| 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: |
| Jim Fetzer and his list of Direct Video Fakery Evidence.; To clarify who is who and what is what | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jun 26 2009, 05:06 AM (1,443 Views) | |
| elephant room | Jul 24 2009, 03:58 AM Post #61 |
|
Yuna, are you still maintaining you are a "newbie" to 9/11 plane research? Edited by elephant room, Jul 24 2009, 03:59 AM.
|
 |
 
|
| shure | Jul 24 2009, 04:00 AM Post #62 |
Administrator
|
I can't prove holograms and you can't prove tv fakery!!! Good bye! |
|
|
|
| heidimarie | Jul 24 2009, 04:25 AM Post #63 |
|
E Room...you guys have been through a lot trying to keep this legit. Some people out there have very unfullfilled and lonely lives to think this is the only way they can get attention. tgc |
|
|
|
| RasgaSaias | Jul 24 2009, 06:53 PM Post #64 |
|
DrBabs, Thanks for avoiding my simple questions. (Your blank quoting trick to disguise your completely unrelated answer was very lame) It tells a lot about your intentions here. |
|
|
|
| DrBabs | Jul 24 2009, 08:29 PM Post #65 |
|
I cannot see a secondary hole in that image. I have not conducted anything like an official study of the car fires. I've seen pictures of these cars on fire, and the fires look odd to me. Haven't you seen the same images? Was this the post you expected specific answers to? |
|
|
|
| RasgaSaias | Jul 25 2009, 01:34 AM Post #66 |
|
Interesting. Because you said the hole you cannot see was created by a directed-energy weapon . How does it really works in your mind? Serious question! You talk about a hole that never existed and attribute it to an imaginary weapon from which you have no evidence. Were you even trying to make sense or was just the DEW spam agenda forcing you to say it? I'll answer the "anomalous fires" issue in the related thread. http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/2013965/1/ |
|
|
|
| achimspok | Oct 14 2009, 01:52 AM Post #67 |
|
I'm obviously late in this thread. I just read the Jim Fetzer article "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11" Almost all seems to be discussed already. Nevertheless, I feel I should write some words about the 5 points of Fetzer in that article. 1) "... While Anthony Lawson has claimed such a plane could reach that speed in a dive, the plane is clearly not diving." It is clearly diving at about 50m/s downwards until about 9sec prior to the impact. During the last 9 seconds the plane is leveling into a precise horizontal trajectory at impact. 2) "... Go to killtown.blogspot.com and scroll to (what is now) the sixth image and you can view the plane interacting with the building. ... It should have been the case that massive debris was breaking off..." One pixel in the killtown image (239 x 176 pixel) represents 40cm x 40cm (15.7 in x 15.7 in). The distance between the exterior columns was 100cm (39 in). Due to compression no column is visible in that picture. The pieces of that massive debris are obviously smaller and just a small part could be accelerated to a speed of 586mph in the opposite direction in a fraction of a second just to "not enter" the building. That small part is visible (even in the killtown smiley-size GIF) as a gray cloud that remains outside the building.  (Bad video resolution can heal a crater.) 3)"According to the first law (of Newton), objects in motion remain in uniform motion unless acted upon by a force." That's right regarding to the center of mass - not just to the visible part in a bad resolution of it. "According to the second, an object accelerates in the direction of the force applied." That's right and deceleration of a moving object is acceleration in the opposite direction. Therefore any piece of the plane had to be accelerated to a relative speed of at least -586mph in a fraction of a second just to remain outside the building. "According to the third, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." Action = damage of the columns. Reaction = shredded airplane. "But the plane moves at uniform motion through both air and building..." At least the visible part of it because the rest of the plane moves much slower inside the building. The bigest piece - the starboard engine - left the building at about 125 mph (450mph slower than it entered the building). 4) "Neither the impact of United 175 with the South Tower nor the impact of American 11 with the North show the damage done to the steel and concrete in the form of the "cut-outs" that subsequently appear at the time they were allegedly being "caused" by the planes' impacts there." That's right because a big gray cloud of decelerated tiny aluminum pieces from the plane entirely covering the hole. Low resolution and compression let that gray cloud "fuse" into the uniformly gray wall of invisible columns. "A study of the Naudet brothers footage reveals a secondary explosion after the initial impact and fireballs that actually causes the cut-out in the North Tower." Sounds like simonshack-nonsense. There was no secondary explosion because there was just one explosion of the air-fuel mix about 0.6 seconds after the nose impacted the north face. The delayed fuel-air explosion is consistent with the need to reach a fuel-air ratio of 0.5%...5% fuel in the air because otherwise Jet-A kerosene would neither explode nor be inflammable (missing in the so called "study"). Once the proper fuel-air ratio is reached the vapor still needs to be ignited. Nevertheless, the fuel droplets moving all the time. After the fireball was gone the tiny aluminum confetti outside the building were also fallen down exposing the hole in the north face. "9/11 Amateur, Part 2" It's a shame to mention that brainwashing piece of anti-investigation (as a "study"). "It is fair to infer that the same technique was employed to create the cut-out images in the South Tower." Right, exactly the same. The technique is called "plane crash". 5) However, it (simonshack's "9/11 Amateur, Part 2") goes further in considering the angle of the shot and how he (Evan Fairbanks) came to take it, which suggests that he is lying through his teeth." No Jim, simonshack is lying through his teeth and debunked 5 times through the ground. There is nothing wrong with the perspective and the "white flash" Fairbanks saw is exactly the same "white flash" you can still see in his video. Are you able to see a plane, Jim? "9/11 Amateur, Part 3" It's a shame to mention that brainwashing piece of anti-investigation. Hey Jim, study that study! "Killtown has now extended the uniform motion argument to Evan Fairbank's video..." Yes, and it once again confirms all laws of Newton. Just Killtown is not able to interpret the picture and don't know the meaning of the physical term "center of mass".  Edited by achimspok, Oct 14 2009, 02:28 AM.
|
|
|
|
| broken sticks | Oct 14 2009, 01:59 AM Post #68 |
|
lol nice graphic btw |
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |
4:51 PM Nov 30
