The Real Deal with Jim Fetzer: Myself as guest

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:

Pages:
1
…
5
6
7
…
11

The Real Deal with Jim Fetzer: Myself as guest; November 4 2009
Topic Started: Nov 4 2009, 12:38 PM (2,454 Views)
icke	Nov 8 2009, 01:33 PM Post #76
Posts: 174 Group: Members Member #294 Joined: Oct 4, 2009	The fuselage on the Naudet plane looks very thin to me. Are you sure you’re using a comparable model in your simulation? Attached to this post: Naudet_v_Itchyspot2.jpg (68.91 KB)



icke	Nov 8 2009, 01:39 PM Post #77
Posts: 174 Group: Members Member #294 Joined: Oct 4, 2009	Itchyspot - "Ickes little secret (watch the lower right corner of his video):" You get that when warning when you're in replay mode. The system refers to the replay as slew a slew mode. In any case you can only slew horizontally and vertically in Fs 2004. You can’t slew in diagonals, which is why I had to fly manually and try to match up the flight paths as best I could. It’s not easy trying to match flight paths and airspeeds, even is a sim which won’t account for over-speed aerodynamics.



icke	Nov 8 2009, 01:47 PM Post #78
Posts: 174 Group: Members Member #294 Joined: Oct 4, 2009	One more thing. The WTC1 youtube video was done fairly recently and is for cosmetic purposes only. I was simply experimenting with vertical and horizontal navigation in the simulator. The work you should use as a reference would be here: http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/whwtc1/



achimspok	Nov 8 2009, 01:55 PM Post #79
Posts: 298 Group: Members Member #266 Joined: Aug 2, 2009	You are not able to analyze anything. And as I mentioned above the roll angle at impact appears to be 25.5° but may be the impact itself did something to the appearance. The roll during flight appears to be about 27.5°. Try to get YOUR data right in the range of +/- 10°. And stop lying! It would help a lot.



RasgaSaias	Nov 8 2009, 03:58 PM Post #80
Posts: 1,368 Group: Global Moderator Member #43 Joined: Oct 16, 2008	icke Nov 8 2009, 01:47 PM The WTC1 youtube video was done fairly recently and is for cosmetic purposes only. All your work is cosmetic you lying piece of sh!t. Why don't you stop spamming this thread with your bullsh!t and start posting the coordinates used for placing your plane over the videos? You're the one who's claiming there's something wrong about the videos and accusing innocent people of complicity in mass murder. So stop pretending your analysis of achimspok's stuff is relevant to your agenda driven cause. icke Why don't you adjust the plane's resolution, brightness and contrast to match the video quality? Why are you pretending you can't do better than that? Why are you pretending you didn't see this video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxmZlOPY13Q Marcus Icke is here trying to score points for his fraud team by criticizing achimspok when in fact he never, ever, proved anything inconsistent in the 9/11 videos. He should be criticizing the 9/11 videos, but since he can't, instead, he's just diverting the attention from the real problem! The problem is his faulty comparisons and fake conclusions with which he's been trying to deceit the public. This is an example of his cosmetic fraudulent work: It's all a disgusting bunch of lies. Do you see him retract anything? http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/live/ No. And he never will because he's a witting fraud. He wants to have wrong conclusions online. Edited by RasgaSaias, Nov 8 2009, 04:47 PM.



achimspok	Nov 9 2009, 03:07 PM Post #81
Posts: 298 Group: Members Member #266 Joined: Aug 2, 2009	Mac O'Prickhead Itchyspot - "Ickes little secret (watch the lower right corner of his video):" You get that when warning when you're in replay mode. The system refers to the replay as slew a slew mode. ...may be just sometimes. Mac O'Prickhead In any case you can only slew horizontally and vertically in Fs 2004. You can’t slew in diagonals, which is why I had to fly manually and try to match up the flight paths as best I could. It’s not easy trying to match flight paths and airspeeds, even is a sim which won’t account for over-speed aerodynamics. "The system refers to the replay as slew a slew mode." but "You can’t slew in diagonals" but "In any case you can only slew horizontally and vertically" but "slew mode replay" obviously replays all kinds of slewed movements BECAUSE "slew horizontally" + "slew vertically" = "slew in diagonals" and you also can pitch up, pitch down, bank left, bank right, rotate, backwards... Mac O'Prickhead's instructions to fly manually (for cosmetic purposes only) transcribed by Itchyspot Prepositioning of the airplane: 1) slew into some close point to reach your goal! 2) If you want to bank left then point the heading a little bit to the right of your goal! NOTICE: The impact angle will not be perpendicular and you will rarely hit the center column. (Don't worry about the smaller buildings! These will become visible a second later.) ...the Plaza, the small buildings of the complex...



Chander	Nov 9 2009, 07:38 PM Post #82
Posts: 181 Group: Members Member #155 Joined: Feb 14, 2009	Jeff, your appearance on Fetzer's show was not one of your best moments. Fetzer's rational, socratic method of questioning you and rebutting your arguments, frankly, made mincemeat of your assertions. For example your great reliance on eye-witness testimony (notoriously unreliable) led you into the absurd position of arguing that a plane must have crashed in Shanksville even though you accept that there were no plane parts found there. You repeated the nonsensical argument of RasgaSaias that the total absence of any plane parts with id numbers at the WTC was not proof of no-planes! Well, of course it's not proof, but it is very strong evidence. Fetzer tried to explain to you why throwing around the accusation of "liar" was rarely appropriate, but you did not appear to understand his point, and inaccurately tried the rhetorical device of demanding of Fetzer, "Do you think all those eyewitnesses were LIARS?" When Fetzer had just explained about the nature of false memory syndrome. At least you kept the argument on a civil plane - unlike RasgaSaias who immediately starts throwing around insults such as "moron" and "retard", just like izzybin used to do, at anyone who disagrees with him. A sure sign of a weak position.



shure	Nov 9 2009, 10:26 PM Post #83
Administrator Posts: 1,787 Group: Administrator Member #1 Joined: Feb 13, 2008	No it wasn't my best moment, but I was busy trying to keep my cool while he led me around from one thing to the next. I'm not as well spoken as some people and still get nervous talking on the radio. I thought we had agreed to talk about the case (or lack of case) for video fakery, yet in the two hours there wasn't much concentrated on video fakery issues concerning the second hit. Trying to say people like Carmen Taylor, Jennifer Spell, Suzan Romo, etc.. would be suffering from false memory syndrome is ridiculous. Maybe one day Fetzer will get a real physicist on his show to talk about his "grade 10 crash physics", but in all these years he hasn't yet ( that should make you wonder) and I'm willing to bet that he ever will. I really don't care what people choose to believe and it really doesn't matter because none of us have the power to do anything about 9/11. Different people will have different opinions. Some people will take into consideration the evidence and base their opinions on it while others will turn a blind eye to the facts and entertain outlandish ideas to keep the faith. I don't like having to admit I was wrong about the planes, but I couldn't in good conscience continue to endorse something that has been proven by evidence to be false. Quote: Hello Jeff, I listened right through, and I've just read Rasgas's posts which are all very good. I think you came out a lot better than you give yourself credit for. The shark is more experienced at biting, because he's doing it all the time, but you stuck to your guns and showed him up for the discredited liar and twister that he is. It's really time to stop giving James Fetzer space in our brains and on 9/11 forums. Our mantra should be for him to: Explain the engine in Church and Murray streets Explain the building shake. (No internal explosion, at that level, could have cause that kind of lateral displacement.) Present a peer-reviewed paper from a physicist which proves that whatever type of plane it was should have done something other than what is seen on the videos, or stop lying about your knowledge of 10th grade physics. All else, including the Pilots' video, John Lear's theorising, the Shanksville crash, Lee Harvey Oswald and the theatre ticket and blah blah blah is irrelevant to the above. Print this as a message from me, on the forum, if you like. Take care, Anthony Quote: An interesting fact for us to know would be how many people take any notice of Fetzer, any more. I can't see that it would be very many, so maybe it is not so important to dispute him, directly, by to marginalize him by NOT referring to him so much. I notice that the debate is quite limited, and that Rasga is trouncing Marcus Icke, but so much of this stuff is irrelevant. Here are a few points. 1. Two irrefutable facts demonstrate that the plane which hit the South Tower was a real plane: a) The Tower shook, as can be seen in several videos and b) an engine section came out of the Tower, moments after the impact. c) It can therefore be reasonably assumed that what hit the North Tower was also a real plane and that the Naudet video is genuine 2. It can now be safely assumed that the planes involved were not AA 11 and UA 175 because of the suppression of the serial numbers 3. We are never going to find out the provenance of the New York planes, unless someone confesses to adapting or controlling them. 4. The Pilots' video takes no firm or quotable position on real planes. It only maintains, not very successfully, that the South Tower plane could not have been a standard Boeing 767-200 5. What the Pilots' video tells us, in other areas, is virtually nothing because: a) The Egypt Air "benchmark" theory is useless, because no one knows the exact altitude or speed at which that aircraft broke up. b) The pilots who claim that it took them many tries before they were able to hit a Tower, on a simulator is irrelevant, because we know the planes must have been remotely controlled, and that the controllers would have practiced and practiced until they got it right. c) The claim made by Rob Balsamo, that professional flight simulators are not designed to help teach pilots how to handle planes in emergency situations is utterly spurious, casting a dark shadow over all the other claims made in the video. Take care, Anthony



Chander	Nov 10 2009, 04:27 AM Post #84
Posts: 181 Group: Members Member #155 Joined: Feb 14, 2009	Anthony Quote: 1. Two irrefutable facts demonstrate that the plane which hit the South Tower was a real plane: a) The Tower shook, as can be seen in several videos and b) an engine section came out of the Tower, moments after the impact Two "irrefutable" facts that are anything but. First, the shaking of the tower can be explained at least as well as having been the result of a large explosion rather than the impact of a plane. And second, the engine part is much too small to be the rotor of a jet engine from a 767. Also it did not appear to be hot at all, whereas a real jet enjine would have been blisteringly hot and would have remained so for a long time. Also the placement of the "engine part" does not make sense. It was underneath some scaffolding with no sign that if had hit the scaffolding. The preponderance of the evidence points to the "engine part" having been planted there.



elephant room	Nov 10 2009, 05:19 AM Post #85
Posts: 649 Group: Members Member #50 Joined: Oct 21, 2008	you're funny chandler. did you see the plane in the wide shot I posted for you? It is in every version of the fox 5 (even aces) ... but you didn't seem to acknowledge it yet. Edited by elephant room, Nov 10 2009, 05:20 AM.



achimspok	Nov 10 2009, 09:47 AM Post #86
Posts: 298 Group: Members Member #266 Joined: Aug 2, 2009	Chander is wrong. a) Explosions expand spherical. An explosion on the south side of the WTC2 core and strong enough to shook the towers would also have * pushed the floors above upwards + the floors below downwards + the sides outwards and the forces in all directions would be about the same * you have to dike such an explosion to direct the force towards north + you have to attach the charge onto the south face because otherwise the material of the dike would push the south face from inside out towards south while the same force would push the core towards north ==>> NO SWAY * the charge must be some very SLOW explosive because otherwise (pressure is the force onto an area) a fast explosive attached onto e.g. the south of the core would generate a very high pressure to a small area of a core column and would cut through it without moving it. The opposite material of (e.g. a dike to direct the force) would hit a much larger area at a slower speed. The same force would result in a smaller pressure but would affect a much larger area. * the 1993 bombing of the WTC (huge truck load of explosives in the basement) left NO measurable seismic wave Therefore, a bomb at the 80th+ floor that caused a seismic wave is somehow unbelievable. It probably would have blown the whole top away (in all directions) and would have left a slim spike with a sharp attack and a very short decay - not like a sway - not like Boooiiiinnnggg ... forth and back and forth and back... No matter from which perspective you look at the Ann-Pee-"but explosion"-Tea it makes no sense at all and it didn't look like it, it didn't sound like it... b) "a real jet engine would have been blisteringly hot" "underneath some scaffolding" That's right. That engine part did not hit the roof + damaged the street sign on the opposite side of the street + and stood up alone underneath some undamaged scaffolding. May be someone cleaned the street and put that part and the damaged street sign where it wouldn't hinder the traffic. May be he did so before he took a photo. He probably had other things in mind than to proof the authenticity of the ballistic flight path of that huge and smoking piece of steel. For everything else you should have a look into the "Murray engine identified" Thread. There are some very tough guys who analyze every single hole in the metal. Edited by achimspok, Nov 10 2009, 10:17 AM.



broken sticks	Nov 10 2009, 10:59 AM Post #87
Posts: 1,467 Group: Members Member #105 Joined: Jan 3, 2009	jeff, some people can see through fetzer's diversionary tactics, some can't. basically, its a shame he'll only talk to you. i'm sure if he thought you could give a full scientific rebuttal to his claims then he wouldn't allow you on his show.



Yougenedebs	Nov 10 2009, 02:24 PM Post #88
Posts: 219 Group: Perspectivist Member #182 Joined: Mar 30, 2009	broken sticks Nov 10 2009, 10:59 AM jeff, some people can see through fetzer's diversionary tactics, some can't. basically, its a shame he'll only talk to you. i'm sure if he thought you could give a full scientific rebuttal to his claims then he wouldn't allow you on his show. I agree. Jim impressed me as a bully; a bully from babble-on!



icke	Nov 10 2009, 02:31 PM Post #89
Posts: 174 Group: Members Member #294 Joined: Oct 4, 2009	Itchyspot - "Mac O'Prickhead's instructions to fly manually (for cosmetic purposes only)" Here's an graphical overview of the SLEW function in Fs 2004. I'm sorry to see this topic is causing you so much distress. Please read the 'more info' section on the page http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJkCM16lnsU



achimspok	Nov 10 2009, 02:39 PM Post #90
Posts: 298 Group: Members Member #266 Joined: Aug 2, 2009	Icke I'm sorry to see this topic is causing you so much distress. No problem, Icke. After playing around for just 4-5 hours in FS2004 I found a lot of usable functions at least to put the camera and the plane in the right place. The slew mode would be best to turn the plane in all directions and to watch the appearance from a given point e.g. the Naudet position. Simply do it! And of course you can slew the plane in a fine position. Push Y and the plane will fly straight into the tower at the speed you previously had. Place the direction next to the tower and you have unlimited tries to bank it into the tower. But if you slew your plane right angled to the north face then your plane will have (and had indeed) a 3° angle. If you want to match the path as visible from Naudets position then your plane must dive like a bomb. That's what you did. There is no mystery about it and no need to explain. Finally there is a tiny little freeware tool "autoland" you can use to land the plane at the 95th floor. How ever... Edited by achimspok, Nov 10 2009, 02:51 PM.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
…
5
6
7
…
11