Chander's video fakery proof thread

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
2
3
…
10

Chander's video fakery proof thread
Tweet Topic Started: Jun 10 2010, 11:13 AM (1,080 Views)
Chander	Jun 14 2010, 11:59 AM Post #16
Posts: 261 Group: Drama King Member #155 Joined: Feb 14, 2009	broken sticks Quote: 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 There are NO frames that show the plane interacting with the building. "Interacting" means two or more objects having an effect on each other. There are no frames that show any effect at all on the plane. No crumpling, no breaking, and no deceleration. This very fact - that there IS NO interaction between the plane and the tower - provides incontrovertible proof that the Hez video is a fake. There was no plane that hit the WTC.



broken sticks	Jun 14 2010, 12:53 PM Post #17
Posts: 2,644 Group: Members Member #105 Joined: Jan 3, 2009	Chander Jun 14 2010, 11:59 AM There are no frames that show any effect at all on the plane. that's because the cameras are outside the building. i guess you don't understand much about how planes are made. oh well, no point in arguing with someone who doesn't want to even study how planes are made.



Chander	Jun 14 2010, 01:48 PM Post #18
Posts: 261 Group: Drama King Member #155 Joined: Feb 14, 2009	broken sticks Quote: that's because the cameras are outside the building. What cameras are outside what building? And what does this have to do with the fact that there are NO frames showing an interaction between the plane and the building? Sorry but your comment is nonsensical.



broken sticks	Jun 14 2010, 01:54 PM Post #19
Posts: 2,644 Group: Members Member #105 Joined: Jan 3, 2009	Chander Jun 14 2010, 01:48 PM broken sticks Quote: that's because the cameras are outside the building. What cameras are outside what building? And what does this have to do with the fact that there are NO frames showing an interaction between the plane and the building? Sorry but your comment is nonsensical. maybe you could start a topic for this subject, chander? this thread is in regard to the similar noises on the hez video and the dark knight trailer. x



shure	Jun 14 2010, 01:58 PM Post #20
Administrator Posts: 6,257 Group: Administrator Member #1 Joined: Feb 13, 2008	Chander, What do you think about this email a real physicist sent me a while ago: http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/single/?p=510590&t=2367839



A Storm is Coming	Jun 14 2010, 02:21 PM Post #21
Posts: 1,147 Group: Global Moderator Member #372 Joined: May 19, 2010	Chander Jun 14 2010, 01:48 PM broken sticks Quote: that's because the cameras are outside the building. What cameras are outside what building? And what does this have to do with the fact that there are NO frames showing an interaction between the plane and the building? Sorry but your comment is nonsensical. The reason's are simple and still you never grasped them 1st off, are you looking at a copy of the Hez" video that does not clearly show the vertical beams going all the way up the tower? If you are, then you should know that the resolution of the video is not good enough to see any damage to the plane! 2nd point, are you looking at the full speed video? If you are then its all happening to quickly for you to see whats going on (Even if the resolution were better) 3rd point, if your looking at the ultra slow motion video of the Hezarkhani film, then you won't see any damage due firstly to the low resolution of the video, and secondly, due to the fact that the super slow motion video was frame interpolated to show you a smooth flight path Frame interpolation adds frames were none existed previously and does so by predicting where the plane "would be" during those missing frames This means that you are making the video look as if the plane is melting into the building on interpolated slo-mo copies but not on the original 30FPS video where everything is happening too quickly for you to see whats happening! But even if the Hezarkhani video was shot with a 10,000 frame per second video camera originally, you would still need a better resolution to at least see the vertical columns on the tower before you can honestly say there was no damage to the plane! I asked you to go read my posts from over a year ago on the subject to get up to speed so I would not need to keep on restating my case but you seem to enjoy regurgitating bull**** nonstop forever and ever to waste everyone's time Is that last statement accurate? I will correct it if it's not!



Chander	Jun 14 2010, 02:32 PM Post #22
Posts: 261 Group: Drama King Member #155 Joined: Feb 14, 2009	Shure Quote: What do you think about this email a real physicist sent me a while ago: I find it to be alarmingly ill-informed and poorly reasoned. Who is this "physicist" anyway? Here is how he starts out: Quote: Clearly the plane doesn't "prevail" in this case: it may appear to "pierce" through the wall "like knife through butter", but what it actually does is "splash" against that wall, pulverized inch by inch as it goes. The incoming parts of it remain virtually intact for longer than one could expect, but for every section of the plane there comes a moment where it reaches the wall, and from then on that part of the plane is history. Halfway through the impact, for example, it would be wrong to look at the tail and infer the position of the nose as being deep inside the wall: the nose simply doesn't exist at that point, it's already been blown to smithereens. So in this case, clearly the plane doesn't penetrate the wall in any way, instead it is thoroughly destroyed, "disappears into dust" as they put it. To be fair, the "dust" we see is just the lighter and faster kind of debris: the impact may have produced somewhat larger chunks, but they travel slower than the dust and so can't be seen in the video. He says the plane, "doesn't penetrate the wall in any way" yet there is a huge hole in the building. What sense does that make? He speaks of, "the lighter and faster kind of debris". But lighter debris is slower debris. If you doubt this perform the following experiment: put a scoop of flour and a scoop of ball bearings in your hand together and throw them. See which goes faster, the light flour or the heavy ball bearings? He concedes that the plane remains, "virtually intact for longer than one would expect". But the truth is that it remains not "virtually" intact, but actually intact. And this is impossible. If a plane actually hit a building it would show crumpling far ahead of the point of impact, as any slow motion film of a car crash will demonstrate. And that's just one paragraph!



A Storm is Coming	Jun 14 2010, 02:52 PM Post #23
Posts: 1,147 Group: Global Moderator Member #372 Joined: May 19, 2010	Chander Jun 14 2010, 02:32 PM If a plane actually hit a building it would show crumpling far ahead of the point of impact, as any slow motion film of a car crash will demonstrate. And that's just one paragraph! Yes Chander That is just one point I've outlined in my last post to you that I am still waiting for a reply on... Any slow-motion video of a car is filmed at several hundred frames per second AND at high resolution to see all that damage! Your Hezarkhani film was neither Now back to my previous post please? Any response?



Chander	Jun 14 2010, 02:54 PM Post #24
Posts: 261 Group: Drama King Member #155 Joined: Feb 14, 2009	broken sticks- First you said, "None of the few frames where the plane is interacting with the building defy the laws of physics." Clearly implying that you believe there ARE such frames. Then when I point out that there ARE NO such frames, you come back with all the reasons WHY there are no such frames. Heck, you don't need me here, you're doing an excellent job of refuting your arguments all by yourself.



A Storm is Coming	Jun 14 2010, 03:07 PM Post #25
Posts: 1,147 Group: Global Moderator Member #372 Joined: May 19, 2010	That's right Chander! Just ignore your problem's untill they go away! It worked for Bush



Chander	Jun 14 2010, 03:12 PM Post #26
Posts: 261 Group: Drama King Member #155 Joined: Feb 14, 2009	What problems do you think I am ignoring?



A Storm is Coming	Jun 14 2010, 03:56 PM Post #27
Posts: 1,147 Group: Global Moderator Member #372 Joined: May 19, 2010	A storm is coming Jun 14 2010, 02:21 PM Chander Jun 14 2010, 01:48 PM broken sticks Quote: that's because the cameras are outside the building. What cameras are outside what building? And what does this have to do with the fact that there are NO frames showing an interaction between the plane and the building? Sorry but your comment is nonsensical. The reason's are simple and still you never grasped them 1st off, are you looking at a copy of the Hez" video that does not clearly show the vertical beams going all the way up the tower? If you are, then you should know that the resolution of the video is not good enough to see any damage to the plane! 2nd point, are you looking at the full speed video? If you are then its all happening to quickly for you to see whats going on (Even if the resolution were better) 3rd point, if your looking at the ultra slow motion video of the Hezarkhani film, then you won't see any damage due firstly to the low resolution of the video, and secondly, due to the fact that the super slow motion video was frame interpolated to show you a smooth flight path Frame interpolation adds frames were none existed previously and does so by predicting where the plane "would be" during those missing frames This means that you are making the video look as if the plane is melting into the building on interpolated slo-mo copies but not on the original 30FPS video where everything is happening too quickly for you to see whats happening! But even if the Hezarkhani video was shot with a 10,000 frame per second video camera originally, you would still need a better resolution to at least see the vertical columns on the tower before you can honestly say there was no damage to the plane! I asked you to go read my posts from over a year ago on the subject to get up to speed so I would not need to keep on restating my case but you seem to enjoy regurgitating bull** nonstop forever and ever to waste everyone's time Is that last statement accurate? I will correct it if it's not! This problem Chander Reread the entire thread if you still don't understand or Ignore this post if you are just a fraud Thanx Edited by A Storm is Coming**, Jun 14 2010, 04:02 PM.



Chander	Jun 14 2010, 04:06 PM Post #28
Posts: 261 Group: Drama King Member #155 Joined: Feb 14, 2009	The only problem I see is the difficulty you are obviously having in trying to express yourself. Sorry, but I can't help you there.



broken sticks	Jun 14 2010, 04:19 PM Post #29
Posts: 2,644 Group: Members Member #105 Joined: Jan 3, 2009	Chander Jun 14 2010, 02:32 PM If a plane actually hit a building it would show crumpling far ahead of the point of impact, as any slow motion film of a car crash will demonstrate. oh, so it was a car that hit WTC2! i see now. YES, the video is a fake! it looks nothing like a car crash! lol



shure	Jun 14 2010, 04:23 PM Post #30
Administrator Posts: 6,257 Group: Administrator Member #1 Joined: Feb 13, 2008	You know if you read the NIST report on the plane impact it is very comprehensive and detailed. Its something they may have actually got right! Although, the report forgets to meet its objective as to why there was total global collapse of the WTC's when the "collapse" was initiated.



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


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The Drama Club · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3
…
10