Title: Field McConnell - Boeing Uninterruptible Auto Pilot Used On 9/11 Planes, Impossible To Hijack! Source:
[None] URL Source:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5NnBQJ5at4 Published:Jan 24, 2015 Author:staff Post Date:2015-01-24 14:13:06 by Horse Keywords:None Views:11167 Comments:402
We just had a guy crash an A320 in to a mountain side @ cruising speed in a controlled descent...he had 600 hours
Yeah, he CRASHED into the side of a mountain, which is pretty hard to miss.
The ground floor of the Pentagon is a much smaller target, and is MUCH closer to the ground, and if you eliminate the choice of DIVING into it, but instead FLY into it with the nose level, well, that's pretty much impossible for a large commercial airliner.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
This site is lucky if it gets 50 different views a day beyond a random web hit...you're an anonymous clown who has absolutely no clue about what it is that you purport to *talk* about...but, yea...government time, resources and money are being spent to discredit you...
So war is your real name? Talk about anonymous! If the government did hire you then they are getting a bad deal, but then again the government is use to wasting taxpayer money. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature can see those buildings did not come down the way they did due to the plane impacts and fires alone. I don't usually respond to you because you are pretty much a waste of time.
You're assuming that the only damage to the Pentagon walls were made by the pane and not from collapse or fire...
That's a faulty assumption...
Dude, you really really are dense. Seriously, have you ever had your IQ measured? I cannot imagine that it's above 100. Seriously.
You're so stupid that in your response you completely ignore, once again, the pic that I posted showing the f'ing building in its pre-collapse phase.
Whether you personally choose to post like a stupid fuck or whether you're simply too stupid for your own polemical good notwithstanding, you're a fool and a moron.
You're also extremely dishonest and disingenuous, clearly, which is why people think you're a government employee. You match most of the criteria, certainly all of the critical ones.
Please do not make me put you on ignore with further idiocy, willful ignornace, and further proof that you are indeed an ignoramus!
Honestly, is it even possible for someone that can express themself in writing so well be so fucking stupid? Honestly, run for federal office, that's exactly where you belong, with the rest of the ignorant lying pigs with agendas that are counter to the interests of the people. Why do you even post here? Your posts are like a turd on top of a hot fudge sunday here.
I'm going to respond only to the part of your post that is spittle free:
the pic that I posted showing the f'ing building in its pre-collapse phase.
A context that you neither provided nor established when you posted that cropped, out of focus, mostly darkened, very small picture with the box on it.
Anyone with an IQ above room temperature can see those buildings did not come down the way they did due to the plane impacts and fires alone.
Anyone with eyes can see whatever it is that they want to see.
BTW, gravity helped, too.
Get a 10 foot length of 1x6 and score the board about 3/8 x 3/8 4nches from both ends and dead center...suspend the board at the ends only and put a 100lb weight in the middle...
The ground floor of the Pentagon is a much smaller target, and is MUCH closer to the ground, and if you eliminate the choice of DIVING into it, but instead FLY into it with the nose level, well, that's pretty much impossible for a large commercial airliner.
That planes have been hijacked before doesn't mean they were that day
If they weren't hijacked why did they not reach their destination?
You omitted a considerable part of my statement there at #96, which was: "in the conventional sense of terrorist pilots aboard commandeering the aircraft."
A scene from the latest presentation by Pilots For 9/11 Truth - SKYGATE 911. Visit http://pilotsfor911truth.org for full film and comprehensive analysis produced by professional aviators. Thank you for your support!
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
YOU posted a photo and gave no context whatsoever for it.
YOU posted a photo with contrasts that are barely distinguishable.
YOU posted a photo that is barely in focus.
YOU posted a photo that has a small square around a BLACKENED INDISTINGUISHABLE area on the photo.
YOU then pretended that you can actually *see* something in that BLACKENED INDISTINGUISHABLE area.
YOU are trying to claim that this photo *proves* that the plane that people saw fly into the Pentagon and which took out several light poles, including one that hit a vehicle with a driver who saw the plane you claim does not exist, was not really a plane.
But it's me who's *dishonest* and *stupid*.
"IF I say I am floating off of the floor...and you say that I am floating off of the floor...then who is to argue that I am not floating off of the floor."
O'Brien to Winston Smith, 1984
You may be O'Brien but I ain't Winston Smith, pumpkin...
Didn't you say elsewhere that the upper floors angularly toppled over rather than falling directly downward? -- which would be less weight on the floors below.
No. As they fell they began to tilt....as is clearly indicated on the videos...
Here's a pic from a CT site so it will have credibility in your *mind*:
In fact, it tilted for a number of reasons not the least of which was because the damage to the supporting columns was not uniformly horizontal...another annoying fact that the controlled demolition crowd cannot accept...
Note also the visible fire...which FormerLurker claims were *out*....
You at #139: "referring to a source as proof of *fact* is illogical...it's called *circular*"
...unless it's posted by you and then it's merely more like...loopy. A 9/11 CT [Conspiracy Theory] site, imo, would be an official story dispensary -- i.e. the most illogical sort. I didn't ask about why the floors tilted or the visiblity of fire, which is questionable as such in your pic and is better evidence of the much huger absence of raging fires. Tilted...toppled, either way it would be less weight on the floors below, as I said. So, since you didn't have a counterpoint to speak of, how about you try to explain other things of gravitas for us like the lack of significantly visible smoke damage to the Towers from the blasts and sooty burnings. Were their exterior surfaces made of teflon or something like that, do you think? And the first Tower that fell without significanly damaging the one next to it, as it did others farther away. How'd that happen? What of all that indestructible paper debris which didn't spontaneously combust in the high-temperatures you claim weakened the steel? Shouldn't WTC 7 have fallen quicker than the Towers, smaller as it was with less steel to heat up -- or what's the difference between WTC 7 steel and the Towers? That'll do for now as my short-list presently re: 9/11 Laws of Physics anomalies. Awaiting your input.
Edited spelling + comment sentences 2 and 6.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Tilted...toppled, either way it would be less weight on the floors below, as I said..
...and ignoring the direct effect of gravity as you did so...
So, since you didn't have a counterpoint to speak of, how about you try to explain other things of gravitas for us like the lack of significantly visible smoke damage to the Towers from the blasts and sooty burnings.
Stipulating, for the moment, that is true...
So freakin' what if there were no stains on the aluminum?
Is it your claim that there was no visible smoke?
And the first Tower that fell without (significantly) damaging the one next to it, as it did others farther away.
A) Where's your evidence for that?
B) The South Tower was closer to the Banker's Trust building which, was directly across Liberty Street, than it was to the North Tower...IIRC, the South Tower actually collapsed in the direction of the SW and took out the Banker's Trust Building and the Winter Garden of the WFC.
What of all that indestructible paper debris which didn't spontaneously combust in the high-temperatures you claim weakened the steel?
When the North Tower was impacted and I looked out the window from my vantage point in the northwest corner of 1 Liberty, it was like a ticker tape parade and some of the papers that were fluttering were singed...I remember one piece of paper hitting the window right before my nose that had a FUJI BANK letterhead.
As for your question...unless you were in the tower in the very area of the fire, you have no way of telling me what was or wasn't on fire...
Shouldn't WTC 7 have fallen quicker than the Towers...
Gravity affects all objects equally...the construction of WTC7 and WTC1 and 2 were not the same.
Then show us all the videos of a 757 flying straight into the ground floor of the Pentagon. Go ahead, call your FBI buddies and have them post those videos on YouTube.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
I have no idea what I am supposed to be looking at here...there is no data provided...it's simply a narrator saying that according to him the data is 3000 feet off...
110 stories tall [each Tower, not counting the WTC 1 antenna]
WTC 1. American Airlines Flight 11 ... North Tower ... northern façade ... between the 93rd and 99th floors [6 total, slanted] ... at 8:46 AM
WTC 2. United Airlines Flight 175 ... South Tower ... southern façade ... between the 77th and 85th floors [9 total, off-centered] ... at 9:03 AM
At 9:59 a.m., the South Tower [struck 2nd] collapsed [1st] after burning for approximately 56 minutes. ... The North Tower [struck 1st] collapsed [2nd] at 10:28 a.m., after burning for approximately 102 minutes.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
the question is asked, “Why doesn’t Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster make any direct connection with the events of September 11, 2001?” The FBI says on its Bin Laden web page that Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. According to the FBI, these attacks killed over 200 people. The FBI concludes its reason for “wanting” Bin Laden by saying, “In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorists attacks throughout the world.” ... Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. ... on June 5, 2006, FBI spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb said, “The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.” ... should be headline news worldwide.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Then show us all the videos of a 757 flying straight into the ground floor of the Pentagon.
So because the FBI won't release the video of people dying it has to have been a missile...
Is that your logic?
Mickey Bell
Singleton Electric was the Wedge One electrical contractor and had just completed some punch-list work in wedge (one of five) when at 9:45 a.m. (EDT) American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the western wall of Pentagon with 64 passengers and crew aboard. The jet, which had just taken off from Dulles Airport en route to Los Angles, set the world´s largest office building ablaze between the first and second wedges.
The jet came in from the south and banked left as it entered the building, narrowly missing the Singleton Electric trailer and the on-site foreman, Mickey Bell. Bell had just left the trailer when he heard a loud noise. The next thing he recalled was picking himself off the floor, where he had been thrown by the blast.
Bell, who had been less than 100 feet from the initial impact of the plane, was nearly struck by one of the plane´s wings as it sped by him. In shock, he got into his truck, which had been parked in the trailer compound, and sped away. He wandered around Arlington in his truck and tried to make wireless phone calls. He ended up back at Singleton´s headquarters in Gaithersburg two hours later, according to President Singleton, not remembering much. The full impact of the closeness of the crash wasn´t realized until coworkers noticed damage to Bell´s work vehicle. He had plastic and rivets from an airplane imbedded in its sheet metal, but Bell had no idea what had happened. National Electrical Contractors Association, September 13 2001
Richard Benedetto was in his car on his way to work, stuck in traffic just outside the Pentagon. He was listening -- in horror -- to an account of what had just happened at the World Trade Center in New York. "Then the plane flew right over my head. I said to myself, boy, that plane is going awfully fast," Benedetto said. "That plane is going to crash." The jet knocked over several light posts before it smashed into the Pentagon. Other observers said it seemed to come in full throttle with no attempt to slow down. "The noise was like an artillery shell, not an explosion like a bomb," Benedetto said. Then he saw a giant billow of smoke followed by a huge fireball, presumably the exploding fuel from the crashed plane. "You couldn't even see the building because there was so much smoke," said Benedetto. Hartford Courant, September 12, 2001
"I heard an airplane. A very loud airplane. ... I heard the airplane coming from behind me. ... So I looked up, and I saw this airplane coming, heading straight down toward the ground. It was an American Airlines airplane, I could see it very clearly. ... The plane went down and for a split second it was out of my line of vision because there was a bridge there and a hill. ... I didn't actually see the impact... I didn't see any flaps, it looked like the plane was just in a normal flying mode but heading straight down, sharply down. It was straight. No flopping. It was going pretty straight. ... The only thing we saw on the ground outside there was a piece of a - the tail of a lamp post."Quoted here
Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head. "It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane," Mr Campo said. "I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here." The Guardian, September 12 2001
Why don't you look up quotes from Elmer Fudd while you're at it.
I don't care what some yokel has to say, I want you to find those videos of a 757 flying straight into the ground floor of the Pentagon. Now go find them.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
So because the FBI won't release the video of people dying it has to have been a missile...
HUGE BS. The videos of the South Tower impact has been broadcast thousands upon thousands of times, AND are available on YouTube for anyone to watch over and over again.
ANYONE with at least half a brain cell knows that IF those VDOT and Pentagon surveillance videos actually DID show a 757 flying into the Pentagon, we would have seen them thousands upon thousands of times by now.
It's rather incredible that you try to use that lame excuse, the "FBI doesn't want to show people dying".
Your writers need better material.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
The videos of the South Tower impact has been broadcast thousands upon thousands of times, AND are available on YouTube for anyone to watch over and over again.
I'm just a-guessin' and a-ruminatin' here but maybe that is because every available TV and video camera in NYC was trained on the Towers?
Right...why take the word of the hundreds who saw the plane
Anyone can write or say anything they want, whether it's true or false. Additionally, there are NOT "hundreds" who "saw the plane", rather there are perhaps 20 or 30 who have made statements that they witnessed the alleged airliner.
In fact, there are strong indications that there were actually TWO aircraft, one which did in fact appear to be an airliner, and then there are reports of a smaller jet flying "like a missile". The reports indicate two different approach paths to the Pentagon, leading to the possibility that the airliner flew OVER the Pentagon while the smaller aircraft actually hit it.
There is actually one witness who claims to have seen the aircraft "cartwheel" on the Pentagon lawn, which I HOPE you know is both impossible and untrue.
So to eliminate any confusion, go ahead and ask the FBI for those videos so that we can see what did actually happen.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
Anyone can write or say anything they want, whether it's true or false.
A fact I am reminded of when I read your posts.
Additionally, there are NOT "hundreds" who "saw the plane", rather there are perhaps 20 or 30 who have made statements that they witnessed the alleged airliner.
There is actually one witness who claims to have seen the aircraft "cartwheel" on the Pentagon lawn, which I HOPE you know is both impossible and untrue.
Here's his full statement:
David Marra, 23, an information-technology specialist, had turned his BMW off an I-395 exit to the highway just west of the Pentagon when he saw an American Airlines jet swooping in, its wings wobbly, looking like it was going to slam right into the Pentagon: "It was 50 ft. off the deck when he came in. It sounded like the pilot had the throttle completely floored. The plane rolled left and then rolled right. Then he caught an edge of his wing on the ground." There is a helicopter pad right in front of the side of the Pentagon. The wing touched there, then the plane cartwheeled into the building.
There is a helicopter pad right in front of the side of the Pentagon. The wing touched there, then the plane cartwheeled into the building.
Which is pure fantasy, since the lawn was untouched, the aircraft did not cartwheel, and if it did (which it couldn't do unless it were flying at a 90 degree angle and at a MUCH lower speed) it would have never entered the Pentagon as it would have been shredded to pieces BEFORE reaching it, AND there would have been jet fuel and debris spread all over the lawn and OVER the Pentagon.
Goes to show you can't trust tales coming from so-called "eyewitnesses" when there is a "national security" operation in progress.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
Well how exactly do you claim it to have cartwheeled if it didn't hit the ground?
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
titorite at #91: how come the.tower that was hit second fell first?
You at #92: Greater weight of the upper floors...
Me at #98: Didn't you say elsewhere that the upper floors angularly toppled over rather than falling directly downward? -- which would be less weight on the floors below.
Your non-counterpoint at #102: No. As they fell they began to tilt....as is clearly indicated on the videos... [Pic link] ...In fact, it tilted for a number of reasons not the least of which was because the damage to the supporting columns was not uniformly horizontal...another annoying fact that the controlled demolition crowd cannot accept...
Me at #189: Tilted...toppled, either way it would be less weight on the floors below, as I said.
You at #193: ...and ignoring the direct effect of gravity as you did so...
You again at #193: Gravity affects all objects equally...the construction of WTC7 and WTC1 and 2 were not the same.
Me as quoted by you at #193: Shouldn't WTC 7 have fallen quicker than the Towers...
[Re-insertingthe full context of my question regarding alleged burn-time duration to weaken the steel to the point of alleged structural failure -- not how long it took for WTC 7 to crumple to the ground in a heap when it started to fall, as compared to the time it took the Towers to crumble to the ground, somewhat, while largely floating away:
...smaller as it was with less steel to heat up -- or what's the difference between WTC 7 steel and the Towers?]
Your gravitational-sameness oversimplification that the Tower which was hit second fell first simply because of a higher upper-floors weight-differential there (even though much of the weight was in the process of tilting overward for some length of time and so lessening strain on the floors below while doing that) has ignored those factors and every other structural issue involved which would scientifically indicate that it shouldn't have fallen first. [Ref. floors data at #196]
For now, just try to address what you think the chemical difference would be between Tower steel and WTC 7 steel, since the more compact space at WTC 7 allegedly could withstand hours of supposedly "intense" fire but the Towers that had to be structurally sturdy enough for their size to meet rather intenser building codes didn't. Address any pre-planned demolition docs that likely had to be submitted for all 3 of the highest WTC buildings before any of them were approved to be built, too, please, if you're aware of such.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
So, since you didn't have a counterpoint to speak of, how about you try to explain other things of gravitas for us like So, since you didn't have a counterpoint to speak of, how about you try to explain other things of gravitas for us like the lack of significantly visible smoke damage to the Towers from the blasts and sooty burnings.
Stipulating, for the moment, that is true...
So freakin' what if there were no stains on the aluminum?
Is it your claim that there was no visible smoke?
No, my claim wasn't about no visible smoke. It was about the lack of significantly visible smoke damages to the Towers.
Edited formatting.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
