ABC's Peter Jennings Knew The Truth About 9/11

Looks like a plane crashing into a skyscraper so fast it's just gets grated by the structural steel. The right turbine even blows mass out of the adjacent wall. You can also see when the fuselage is "chewed up" and finally explodes creating that 90 degree explosion. The mass of that plane going that fast isn't "cutting" or "slicing" through the building but more or less being systematically demolished by all supporting columns. The reason why it looks so clean is because you have a airliner type plane bringing forward 300+ mph of energy. That's strong enough for it not to blow anything away from it but to bring everything in it's path in the direction it's moving.

You don't see that "blast" behind it until the jetfuel explodes, which makes perfect sense.


C O M M O N S E N S E.

[edit on 23-10-2007 by DeadFlagBlues]

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
Jeeeeez. Here we have another one, making the baseless claim that thousands of New Yorkers saw planes crashing into the tower. Why? Answer: brainwashing.
Get a grip, and get over it. The videos are fake!

Wow, nice reply. I personally know 15 people who were there that saw the second plane hit the building, 17 actually but 2 didn't survive for me to ask them what they saw. Screaming that it's a baseless claim does not make it so.

Sorry.

Now, instead of dodging my question to you, why not answer it?

Are you getting your "physics" information from "Dr" Morgan Reynolds or not? If not can you please explain how the attack violates Newton's Third Law of Motion?

After all, you did make that statement. I guess that if you can't back it up, then it could be said you are the one making "baseless claims".

reply to post by Soloist


For anyone to say that "thousands of people" saw planes crashing into the towers is baseless, since there's absolutely no evidence to back it up. Sorry.

I know someone who says she saw a plane go in one side of the tower and come out the other. But since that is not physically possible, she was the witness to a magic trick.

The videos are nothing more than cartoons. Airplanes don't glide into buildings. Not in reality, anyway. In special effect movies? Yes. In video games? Yes. In reality? No.

Aluminum tube vs steel girders and concrete slabs. Which one wins?

If a steel/concrete tower hits a stationary aluminum airplane at 500 MPH, what will happen? Will the steel and concrete break with no sign of damage to the plane (on the outside of the building)? Or will the plane get crushed?

[edit on 23-10-2007 by CB_Brooklyn]

reply to post by CB_Brooklyn


You've just proven your own why in your own post. The lightweight components of the plane didn't GLIDE, SLICE, OR CUT through steel. It hit the building carrying enough force and energy to obliterate the plane against the structural columns. It didn't glide in. That plane was destroyed every centimeter it went in that building.

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
reply to post by Soloist

 

For anyone to say that "thousands of people" saw planes crashing into the towers is baseless, since there's absolutely no evidence to back it up. Sorry.

Sorry you are indeed. I'll be most interested to witness your first meeting with someone who watched 9/11 firsthand when you tell them they didn't see what they saw.

Should be most interesting to say the least.

Originally posted by CB_BrooklynThe videos are nothing more than cartoons. Airplanes don't glide into buildings. Not in reality, anyway. In special effect movies? Yes. In video games? Yes. In reality? No.

So what's your understanding of what an airplane at speed should have done when impacting a structure? I await with baited breath.

Originally posted by CB_BrooklynAluminum tube vs steel girders and concrete slabs. Which one wins?

Pity you're locked to your static frame of reference. I guess it'd be too much to ask you to explain how a 300+ MPH impact should have differed in appearance from what was witnessed.

Originally posted by CB_BrooklynIf a steel/concrete tower hits a stationary aluminum airplane at 500 MPH, what will happen? Will the steel and concrete break with no sign of damage to the plane (on the outside of the building)? Or will the plane get crushed?

[edit on 23-10-2007 by CB_Brooklyn]

You're stuck on the notion that the plane continued in one piece. You really need to understand some very basic physics about conservation of momentum and such to realise that your POV's completely wrecked.

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
You've just proven your own why in your own post. The lightweight components of the plane didn't GLIDE, SLICE, OR CUT through steel. It hit the building carrying enough force and energy to obliterate the plane against the structural columns. It didn't glide in. That plane was destroyed every centimeter it went in that building.

I believe that's known in the industry as being hoist on one's own petard.

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


That's not what happens in a plane crash. When the lightweight aluminum hits the steel and concrete, the aluminum will encounter resistance. The plane will crush and deform, not "disappear into the building like a bad special effect", to put it in Evan Fairbank's words.

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues

 

That's not what happens in a plane crash. When the lightweight aluminum hits the steel and concrete, the aluminum will encounter resistance. The plane will crush and deform, not "disappear into the building like a bad special effect", to put it in Evan Fairbank's words.

You suggesting it should've bounced off? Am I reading you correctly?

To be honest, it's perfectly ok to believe what you want to believe. Just don't expect everyone else to fall in line simply because you declare it.

You say it was a bad special effect, I say there was actually a plane that hit the building.

We're all searching for the truth here, and the truth will eventually come out. I doubt anyone here will be alive when it does, but it will eventually be known.

Believe as you choose, allow me the same freedom. We're all on the same side and freedom is rapidly becoming something in short supply. Lets not deny it to each other.

These double and triple posts are killing me.......

[edit on 23-10-2007 by mrwupy]

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
For the sake of a rational debate...What exactly was the(or even "A") large commercial jet supposed to do; bounce off the side of the WTC?

I feel the same way, apparently if a 757 cannot penetrate a building, what exactly were we SUPPOSED to see?

Imagine if the plane bounced off, then we would have a whole new set of theories!

reply to post by CB_Brooklyn


No, no, it doesn't. At that amount of weight and speed, it would OBLITERATE that airplane carrying everything in it's path in the same direction because of the sheer force.

When I was in High School, I was coming home from a party... We saw this girl's car that we knew, literally CUT in half around a telephone pole. It was a 1982, Chevy Celebrity. Tell me how a car could cut itself in half on a large wood telephone pole, but an aluminum plane would somehow be "crushed" at a weight of 255,000 pounds and 300+ miles an hour and made out of aluminum?





[edit on 23-10-2007 by DeadFlagBlues]

That's not what happens in a plane crash. When the lightweight aluminum hits the steel and concrete, the aluminum will encounter resistance. The plane will crush and deform, not "disappear into the building like a bad special effect", to put it in Evan Fairbank's words.

So if a plane striking a building will simply crumple up then how do
you explain how a B25 hitting the Empire State Building in July 1945
penetrated into the building. One of the planes motors punched its
way all the throught the building to land on the roof of an adjacent
building. Almost exactly like what happened on 9/11. This was with
a plane weighing less the 10% of a 767 travelling at 1/3 the speed
If you do the math the forces involved are only 1/100th of the 767 on
9/11

Holograms? Nope, not invented back then. Hell they didn't even have
television (ok maybe a few thousand sets in the whole country)

At 9:40 a.m. on Saturday July 28, 1945, a B-25 Mitchell bomber, piloted by Lieutenant Colonel William F. Smith who was flying in a thick fog, accidentally crashed into the north side of the Empire State Building between the 79th and 80th floors, where the offices of the National Catholic Welfare Council were located. One engine shot through the side opposite the impact and another plummeted down an elevator shaft. The fire was extinguished in 40 minutes. Fourteen people were killed in the incident.[13] Elevator operator Betty Lou Oliver survived a plunge of 75 stories inside an elevator, which still stands as the Guinness World Record for the longest survived elevator fall recorded.[14] Despite the damage and loss of life, the building was open for business on many floors on the following Monday.

reply to post by thedman


Great points. Plus the Empire State Building is a much more solid masonry building than the WTC was.


As far as the title, yes I completely agree, Peter Jennings knew the truth about 9/11. He knew that 19 Islamic militant terrorists hijacked 4 planes and crashed them into the two WTC towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania.

reply to post by CB_Brooklyn


With respect, a person doesn't need 'evidence' to suggest eyewitnesses of New York saw the planes. It is a logical conclusion based on inference. This is used in a court of law, in history etc.

You might get the odd person who thought they saw something else, but this is common in any event. What is valuable to us, is the testimony that is consistent time and time again.

Remember when that kid flew a small private plane into a building only a few weeks after 9/11.... that plane went into the building. It was much much smaller and was going at a slower speed and it went INTO the building.

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
For anyone to say that "thousands of people" saw planes crashing into the towers is baseless, since there's absolutely no evidence to back it up.

There were thousands in the streets and in the surrounding buildings as made evident by news and amateur video footage and photographs. I happen to know 15 of them, and I'm just one guy. They aren't all going to come out giving testimony so people who don't believe in the attacks can feel some sense of satisfaction, they know what happened that day.

They lived it.

Heck, we even have some members here that were there that day who say it was planes and they know what they saw, do we have anyone here who was an actual eyewitness that says they were CGI? Or nothing? Or holograms? Or flying monkeys?

I know someone who says she saw a plane go in one side of the tower and come out the other. But since that is not physically possible, she was the witness to a magic trick.

Sounds like a cool trick, she seems like the only one with that story, so yah, I wouldn't put too much faith in that, since all the evidence shows the planes exploding inside the buildings.

The videos are nothing more than cartoons. Airplanes don't glide into buildings. Not in reality, anyway. In special effect movies? Yes. In video games? Yes. In reality? No.

Nah, not cartoons, I know cartoons and FX, it's been my trade for years, these were real. Are you suggesting that they are CGI? Sorry, but that cannot be since there was no way to project CGI in the sky (sorry holo-believers) for the eyewitnesses nor is there any evidence of the massive sound systems that would be needed to simulate the jets. And since some of the amateur video takers still have their originals there's just no way they are all fake.

Aluminum tube vs steel girders and concrete slabs. Which one wins?

Once it got through the around half glass, box steel and concrete outer wall, I would say the buildings won, since the planes were completely destroyed in the explosions.

If a steel/concrete tower hits a stationary aluminum airplane at 500 MPH, what will happen? Will the steel and concrete break with no sign of damage to the plane (on the outside of the building)? Or will the plane get crushed?

Hmm, why do you keep leaving out the glass?

Of course your question is rather quite a stretch as I've not yet to this day ever seen or heard of a building that can move at 500 mph.

Why would there be no damage to the plane? They were completely destroyed in the explosions. Seems like your not taking in account that the planes merely needed to overcome the mass of the small section they struck in the outer wall, not the entire tower, not 5 floors of mass (22,000+ tons) as "Dr" Morgan Reynolds erroneously claims.

Once you see that, you can understand how cars at high speed can crash through solid brick and cinder block walls into large buildings. Ever seen photos of something like that? Google it. Then tell me that any object has to overcome the entire mass of the structure.

One more quick example of why your backwards question has no merit :

Martial arts expert breaks a stationary cinder block with his bare hand. Now, take another cinder block and throw it at his stationary hand at the same speed. What happens? Broken hand. But the reverse results in broken block. So you should be able to see now that reversing things to get the result you want is not an accurate way of coming to a conclusion.

Newton's Third Law of Motion has *not* been violated, in any of those cases or this one. However, I'm still looking forward to your conclusions should you still believe they have been.

Oh, the thousands of bloggers posting about what they saw on the Internet were government agents! They'd set up web sites years in advance, creating fake identities and discussing mundane details of their lives up until that point, so it would look like *real* citizens saying they saw planes hit the buildings.

And the firefighters who were at the scene after the first plane hit, who saw the second plane go in, those guys were in on it also. And so were the police officers, paramedics, and other rescue workers. They were all in on it, every last one, and not one of them has ever felt a twinge of guilt in covering up the deaths of 3,000 people and then come forward to tell the truth.

Should we start calling police and fire departments in NYC? Should we ask them what they saw? Or maybe we should tell them that their fellow rescuers actually died fighting holograms and not fires.

Should we find out the names of the people who received phone calls from their loved ones on the planes as they were being hijacked? Maybe we should ask them, "Hey, are you sure your wife and kids didn't just get hired by the government to call you and *pretend* they were about to die? Are you sure they aren't living secret lives in another state now under government protection so you don't find out?"

How can you be presented with not one, but two possible theories that explain why the plane "melted" into the building the way it did and still say it's not possible?

How is it possible that four planes took off that morning and never landed anywhere?

Where did all those passengers go, if they didn't get flown into the side of a building? Where did the planes go?

How did anyone get enough explosives into the building to implode it? You are aware that the World Trade Center had people in it, aren't you? Do you have any idea how much explosives it would take to bring down buildings that large?

And for the love of God, will you answer the big question already: What do you expect a plane to do when it hits a building, bounce off?

The official explanation of 9-11 has holes, I'll give you that. But your silly no-planes theory has CANYONS. And for the record,

If a steel/concrete tower hits a stationary aluminum airplane at 500 MPH, what will happen? Will the steel and concrete break with no sign of damage to the plane (on the outside of the building)? Or will the plane get crushed?

The exact same thing would happen. Remember that the individual atoms don't know which object is hitting which, they are just colliding and reacting accordingly. From the standpoint of the theory of relativity, in the plane's "point of view" it WAS hit by the building. And you're trying to give us a physics lesson?

reply to post by Soloist


Here is a link that shows some of the duplicity of the people pushing 'No Planes'.
www.nineeleven.co.uk...

A lot of times it seems to me to be intentionally trying to deceive. They rely a lot on different angles, horrible pixelation on Youtube and outright lying as in the case of Webfairy who was exposed here
proxyblahblahblahblahblahblahblah.com...

and others have taken this on
www.questionsquestions.net...

Because of the nature of some of the deceptive claims I think it is important to note that we might not even be dealing with people who are really thinking this, but some kind of disinfo campaign or something else.

That is not to say everyone is disinfo, but it is something to keep in mind.

Originally posted by hikix
Remember when that kid flew a small private plane into a building only a few weeks after 9/11.... that plane went into the building. It was much much smaller and was going at a slower speed and it went INTO the building.

And I don't expect he'll want to comment on this image of the aftermath of the crash of a Piper Seneca
into a Richmond, British Columbia apartment building