| 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: |
| Chander's video fakery proof thread | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 10 2010, 11:13 AM (1,070 Views) | |
| Chander | Jun 10 2010, 11:13 AM Post #1 |
|
Shure
How else can you explain the fact that the Hezarkhani video shows us a scene that is physically impossible? The official story cannot be true because it violates the laws of physics - as well as common sense. An aluminum tube cannot slice through steel beams ? Especially without showing any crumpling or slowing whatsoever? The only question is: was it a hologram or, more likely, simply a faked video. And another question is, how can a once respected researcher turn back from all he has learned and re-embrace the impossible and absurd official story? |
 |
 
|
| shure | Jun 10 2010, 12:34 PM Post #2 |
Administrator
|
The only problem is that you don't understand physics if your making those kinds of statements! |
|
|
|
| Chander | Jun 10 2010, 06:58 PM Post #3 |
|
Shure
What is the physics you are referring to that you claim I don't understand? One of Newton's laws perhaps? Come on, let's hear it. |
|
|
|
| A Storm is Coming | Jun 10 2010, 08:28 PM Post #4 |
|
Betting has now ended! How many thought Chander was 1. Ace Baker? How many thought Chander was 2. Jim Fetzer? How many thought Chander was 3. Genghis? How many thought Chander was 4. None of the Above but Someone we all Know? |
|
|
|
| shure | Jun 10 2010, 08:42 PM Post #5 |
|
Administrator
|
None of the above! |
|
|
|
| shure | Jun 10 2010, 08:42 PM Post #6 |
|
Administrator
|
If you understood Newton's laws, you wouldn't have a problem with the physics! |
|
|
|
| Chander | Jun 11 2010, 11:23 AM Post #7 |
|
Third Law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. This means that whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. This law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law, with F called the "action" and −F the "reaction". Shure sez:
Au contraire, mon ami, I do understand the physics, your cutesie remarks notwithstanding. And Newton's third law[above] explains why the action of the plane on the building is exactly equal to the reaction of the building on the plane. And the Hezarkhani video shows absolutely no reaction on the plane whatsoever. Nada. Nil. Zilch. |
|
|
|
| A Storm is Coming | Jun 11 2010, 11:38 AM Post #8 |
|
Chander, You obviously do not understand physics! Set your scrawny 100lb weight on a bathroom scale You weigh 100 lbs! So far so good! Now jump up in the air as high as you can and land on the scale For a second there, you thought you weighed 300 lbs (OR DID YOU?) Now slam your scrawny 100 lb mass into a scale while your moving at 500 miles per hour Oooh, sorry about your scale! Better get a new one Now try that with a plane weighing several tons! As you can all see from Chander's post, Quitting the 3rd grade is no laughing matter! Edited by A Storm is Coming, Jun 11 2010, 12:23 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Chander | Jun 11 2010, 04:06 PM Post #9 |
|
If you slam your "scrawny 100 lb. body" onto a scale at 500 mph, not only will you destroy the scale, you'll also destroy yourself. You apparently are totally oblivious of this fact. It would also be exactly the same if you were standing still and your bathroom scale slammed into your chest at 500 mph. Care to try it? .... That's what I figured. |
|
|
|
| broken sticks | Jun 11 2010, 09:13 PM Post #10 |
|
the building stops the plane. that's a reaction right there. the plane doesn't come out of the other side. and it makes marks on the face as it breaks up going through the building. if you'd like to apply newton's laws, and use the third law regarding the force acting opposite to the direction of the plane's motion, then this force has been used to slow the plane from 500mph to 0mph. next law please. |
|
|
|
| Chander | Jun 12 2010, 01:15 PM Post #11 |
|
broken sticks
Your comment employs an elementary logical flaw known as "begging the question". What this means, as anyone who has ever taken a first year philosophy class knows, is assuming the truth of the thing to be proved. In this case you are assuming, as a fact, that a real plane entered the building and then came to a stop. However this assumption is false. The Hez video is obviously fake precisely because it shows a plane doing the impossible, that is, defying a law of physics. |
|
|
|
| A Storm is Coming | Jun 12 2010, 03:58 PM Post #12 |
|
Jeez, it never ends does it? Now I gotta explain Video interpolation and all the other crap all over again to this guy? ain't gonna happen! Do your research 1st Try to fit your theory to the Facts! Not the other way around! Come back when you've done your research You can start with all my old post's on the subject as a starting point and don't come back untill you understand which came first? Your Theory or the Evidence? 
|
|
|
|
| Chander | Jun 13 2010, 05:33 PM Post #13 |
|
a storm sez
Wouldn't it be nice if we could all win our arguments by saying, "I'm not going to explain my argument to you"? If you had something of value to say, no doubt you would say it. But since you describe your own explanation as "crap" I doubt that I'm missing much. |
|
|
|
| A Storm is Coming | Jun 13 2010, 05:39 PM Post #14 |
|
The argument is already won! and your opinion doesn't count because you refuse to do the research Just read my posts on the subject from more than a year ago to get up to speed, or just give up and stop spamming this site Edited by A Storm is Coming, Jun 13 2010, 05:41 PM.
|
|
|
|
| broken sticks | Jun 13 2010, 06:42 PM Post #15 |
|
No it doesn't. None of the few frames where the plane is interacting with the building defy the laws of physics. They may defy your understanding of the construction of a 767 and/or WTC2, but maybe you could show us exactly which frame you think shows what you think is impossible? Bet you can't. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The Drama Club · Next Topic » |
12:40 PM Jul 13