| 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 (1,075 Views) | |
| broken sticks | Jun 27 2010, 05:29 PM Post #91 |
|
hey debs, maybe chander should try looking for the reflection? i mean, its there: Reflection of "Flight 175" in South face of WTC2 |
 |
 
|
| elephant room | Jun 27 2010, 07:00 PM Post #92 |
|
worst ... soundtrack ... ever. but good observation. dont expect chandler to admit it. |
|
|
|
| broken sticks | Jun 27 2010, 07:02 PM Post #93 |
|
i did a search for songs with Reflection in the name and found it - its hilarious! however, after editing that video, i was left knowing the words to the first half off by heart, and have grown quite attached to it LOL |
|
|
|
| SaiGirl | Jun 28 2010, 08:03 PM Post #94 |
|
Seems intuitive to me that these are "fake" in the sense that an actual Boeing would show some impact, pieces would be breaking off, there is no way the penetration would be so smooth and seamless. When I say "intuitive", I mean that it shouldn't require much scientific knowledge to realize that they look fake. When I see the Fairbanks or Hezarkhani videos my instinct is to laugh and say "Look Ma ! No impact !" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCDu2V3yjS4 http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/ghostplane/index.htm http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger2/2357/1113357475496390/1600/z/15223/gse_multipart21811.jpg http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger2/2357/1113357475496390/1600/z/32095/gse_multipart43096.jpg I'm also not very impressed by all these claims of "eyewitness" testimony to the "planes". After all, how many firemen, cops or construction workers have come forward to say that the Towers were "blown up", as they certainly appear to be from the many videos that show just that ? Are they cowards ? Or liars ? Or just "good Germans" willing to go along with the Big Lie ? Anyone who watched those skyscrapers explode and erupt like volcanoes, then dissolve into dust and blue sky would know that it was a despicable lie to claim that the Towers just "collapsed". If so, then why wouldn't they fall right into the group-think mentality of "Boeings crashed into the Towers" ? We live in a mobbed-up "homeland", which has a population of full-time liars. A nation of liars willing to send their children off to war in Afghanistan and Iraq based on transparent lies. Of course, it's certainly possible that some kind of stealth-cloaking or holographic technology was used to "fool" people into thinking they saw real planes. I never rule that possibility out. But it's not so hard to accept the likelihood that so-called "eyewitnesses" are simply going with the flow. We've seen this social phenomenon before. Look at the absurd lies that millions of Germans embraced as justification for police state dictatorship and bloody aggression Fairbanks and Hezarkhani will always look fake to me. And they should look fake to anyone with the common sense to understand that a hollow basket of aluminum and fiberglass (only the engines are actually made of steel) would crumble upon impact with steel-reinforced concrete. No matter how fast it might be moving. NOW .... a DU-hardened missile is another reality entirely. Such an impact could indeed penetrate steel-reinforced concrete and even come out the other side. And that is probably what they used at Ground Zero. |
|
|
|
| broken sticks | Jun 28 2010, 08:24 PM Post #95 |
|
saigirl, how do you think a real impact would have looked different to the videos? |
|
|
|
| icke | Jun 30 2010, 09:59 AM Post #96 |
|
Broken Styx - "...saigirl, how do you think a real impact would have looked different to the videos?" I'll save Saigirl the trouble: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O4FlRHGo-Q http://video.filestube.com/watch,da816d4fb81bc3ce03e9/The-WTC2-Media-Hoax-Aircraft-crash-physics-by-Jeff-King.html http://911review.org/Wiki/King,Jeff.shtml |
|
|
|
| broken sticks | Jun 30 2010, 04:48 PM Post #97 |
|
to save everyone a lot of time, here's what icke thinks we should have seen: apparently the wings would have just slapped the building and stayed intact. in a 540mph collision. nice work icke. or was that jeff king's image? that would be even funnier. |
|
|
|
| A Storm is Coming | Jun 30 2010, 06:17 PM Post #98 |
|
Hey Saigirl A wall moving 500 mph and hitting a plane would push the plane backwards as it destroys the plane and the wall A plane moving 500 mph and hitting a wall would push the wall backwards as it destroys the wall and the plane You will have a very different outcome if the wall were moving 500 mph The wall is not aerodynamic and requires several times the effort to move it at 500 mph than a plane even if the wall and plane weighed the same! When a moving car hits a parked car, the parked car does not push the moving car backwards The moving car pushes the parked car backwards during the crash ANY PHYSICS PROFESSOR WHO CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS IS A MORON! and Saigirl's intuition is wrong lead is softer than aluminum or steel yet it easily cuts through steel when I shoot a bullet through a quarter The plane weighed several Ton's and was harder than lead..... http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/single/?p=740842&t=3521899 Edited by A Storm is Coming, Jun 30 2010, 06:49 PM.
|
|
|
|
| YougeneDebs | Jun 30 2010, 07:05 PM Post #99 |
|
"slapped the building and stayed intact" Got it; thanks! |
|
|
|
| icke | Jul 1 2010, 10:09 AM Post #100 |
|
“... to save everyone a lot of time, here's what icke thinks we should have seen:...” If you read the top of the graphic you have posted it says: “The WTC2 Media Hoax – Aircraft crash physics by Jeff King” This implies that the comments pertaining to crash physics come from a person referred to as “Jeff King”. Additionally, if you listen to the voice on the video clip you will notice that it comes from...Jeff King. You may be shocked to notice that the video image is of...er... Jeff King. So to recap: 1 - clip attributed to Jeff King. 2 - clip from Jeff King. 3 - photo on clip of Jeff King . I don’t look like Jeff King or sound like Jeff King nor do I have a similar educational and vocational background as Jeff King. So why does “Broken Sticks” say “...here's what icke thinks we should have seen...”? “...apparently the wings would have just slapped the building and stayed intact. in a 540mph collision...” If you study the graphic that you have posted you will notice that the wings on the simulated plane have shattered. If my memory serves me correctly King also mentions that the wings would have shattered and broken upon impact. So what does “Breaking Stinks” mean when he says “...apparently the wings would have just slapped the building and stayed intact”? One should bear in mind that “Broken Stinks” believes that a POSKY (or iFDG) B757 model developed for Microsoft Flight simulator can be used as forensic tool for aerodynamic analysis.* So it should come as no surprise to the reader that he might become confused over the identity of a person. *In this case either close to, or, outside the flight envelope. |
|
|
|
| Chander | Jul 1 2010, 01:10 PM Post #101 |
|
a storm is coming sez
This entry is an example, albeit a humorous one, of what happens when one attempts to argue physics while handicapped by mild retardation. What is the difference between, "destroys the wall and the plane" and "destroys the plane and the wall"? That's right: there is no difference, yet in the next sentence he says, "you will have a very different outcome if the wall were moving 500 mph". !! Next comes a reference to the aerodynamics of a wall[!] which is completely irrelevant to Newton's laws. This is followed by yet another misguided analogy which only serves to demonstrate, once again, that the writer has misunderstood Newton's law. Of course, when a moving car hits a parked car the parked car moves backward, but what the writer neglects to mention is that the moving car will also be equally affected, and will decelerate and break up just as much as the parked car will accelerate and break up. As for the lead bullet and the quarter it should be pointed out that the steel beams on the exterior of the WTC towers were considerably thicker than a quarter. What do you think would happen if the bullet hit a one inch thick steel beam? Well that's pretty much what should also have happened to the plane when it hit the tower. |
|
|
|
| A Storm is Coming | Jul 1 2010, 01:38 PM Post #102 |
|
Chander The beams broke away at the joints and welds when over 100 TONS of weight was slammed into them at over 500 MPH Slamming over 100 Tons of Jellybeans into the beams at over 500 mph will cause the same result! But due to the low resolution of the Hezarkhani video and shooting at only 30 frames per second made it impossible for you to see the plane being damaged I would not expect you to see Jellybeans being damaged under the same video conditions as the Hezarkhani video but if you can find me a crystal clear High Definition video of the second plane crash in New York shot at 10,000 frames per second, I will show you the damage being done to the plane! |
|
|
|
| Chander | Jul 1 2010, 02:30 PM Post #103 |
|
I agree with your statement that due to low res, etc. that it is, "...impossible for you to see the plane being damaged ". So, I ask you, how then can you claim that the pictures provide evidence of a plane being damaged while hitting a building? |
|
|
|
| A Storm is Coming | Jul 1 2010, 04:24 PM Post #104 |
|
Show me where I ever claimed that the pictures provide evidence of a plane being damaged (or of a plane not being damaged) while hitting a building does "A building" = Trade Tower in your comment? does "Pictures" = Hezarkhani Video in your comment? does "Chander" = make it it up as you go along? |
|
|
|
| broken sticks | Jul 1 2010, 04:45 PM Post #105 |
|
zing! i got slated by marcus icke! boy do i feel stoopid so it was jeff kings image. i can't quite believe he thinks that would happen at 540mph, but i guess he does! so much for his MIT education. I'm not sure i ever said forensic, but POSKY's models are well designed from an aerodynamic perspective. If you'd like to find a better designed model you can send me a copy 
|
|
|
|
| 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