Use of Scale Model or Full Sized models for investigating 9/11 collapses

Cube Radio

Member
On the contrary: I made an observation, which is that the tower collapse theory you subscribe to has no experimental validation, even 14 years after the event. If you really think the mechanic of the most catastrophic structural failures in history has been understood, the burden is on you to demonstrate that understanding experimentally, using a model (either virtual or physical). This is the scientific method. Please start a new thread if you think this has been done, and we will discuss it there.
 
Last edited:

NoParty

Senior Member.
If you think you know how it happened, a model that experimentally validates your explanation would be possible if not easy for you to make. It's no more than the scientific method demands, if you're honest. Strangely, though, no-one can fulfill such a simple requirement. Maybe something to do with Newton's Third Law is the problem for you?
You're quite a ways off from the "lonely lives" topic...so I'm about done.
[eta: this was originally in a different thread, thus, off topic there...then moved, appropriately, here]

But you're still making the same basic mistake as always: (well, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't just trolling)

Mistaking the lack of sufficient drive to spend lots of time and money on something that millions witnessed and can watch again, any time, vs. the inability of anyone to to spend their resources in such a dubious way.

One would need to believe that there was a plausible chance of those towers falling for some other reason
than what everybody saw: planes and then fires. And, at this point, no one sees the need to
pour significantly more resources down that hole. Personally, I've reached the sad conclusion there are some who will choose to
complain about any model...even one that does everything they demand...making a large expenditure of time and money even more pointless and foolish...but by all means, round up the resources to do what you say is so important, and folks will gladly weigh in on whether or not you succeeded. :)
 
Last edited:

Cube Radio

Member
The terrible logic you're once again using here -- generally to applause from others -- is the reason why I find Metabunk is such a tiresome place.

I'll explain this to you one last time.

Video footage of a cloud formation is not the same thing as a computer simulation of the weather, which predicts, investigates and explains how clouds will form and behave.

Video footage of an aeroplane in flight is not the same thing as a model of an aeroplane or a virtual wind tunnel, which predicts, investigates and explains how flight is achieved.

Video footage of a tower collapsing is not the same as a model of the tower collapsing, which is required to predict, investigate and explain how the collapse happened in the way it happened.

It is this model that people like you, who would like to pretend that the collapse of the twin towers has been adequately investigated and explained, totally lack. And yet it is fundamental to the scientific method that you should be able to produce one.

Not only do you fail to grasp this staggeringly simple point, but you seek to shift the burden of experimental verification of your collapse theory on to those who point out you haven't been able to produce any in 14 years, and suggest that these people would never be satisfied even if you did.

To complete your fallacious argument, you then pretend that a great deal of time and money has already been spent producing the verification you lack, but singularly fail to indicate where a tower collapse experiment that verifies your theory can be found.

It is laughable but ultimately so tiresome.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
singularly fail to indicate where a tower collapse experiment that verifies your theory can be found.
For the reasons explained at great length in the preceding 842 posts. You keep going round and round in circles.

Models exist to illustrate the principles of the floors being stripped from the columns, leaving them unsupported.


An actual scale model is near impossible because it's so big (a six foot tall model would weigh more than if the entire volume were solid gold), but the real reason that nobody has built one is that nobody feels there is a need.

I know YOU feel there is a need, and you cannot be convinced otherwise. But maybe you should take a step back and consider why the vast majority of qualified people do not think building a model would be worthwhile.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
But maybe you should take a step back and consider why the vast majority of qualified people do not think building a model would be worthwhile
i think the real question to ponder is why after 14 years, if SO many people think the government has committed a heineous crime against Americans, the Truthers (Architects and Engineers) havent pooled their money and built a 6 foot scale model to show the collapse as explained is impossible. I mean, supposedly they are engineers and architects- how hard could it be?
 

Cube Radio

Member
I'm sorry, Mick: a one dimensional model made with a few Jenga blocks coupled with an appeal to authority on your part should not satisfy anyone with a reasonable degree of curiosity about how the most significant structural disasters of all time could occur in the way they occurred. Taking a step back simply reveals you and others engaged in handwaving: it is wholly reasonable to expect a model of some kind by now to have been produced by an engineering faculty somewhere.

Deirdre, if you start at the beginning of this thread you will understand why the square cube law makes a six foot scale model wholly unsatisfactory to everyone. A virtual model is a much more realistic possibility. If you glance through the thread you will see several examples of modelling efforts, both physical and computer generated: all fail to validate the official collapse theory. NIST didn't even attempt it.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
i think the real question to ponder is why after 14 years, if SO many people think the government has committed a heineous crime against Americans, the Truthers (Architects and Engineers) havent pooled their money and built a 6 foot scale model to show the collapse as explained is impossible. I mean, supposedly they are engineers and architects- how hard could it be?
A six foot model would not tell you anything, due to scale issues. But a computer model is certainly something they (AE911) should do. They said they would, as part of their "ambitious 2015 agenda". However I'm not sure if there were any results.
http://www.ae911truth.org/membership-2015/
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Taking a step back simply reveals you and others engaged in handwaving: it is wholly reasonable to expect a model of some kind by now to have been produced by an engineering faculty somewhere.
So you continue to assert. And yet not has been produced. There's two most likely reasons for this:

1) All the researchers in the world have been instructed not to do it, or they will be defunded, because doing so would expose the collapse of the WTC as a controlled demolition.
2) Nobody other than 9/11 truthers sees a real need to create such a model, as it's obvious the collapse would be progressive, since the floors and columns could not support that dynamic load.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
A six foot model would not tell you anything, due to scale issues. But a computer model is certainly something they (AE911) should do. They said they would, as part of their "ambitious 2015 agenda". However I'm not sure if there were any results.
http://www.ae911truth.org/membership-2015/
yea i thought 6' sounded too small. I was thinking computer model too... is that weird they just want to look at Building 7? Building 7 was always the weirdest CT to me as ... so what if they helped the building collapse at that point with explosives. Noone would have batted an eye. We drop trees and tree limbs all the time that we think may fall, so that we can control WHEN and HOW they fall. <anyway, not to change topic again sorry. just questioning outloud.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
The terrible logic you're once again using here...
I'll explain this to you one last time......would like to pretend...Not only do you fail to grasp this staggeringly simple point, ...you then pretend that a great deal of time and money has already been spent...
It is laughable but ultimately so tiresome.
Okay, if you believe that such an ugly tone will mask the lack of merit in your repetitious, unsupported claims,
knock yourself out. Somehow you have never made your "staggeringly simple point" in a convincing way.

...not satisfy anyone with a reasonable degree of curiosity...
Again, you're framing this poorly. I tried giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you are slowly convincing
me that I shouldn't have: The overwhelming majority of people on this site are here BECAUSE they are
curious...much more than the average person. Everyone here saw what happened on 9/11.
Virtually everyone here would probably enjoy looking at a hyper-detailed, super accurate model of what
happened to the towers, even though we saw what actually did happen.
Being "reasonable" as you say, includes understanding why no one sees a need to pour significant new resources into something just because a small minority never stops throwing out new conspiracy theories.
Deidre is right: Those who truly believe that they see something that others don't should put their money where their mouths are
and create the models that that will give their yelling some that it so far lacks...and perhaps then they might be taken seriously.
I do not mistake your animosity for you having anything new to say.

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
so what if they helped the building collapse at that point with explosives. Noone would have batted an eye.
The "so what" would be that they claimed they didn't.

AE911 like to focus on WTC7 because it most closely visually resembles a controlled demolition. I think most of them know that the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2 are generally accepted as reasonable outcomes of events. But people are less familiar with WTC7, and it's easy to instill doubt about it. Dane Wigington in his most recent speech said the official story of the WTC7 collapse is that "some furniture was burning on the first floor", to laughter and applause.

So they probably see WTC7 as the more likely to yield the results they want. There's some small existing work on modeling the girder walk-off that @Tony Szamboti did, and they were suggesting legal action or something about the stiffener plates. So it's kind of their focus.

But I've not heard anything more from them about this modeling, or "monthly technical briefs", AFAIK.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
The "so what" would be that they claimed they didn't.

AE911 like to focus on WTC7 because it most closely visually resembles a controlled demolition. I think most of them know that the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2 are generally accepted as reasonable outcomes of events. But people are less familiar with WTC7, and it's easy to instill doubt about it. Dane Wigington in his most recent speech said the official story of the WTC7 collapse is that "some furniture was burning on the first floor", to laughter and applause.

So they probably see WTC7 as the more likely to yield the results they want. There's some small existing work on modeling the girder walk-off that @Tony Szamboti did, and they were suggesting legal action or something about the stiffener plates. So it's kind of their focus.

But I've not heard anything more from them about this modeling, or "monthly technical briefs", AFAIK.
ah. thanks.

it still wouldnt make any sense for the government to claim they didnt help the building fall, if they did. We would EXPECT them to do that.. thats kinda their job. To keep us as safe as possible. But yea, i guess the Truthers have some kind of reasoning around that.
 

Cube Radio

Member
Okay, if you believe that such an ugly tone will mask the lack of merit in your repetitious, unsupported claims
You suggest I am trolling for repeating a simple point -- that the scientific method demands experimental verification for any theory -- because you repeatedly fail to address it. Then when I lose patience, you complain about my tone and -- surprise surprise -- again fail to address the simple point because of the burden it places on you to produce some experimental verification for your ideas. I have zero expectation that any further response from you will address this point, and unless you do I won't engage with you further here.
1) All the researchers in the world have been instructed not to do it, or they will be defunded, because doing so would expose the collapse of the WTC as a controlled demolition.
2) Nobody other than 9/11 truthers sees a real need to create such a model, as it's obvious the collapse would be progressive, since the floors and columns could not support that dynamic load.
3) It simply can't be done with any model that can be reasonably taken as a simplified representation of the towers.
Can you explain why such a model would be easy to make?
it's obvious the collapse would be progressive, since the floors and columns could not support that dynamic load.
I'm thinking I'll look into using Blender to build a model. While it's not engineering grade physics, it should suffice to demonstrate the principle of collapse.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You suggest I am trolling for repeating a simple point -- that the scientific method demands experimental verification for any theory -- because you repeatedly fail to address it.
Well, let's address it again. The scientific method does not demand experiment verification for any theory. If it demands anything, it demands supporting evidence.

There's plenty of theories about the sun, and nobody is building a scale model of the sun to test those theories on. But there's still plenty of evidence this is correct.

The problem here seems to be that scientists disagree with you about the need for a scale model, because they think there's sufficient existing evidence to support the theory that the towers collapsed due to impact and fire, with a progressive collapse being inevitable once collapse had started.

That's the real issue here.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
You suggest I am trolling for repeating a simple point -- that the scientific method demands experimental verification for any theory -- because you repeatedly fail to address it. Then when I lose patience, you complain about my tone and -- surprise surprise -- again fail to address the simple point because of the burden it places on you to produce some experimental verification for your ideas.
No, your admitted repetition serves no purpose.
There is nothing about the scientific method that says that a costly elaborate model needs
to be constructed to confirm that what appears to have happened, happened.
Repeatedly claiming otherwise is not getting more convincing with each tedious refrain. Sorry.
I suggest that if you're really determined to baselessly imply something nefarious, you come up with a fresh angle.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The fact that nobody is making a model is evidence that nobody feels it is needed.

Blender is free, time is not.
 

Bruno D.

Senior Member.
Perhaps you can develop a tower model made out of duplo that shows how a falling upper section can crush the structure below without itself being rapidly destroyed. We have a lot of duplo so I could then reproduce your experiment at home for my kids.
It actually happens all the time. Verinage demolition is all about that. Break the middle floor and let the falling upper section crush the structure below. You don't need a model. It's applied physics.


Please note how the upper section remains much less destroyed than the lower sections until it hits the ground level.

There you go, multiple examples of a progressive collapse.
 

Cube Radio

Member
Verinage is controlled demolition, using precisely placed hydraulic jacks or chains. As you say these buildings are rigged in the middle of the structure: causing say the top 15% or 20% to fall will not destroy the building; it is also never used to destroy steel framed structures.

But basically you are presenting a controlled demolition technique here, so it follows that you believe controlled demolition occurred...?

Mick, you made an explicit appeal to authority when you said scientists think there's no need for a model that explains the most catastrophic and politically significant structural disasters in history. What is your source for that claim? I could just as easily claim that the fact that nobody has been able to model the collapses of the towers is evidence that it can't be done. Fourteen years, and still nothing.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mick, you made an explicit appeal to authority when you said scientists don't agree about the need about the need for a model. What is your source for that claim?
I inferred it from the lack of models. In my opinion, if there was a need for a model, then someone, somewhere in the world, would have done one. Don't you think?
 

Cube Radio

Member
The only observation I would make is that the best attempts to model the collapses that have so far been attempted have failed to validate the crush principle you hold to be so self-evident that it is not worth investigating. I see @femr2 has been briefly active on this forum recently, and as I invoked his model much earlier in the thread I humbly hope for some contribution from him at this stage.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
You suggest I am trolling for repeating a simple point -- that the scientific method demands experimental verification for any theory -- because you repeatedly fail to address it..
I think it's been addressed, you just keep repeating yourself, that is why some people think you're trolling.

.
3) It simply can't be done with any model that can be reasonably taken as a simplified representation of the towers.
Then what would you propose?
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
Blender is free.
It is indeed, and as you are the one demanding such a model is needed why don't YOU download it, put in the data and run the sim?

After all its you thats shouting from the side lines like a crazed Arsenal supporter, why not put yer boots on and prove your point. Hey if your right you will be famous as the guy who cracked the case, money and fame await you.

Or are you going to, like most CTer's, remain content to just heckle from the touch line?
 
Last edited:

Bruno D.

Senior Member.
Verinage is controlled demolition, using precisely placed hydraulic jacks or chains. As you say these buildings are rigged in the middle of the structure: causing say the top 15% or 20% to fall will not destroy the building; it is also never used to destroy steel framed structures.

But basically you are presenting a controlled demolition technique here, so it follows that you believe controlled demolition occurred...?
I get that all the time when i say it. Yes, the tower went down JUST LIKE a verinage demolition, with all the newton's laws and principles acting and reacting exactly like they should. The only difference is that it was not controlled, it was chaotic. Several buildings were destroyed by WTC 1 and 2, and a well done controlled verinage is used to reduce this risk of damage.

You said several times that it's impossible for a set of upper floors to destroy the lower floors without they themselves being destroyed before. No, it's not impossible. This principle is actually used a lot.

Hydraulic jacks and chains or a jet full of gas? The jacks destroy 1 floor, the jet destroys several. Same final effect: pancacking.

Half of the floors of a 30 store buildings or 20% of a 110 floors building, plus antenna and truss? Same final effect: pancacking.

Concrete building or steel framed building, who could say what's the difference for a verinage demolition? Maybe the steel frames made the top floors even more strong to pancake the lower floors?

So, Newton's laws are safe for now. ;-)
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
I was able to roughly replicate the effect of the top maintaining structure as it fails from the bottom using physics sandbox algodoo.
(http://www.algodoo.com)
Someone with better architectectural knowledge could produce something more structurally accurate, this is very amateur, but I don't think Newton has been violated.
 

Attachments

Gridlock

Senior Member.
I'd be interested in whether or not the OP has tried an experimental breakup of an unsinkable steel ship in his bathtub following a collision with an ice cube. Maybe start there?

You may feel you are working "for" the relatives and victims, but you are not.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Even with a model it's never going to fall the exact same way again. Even if actual buildings were constructed it would fall exactly the same way. Truthers continually tell us why something "didn't" or "couldn't" happen but spend no time proving what "they think " actually DID happen.
 

qed

Senior Member
Perhaps you can develop a tower model made out of duplo that shows how a falling upper section can crush the structure below without itself being rapidly destroyed. We have a lot of duplo so I could then reproduce your experiment at home for my kids.
I dare you to describe a representational model of the tower out of duplo.
2261a9b09c653a9075f4174b61b31a95._.jpg
The point is, one cannot.

[... which pieces would you use for the columns, and then how would you build the floors? ...]
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Even with a model it's never going to fall the exact same way again. Even if actual buildings were constructed it would fall exactly the same way.
The two towers themselves did fall in very similar ways, even though the impacts were quite different.

A progressive collapse is going to look very similar on identical very large buildings.
 

econ41

Senior Member
Perhaps you can develop a tower model made out of duplo that shows how a falling upper section can crush the structure below without itself being rapidly destroyed. We have a lot of duplo so I could then reproduce your experiment at home for my kids.
The discussion seems to be circling.

Given this latest scenario from Cube Radio:
1) The target is "for my kids";
2) It refers to "how a falling upper section" so it is the progression stage which Mick has already partly modelled in Jengo.
3) Neither Jengo nor duplo have adequate tensile strength to construct a scientific investigation model BUT the current target is "for my kids" so full scientific rigour not needed.
Note:
4) The requirement "without itself being rapidly destroyed" does not match the real scenario where the upper block was destroyed in the early stages of falling - this picture shows why:
96ef2955f95b6bb2906391c1cce15c24.jpg
(The yellow arrows show how the still intact perimeter walls would impact with massive force on the Open Office Space floors with inevitable results)
BUT that perimeter impacting on floor mechanism - which is the start of progression - should be easy to model - maybe not in duplo. Duplo (or jengo) for the perimeter walls - balsa wood sticks for the floors glued in place could achieve the effect.

The outer faces could be painted to represent WTC exterior to make it more realistic for kids. Adjust the tilt to represent WTC 2 or WTC 1 which started to fall with different initial tilt angles. The picture is WTC2.

I first proposed this sort of demonstration model in 2007. Using square "cracker" biscuits stuck together with "blu-tak" for the walls and core. Tooth picks for the floor joists. and a falling do-nut shaped weight for the "Top Block". Never built it - the mental image was good enough for the person I was explaining to. He was adult - it would not be pictorially/visually good enough for kids IMO.
 
Verinage is controlled demolition, using precisely placed hydraulic jacks or chains. As you say these buildings are rigged in the middle of the structure: causing say the top 15% or 20% to fall will not destroy the building; it is also never used to destroy steel framed structures.

But basically you are presenting a controlled demolition technique here, so it follows that you believe controlled demolition occurred...?

Mick, you made an explicit appeal to authority when you said scientists think there's no need for a model that explains the most catastrophic and politically significant structural disasters in history. What is your source for that claim? I could just as easily claim that the fact that nobody has been able to model the collapses of the towers is evidence that it can't be done. Fourteen years, and still nothing.
I could have written this down. Also add that a structure prepared for verinage demolition is completely and completely stripped. Also add that there are no violent ejections due to conservation of momentum in the (x,y) plane. Further this is no tube in tube structure where some people think that it is only a matter of a funneling domino effect (see Mick's animated gif) In contrast the whole top section comes down and all columns are destroyed in the same rate. No funneling, because that implies an an out of sync demolition of the columns afterwards.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
In contrast the whole top section comes down and all columns are destroyed in the same rate.
Then why is more than half the core left standing after the debris wave hit the ground?


The columns are not "destroyed", the floors are stripped from them.


Any model that relies on "crushing" is not modeling what actually happened.
 
The fact that some columns are still standing at the end of the collapse event does not prove that the whole collapse is an internal collapse. It is also not very logical, because in that case it's a pure pancake theory and the outer shell should stay very intact. in that case the top section should stand and the internal floors collapsing would lead to some dust ejections traveling from the collapsing floors (while the shell intact) and then to the next floor and so on.
That is far from what we see from video observation.

http://www.imagebam.com/image/a5cdbd437054898

http://www.imagebam.com/image/771f6f437054899

(the 2nd image is an animated gif)

In the famous Sauret video, often used to determine the acceleration of the top section (about 2g/3 for wtc1) we clearly see that the top section falls as a more or less intact section. There is nothing to funnel because the core columns with braces fall on other core columns with braces.

I've also never heard about a consistent theory that explains that idea, it's simply nonsense. A good collapse theory
should explain why the core is destroyed in the same rate, especially in the beginning. That some core elements still stand is not really strange because they become stronger near the bottom. The Bazantian theory is mathematically rigorous and uses a structure on structure collapse and for that theory no funneling or internal pancaking is needed, but it has other issues. It does not explain the ejections, it assumes energy is dissipated in an infinitesimal layer and it cannot explain that a layer of crushed mass is able to crush nicely top-down. You use a hammer for a nail and don't throw the same mass of sugar into a plastic bag onto a nail. Of course the laws apply for small particles but then you should divide your equations into very small parts and see that does not work.

Bazant is mathematically correct but has no physical reality. Large scale verinage demolition of an intact steel-framed structure somewhere at 15% from the top is the only way to prove it. Nobody is going to do that of course.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Large scale verinage demolition of an intact steel-framed structure somewhere at 15% from the top is the only way to prove it. Nobody is going to do that of course.
Well, that's what this thread is about. Can it be modeled? On a computer?

Just arguing about it with words is pretty pointless. You can say things like
The fact that some columns are still standing at the end of the collapse event does not prove that the whole collapse is an internal collapse. It is also not very logical, because in that case it's a pure pancake theory and the outer shell should stay very intact.
And then I can disagree with it, explain how you are inaccurately paraphrasing and generalizing, then you can perhaps refine your claims a little. But ultimately it's pointless.

Draw a detailed diagram, make a model, do some math.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
You suggest I am trolling for repeating a simple point -- that the scientific method demands experimental verification for any theory
No, it doesn't - 9/11 is not a science experiment - it does not actually require "scientific proof"..

There are cases where observational study is used because it is impractical to conduct an experiment.


-- because you repeatedly fail to address it.
There is no need to address it - the supporting evidence for what happened on 9/11 exists, it adequately explains the events and is in accordance with known physics and other information.


If you have a theory that contradicts the "official story" then you also do not need "scientific proof" to "prove" your theory - what you need is a reasonably logical argument that also supports all the known information - but it is for you to construct, not others to prove you wrong when you haven't made any such argument.


3) It simply can't be done with any model that can be reasonably taken as a simplified representation of the towers.
Do you have any evidence to support hat assertion?
 

Spectrar Ghost

Senior Member.
I don't think CubeRadio feels he needs any evidence. From what I've seen his MO is to dispute that any model that supports the factual events can be "reasonably taken as a simplified representation of the towers".
 

qed

Senior Member
A proposal for a way forward.

I do think the onus now falls on @Cube Radio to describe a representational model.

I feel this is justified for a number of reason.
  1. The thread is going in circles.
  2. He has rejected all the models so far presented, in particular @Mick West's model.
  3. He still feels that building such a model should be easy (with Duplo even), despite it being explained a number of times that building a representational model would be very hard, probably a feat of engineering.
  4. It seems, in the light of 2, that he does not really understand the structure of the towers, and perhaps this is why he cannot see how they collapsed.
We can then interrogate this model, see if it is representational and can be built. Then we can see if it collapses? Or perhaps by that point, @Cube Radio may have a different perspective on the collapse.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
J [False] Claim that Scale Model of 2017 Eclipse Disproves the Heliocentric Model Flat Earth 29
Stefan Leahu A real-life 2D curvature analogy and a few thoughts regarding scale Flat Earth 2
Mick West How Big is a Tic-Tac? Scale Models of the Nimitz Incident UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 18
Mick West Convert Graph Image from Log Scale to Linear Scale Tools for Investigating and Debunking 0
Mick West Where are you on the Generic Conspiracist Beliefs Scale? Practical Debunking 22
Svartbjørn The Solar System.. To Scale (just for fun, nothing to debunk here) General Discussion 0
TWCobra Effect of mid-range Mohs (hardness scale) Volcanic Ash on aircraft v Aluminium oxide Contrails and Chemtrails 14
Christophe Isbert Quadcopter/RC model? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Mick West WTC7: Is AE911's (and NIST's) Focus on A2001 Justified if it Was Not "Key" in NIST's Global Model? 9/11 181
Mick West Ground Truth: Verifying Stellarium's Model of The Solar System Flat Earth 2
Mick West A virtual model illustrating some aspects of the collapse of the WTC Towers Tools for Investigating and Debunking 132
Gamolon Does Mick West's WTC model meet the Heiwa Challenge? 9/11 25
Mick West Towards A Replicable Physical Model Illustrating Aspects of the Collapse of The WTC Towers on 9/11 9/11 442
Davy Stone Proposed experiment measuring Doppler shift of the sun on a flat earth model Flat Earth 9
Jay Reynolds "The Awakening"- a 'Franchise' Model to Drive Conspiracy Product Sales Conspiracy Theories 0
Mick West Explained: "It's photoshopped because it has to be" Flat Earth 3
Mick West Converting Nikon P900 to IR/Full Spectrum - The Definitive Guide Tools for Investigating and Debunking 14
Rory Debunked: The Lunar Cycle affects birth rates Health and Quackery 26
L How did Tim Peake get full Earth in his helmet picture? [convex mirror illusion] Flat Earth 11
Mick West Full-Disk HD Images of the Earth from Satellites Flat Earth 94
Steve Funk Elana Freeland, "Chemtrails, HAARP and the Full-Spectrum Dominance of Planet Earth Contrails and Chemtrails 15
Mick West MH370 Preliminary Report Released - Full Text and Files Flight MH370 186
J Debunked: Full proof sandy hook was closed 5 yrs ago Sandy Hook 25
Mick West Boston: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev criminal complaint full text Boston Marathon Bombings 14
Clock 8 Ways to tell a Conspiracy Theorist is really a Fraud (or full of baloney) Practical Debunking 9
Related Articles

























Related Articles

Top