| 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 (1,073 Views) | |
| icke | Jul 11 2010, 07:31 AM Post #121 |
|
Broken Sinks - “…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." Instead of gorging your self on hearsay, why not get out of the armchair and talk face-to-face to a commercial pilot with flight simulator experience? |
 |
 
|
| icke | Jul 11 2010, 07:33 AM Post #122 |
|
Broken Sinks - “…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…” How can a flight simulator with a “ludicrously high level of realism” fail to model ground effect? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_in_aircraft That’s a great shame because the alleged B757 that hit the Pentagon flew at or close to ground level before hitting its target. As I recall you modeled this event using a POSKY B757-200 which you now admit won’t simulate ground effect. And I seem to remember Jim Fetzer had a B757 pilot on his show who said the official story was false for this very reason. The ground effect would have prevented the B757 from hitting the Pentagon. I’ve noticed for some time that the system B777-300 in Fs2004 and the system B747-400 in Fs98 didn’t’ model ground effect either, so POSKY models are not exclusive in that respect. I’ve just loaded up my ground hugging approach to the Pentagon in the POSKY B757-200 Version 1. It’s all rather silly really, maintaining controlled flight at 450 KIAS over the ground without airframe failures, ground effect, handling difficulties etc… That reminds me, was Biggles in the simulator forum you visit? If he is, then can you send him these images and ask him: Was the B757-200 designed for transonic flight at sea level? Is possible for a B777-300 to reach M1.06 at sea level without shock stalling? Is it possible for a B767-200 to reach 606 knots in controlled flight? And what about the PMDG 737-800/900? Why am I getting 683 KIAS at sea level? http://www.precisionmanuals.com/
|
|
|
|
| icke | Jul 11 2010, 07:34 AM Post #123 |
|
Is it possible for a B767-200 to reach 606 knots in controlled flight? And what about the PMDG 737-800/900? Why am I getting 683 KIAS at sea level? http://www.precisionmanuals.com/
Edited by icke, Jul 11 2010, 07:36 AM.
|
|
|
|
| icke | Jul 11 2010, 07:37 AM Post #124 |
|
Broken Stinks - “…I've not (i'm not a pilot)..” Yes, I know. |
|
|
|
| icke | Jul 11 2010, 07:37 AM Post #125 |
|
Broken Sinks - “…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….” After your conversation with Biggles did it occur to you that he might have been wannabe with zero flight experience? Having spent some time on the Letsroll911 forum a few years back I came to the conclusion that there was more intelligent life at the bottom of a pond than there was in a forum. I can’t imagine why a commercial pilot would want to spend his spare time in a forum posting on stuff he does for a living. I’ve not known any commercial pilots that post in forums. They’ve got better things to do with their spare time, like dealing with jet lag or fixing the plumbing. Commercial aviation has a degree of kudos attached to it for those who are outside the industry. I can imagine why someone would want pose as a pilot in a forum for the purposes of drawing attention to themselves. |
|
|
|
| icke | Jul 11 2010, 07:38 AM Post #126 |
|
Broken Sinks - “…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….” How thoughtful of you. Yes, it does have the advantage of allowing others to recreate your results. But at the same time you’ve publically allowed the POSKY model to become not only its own Achilles Heal, but also the Achilles Heal of “The CIT Deception”. |
|
|
|
| icke | Jul 11 2010, 07:43 AM Post #127 |
|
Broken Sinks - “…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?” Good point. Fortunately I’ve been using Flight Simulator (hard realism setting only) since Fs98 and am lucky enough to have a JAR-CPL. http://www.multiflight.com/flight-training-centre/fixed-wing-courses/cpl.php A family member of mine is a retired B747-400 captain. We’ve spent time on Fs 2002 / Fs 2004 flying the default 777 and 747’s into the old Kai Tak airport in Hong Kong. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKqO6gdJIz8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kai_Tak_Airport After managing to get the larger Boeing’s on the deck without crashing, it was pointed out to me that “if you flew like that in real thing you’d be in the sea”. http://www.dvo.com/newsletter/monthly/2005/june/jest/ATT00037.jpg I can’t quite put my finger on it but it seems to me that Flight Simulator is not accurately modeling aerodynamics to the extent that it made the Kai Tak approach unrealistically easy. Bear in mind that the B747-400 pilot in question had been flying that Kai Tak approach for many years for a major UK carrier. So I have to take his comments seriously, even if I found the simulation to be convincing myself. Between the two of us we agreed that Flight Simulator was just a toy in terms of aerodynamic properties but was very good graphically for scenery and plane models. My commercial flight training and instrument training was on the C172. The C172 appears in Fs 2004 and I’ve flown it. I didn’t find it particularly realistic and I’d never recommend it to anyone as a tool to develop piloting skills. Landing was particularly bizarre and quite unlike the real thing. The best equivalent I found was the “Real Air C172”. http://www.realairsimulations.com/list_box.php?page=downloads&sim=fs9&product=c172&fileType=allfiltered&submit=Go I took this particular C172 to altitude and tried to induce a spin in much the same way you do during training. I.e. you throttle back and maintain altitude until the airframe stalls. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUS98dFnrAs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XncKKQB3674 Despite belting the rudder as hard as possible (in accordance with procedure) into the wing that was dropping, I could not instigate a spin. The airframe stalled with the wings stayed more or less level and the altimeter started winding backwards. I’ve had numerous conversations with a friend who flies the B737-NG series and is an Fs 2004 enthusiast. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_Next_Generation Neither he, his pilot colleagues have any time for the official version of events or any permutation thereof. The Training in Flight Simulator is a decoy for idiots. It’s the kind of stuff they push in the media. Pilots don’t calculate flight paths, they practice them or fly them. In terms of navigation, human performance and aerodynamics it’s all tripe and we’ve known about this long before the Pilots For 911 Truth team were producing DVD’s on it. Neither the default nor POSKY models realistically modeled the handling or aerodynamic limitations of the aircraft and these limitations turned into gapping chasms near to or beyond the envelope. And just recently you did in fact talk to a real pilot on this matter: Stinks: “…take Flight Simulators on a computer…would they have been able to use anything like that to have calculated this maneuver…” Rusty: “No, no, no. That’s highly unlikely.” Consequently I am of the opinion that Flight Simulator is not accurate enough to be used as a forensic tool. In case you hadn’t noticed, the story of 911 was targeted fodder for proletarians to keep them fantasizing about non-existent planes. |
|
|
|
| icke | Jul 11 2010, 07:43 AM Post #128 |
|
Broken Stik - “…I hope that answered some of what you asked at least." You present yourself as a school boy who thinks he knows better on account of his education. Rather than peeling your lazy ass out of your armchair to go find real pilots, you chose to get led up the garden path by strangers in an Internets forum. You’re so green you managed to produce a pitiful little video called “The CIT deception” which only serves as an advertisement for CIT. You were ignorant enough to advise a commercial pilot and flight sim enthusiast to consult the “flight sim community” for advice on aeronautical matters. And to cap it all, you admitted that Flight Sim didn’t model ground effect after using it to validate a scenario that would require ground effect to be modeled as part of the analysis. Perhaps you should go back to school and take an A-level in “How Not To Be Stupid”. |
|
|
|
| icke | Jul 11 2010, 07:44 AM Post #129 |
|
Browken Stics – “…If there's anything else i can help you with on this subject…” Give up on armchair research, get a private pilots license, read either “Handling The Big Jets” or “Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators” and interview real professional pilots with many hours on type. http://shop.pilotwarehouse.co.uk/product255023catno2640023.html http://www.actechbooks.com/products/act017/ The following should help you on your journey: http://www.pprune.org/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N2RrQWsGes http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3792437977378750880# http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=71 http://pilotsfor911truth.org/911_Aircraft_Speed_Deets.html http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/speed/ |
|
|
|
| YougeneDebs | Jul 11 2010, 11:16 AM Post #130 |
|
icke spam! spam and eggs! |
|
|
|
| broken sticks | Jul 11 2010, 04:52 PM Post #131 |
|
icke, you asked me about my education, then you had a go at me for answering, as if i was showing off re: my education! tbh icke, an engineer and a physicist can be so many worlds apart that it leads me to think you consider all engineers to be mechanical engineers. you can be an engineer of electronics (and many other fields) and not know a thing about physics. seriously. but whatever, i tried to be nice and ask you a reasonable question regarding the shape of the airframe in the 911 video evidence. you didn't answer, and if i cared less about humans i'd tell you to go f*** yourself, but you're not a nazi, i don't hate you. i'm just a bit exasperated. i'm like this: icke is a pain in the arse for 911 research but he's a human being and i'd like to be inclusive and nice to him and make him feel welcome and part of the group. and icke is like this: blah blah blah blah blah so, i'll try again icke (not the last time - i'll try plenty of times, i'm nice) icke, re: the airframe of "flight 175" have you found any major discrepancies that show the shape of "flight 175" to be anything other than that of a boeing 767-200? i should specify (again) that i'm not talking of light/shadow discrepancies (ie, i am not talking about video fakery or photographic manipulation) i am asking if the shape of the plane, in your opinion, is wrong in anyway. try your best to answer. although my patience has not worn thin, you can feel free to have a go at my honest answers to your questions some more if you want, its all good. i don't care. just trying to be inclusive dude. [edit] oh, re: "Rather than peeling your lazy ass out of your armchair to go find real pilots" i'm on record on this forum talking to a pilot about 911. he thinks the accuracy is an issue. you can find it in the 911 Audios section. Edited by broken sticks, Jul 11 2010, 04:54 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Chander | Jul 13 2010, 06:33 PM Post #132 |
|
On June 22, I posed a question to Shure's Professor Sergei:
Since then nothing but the sound of crickets. I'd be stuck for words too, if I was given the assignment of explaining how the Hez vid is possible. |
|
|
|
| shure | Jul 14 2010, 10:14 AM Post #133 |
Administrator
|
Here is a hint Chander: |
|
|
|
| Chander | Jul 14 2010, 01:36 PM Post #134 |
|
Shure:
Huh?! I don't get the hint. It's not that your picture shows how the exterior beams were staggered for added strength is it?  BTW, where's the Perfessor? Not afraid of a little back and forth discussion is he? Maybe he's only happy in the classroom where they hang on his every word - and don't dare raise any questions. |
|
|
|
| shure | Jul 14 2010, 03:01 PM Post #135 |
|
Administrator
|
ey ye ye Chander I told you I haven't bothered to email him lately because he is busy with his work in the real world. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
777_M1.06_no_shock_stall_sea_level.jpg (127.8 KB)
757_transonic_sea_level.jpg (153.48 KB)
737_800_683_KIAS_Sea_Level_small_.jpg (57.64 KB)
767_606kts.jpg (136.6 KB)
 Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today. |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The Drama Club · Next Topic » |
12:40 PM Jul 13