (we can ignore AAL 11, since it can be agreed to have been slower, per the estimates).

Pick an airspeed....500 knots? 550 knots? Using some available estimates obtained from the Internet...let's split the difference, and "assume" 525 Kts.

Now, using an online Airspeed/Mach calculator (and any pilots at home can use your own "Whiz-Wheel"):
http://www.hochwarth.com/misc/AviationCalculator.html#CASMachTASEAS

Entering the above site, we input the data. Let's use 1,000 feet (be sure to check your units, because they can be altered by the user) for the Altitude (MSL)

Let's insert the CAS of 525 Knots (again, check the units). Then, click the "Compute" button....answer for Mach number is: 0.8062380311735361

Let's round that down to a reasonable two places....so, at MOST....Mach 0.81, for the speed and altitude of UAL 175. Not anywhere near Mach 0.94
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Because, in your quote (above) you specifically reference a speed of Mach .94

AND also, since we are talking about regular passenger airliners approaching their limits....the speed of Mach .94 was suggested (and refuted, above) pertaining to United (UAL) 175.

But, let's see what some other airplane has been made to perform, during flight certification testing:

Yeah....a "Flutter test" for the A380. Where they, in flight testing, force the airplane to reach Mach 0.96

Noting that in the video, the (slightly breathless and over-exuberant narrator) says that the first flight resulted in damage to the "undercarriage". To my eyes, it was merely some of the aerodynamic fairings, and Airbus re-designed them.

EDIT...and at the very end, as they are being marshalled in....that nosewheel is PERFECTLY centered on the line!! Wouldn't expect any less.
 
Last edited:

SpaceCowboy

Rob Balsamo of P4T
Banned
Psst... weedwhacker, I didn't claim Vd = Mach .94. I was questioning "Jazzy" who claimed that Vd = Mach .94 before flutter occurs.

Might it be time for you to change your name to "ProudBird" again.... as you had to do at ATS when you were thoroughly discredited for your UFO beliefs and lack of aeronautical knowledge...

lol

Yeah....a "Flutter test" for the A380. Where they, in flight testing, force the airplane to reach Mach 0.98

False.

The aircraft was tested to Mach .96, the Md of the Airplane. It had to abort the test at Mach .93 due to breaking something on the belly and the airplane had to be modified to reach Vd.

Do you people even read/watch anything you source?

Edit: I see "weedwacker" edited his post after I quoted him. The original can be seen in my quotes above as he tried to cover up his mistake.
 
Last edited:

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Psst... weedwhacker, I didn't claim Vd = Mach .94. I was questioning "Jazzy" who claimed that Vd = Mach .94 before flutter occurs.

Might it be time for you to change your name to "ProudBird" again.... as you had to do at ATS when you were thoroughly discredited for your UFO beliefs and lack of aeronautical knowledge...

lol



False.

The aircraft was tested to Mach .96, the Md of the Airplane. It had to abort the test at Mach .93 due to breaking something on the belly and the airplane had to be modified to reach Vd.

Do you people even read/watch anything you source?

Yes, I mis-typed and wrote Mach 0.98, instead of Mach 0.96.

But as any airline pilot knows, the difference is only a few knots, at altitude. Any airline pilot who has flown heavy metal, that is.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Psst... weedwhacker, I didn't claim Vd = Mach .94. I was questioning "Jazzy" who claimed that Vd = Mach .94 before flutter occurs.

Actually, I read through that exchange that you had with member "Jazzy", and I have a different interpretation as to "motive".
 

SpaceCowboy

Rob Balsamo of P4T
Banned
Yes, I mis-typed and wrote Mach 0.98, instead of Mach 0.96.

But as any airline pilot knows, the difference is only a few knots, at altitude. Any airline pilot who has flown heavy metal, that is.

So what is the difference when considering 150 knots in dynamic pressure?

You didn't know this the last time I asked you, which is one of the reasons you left ATS and came back with "ProudBird".

Hey, I have a question, do you think that a 767 Manual written by Microsoft Flight Sim enthusiasts should take priority over the Boeing 767 A1NM Type Certificate Data Sheet?

lol
 

SpaceCowboy

Rob Balsamo of P4T
Banned
Actually, I read through that exchange that you had with member "Jazzy", and I have a different interpretation as to "motive".

So do you agree with "Jazzy" when he claims, "for contemporary passenger aircraft and is common across the industry. It produces a certified rugged aircraft which will never disintegrate, no matter what normal combination of internal or external forces it meets, within its operational envelope."

Especially after viewing this picture....?

 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
So what is the difference when considering 150 knots in dynamic pressure?

It is a non-sequitor. The attempts to "bamboozle" an audience with terms like "dynamic pressure" and "EAS" (btw, EAS is equal to CAS, at or near sea level) and so forth.

I'm more amused, than angry at this point. Because, armchair "pilots" with no actual experience in airliners such as the B757 or B767 seem to be rife in the "9/11 debates".

And, it is just too tedious, at this point. The facts of the airliner impacts at the WTC and the Pentagon, and the nearly vertical nose-in "lawn-dart" of UAL 93 near Shanksville PA are irrefutable. No disrespect to the victims of those four airliners is intended by ME...but I think that some other people are causing more harm, here.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
your UFO beliefs...

lol
I don't know you or Weedwhacker.
I've never piloted a 767, or anything bigger than an industrial van.
But I will say, your repeated attempts to make this about "UFOs" is harming your "credibility" instead of your apparent
intended target. Also, I'm guessing repeated use of "lol" is popular on the Kardashian site, but, again, not helping here.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Especially after viewing this picture....?

Now we see a complete non-sequitor, and a tragic photo of an accident COMPLETELY unrelated to the attacks of 9/11.

I am at a loss to understand the reason for that picture, as posted.

EDIT: Since I didn't copy the image, I will explain. The photo posted by member "SpaceCowboy" was the vertical fin of American Airlines (AAL) 587. The accident occurred on November 12, 2001 and, despite some initial fears (since it was only two months after 9/11) was NOT an act of terrorism. It was, instead, merely pilot error.

Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587

And:
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/summary/aar0404.html
 
Last edited:

SpaceCowboy

Rob Balsamo of P4T
Banned
It is a non-sequitor[sic]. The attempts to "bamboozle" an audience with terms like "dynamic pressure" and "EAS"

So you feel that dynamic pressure, EAS and CAS calculations are a "non-sequitur" as it pertains to this discussion?

Care to put your name on that?

(of course you won't... and is one of the main reasons why you abandoned your "weedwhacker" userID at ATS)

The rest of your post I didn't bother to read, nor should anyone else. As it is clear you do not understand the importance of dynamic pressure, EAS, CAS, nor manufacturer limitations. Which is perhaps why you will never put your name to your claims, and have been attacking Pilots For 9/11 Truth for years, from the comfort of your anonymity.
 
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 56
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