Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Pumpitout. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
the naudet flash
Topic Started: May 25 2009, 01:54 AM (517 Views)
genghis6199

does exist.

i can't believe i'm gonna make a video defending dylan avery,

meh whatever.

i wish the people at movement would learn a little about
de-interlacing before spouting this rubbish.

it's in webfairys copy also. are they accusing her of faking it?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheAdversary

Why do you type in such a sloppy, nonsensical way? What the fck is wrong with you?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
genghis6199

TheAdversary
May 25 2009, 07:56 AM
Why do you type in such a sloppy, nonsensical way? What the fck is wrong with you?
i'm not a brainwashed robot who feels the need to comply with simpletons
who have trouble grasping any english beyond a mcdonalds ad.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jonayla
Member Avatar

Genghis: don't feed the troll!!!!! ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
newangle

I'd be interested to see your new video, genghis. Some of the videos have it, some don't.
It appears on CNN and other networks.
Trust SS to jump to conclusions.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stealth

genghis6199
May 25 2009, 01:54 AM
does exist.

i can't believe i'm gonna make a video defending dylan avery,

meh whatever.

i wish the people at movement would learn a little about
de-interlacing before spouting this rubbish.

it's in webfairys copy also. are they accusing her of faking it?

ditto

the flash exist's has always been their!! because i have the new york 1st aired version
the dvd has been cleaned up
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
genghis6199

i think it's funny that they believe the flash isn't there, and it was put there, and don't consider that the flash might have been taken out.

one of these options is sane,
one of them decidedly not.

it's frikking stoopid, but i won't rectify,
if simon wants to lie and talk like a moron, it's not up to me to
tell him everytime. i got better things goin on than that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chander

Quote:
 
one of these options is sane,
one of them decidedly not.


Yah, but which is it?
If Stealth is right, that the first one shown had the flash, then later ones must have removed it.
Why would they do this? That is what puzzles me. Determining the motive always helps in crime-solving.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stealth

Chander
May 27 2009, 12:28 AM
Quote:
 
one of these options is sane,
one of them decidedly not.


Yah, but which is it?
If Stealth is right, that the first one shown had the flash, then later ones must have removed it.
Why would they do this? That is what puzzles me. Determining the motive always helps in crime-solving.
it proves the video is real although the plane is a scalar image
drawing a line into the video on corner doesnt make it
fake, it was to hide the 2 lasar dots on corner of the building.

simon is 100% wrong on this 1!! he should have asked me :)

Edited by stealth, May 27 2009, 02:27 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
genghis6199

Chander
May 27 2009, 12:28 AM
Quote:
 
one of these options is sane,
one of them decidedly not.


Yah, but which is it?
If Stealth is right, that the first one shown had the flash, then later ones must have removed it.
Why would they do this? That is what puzzles me. Determining the motive always helps in crime-solving.
it doesn't matter, ur missing the point.
if they removed something it's because it's evidence of wrong doing.
if it was a legitmate video, showing a true event,
there is no need for anybody to do anything.

no mystery. i'm not sure why you would try create one.

and you should have already considered the possibility that has been mentioned a thousand times.

THE FLASH HAS BEEN LOST THROUGH CRAPPY TOOB COMPRESSION
AND TERRIBLE RIPPING TECHNIQUES.
you can lose 50% of the frames of a video in one bad compression.
not malevolent evidence destruction,
but more ignorance and ineptness.
backed up by beligerant non educated ramblings.
Edited by genghis6199, May 27 2009, 04:01 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stealth

the 1st aired copy on fox new york

Posted Image
Edited by stealth, May 27 2009, 04:46 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
elephant room
Member Avatar

It was very telling that the Popular Mechanics "researchers" dedicated
a whole section of their book 'debunking 9/11 myths' to the In Plane Sight 'Pods',
but never even mention the flashes. Not with a 10ft pole.
Nor the national geographic or bbc programs.
Nothing on the webpage version

but what are these flashes?

175?... take it dylan:
Edited by elephant room, May 27 2009, 10:42 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
elephant room
Member Avatar

911review.com offer a reason for the flash.

Mark Ferran
 
Analysis of Aluminum Impact Flashes in the WTC Crashes

The South Tower jetliner impact exhibited flashes that have been the subject of a great deal of well-publicized but poorly-informed speculation such as a occupies much of the film In Plane Site . In the following, Mark Ferran debunks claims and implications that the flashes were due to missile strikes or the like by pointing to a reasonable explanation.

e x c e r p t
title: WTC Aluminum Impact Flashes
authors: Mark Feram
When Aluminum metal is intensely smashed and shattered or it otherwise burns in air, it emits Bright White LIGHT.

Aluminum bullets travelling at very high fps (mph) shatter/splatter completely, and almost the entire mass bursts into burning particles, and are thus such are called "pyrophoric". Depleted Uranium "Kenetic Energy" projectiles are also notoriously pyrophoric upon their impact-disintegration. The key to producing the flash is the generation of the tiny particles of (heated) metal in air. In the case of bullets, the small projectile must itself contain all the (kenetic) energy needed to shatter/splatter itself, thus speeds of about 3,000 fps are required to impart the necessary energy to a small mass such as an aluminum bullet.

1fps. = .681mph.

1mph. = 1.46fps.

"The 'vaporific effect' refers to the flash fire observed with the impact of high velocity projectiles against metallic targets. The impact produces small, finely divided particles originating from either the projectile, the target, or both. These particles are heated by the impact forces and can burn in the presence of air (oxidizer). The result is a metal-dust-type explosion.... http://www.blazetech.com/.../vaporific_effects.html
It requires only a very small amount of burning Aluminum metal to emit a white light momentarily brighter than the Sun: "Flash powder". Aluminum or magnesium powder mixed with an oxidizer results in a "flash powder" that can be used to generate a bright flash of light and a loud bang. Flash powder can be used as a light source for night photography." http://www.vectorsite.net/ttpyro_2.html Similarly, an aluminum "cotton" fiber was used in older "flash cubes" to simulate sunlight for cameras.

A large piece of aluminum moving at a lesser speed than that speed which completely and entirely shatters/splatters the whole mass of the aluminum metal, is also likely to emit some aluminum particles and hence a flash of light, at the leading point of impact, because the whole mass of the rigid metal object contributes energy to shatter/splatter the smaller mass of aluminum at the leading point of impact.

General Partin says vonKleist omits the most obvious explanation. "It's very simple," he told The New American, "When the noses of the aircraft hit the buildings, you have a bright aluminum flash, the same as we saw at the Pentagon. That's obvious to anyone familiar with physics, chemistry, and what happens when aluminum hits a structure at a high rate of speed." And the proof of that analysis, the general points out, is in vonKleist's own video. "If you watch just a few frames after the nose flash, you'll see two smaller aluminum flashes as each engine strikes the building. That's all it is."
http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/printer_1253.shtml
At this link is a video of a small "F4" aircraft on a track crashing in a test to assess the safety of a nulcear reactor. http://www.jokaroo.com/extremevideos/plane_vs_wall.html

The F4 plane apparently has a non-aluminum nose-cone, however when the first metal (aluminum?) part of the nose strikes the concrete wall, a small White Flash of light is distinctly visible in the video (see the especially the second view with the aircraft approaching from the right).

Although "aluminum flash" is easily and typically observed with small projectiles (bullets) at self-shattering/splattering speeds (e.g., above 3000 fps), if you strike a small piece of aluminum metal between two very heavy masses, (for example between an iron building and an aircraft traveling 500mph), some of the aluminum metal squashed between these rigid masses will be intensely heated and ejected as small hot particles which will ignite in the air, producing a bright flash of Light. The large masses (moving relatively towards each other) provide the additional energy necessary to shatter/splatter the smaller amount of aluminum and to produce the ejected particles that burn in air and emit white light.

Impact-flashes of aluminum aircraft are considered to be commonplace by experts like "General Partin", and given the obvious ignorance and bias of most of the writers and "scholars" among the 9-11 Historical Revisionists ... I have no reason to believe that such impact flashes are not commonplace. [To the right] are images capturing impact-flash of the second aluminum airplane that hit the iron WTC towers. Also note that the face of the WTC towers where clad with sheets of aluminum, which would also be a source of aluminum for impact-flashes.

"Nearly all metals will burn in air under certain conditions." http://www.eh.doe.gov/techstds/standard/hdbk1081/hbk1081c.html

Iron Burns, especially when it is red-hot, and evidently it can melt itself when it burns in a large enough pile furnace. Aluminum Burns with a Flash, especially when it is spattered/shattered at high speed, and thus finely divided and hot.

Mark Ferran BSEE scl JD mcl www.billstclair.com/ferran

site: www.billstclair.com/ferran

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
broken sticks
Member Avatar

"When the noses of the aircraft hit the buildings, you have a bright aluminum flash, the same as we saw at the Pentagon."

Bright flash at the pentagon?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jonayla
Member Avatar

broken sticks
May 28 2009, 12:16 AM
"When the noses of the aircraft hit the buildings, you have a bright aluminum flash, the same as we saw at the Pentagon."

Bright flash at the pentagon?
:D :D :D :D :D Yes, imaginary aluminum of an imaginary plane produced an imaginary white flash.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Disinfo / Manipulation / Propaganda · Next Topic »
Add Reply