| 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 (1,079 Views) | |
| Chander | Jun 14 2010, 04:23 PM Post #31 |
|
broken sticks- Let me make it as simple for you as I can: a plane crashing into a building would crumple up ahead of the point of impact IN THE SAME WAY that a car would. |
 |
 
|
| Chander | Jun 14 2010, 04:28 PM Post #32 |
|
shure
Yes, they MAY have got it right. Then again they MAY have got it wrong. But what part of the NIST report do YOU think they got right? Edited by Chander, Jun 14 2010, 04:30 PM.
|
|
|
|
| A Storm is Coming | Jun 14 2010, 04:36 PM Post #33 |
|
Everything you got wrong Chander Or to be more specific, anything you disagree with! Does that help? |
|
|
|
| Chander | Jun 14 2010, 04:50 PM Post #34 |
|
a storm is coming- And what part of the NIST report do YOU endorse as correct? |
|
|
|
| shure | Jun 14 2010, 04:53 PM Post #35 |
Administrator
|
And what part of the NIST report on the plane impact do YOU endorse as incorrect? |
|
|
|
| A Storm is Coming | Jun 14 2010, 05:03 PM Post #36 |
|
Chander Quote> a storm is coming- And what part of the NIST report do YOU endorse as correct? --------------------------------------------------------------- Sorry, National Security! I can only answer your question after you explain to everyone here what you do not understand about video interpolation, crappy video resolution and any other point I made directly to you regarding the Hezarkhani Video! See, we are serious about investigating 911 We answer questions in the order they are given Not out of order because some propaganda shill want's everything his way (or her way) (or it's way) Edited by A Storm is Coming, Jun 14 2010, 05:15 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Chander | Jun 14 2010, 05:12 PM Post #37 |
|
I made no comment about the NIST report one way or the other except to say it may have been true or it may not.
Edited by Chander, Jun 14 2010, 05:13 PM.
|
|
|
|
| MrKoenig | Jun 14 2010, 05:38 PM Post #38 |
Atta and "Atta"
|
I see something interesting: WTC 1  WTC 2  Hm, I would say that the holes look like after airplane strikes. Or not? I think so. And before I forget, aircraft debris was also found on the streets of Lower Manhattan. AA11 and UA175 debris on the streets So, where is the fu****g problem? |
|
|
|
| broken sticks | Jun 14 2010, 05:55 PM Post #39 |
|
except that it wouldn't. planes are not manufactured in the same way as cars. and car crashes do not occur at 540mph. and cars don't typically crash into steel-lattice structures. hmm. not really much similarity there. and yet you seem so vociferous... maybe you could show us some photos or videos of the car crashes you think would display similar characteristics to a 767 hitting a building like the WTC? or maybe not, because you're not too smart and haven't thought it through properly. |
|
|
|
| Chander | Jun 14 2010, 07:06 PM Post #40 |
|
broken sticks sez - "maybe you could show us some photos or videos of the car crashes you think would display similar characteristics to a 767 hitting a building like the WTC?" There are many out there, just google "slow motion car crashes". But since you have already announced your belief that because cars are manufactured differently from planes that therefore they would share no common characteristics in a crash situation - then you show that you have already made up your mind and will not be persuaded regardless of the evidence. Edited by Chander, Jun 14 2010, 07:07 PM.
|
|
|
|
| broken sticks | Jun 14 2010, 08:23 PM Post #41 |
|
cars have a solid steel chassis. did you know this? i have announced my belief only that the 2nd impact at the WTC is not the same as a car crash of any sort. you have shown NO evidence of any kind, either for or against your argument. |
|
|
|
| Chander | Jun 14 2010, 09:38 PM Post #42 |
|
broken stix
You mean apart from me conclusively demonstrating that the Hez video is a fake? Anyone who accepts it as proof of a plane hit has fallen for a serious con job. |
|
|
|
| shure | Jun 14 2010, 09:48 PM Post #43 |
|
Administrator
|
Chander when did you conclusively demonstrate the Hez video was fake? Carmen Taylor's picture corroborates Hez's video! Or is her pic fake too? What about all the other videos of the plane, are they fake too? What about all the witnesses who saw the plane hit, are they all lying? |
|
|
|
| Chander | Jun 14 2010, 10:37 PM Post #44 |
|
You are correct. The videos are fake. I have shown that that there are NO frames of the Hez vid that show any interaction at all with the WTC. Therefore the vid has to be fake. The witnesses who say they saw a plane hit the tower are lying or mistaken. You have been duped and misled, Shure. You were right the first time: there were no planes, just explosions and video fakery. BTW who is your "physicist"? Is he the mysterious entity who has caused you to switch? Edited by Chander, Jun 14 2010, 10:40 PM.
|
|
|
|
| A Storm is Coming | Jun 14 2010, 10:43 PM Post #45 |
|
Chander I've already explained to you several times why you cannot see the plane interaction with the WTC 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$hit nonstop forever and ever to waste everyone's time Is that last statement accurate? I will correct it if it's not! Just prove me wrong |
|
|
|
| 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