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

reply to post by Fitzgibbon

What I think is pretty clear from the above posts. I think you should be able to see some sign of stress on the aircraft in the slowed versions of the videos.

If you don't mind, I just got off the midnight shift where I work and I don't feel like reiterating everything I said a couple of posts ago. You could always reread them if you are in doubt. I'm not trying to be rude, but honestly . . . Catch ya later.

. . . . Just caught a few hours sleep, I'm a little more rested now.

I think if someone wanted to summarize what I think, they would have to simply say that he rejects the simplicity of the official version and would like a serious investigation done into 911. I think the police department should be prominently involved and should keep the state and federal criminal and civil statutes on the desk in front of them.

Tote up the broken laws and start making arrests. I'll tell you a secret. I'll bet there are a lot of stand up cops who would like to do just that.

The plane stuff just looks very very odd to me. Let's get a proper investigation of the whole thing, and let's lay off those poor, poor people in the middle east whose main crime was that they had the misfortune to be born floating on oil.





[edit on 27-10-2007 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by Soloist
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.

Here's my analysis, as if it wasn't obvious from my previous posts:


airplane = aluminum tube / plastic nosecone

tower = structural steel girders / concrete slabs

Newton's 3rd Law = For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction

Aluminum tube / plastic nosecone HITS steel / concrete

Aluminum tube / plastic nosecone WEAKER than steel / concrete

Aluminum tube / plastic nosecone receives SAME FORCE as steel / concrete

Aluminum tube / plastic nosecone receives MORE DAMAGE than steel / concrete



9/11 videos/photos show Aluminum tube / plastic nosecone receive LESS damage than steel / concrete.


Where's the refutation to the above? I'm all ears.

reply to post by CB_Brooklyn


Doesn't this thread break several parts of the ATS Terms and Conditions? Considering the OP is deliberately misrepresenting information and making claims that are knowingly (by virtue of sanity) false. Also considering the OP repeatedly insults anybody who has a differing opinion to him, including those who are qualified to give an honest representation of what happened that day.

It violates Newton's 3rd Law of Motion for a plane to penetrate the building like that.

You violate evolution and Darwin's theory of Natural Selection. Prove me wrong!

reply to post by CB_Brooklyn


It's quite simple, momentum, energy and surface area. The moving plane has a higher energy than the stationary wall. A plane can pierce a steel mesh building the same way a copper bullet can pierce steel, or microscopic chunks of rock can punch holes in satellites.

If you were to take a structure similar to the WTC towers and lay it on it's side (so the walls point upwards), and then take a 767 and balance it nose down on top of the structure (i.e the walls), the 767 would penetrate the structure because the entire weight of the 767 is focused on a relatively small surface area through the nose cone and the individual sections of the mesh wall do not have the structural capacity to bear the entire load of a 767, let alone a 767 in motion. As an analogy to the momentum and energy, think of this, you can balance a screwdriver on a cardboard box without damaging the cardboard, but thrust the same screwdriver downwards and it will penetrate the cardboard, or place sufficient weight on the screwdriver and it will penetrate the cardboard. It's really basic science.

This is correct its all to do with velocity. If i threw a bullet at you it would bounce off but shoot it through a gun and it passes right through your skull, blowing your brains out the other side. Simple as that.

But just to add some speculation, whos to say the impact zones weren't weakened deliberately in the weeks prior to 9/11.

Check this, a Kamikaze pilot from WWII. Small fighter planes dive bombing and penetrating a battleships thick steel hull. Notice the distinctive outline of where the plane entered, wings and all!


I think the picture speaks for itself. I read somewhere that apparently the 9/11 plotters (either Ramzi or KSM) knew this and borrowed the idea.

compared to a WWII spitfire, a Boeing has much greater mass (passengers alone).

Check out the USS Hinsdale on wiki.

Hinsdale's lookouts spotted an enemy plane skimming low over the water. With only a few seconds warning, Hinsdale could not evade the kamikaze; at 0600 the suicide plane crashed into her port side just above the water line and ripped into the engine room. Three explosions rocked the troop-laden transport as the kamikaze's bombs exploded deep inside her and tore the engine room apart— only one member of the watch survived death by scalding steam from the exploding boilers.

en.wikipedia.org...(APA-120)

[edit on 2-11-2007 by Insolubrious]

reply to post by monoclear



If a 500MPH tower impacted a stationary plane, what would happen? Would the aluminum plane / plastic nosecone cut through the steel and concrete with no signs of resistance? Or, would the plane get crushed?

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
If a 500MPH tower impacted a stationary plane, what would happen? Would the aluminum plane / plastic nosecone cut through the steel and concrete with no signs of resistance? Or, would the plane get crushed?

You have already asked this question in this very thread, and I answered it for you.

At this point I would have to say you are simply trolling, and have no desire to actually learn something, which is too bad considering your rather "loose" understanding of Newton's Third Law of Motion, or physics in general.

I notice you also have a habit of leaving out the fact that the outer wall the plane penetrated was roughly half glass as I see no mention of it in your above post.

Viewing the tower as the whole entity of mass vs. the plane is incorrect, the plane merely needed to overcome the mass of the section it entered, which it did easily given it's velocity and aerodynamic design properties. This is why cars go flying through shopping malls, churches, etc (google it) at higher speeds with no problems puncturing through the walls, they don't have to overcome the total mass of the object they hit.

If the tower had been completely solid, then of course the plane would just smash into it, make a mark on the surface and that would be it. But it wasn't, it was a hollow box which does not have the strength nor mass to keep a 500mph jet from entering and exploding inside of it.

reply to post by Soloist


You are wrong on all accounts. It does not matter how much of the tower was glass. It's of no relevance. The steel is stronger than aluminum. Any car that goes through a wall is stronger than the wall. How do we know? Answer: Newton's Laws. You seem to have an inability to apply simple physical laws. You cannot rewrite Newton to suit your personal desires.

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
You are wrong on all accounts.

No, I'm not.

It does not matter how much of the tower was glass. It's of no relevance.

Yes it does and yes it is. The glass is what keeps the tower from being a solid object of steel and concrete like you seem to think. The fact that it's not solid is of extreme relevance when someone like you starts speaking of the plane violating Newton's laws.

The steel is stronger than aluminum. Any car that goes through a wall is stronger than the wall. How do we know? Answer: Newton's Laws.

Stronger than the wall!

Of course, it can only break through at a certain velocity, for example if we were to get 10 people to push against the car it would never break through the wall, but get it going fast enough and WHAM right on through. Of course the car will be mangled in the process, but it will make it through.

This is why motorcycles traveling at high speeds sever cars in two. Or why martial artists can break boards and cinder blocks with their bare hands.

Yes the object/objects they may be striking are "stronger" than what they are being hit with, they still give from the velocity.

Hence, an airliner that has much more mass than the (non-solid) wall it's about to hit traveling at 500mph will have no problems breaking through, of course the plane is ripped apart in the process but it still makes it inside.

Why?

You answered it yourself, kinda. With it's much larger amount of mass, plus it's velocity it's :

Stronger than the wall!

You seem to have an inability to apply simple physical laws.

Funny, I'm still waiting on you to prove how the plane violated Newton's Third Law.

You cannot rewrite Newton to suit your personal desires.

That's even funnier, since people in the "truth movement" do exactly that, for example "Dr" Morgan Reynolds in his laughable piece about Newton.

I have re-written nothing, I never said Newton was wrong or needs to be re-written, I'm saying that the way the plane behaved is exactly how should be expected, and in no way violates Newton.

You claim different, and I eagerly await your proof.

Not only can you not explain how a plane breaking things that it hits is a violation of the laws of physics, you also still have no answer concerning the many other buildings and objects we've shown you pictures of that were hit by planes.

Nothing about the plane that hit the apartment building, nothing about the bomber that hit the Empire State Building, nothing about the little fighter jet that made a cookie-cuttout of itself in the side of an armored battleship.

All of these incidents prove that when planes hit things bigger and tougher than them, they don't just smack the side and slide down them like Wyle E. Coyote when he slams into the side of a cliff. No wonder you won't talk about those pictures... they prove you don't know what you're talking about.

[edit on 3-11-2007 by mattifikation]

reply to post by mattifikation



Kindly show the videos of the crashes you mentioned. If you do, you will see that in each and every case, the plane will receive more damage than the harder surface it crashed into. Newton's Laws.

reply to post by Soloist



What's truly laughable is your inability to apply Newton's Laws. WTC steel girders and concrete slabs are stronger than an airplane's aluminum hull and plastic nosecone.

reply to post by CB_Brooklyn


The only thing laughable here is your persistent denial of reality, and your complete inability to understand the laws of science that you use to state your claim.



Note that that is an F-4 Phantom which is significantly smaller than a 767 and the target wall is 10ft thick reinforced concrete designed to protect a nuclear reactor, something the walls of the World Trade Centre towers were not. While the plane does get obliterated, portions of it survive the impact and make their way through. Does this plane also 'defy' Newton's laws?

I really would love to know what value SkepticOverlord thinks you provide.

reply to post by monoclear



I'm well aware of that video. Perhaps you can explain how it is any comparison to the 9/11 videos?

1. F4 did not break through concrete wall. 9/11 "plane" did.

2. Weaker F4 gets destroyed while impacting stronger concrete wall. Weaker 9/11 "plane" glides into stronger steel/concrete, plastic nosecone to aluminum tail, without even a panel falling off.


F4 obeys Newton. Video is real.
9/11 "plane" defies Newton. Video is fake.



Next!!!

reply to post by CB_Brooklyn

Perhaps you can explain how it is any comparison to the 9/11 videos?

It is a comparison of the relative energies involved. Since you are such an expert on the laws of physics, I trust I don't need to expand on that.

1. F4 did not break through concrete wall. 9/11 "plane" did.

That is incorrect, in spite of the plane's obliteration, small parts do make it through as can be seen by debris ejecting from the rear of the concrete wall, not to mention the plane's wing tips which are relatively undamaged. The important point is that the concrete wall in the F-4 test is 10 feet thick, the walls of the world trade centre weren't. There is a particular reason why a wall designed to protect a nuclear reactor from impact damage is 10ft thick re-enforced concrete, and that is because the denser the object the more energy it can successfully absorb. Energy absorption and dissipation is a very important factor when designing impact protection. You seem to think that strength or toughness is an absolute value. Why bother building a 10ft re-enforced concrete wall to protect nuclear reactors when according to you a 13inch steel one will do the job?

2. Weaker F4 gets destroyed while impacting stronger concrete wall. Weaker 9/11 "plane" glides into stronger steel/concrete, plastic nosecone to aluminum tail, without even a panel falling off.

I've yet to see evidence that a panel didn't fall off, could you provide some?

Next!!!

A person that exclaims "Next" on a forum during a 'debate' is clearly overconfident in their own correctness and evidently uninterested in the debate itself.

reply to post by monoclear


You are completely misinterpreting the F4 video and it's relation to the 9/11 video. The wings extended farther than the wall's diameter, which explains why they did not crush on impact. (They did not impact.) The wall was not punctured. As I said before: the weaker F4 received more damage than the stronger wall.

Your comparison between the wall in the F4 video and the WTC girders is not relevant for the following reason: The 9/11 "plane" showed no sign of crushing, twisting, breaking, etc. Instead, it effortlessly glided in the building.

You have not explained how Newton's Laws were not violated.

The videos show a physical impossibility.

Again....

Steel girders / concrete slabs are stronger than aluminum tube and plastic nosecone. Newton's Laws says plane receives more damage than building. This is not rocket science.

My "Next" exclamation was in response to earlier wisecracker posters, which btw, included yours.

[edit on 4-11-2007 by CB_Brooklyn]

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
Your comparison between the wall in the F4 video and the WTC girders is not relevant for the following reason: The 9/11 "plane" showed no sign of crushing, twisting, breaking, etc. Instead, it effortlessly glided in the building.

Far from effortlessly, as it exploded into pieces from the damage it received.
It made it through the wall, which I have explained to you at length with examples you choose to repeatedly ignore.

You have not explained how Newton's Laws were not violated.

You were the one making the claim they had been violated, and have yet to explain this. All you do is say "concrete and steel" "aluminum and plastic" and "Newtons laws" over and over. No one has to explain to you why the weren't violated, go read a physics book if you don't get it. And you obviously don't get it.

The videos show a physical impossibility.

So a martial arts expert who can break through cinder blocks with his bare hands, would that also be an impossibility? It's the exact same principle.

I mean c'mon now, a cinder block is so much stronger than flesh and bone! Newton's Laws!!!

Maybe all the video's of such feats are all fakes...

After all, they MUST be fakes, they're breaking Newtons Laws!

Newton's Laws says plane receives more damage than building. This is not rocket science.

In case you didn't notice, the plane DID receive more damage than the "building" (even though it only needed to pass through the outer wall to enter, as it did) it was completely destroyed while the building merely suffered a hole through one of it's outer walls.

You're right about one thing, that's not rocket science.


So while you're learning about high school level physics, here's one for you to chew on, hopefully you'll respond in a manner unlike the caveman style grunts and clicks you have been parroting over and over :

First thing, remember - Newton's Laws!

If a "plane" didn't "glide" in, then what did?

So what was it? Something made a plane shaped cutout in the side of the building that destroyed the wall, cut through the box steel beams in small slices even bending several inwards, broke the windows, and destroyed sections of some of the floors.

Well it couldn't have been a missle, that would blow your whole argument (aluminum tube and all). Newton's Law!!!

It wasn't explosives because we see the plane shaped hole appear BEFORE the explosion that carried it's momentum and debris out the opposite side of the building.

It couldn't have been a hologram, as they have no mass. Newton's Law!!!

Well, it had to be something...I mean we have video and photo's of what looks very much like a plane, thousands of witnesses who saw and heard what they thought was a plane, which makes a plane shaped hole in the wall of a building that happens to be the exact size of the plane reported to hit the tower, a plane shaped hole that doesn't move or change or blink on and off or anything goofy, clearly a real hole made by a real plane shaped object...

Given that, and all of your infinite wisdom, please explain what else it was if not a plane.

Next!

reply to post by CB_Brooklyn


My bad, those examples were posted on another thread full of no-planers that refuse to listen and respond to the obvious. God only knows which of the 50 million threads it was at this point. But the kamikaze plane that hit the battleship is posted right here on this thread.

Here's a link to information about the bomber that struck the Empire State Building. plane hits E.S.B.. Of particular interest on that site:

"The plane exploded within the building. There were five or six seconds– I was tottering on my feet trying to keep my balance– and three-quarters of the office was instantaneously consumed in this sheet of flame. One man was standing inside the flame. I could see him. It was a co-worker, Joe Fountain. His whole body was on fire. I kept calling to him, 'Come on, Joe; come on, Joe.'" He walked out of it.

When you consider how much larger and faster a 767 is at full throttle compared to a B-25 bomber that's trying to bank and avoid a building, you can see why the Empire State Building didn't come down from that crash. Other than that, the B-25 appears to have done the same thing as the 767... it penetrated the building and blew up inside it. A 767 would have had the mass to bring it down.

As for as your argument that those planes all recieved more damage than the objects they hit, well, last I checked the jets blew up.

reply to post by ipsedixit


The F4 plane did not break through the wall. The concrete wall was not severed, as can be seen very clearly is this shot. You should really check things out before posting:




Besides, you are missing the point, and that is your problem. The F4 plane received more damage than the wall. The 9/11 "plane" disintegrated into nothing (with engine parts somehow winding up underneath scaffolding) only after "plane" was completely inside the building. A real plane would have crashed against the tower, just as the F4 crashed against the wall.

In reading your post it seems like you think the 9/11 "plane" disintegrated on impact AND made a cookie-cutout in the steel/concrete. That violates laws of physics.

I'm the one who explained how Newton's Laws were violated, and did so very clearly and distinctly. What you do is dodge the issue, making other (false) points (such as the F4 breaking that wall, which it did not), and using that to (falsely) prove your point.

I clearly explained how the 9/11 videos violated Newton's Laws neither you or anyone else here has refuted it. Go back to high school and get a clue.

Human bone is not hollow like an airliner. The bone does not disintegrate into nothing after the block breaks. The block does not receive a cookie-cutter cutout of the hand. You're right... it is the same principle !!

[edit on 4-11-2007 by CB_Brooklyn]