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

yeah.....they were definately airplanes....wether it be remote controlled, military....paper...they def hit it and i imagine that much wieght at those speed...prolly have enough force to punch through some stuff...

These Videos of REAL Plane Crashes Explain 9/11 TV-Fakery Very Clearly
www.911researchers.com...


I've read through some of the replies in this thread. Behind the snide remarks and rudeness, I found (not surprisingly) absolutely no scientific analysis that refutes Newton's 3rd Law of Motion. All I see is a bunch of people desperately trying to hold on to their real plane fantasy. I can't stop laughing!!!



[edit on 25-10-2007 by CB_Brooklyn]

reply to post by CB_Brooklyn


CB? I'll type slowly and in caps so you can hear better.

WHAT

SHOULD

THE

PLANE

HAVE

DONE?

BOUNCE

OFF

THE

SIDE?


Still awaiting and looking forward to your reply.

[edit on 25-10-2007 by Fitzgibbon]

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
reply to post by CB_Brooklyn

 

CB? I'll type slowly and in caps so you can hear better.

WHAT

SHOULD

THE

PLANE

HAVE

DONE?

BOUNCE

OFF

THE

SIDE?


Still awaiting and looking forward to your reply.

[edit on 25-10-2007 by Fitzgibbon]

Take a look at the videos in my last post. Airplanes don't "bounce".


Airliners are made of lightweight aluminum alloy. On top of that, 767s have plastic-composite nosecones.




The WTC had steel girders and concrete slabs.

Here' the slabs:

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
Take a look at the videos in my last post. Airplanes don't "bounce".

Good. So we're making progress. Because it surely wasn't clear at all from your previous posts that you weren't one of the nutters that thought that they should have.

So, what's your response on the image of the apartment building from Richmond, B.C. that got hit by a plane much smaller, slower and lighter than a 767? See a pattern in the building exterior that looks vaguely familiar to something you've seen before?

Originally posted by CB_BrooklynAirliners are made of lightweight aluminum alloy. On top of that, 767s have plastic-composite nosecones.

Great. And that proves what? You familiar with Newton's First Law of Motion? You gonna tell me why you think it doesn't apply in this situation?

What about his Second Law?

reply to post by CB_Brooklyn


So we have a plane going too low into a carrier landing deck, a B-52 falling into the ground on it's side, a DC-9? having a hard landing, and a test crash of a 707 into a flat runway. And this proves what? looking from the front of the planes on 9/11, it would seem to burst into flame immediately, and the only reason for delay on 9/11 is the fact that first it has to emerge, and the forward motion of the burning substance (the fuel).

There's no crushing, no bending, no twisting
* Tail does not snap off
* Fuel filled wings do not explode on impact
* Wing tips (which are swept back 35 degrees) sawing through structural steel
* The building self-heals itself before the explosion

1 It's going a lot quicker, all these were taken during landing, and I doubt any of them are going faster than 200mph. thats 4/25th of the kinetic energy per kilogram of the WTC impacts.
2 the tail of that DC-9 comes off because it lands too hard, and is not designed to stay on with such landing stresses.
3 We don't know how much the wingtips penetrated.
4 No, it doesn't, thats digital compression.

we could turn this no-plane theory around and claim that the planes were real but there were no buildings, it would make just as much sense. "soooo... that's how the plane was able to glide right in? Why of course simple deduction holmes, there were no buildings!! "

So in this theory we could claim that the buildings were just cardboard cut outs and/or hologram technology and everyone that worked there weren't real, they were just CGI fx or payed shills that claimed the towers existed. No one died on 9/11, we were brainwashed and people only thought the towers were real because the media brainwashed them.

Lets face it, I or anyone else could churn out BS all day long to backup a half plausible 'no towers theory' that involved holograms and it would have just as much 'evidence' as the no-planes one. After all, skyscrapers don't collapse due to fire, so they must of been fake/cgi. (according to the no planer logic)

Use some common sense here! If there was anything abnormal about the planes then it would of been real physical modifications, not holograms! Don't you think a missile could penetrate the towers? Holograms are totally unnecessary and this whole debate is a waste of energy imo.

Dressing up a missile as a plane however, or modifying a plane into some type of plane bomb is well within the realm of possibilities.



[edit on 25-10-2007 by Insolubrious]

CB Brooklyn here tends to think of aluminum as soft as aluminum foil that we used to heat our food in ovens.

Guess he never realized it can be tough as steel. Think of the M113 apcs that we have in the military that is using aluminum for armor protection while being light.

reply to post by CB_Brooklyn


So not only did multiple live videos have special effects added, but all the eyewitnesses were brainwashed? Let me guess, those who were there in person saw holograms projected onto air, in daylight?
As for physics, you may want to read up a little more on inertia, ballistics, etc..

[edit on 25-10-2007 by BlueRaja]

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
I found (not surprisingly) absolutely no scientific analysis that refutes Newton's 3rd Law of Motion.

You will find (not surprisingly) no analysis to refute Newton's Third Law of Motion because it simply can't be refuted. I don't believe anyone here is attempting to do so, however YOU made the baseless claim that the attacks violated the law, yet have not given any input on how that's so, other than to say so.

Which means nothing actually, so I would suggest either you stop saying it, or be prepared to talk about how you think it violated the law.

Just saying it doesn't make it true. In fact it's not true, but I still look forward to seeing you come up with something.

I can't stop laughing!!!

So, you're trolling? Or do you intend to have an actual debate over your claim that the plane violated Newton's Third Law of Motion? You seem to dodge around the question ever since I called you out on it after you made the claim.

I look forward to your detailed analysis of the problem.

reply to post by CB_Brooklyn

I've read through some of the replies in this thread. Behind the snide remarks and rudeness, I found (not surprisingly) absolutely no scientific analysis that refutes Newton's 3rd Law of Motion.

We don't need to. Newton's 3rd Law of Motion is on our side of the argument. "All forces occur in pairs, and these two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction." Where does that say that buildings have plane resistant force fields on them?

All those videos you provided a link to show planes either glancing off objects, or crashing into the ground at low speeds. You provided nothing showing what a jet hitting a building head-on at full throttle should look like.

You also have NOTHING to refute examples you've been given of what does happen when a plane hits a building, such as the information about the bomber that crashed into the Empire State building or the plane that crashed into the apartment building. I suspect it's because they shoot your fantasy out of the water and you're not ready to let go of it yet.

I really want to get your response on that, so I'll try a proven method of getting your attention. I do hope that you'll start addressing the issues that we bring up so that we won't have to keep doing this...

WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THE BOMBER THAT HIT THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING AND THE PLANE THAT WENT [B]INTO[/B] THE APARTMENT BUILDING ?????

[edit on 25-10-2007 by mattifikation]

reply to post by CB_Brooklyn


You do realize that in your examples that none of them actually correlate to the WTC event? There is no proper parallel, the planes you linked to were travelling at a slower rate of speed and some of them were fighter jets.

Were you being honest with that?

Well exactly, the only similar crash would be the one in Amsterdam, which I posted about earlier.

However, I seem to have had no reply to that , I wonder why. And I wonder how the wings and other assorted parts of that 747 which was blown up by terrorists over Lockerbie managed to crush buildings, on CB_Brooklyn's line of argument, since planes are so weak.

reply to post by apex

Have you looked at specifications for the 747 and the 767? You can check them out here:

www.boeing.com...

www.boeing.com...

The largest 747 is close to twice as heavy as the largest 767. If the Bush administration had crashed a 747 into the world trade center, Manhattan would have capsized.

I have a hard time following your analysis of the Amsterdam crash. There is no comparison between the two buildings. Are you saying that a much heavier aircraft knocked the corner off a smallish apartment building and therefore it's obvious and a no-brainer that a much smaller aircraft should be able to fell a much bigger and stronger building?

Originally posted by ipsedixit

The largest 747 is close to twice as heavy as the largest 767. If the Bush administration had crashed a 747 into the world trade center, Manhattan would have capsized.

Yes, I know that a 747 is heavier than a 767, thank you very much.

I have a hard time following your analysis of the Amsterdam crash. There is no comparison between the two buildings. Are you saying that a much heavier aircraft knocked the corner off a smallish apartment building and therefore it's obvious and a no-brainer that a much smaller aircraft should be able to fell a much bigger and stronger building?

Please be aware of the fact that I am saying nothing about the complete collapse of the WTC, I think that looks strange. However in my opinion the no plane theory is about as credible as that of flat earth. I am saying that if a 747 can go through and destroy an apartment building (which is made of concrete, and is likely to be tougher than say, the outer skin of the WTC), then a 767 can go through at least the outer skin of the WTC, and that it's engines at least (or parts of them) can go through all of the WTC.

I'm not trying to say anything about the ability of aircraft to fell a building , just the ability of an aircraft to penetrate one, seeing as the OP believe a plane would crumple up on the outside, bizarrely bypassing the law of conservation of momentum, since according to him, the towers wouldn't move.

reply to post by apex

It looks like we agree on a lot more than I thought. If you think that the collapse of the building looks odd why don't you think that the plane looks odd penetrating the building?

I don't think that anyone argues against the conservation of momentum, but remember that when the plane hits the building, the building is also hitting the plane. If you hit the side of one of those airplanes with a hammer, even if the tensile strength of the steel in the hammer were not as great as the tensile strength of the aviation aluminum, you would still be able to dent the aircraft. We don't see so much as a wrinkle as the plane enters the building.

Have you ever picked up a crowbar and slammed it into something solid like a boulder or a cement wall? If you haven't, I don't recommend it. You'll feel the crowbar's momentum being conserved painfully by your hands. Remember, when the plane's mass collides with the tower, much of that mass is also colliding with various parts of itself. It is these forces which would break up the fuselage, wings etc.

The plane, unlike an iron bar or steel beam is an inefficient transmitter of force. You would never use one as a pile driver for instance, not even at 550 mph.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
If you hit the side of one of those airplanes with a hammer, even if the tensile strength of the steel in the hammer were not as great as the tensile strength of the aviation aluminum, you would still be able to dent the aircraft. We don't see so much as a wrinkle as the plane enters the building.

But then again, we can't see the entirety of the plane as it goes in, nor is there any good non pixelated image of it halfway entered into the building.

Remember, when the plane's mass collides with the tower, much of that mass is also colliding with various parts of itself. It is these forces which would break up the fuselage, wings etc.

But this also must happen to the tower, and the outside of the tower was designed to bear the load of the tower above it, but not from the side in the way a plane hits it. It was designed to withstand the wind yes, but thats a lot more distributed load, and air does compress, whereas a plane offers more resistance.

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
These Videos of REAL Plane Crashes Explain 9/11 TV-Fakery Very Clearly
www.911researchers.com...


I've read through some of the replies in this thread. Behind the snide remarks and rudeness, I found (not surprisingly) absolutely no scientific analysis that refutes Newton's 3rd Law of Motion. All I see is a bunch of people desperately trying to hold on to their real plane fantasy. I can't stop laughing!!!



[edit on 25-10-2007 by CB_Brooklyn]

Why hasn't the site been shut down by the government? That's no good.

reply to post by apex

I don't subscribe to the hologram theory because I'm just not knowledgeable enough to comment on it or to judge anyone else's comments, but there is another peculiar aspect to the collision of Flt. 175 with the south tower and that is the appearance of white puffs of smoke when the plane is well into the building.

The no planers would say that the puffs of smoke are detonations designed to create the hole that a real plane ought to have made if it crashed through the outer wall of the building. As I say, I don't subscribe to the hologram theory, but I do wonder what could have caused those puffs of smoke. What is exploding? It can't be aviation fuel, can it?

Aviation fuel would spill inward, carried by it's momentum and then burst into a fireball with black smoke. What is exploding outward with white or light grey smoke?

To satisfy me that the plane could get through that wall in one piece, I would have to see a detailed analysis of the stresses that the wings and fuselage and tail section would be subjected to in such an event. At the very least I would expect that the tail section of the aircraft would be severed on impact with the tower. Why? Conservation of momentum. Conservation of momentum works against the tail and the wings in an event like that.

In order for the plane to enter the tower unscathed whatever resistance that the tower presented to the plane would have to be distributed to every part of the plane in amounts that were within each part's load bearing tolerance. That is very hard to believe. I don't believe it could happen.





[edit on 27-10-2007 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by apex

 

I don't think that anyone argues against the conservation of momentum, but remember that when the plane hits the building, the building is also hitting the plane. If you hit the side of one of those airplanes with a hammer, even if the tensile strength of the steel in the hammer were not as great as the tensile strength of the aviation aluminum, you would still be able to dent the aircraft. We don't see so much as a wrinkle as the plane enters the building.

So ipsedixit. Are you another one who thinks the plane should have bounced? As for skin wrinkles, you're watching a process happen at 300+ mph. You think you're going to see wrinkles forming?