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

Watch this ABC footage of Jennings:



Note his nervousness when they play the "plane crash" in slow motion. He must have figured out the truth, but needed to push the official story.


For those who haven't figured it out by watching the above video, read this quote:

As retired Aerospace Engineer Joseph Kieth says: "The video is phony because airliners don’t meld into steel and concrete buildings, they crash against them!"
nomoregames.net...


Dr Morgan Reynolds, the former Chief Economist of the US Dept of Labor, is suing private contractors alleging they defrauded the government by supplying bogus analyses for the official 9/11 NIST Report of an aluminum airplane with a plastic nosecone gliding into a steel/concrete building. Dr Reynolds is represented by attorney Jerry Leaphart, and is demanding a Trial By Jury.

The US District Court, Southern New York, recently unsealed the case and Mr Leaphart is now notifying the Defendants.

See Dr Reynolds site for info and the Court Document PDF:
nomoregames.net...

I was listening very carefully, however I must have somehow missed the part where Peter exhibits his nervousness. It is concrete proof however that a plane crashed into the building.

If you think that video is proof of a plane, then you've been watching too many special effect movies. It violates laws of physics and is nothing more than a cartoon.

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 also don't sense any nervousness. looks like a plane crashing into a building to me. the comment saying "planes don't meld into steel and concrete, they crash into them" is pretty lame. something with that much mass going that fast isn't going to just smack the side and fall.

Yep concrete proof. This is getting sad to watch.


I don't believe the official story, but i definatly believe planes hit the damn buildings. Believe the thousands who saw and recovery of plane parts? Or believe 2 "scientists" who want more publicity.

ok it may have "bounced" of the steel...but that steel isn't on the outside, it's on the inside of the building so you would not see it anyway....or am i wrong.







[edit on 22-10-2007 by antuk]

I do not see any "nervousness" from Peter Jennings at all and I certainly do not see how this proves he "knew" about 9/11. Talk about a misleading thread title

It violates Newton's 3rd Law of Motion for a plane to penetrate the building like that. Anyone content with believing that the video portrays a real event has seen too many special effect movies. (in other words, brainwashing)

I think it's possible the planes were remote controlled, they may have even shot missiles from the weird pod thing or been loaded with explosives. I do believe a conspiracy is involved with 9/11.

Planes did hit the building though, both of them. The second plane was caught from too many camera angles to say otherwise.

I did catch the nervousness in Peter Jennings voice. I was talking the same darn way that day, it was 9/11. Most of the people I know were either nervous or mad. They had a twitch in their voice or anger.

I do believe there is a serious conspiracy behind 9/11, but this thread is not touching on anything that would expose it.

Just my opinion,

wupy

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
It violates Newton's 3rd Law of Motion for a plane to penetrate the building like that. Anyone content with believing that the video portrays a real event has seen too many special effect movies. (in other words, brainwashing)

Oh boy, please tell me you aren't getting your information about Newton's 3rd Law of Motion from articles by "Dr." Morgan Reynolds. If so, I have already proven his bogus "calculations" as being erroneous at best (if one can call it "best") or a blatant attempt at misleading people at worst.

If not, I would love your take on how in the world this incident in any way defies Newton's 3rd Law of Motion by "penetrating the building like that".

I believe it's a real event, and yes I have seen too many special effects movies for sure, being that I have worked in the Animated Feature/FX industry in Hollywood for several years. I think I'm well qualified to tell the difference between CGI and not, and to my eyes, it's real. Of course thousands of eyewitnesses saw it very real also, so one must take that in account. Tainting all the amateur video doesn't make sense as some people kept the originals.

reply to post by Soloist



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!

As retired Aerospace Engineer Joseph Kieth says: "The video is phony because airliners don’t meld into steel and concrete buildings, they crash against them!"

Joseph Keith is a retired 76-year-old software engineer who worked in the aerospace industry and just resigned from a professional group known as the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven (SPINE) founded by Canadian scientist, A.K. (“Kee”) Dewdney. The website is www.physics911.net. Curious about why he resigned (I’m still a SPINE member), I interviewed him from his home in southern California.

Strange, doesn't say anything about him having expertise in aircraft crashes, or what should happen. Theres a fair difference between software and crashes, I think.

And strange how a 747 going slower than those 767s with two less engines than normal, completely obliterated part of an apartment block, which looks to be made of concrete.


Oh, and the plane completely destroyed itself in doing so as well.

This particular argument, that is, what the heck happened with Flt.175 anyway, has been done over and over, and I have no objection to that. Who am I to try to tell people what to talk about?

But . . . . . .

There is another aspect to the thread. That is that Peter Jennings knew that something fishy was going on with Flt.175, that all was not what it seemed. I think there is something to that. In another interview he did he seemed to be leaving the door open for as long as possible for a guest to conclude that the towers collapsed due to controlled demolition.

Jennings, unlike, say Bill O'Reilly for example, never put words into his guests' mouths. But you can tell sometimes that he's lingering spaciously waiting for an obvious conclusion to be stated.

Now . . . . .

For me to say that about Jennings, I am relying on my understanding of body language and vocal intonations. We all do that. We can tell when our wives are about to throw the frying pan at us or when our children are about to start wheedling something out of us. Most people would have no problem acknowledging that level of perception. To be aware of those types of things would not be considered EXTRA SENSORY perception.

Indulge me here . . . . .

A lot of people do believe in extra sensory perception. When I say a lot of people I don't just mean my grandmother, the strange lady down the street, cat owners, dog owners, Uncle Jack and the CIA. I mean real people like me and you. On the other hand, you can find people who do not believe in extra sensory perception. Granted. No argument from me.

Here's where it gets interesting . . . . .

Suppose something very strange happened on 911 in New York City. Suppose that explanations of this event seemed inadequate, leaving a lot of lingering questions that no-one was in any great hurry to address. Suppose that you had a serious interest in the true nature of what transpired on that day.

Suppose you were involved in a clandestine operation which came under the purview of one of numerous arcane national security groups, unknown to the general public. Suppose this was a remote viewing or psychic group of some sort. Suppose for personal reasons you decided to look into 911 psychically.

Suppose what you discovered left you extremely fearful and guarded and that you ceased to investigate the matter for that reason, almost as if you were walking in the jungle and came upon the fresh paw print of a lion and realized that your situation was so dangerous that you must act immediately to remove yourself from the area without taking time to actually verify that a lion was present.

No one would ever know what you knew. Imagine all the people who were close to the events of that day who are also not talking for exactly the same reason.

At the 45 to 55 sec. mark look above the mans head slightly to where the dark area sticks out a little and watch the light move around, (it's fast) and you will get a better look when they show it closer up at the 3:35 to like little under 3:50

reply to post by ipsedixit


I like the way you presented an argument. Indeed we are all skeptical at one time or another and have to rely on our personal observations of either our own senses (Eg. sight, sense of smell whatever) or through that of others. If we refute them so fast as to not give them a concrete look over, or at least get other ideas of the same magnitude in one setting to glance over them all, we are only bashing one really who believes something that the next person who comes in might believe as well and not know what is "proved"

Though I do wonder, when the towers we're hit and such and such happened why does it often take certain schools (Such as mine) so long to give out this information, many people went through a whole day in not knowing what was going on, and Apparently their was a plane that crashed in Ohio (I believe? still don't know the whole story to this day) but, if that is so; why did most of us in Ohio, not really hear about it as much? At least when it crashed and it really was only an hour or less (due to where my school was located) away from where I was, and I had heard nothing, about it at least until I got home from school and a friend had to inform me.

I guess the only "proof" some people will be getting is the cell phone calls and the piolets as well. Don't know, not sure.

(Hope people can understand the way I type; Being dyslexic sucks and having to transfer things from microsoft word to here all the time.)

Have any of you who claim it was not planes actually been inside or for that matter outside the WTC??? I have, tons of times, for many many years, the outside of the building was glass!!! So now the planes are suppose to bounce off glass? The metal "strips" between the buildings were thin. Maybe you should watch the making of the WTC and see how the construction was done. How about the eyewitness that was saved that was sitting in his office when the wing crashed through his side of the building and went over his head??? But lets ignore the facts and follow the ramblings of individuals who never produce any evidence of their theories of holograms or remonte controlled planes or alien aircraft, or anything else for that matter. Sorry I'll take the eyewitness accounts, the tons of amateur footage any day over the week over the ramblings of a self proclaimed jokster.

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
It violates Newton's 3rd Law of Motion for a plane to penetrate the building like that. Anyone content with believing that the video portrays a real event has seen too many special effect movies. (in other words, brainwashing)

I am not a physics professor but that is a video of a body in motion staying in motion. Furthermore " for every action there is a equal and opposite reaction" does not mean the plane would have bounced off the building. Back on topic, Peter Jennings knew the truth. He is watching the plane hit the building on video, thats the truth.

A friend of mine once jammed a straw into another guy's arm, penetrating all of the flesh until it struck bone. No damage was done to the straw; no bending, splitting, or creasing. A martial artist can punch through a slab of concrete, and his hand is completely unscathed. No scrapes, no broken bones, nothing. How does a weak object damage a comparatively stronger object and go through it without damaging itself?

There are three factors in play here. The first is compression, which prevents or decreases damage to the weak object. The second is concentration of force - specifically kinetic energy - which allows the weak object to damage the strong object. The third factor is momentum. This is what allows the striking object to continue travelling through its target.

Compression works because it occurs before either object recieves any damage. The instant one object strikes enother, both objects are compressed. In other words, the molecules comprising those objects are forced together. This increases the rigidity of both objects, therefor increasing their strength. The weaker object will benefit much more from compression than the strong object, because it was less rigid to begin with. A straw hits an arm and is not damaged because the impact is actually the source of its strength. A fist hits a slab of concrete and the bones do not break because they are compressed by the impact and become stronger. A plane experiences the same effect. Its molecules are compressed by the impact and it has enough rigidity to hold its strength, at least for a short time until the plane is well on its way into (and partially out the other side of) a building.

As the weak object is gaining strength from compression, concentration of force is where the target object loses its strength. The straw did not merely fall on some poor guys arm, it had the strength of my roommates arm being focused into it. The swinging motion of his arm backed by his muscular strength and focused into a tiny point was enough to break the skin of the person he stabbed with it. The martial artist moves every muscle in his body to strike the piece of cement. All of this movement focuses the strength of his entire body down his arm and into just two knuckles: his first index knuckle and first middle knuckle. With so much force concentrated into just a small part of that "strong" cement, destruction of the target is inevitable. And the jet? The weight of the jet combined with the thrust of the jet engines is focused into the nosecone. Where this nosecone makes initial contact is just a few inches wide - that's a lot of thrust in an area the size of a basketball! This is how the plane smashes its way into the building; it is concentrating its force, the building is not. Had the plane struck a corner, the result might have been quite different.

The third factor, as I said, is momentum. The straw had enough momentum to go through all of the target's flesh until it hit bone, which absorbed the remainder of its kinetic energy and stopped the straw. The fist of the martial artist doesn't merely crack the concrete slab and bounce off, it breaks the whole way through it. Why? Because its momentum is taking it through the target, while the target has gained momentum in a direction which weakens it - half the concrete is going left, half is going right. Result? The fist comes out the other side, in many demonstrations with enough force remaining to take it through several more slabs of concrete. The plane does the same thing! It benefits from its momentum to continue travelling through the building, with a big chunk of it coming out the other side.

I hope this sheds some light on the debate of whether or not a huge jet plane can damage a building by crashing into it at hundreds of miles per hour. For our next debate, we will argue for over half a decade about whether or not an egg will break if you shoot it with an elephant gun.

Originally posted by mattifikation
A friend of mine once jammed a straw into another guy's arm, penetrating all of the flesh until it struck bone. No damage was done to the straw; no bending, splitting, or creasing. A martial artist can punch through a slab of concrete, and his hand is completely unscathed. No scrapes, no broken bones, nothing. How does a weak object damage a comparatively stronger object and go through it without damaging itself?

There are three factors in play here. The first is compression, which prevents or decreases damage to the weak object. The second is concentration of force - specifically kinetic energy - which allows the weak object to damage the strong object. The third factor is momentum. This is what allows the striking object to continue travelling through its target.

Compression works because it occurs before either object recieves any damage. The instant one object strikes enother, both objects are compressed. In other words, the molecules comprising those objects are forced together. This increases the rigidity of both objects, therefor increasing their strength. The weaker object will benefit much more from compression than the strong object, because it was less rigid to begin with. A straw hits an arm and is not damaged because the impact is actually the source of its strength. A fist hits a slab of concrete and the bones do not break because they are compressed by the impact and become stronger. A plane experiences the same effect. Its molecules are compressed by the impact and it has enough rigidity to hold its strength, at least for a short time until the plane is well on its way into (and partially out the other side of) a building.

As the weak object is gaining strength from compression, concentration of force is where the target object loses its strength. The straw did not merely fall on some poor guys arm, it had the strength of my roommates arm being focused into it. The swinging motion of his arm backed by his muscular strength and focused into a tiny point was enough to break the skin of the person he stabbed with it. The martial artist moves every muscle in his body to strike the piece of cement. All of this movement focuses the strength of his entire body down his arm and into just two knuckles: his first index knuckle and first middle knuckle. With so much force concentrated into just a small part of that "strong" cement, destruction of the target is inevitable. And the jet? The weight of the jet combined with the thrust of the jet engines is focused into the nosecone. Where this nosecone makes initial contact is just a few inches wide - that's a lot of thrust in an area the size of a basketball! This is how the plane smashes its way into the building; it is concentrating its force, the building is not. Had the plane struck a corner, the result might have been quite different.

The third factor, as I said, is momentum. The straw had enough momentum to go through all of the target's flesh until it hit bone, which absorbed the remainder of its kinetic energy and stopped the straw. The fist of the martial artist doesn't merely crack the concrete slab and bounce off, it breaks the whole way through it. Why? Because its momentum is taking it through the target, while the target has gained momentum in a direction which weakens it - half the concrete is going left, half is going right. Result? The fist comes out the other side, in many demonstrations with enough force remaining to take it through several more slabs of concrete. The plane does the same thing! It benefits from its momentum to continue travelling through the building, with a big chunk of it coming out the other side.

I hope this sheds some light on the debate of whether or not a huge jet plane can damage a building by crashing into it at hundreds of miles per hour. For our next debate, we will argue for over half a decade about whether or not an egg will break if you shoot it with an elephant gun.

FINALLY!!!! A voice of reason. Great explanation, now of course you do realize that you are going to be attacked and every person who every sat through freshman biology is going to debunk your theory.