| 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 (1,074 Views) | |
| Chander | Jul 1 2010, 06:32 PM Post #106 |
|
Storm sez
Can I assume from this statement of yours that you now agree with me that the Hez, and other videos, provide no evidence of a plane hitting the WTC? Or are you still claiming that there was a plane, but that there is no video evidence that it interacted with the building in any way? |
 |
 
|
| icke | Jul 3 2010, 09:00 AM Post #107 |
|
Broken Stink “…i can't quite believe he thinks that would happen at 540mph, but i guess he does!…” What has belief got to do with it? Why can it not be within your belief system to accept his comments as genuine? Where does you belief system come from? Who created your belief system? What purpose does your belief system serve? Breaking Stink “…so much for his MIT education…” Clearly, it’s very easy for an armchair researcher with no relevant background in the subject matter to snipe at an authority figure who holds a view that is contradictory to their own based on their education and vocational experience. You write with confidence, so I’m guessing you are educated and experienced to a similar level as King. If this is so, could I ask you which university/college you attended and what relevant experience you have that puts you in a position to judge King? If this is not so, could I ask you why you feel you’re in a position to judge King? Broken Sink “…I'm not sure i ever said forensic…” As I recall, you didn’t. My Oxford Dictionary says that “forensic” means: 1 – of or used in connection with courts of law, esp. in relation to crime detection. 2 – of or employing forensic science. “Forensic science” refers to scientific techniques used to investigate crimes. Perhaps I have misused the word “forensic”. However, as you were using a POSKY model in Flight Simulator as a tool to investigate 911 (which was a crime) I would argue that your analysis and the use of the POSKY model was “forensic” in some sense. Breaking Sink “… but POSKY's models are well designed from an aerodynamic perspective…” It would be all to easy for someone to say this, especially if they had some kind of investment in it. Have you ever discussed the MS Flight Simulator series with professional pilots and asked them for their opinions? Moreover, have you ever flown any of the MS Flight Simulator modes in real life then compared them to the simulated equivalent? Can you back this statement up with something concrete or is it just hearsay? Breaking Sink “…If you'd like to find a better designed model you can send me a copy…” If YOU were unsure of it’s aerodynamic authenticity or the availability of a superior model, then I would suggest it is YOU who should have found a “better designed model” and sent it to YOURSELF before committing to the POSKY, As I see it the onus is on YOU to prove the aerodynamic authenticity of the POSKY model, as I am not the person inferring that the POSKY B757-200 model has similar aerodynamic properties to the real B757-200 and have never used any such POSKY model for performance comparisons. |
|
|
|
| broken sticks | Jul 4 2010, 03:22 PM Post #108 |
|
hi icke! thanks for the interest 
I figured someone who is celebrated for their "engineering" background, who studied at MIT, would have checked that he is clearly wrong about the interaction of a plane and the WTC before going on record as saying such. BUT i just looked up what he studied at MIT (biology), and what his engineering work experience was in (electronic engineering), and he's been a family doctor most of his life. so now i can see how he could be stating these things. my disbelief was based on an incorrect preconception of this guy having any record in physics in some way. as i originally said ("i guess he does") it was in my belief system then, and it is now. and now, i understand how it is (he doesn't necessarily know F***-all about physics). a nintendo gameboy. original. joking aside, as you appear to have asked a lot more naive questions, it comes from the world i live in, like everyone else who's not possessed or an alien. oh, did you mean to imply i'm an alien or something? maybe you did. in that case, i don't think i'm an alien, no. some russian guy. Alexey Pazhitnov - the "Father" of Tetris. geez, do you really expect answers to your questions? LOL i only just read this avenger, did you not look into jeff king either? ok, fair enough, i understand - i was wrong about him too, i shouldn't laugh i spose. i've got more physics qualifications than jeff king, and i don't even have a degree in it. engineering does not equal physics. so basically jeff king is more like the armchair researcher you mention. Relevant to the argument, i have an "A level" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCE_Advanced_Level in Physics (and i have one in maths too). i don't see any physics qualification that high from jeff king, so that should answer your question. yeah, the simulator scene is full of pilots, professional and amateur. they are who pointed me to POSKY, and a model that costs about 30dollars that is ever-so-slightly better, but that they're all at a ludicrously high level of realism! the only things they can't reproduce graphically are crash-physics, but they have realistic levels of strucutural-physics that they use for things like structural failures (if these options are on), and aids with even more realistic aerodynamics. however, ground effect i have not seen reproduced on a flight sim outside of this navy helicopter sim they brought round my school one time. that had wind-shear, a moving boat to land on, everything - that was military though (although quite ahead of its time, thinking back). I've not (i'm not a pilot) but the flight-sim community is full of them! see for yourself, check out some forums and ask about the sort of people behind the models (to backup what the websites say for themselves). i did find a superior one. i weighed up its limited advantages for the task needed, and deemed them to be insufficient compared to the more-than-satisfactory realism levels of the POSKY model, with the advantage that anyone can recreate my results exactly without having to pay for the privilege. I say go ask the experts - the flight sim community. that's what i did. at some point you're going to have to actually try doing some research you know, maybe you could start with this? I hope that answered some of what you asked at least. If there's anything else i can help you with on this subject, maybe the "Chander's video fakery proof thread" isn't the place for this, as I don't think it contains any proof of video fakery relating to the pentagon. there's only two frames featuring this plane, and they could have been faked, but they perfectly match the descriptions of witnesses and the physical damage, so i think they're a mute point. unless you want to argue about those here? finding proof of video fakery is going to take a lot of diverting away from, maybe we could argue about the pentagon frames? i think they show a 757 in american airlines colours. they could be faked i spose, but they were done correctly, so i doubt they were. i didn't see it for a while, because i didn't understand the angle the plane is supposed to be coming from. but it shows what happened either way imo. Edited by broken sticks, Jul 4 2010, 03:29 PM.
|
|
|
|
| broken sticks | Jul 4 2010, 03:24 PM Post #109 |
|
jeff king info from jeff king: http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Confronting%20the%20Evidence/ |
|
|
|
| Chander | Jul 8 2010, 12:37 PM Post #110 |
|
What has happened to Shure's "European professor"? There has been no response from him to some questions I raised. Why has the authority figure on whom Shure places such great trust suddenly lapsed into silence? Just wondering. |
|
|
|
| broken sticks | Jul 8 2010, 01:29 PM Post #111 |
|
he probably doesn't take the physics issue too seriously because what he sees is what he'd expect to happen. its the frame-blending effect of the few frames of interaction that fooled most of us, plus the low quality footage. plus compounding factors like low quality footage. in your point of view is the airframe in the pictures the right model icke? you've looked at them closer than most, thought i'd ask. (i don't mean do you think shadows are wrong and such, just the model of the plane) |
|
|
|
| shure | Jul 8 2010, 06:40 PM Post #112 |
Administrator
|
He is a busy person in the real world and I haven't bothered to email him lately. You can take that as a you're right, I'm wrong assumption, but in reality its becasue I think it is a waste of time right now. You just keep babbling that the video is fake as you're proof of evidence. You're not open to learning anything since you think you already know everything. |
|
|
|
| icke | Jul 10 2010, 11:35 AM Post #113 |
|
Stinks - "in your point of view is the airframe in the pictures the right model icke? you've looked at them closer than most, thought i'd ask. (i don't mean do you think shadows are wrong and such, just the model of the plane) " Here in video format with relaxing music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-jDu9FhsO4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9hlXGiXGD8&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QgwYdEff_s&feature=related Edited by icke, Jul 10 2010, 11:37 AM.
|
|
|
|
| icke | Jul 11 2010, 07:25 AM Post #114 |
|
Breaking Stinks - “I figured someone who is celebrated for their "engineering" background, who studied at MIT, would have checked that he is clearly wrong about the interaction of a plane and the WTC before going on record as saying such.” Who has “celebrated” Kings engineering background? Can we get names for these people? Can you prove to me that King is “clearly wrong” about the “interaction of a plane and the WTC”? On what grounds do you make this assertion? If King is “clearly wrong” then it should be fairly easy to explain to me why he is wrong. |
|
|
|
| icke | Jul 11 2010, 07:25 AM Post #115 |
|
Beaker Sinks - “…i just looked up what he studied at MIT (biology), and what his engineering work experience was in (electronic engineering), and he's been a family doctor most of his life…” If it’s taken you this long to find out about King (and his bio) then I’m guessing that the crash physics issue has been of little interest to you. You are mistaken about Kings work experience in “electronic engineering”. King’s (edited) bio reads: “I graduated from MIT with an SB degree in 1974, with a combined Biology-EE major (this was before a Bio-Medical Engineering Department existed)…former electrical engineer…I worked for about eight years in electronics and electro-mechanical engineering”. So what is, or what does an “electromechanical engineer” do? Aston University on the “Electromechanical Engineering” degree says: “…a broad-based engineering education with specialist skills and knowledge of mechanical, electrical and electronic engineering… gaining a broad insight into the fundamental disciplines of mechanical, electrical and design engineering… Wikipedia says of Electromechanical Engineering: “..Electromechanical engineering refers to the analysis, design, manufacture and maintenance of equipment and products based on the combination of electrical/electronic circuits and mechanical systems…” The “SB degree” appears to be a Bachelor of Science from what I have pulled of the web. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor%27s_degree In other words after graduating MIT with degree level qualifications in science and engineering King found employment as an engineer. I would have preferred it if King had a degree in aeronautical engineering, but his educational background trumps any A-levels one might have. |
|
|
|
| icke | Jul 11 2010, 07:27 AM Post #116 |
|
Breaking Stig - “…so now i can see how he could be stating these things. my disbelief was based on an incorrect preconception of this guy having any record in physics in some way…” This works on the assumption that only a person who has some “level” of qualification in physics can work out aircraft crash physics. For someone who graduates MIT with science and engineering degrees and gets an engineering job, you would have to think that they had a pretty firm grasp of the laws of physics…wouldn’t you? Or are you suggesting that the disciplines of science and engineering are completely divorced from the laws or physics? I suppose you could say that someone who had a degree in astronomy with no previous “record” in physics couldn’t be trusted to measure red shift on a nearby galaxy? In my opinion the laws of physics permeate many disciplines, especially engineering. I don’t see how the absence of any formal qualification in something can preclude them from reliably commenting on the subject they lack the formal qualification in. By definition wouldn’t King’s understanding of physics be a prerequisite for the biology / science training and the 8 years period in electronic and electromechanical engineering? In any case to say that King had no record in physics is erroneous because we don’t have access to King’s full academic record prior his spell at MIT, unless you are suggesting that King only ever had education at MIT. I don’t know about you, but I’ve had 7 years of physics. 3 years pre-GCSE, 2 years GCSE and 2 years at A-level. But don’t recall seeing aircraft crash physics (or aerodynamics for that matter) on the syllabus. The closest thing we got was Bernoulli’s principle, Boyles law etc.. and momentum exchange calculations on trolleys carrying weights. All of it was classroom-bound, mathematically based and largely a number crunching exercise based around practical concepts like refraction or electrical resistance. If you want my opinion the ideal person to explain the crash physics would be an engineer. Physics and mathematics should play heavily into engineering, but in my understanding the engineer would know how to apply the mathematics and physics at a practical level. I think King is good enough candidate. Judging from his 2004 lecture in New York on the WTC collapse I’d say his mathematics, physics and engineering abilities are good enough for him to comment reliably on aircraft crash physics. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4iJT4_RRRI |
|
|
|
| icke | Jul 11 2010, 07:27 AM Post #117 |
|
Broke Sing - “…LOL i only just read this avenger, did you not look into jeff king either?" I’ve known about King since about 2002 I think. The crash physics audio has been around for some time and the New York presentation on the WTC collapse has been around since 2004. |
|
|
|
| icke | Jul 11 2010, 07:28 AM Post #118 |
|
Beaker Stink - “i've got more physics qualifications than jeff king, and i don't even have a degree in it. “ But King has more degrees (MIT ones at that) that you have! So what’s you point? How does this make you more knowledgeable on aircraft crash physics that King? Why do you need an A-level in physics to understand aircraft crash physics? Can’t a person understand aircraft crash physics without an A-level in physics? What about GCSE physics candidates? Would they be qualified enough to understand aircraft crash physics? What about the old O-level physics, would a certification in that qualify the recipient to understand aircraft crash physics? At what level of physics education does one become competent in aircraft crash physics? I can’t see how 7 years of physics has enabled me to understand crash physics, at least not that I’m aware of. |
|
|
|
| icke | Jul 11 2010, 07:29 AM Post #119 |
|
Breaking Sinks - “…engineering does not equal physics. so basically jeff king is more like the armchair researcher you mention…” So what does engineering equal? Can you explain to me why you think that King’s lack of a physics A-level excludes him from having a meaningful opinion on engineering principles? Can you demonstrate to me that an understanding of physics is not a function of engineering? |
|
|
|
| icke | Jul 11 2010, 07:30 AM Post #120 |
|
Beaker Sinks - “..Relevant to the argument, i have an "A level" in physics (and i have one in maths too). i don't see any physics qualification that high from jeff king, so that should answer your question…” In other words you’re saying “I’m” correct because “I” have A-level physics and mathematics. That’s doesn’t prove or mean anything. Can you point out which part of your A-level physics training dealt with aircraft crash physics? When I did my A-level physics I don’t recall aircraft crash physics being on the syllabus. If aircraft crash physics wasn’t on your syllabus can you point out which parts of the syllabus enabled you to determine that King that was wrong in his analysis of the aircraft crash? Can you show me how you determined this? Maybe King does have a physics qualification as “high” as yours. Doesn’t the training just prepare you to pass the exam anyway? |
|
|
|
| 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