4um: Field McConnell - Boeing Uninterruptible Auto Pilot Used On 9/11 Planes, Impossible To Hijack!

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
9/11
See other 9/11 Articles
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: 11463
Comments: 402

Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 212.
#2. To: Horse (#0) (Edited)
Nothing is uninterruptible, expect maybe a nuclear reaction. They definitely were "hijacked" in a sense because they never reached their destinations and they most definitely didn't hit the towers due to not physically being able to stay together at the recorded speeds the planes were flying at when they hit the towers at basically sea level.

RickyJ posted on 2015-01-24 16:18:47 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#81. To: RickyJ (#2)
They definitely were "hijacked" in a sense because they never reached their destinations...

CTers usually prefer to state that the planes were *diverted* to a place or places *unknown*...congrats...you may be on the road to recovery...

war posted on 2015-04-01 9:20:34 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#83. To: war (#81) (Edited)
CTers

The official story is a ridiculous Conspiracy Theory, war, that admittedly would be unacceptable by court standards of integrity and is why the invasion of Afghanistan was launched instead -- which makes you and others arrogantly promoting it fanatic Conspiracy Theorists in denial.
Edited for capitalization and punctuation + word insert.

GreyLmist posted on 2015-04-01 14:39:49 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#84. To: GreyLmist (#83) (Edited)
The official story is a ridiculous conspiracy theory...

Yea...never have planes been hijacked...nor been used as missiles...a massive explosion and collision don't result in massive damage...10's of thousands of gallons of a volatile accelerant doesn't cause significant fires when introduced, ignited, in to a fuel rich environment doesn't result in fires of any significance and, my personal favorite, gravity doesn't *work* in a direct fashion but in a circuitous one...i.e. a falling object doesn't fall straight down...
PS: If we were going to bomb any nation over a pipeline in that region it would have been Russia...

war posted on 2015-04-01 15:03:46 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#85. To: war, GreyLmist (#84)
10's of thousands of gallons of a volatile accelerant doesn't cause significant fires when introduced,
MOST of which burnt up OUTSIDE the towers, and what was left burned for only several minutes before being spent.
ignited, in to a fuel rich environment doesn't result in fires of any significance
Sure there were OFFICE fires, but they burned for less than an hour, and as the towers acted as HUGE heatsinks, there's no possible way for temperatures to have reached anywhere close enough to weaken steel.
and, my personal favorite, gravity doesn't *work* in a direct fashion but in a circuitous one...i.e. a falling object doesn't fall straight down...
Gravity doesn't pull you through the floor you're standing on now does it? Are you travelling through the core of the earth as we speak, or is the floor you're standing on remaining in place?

FormerLurker posted on 2015-04-01 15:28:00 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#88. To: FormerLurker (#85)
Sure there were OFFICE fires, but they burned for less than an hour

Duh...
South Tower hit @ 9:03 AM...collapses @ 9:59 AM...56 minutes...less than an hour...
Congrats...you finally stated something *truthful*...

war posted on 2015-04-01 15:44:20 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#91. To: war (#88)
how come the.tower that was hit second fell first?

titorite posted on 2015-04-01 16:12:56 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#92. To: titorite (#91)
how come the.tower that was hit second fell first?

Greater weight of the upper floors...

war posted on 2015-04-01 16:18:56 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#95. To: war (#92)
thats not a very good guess if you are.trying to argue fire as the cause. see when the second tower allegedly got hit the big fire ball we all saw was supposed to be all the fuel burning outside. see the first tower allegedly got a direct hit putting most of the.fuel into the.building BUT the.second tkwer was a corner hit distrubuting most of.the.fuel into the air .
so if you wanna say fire caused it and tbat it fell first because it had more weight on a fire weakened load... thats fine....
can you tell me what floor the impact was on in both buildings?

titorite posted on 2015-04-01 16:40:58 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#105. To: titorite (#95)
thats not a very good guess

Good thing that I'm not guessing then but merely stating fact which is ALWAYS good.
if you are.trying to argue fire as the cause. see when the second tower allegedly got hit the big fire ball we all saw was supposed to be all the fuel burning outside
Uh...no...about 15% of the fuel burned outside...
can you tell me what floor the impact was on in both buildings?
North Tower...90-100...center impact ~95
South...75-85...center impact ~78...

war posted on 2015-04-02 8:02:56 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#112. To: war (#105)
the south tower was not a.direct impact not even according the the governments nist offical story. it was alleged to be an indirwct corner impact.
i think you may care more about arguing and less about facts.

titorite posted on 2015-04-02 10:46:44 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#113. To: titorite (#112) (Edited)
the south tower was not a.direct impact not even according the the governments nist offical story. it was alleged to be an indirwct corner impact.

The plane hit the tower...that makes it a *direct* hit...for it to be an *indirect* hit it would have had to have hit something *else* first...where it directly hit is inconsequential...
You're trying to pick gnat shit out of pepper, outdoors, in the winter...

war posted on 2015-04-02 10:51:59 ET (1 image) Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#116. To: All (#113)

I'm sorry, but anyone that thinks that a plane came in at a vertical angle, entirely disappeared through that hole, then through several other walls at a no angle, i.e. horizontal to the ground, is either a moron or a willing dupe/willful ignoramus. There is no other alternative.

Katniss posted on 2015-04-02 10:59:02 ET (1 image) Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#120. To: Katniss (#116)
then through several other walls at a no angle, i.e. horizontal to the ground

Which way do you want it...vertically or horizontally? I ask because your statements are wholly incongruous to each other...
Any plane going from inflight to the ground is following a vertical flight path...for any object to hit one object and then continue through that object to impact an object existing on a horizontal plane directly behind that object would have to be, at some point, traveling horizontally...that's basic geometry...

war posted on 2015-04-02 11:22:47 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#122. To: war (#120)
So how do you explain how a large heavy aircraft such as a 757 could be flown at over 500 mph while at ground level, its engines 3 feet off the ground, and enter the ground floor for the Pentagon while flying level, not touching the lawn on its way?
Do you not see a major problem with that?

FormerLurker posted on 2015-04-02 11:54:30 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#127. To: FormerLurker (#122)
So how do you explain how a large heavy aircraft such as a 757 could be flown at over 500 mph while at ground level, its engines 3 feet off the ground, and enter the ground floor for the Pentagon while flying level, not touching the lawn on its way?

It was piloted. That's how. At some point, any plane that is landing is 3 feet off the ground...
Occam's Razor...

war posted on 2015-04-02 12:40:25 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#130. To: war (#127)
It was piloted. That's how. At some point, any plane that is landing is 3 feet off the ground...

Uh huh. Do you know anything about aerodynamics?
To descend and land, a plane must SLOW DOWN by reducing power. To lose altitude without reducing power, the ONLY way a plane can descend is by putting the nose down and DIVING.
What is especially convincing that NO 757 in the WORLD could fly at over 500 mph several feet off the ground is a phenomenon known as ground effect, where the closer an aircraft is to the ground, the more LIFT it experiences.
More LIFT equates to the plane ASCENDING, UNLESS the plane is flying SLOW enough where the total amount of lift is less than the weight of the plane.
There is NO possible way for a large aircraft to fly level at a speed anywhere CLOSE to 500 mph that close to the ground.

FormerLurker posted on 2015-04-02 12:49:07 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#137. To: FormerLurker (#130)
To descend and land, a plane must SLOW DOWN by reducing power. To lose altitude without reducing power, the ONLY way a plane can descend is by putting the nose down and DIVING.

Well...that's plain BS as well...a plane can be at full power and stall...lift is a function of wind flow and air pressure created above and below the wings...at take off, a 757 pilot would lower the *flaps* so that the wing is curved...thrust, i.e. the forward movement, creates air flow and since air is forced over the wing...air pressure builds UNDER the wing to a point where it *lifts* the plane...
AS for landing...a plane descends and lands by creating drag...usually by deploying its flaps...but to maintain a steady decent, a pilot must adjust the power UPWARD when he increases drag...it's why you hear the louder *WHINE* of the engines when a plane if landing...
Have someone explain basic aerodynamics to you...I learned them 40 years ago in 11th grade...

war posted on 2015-04-02 13:10:00 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#144. To: war (#137) (Edited)
Well...that's plain BS as well...a plane can be at full power and stall...lift is a function of wind flow and air pressure created above and below the wings...at take off, a 757 pilot would lower the *flaps* so that the wing is curved...thrust, i.e. the forward movement, creates air flow and since air is forced over the wing...air pressure builds UNDER the wing to a point where it *lifts* the plane...
AS for landing...a plane descends and lands by creating drag...usually by deploying its flaps...but to maintain a steady decent, a pilot must adjust the power UPWARD when he increases drag...it's why you hear the louder *WHINE* of the engines when a plane if landing...

Total fail..
First off, lift is created by air flowing OVER the upper CURVED area of the wing, and since it needs to travel over more area than the flat lower surface, the air pressure is lower above the wing than below it, cause the wing to LIFT the plane.
As far as how a plane descends, in a controlled descent at least, power is REDUCED in order to reduce air speed, decreasing the air flow over the wing causing a reduction in lift.
Flaps are used to INCREASE lift, not reduce it. They are used at take-off to allow the plane to take-off at a lower speed than it would be travelling at altitude, and to safely land at a lower speed.
Flaps are NOT used to "slow the plane down by creating drag". And the pilot does NOT increase power at landing, he REVERSES the engine thrust AFTER landing in order to help reduce the speed of the aircraft in order to safely taxi to the terminal and not overshoot the runway.
Have someone explain basic aerodynamics to you...I learned them 40 years ago in 11th grade...
If I were you I'd sue the school you went to for a full refund.

FormerLurker posted on 2015-04-02 13:58:54 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#153. To: FormerLurker (#144)
As far as how a plane descends, in a controlled descent at least, power is REDUCED in order to reduce air speed, decreasing the air flow over the wing causing a reduction in lift.

I'll cut to the chase here because you obviously *think* you can simply rephrase what it is that you *think* you've read on Wikipedia...
Your first mistake is equating power and speed...they are two different things and are affected by whatever forces or configurations affect drag...
Secondly, there would have been no reason for a pilot, in flight, to reverse his engines but it does underscore your continued need to introduce strawmen in to the argument...
Thirdly. sit by the window the next time that you fly...as the pilot descends through 20 down to 10, you will see him/her begin to deploy flaps and as s/he begins his/her final approach, s/he will be at full flaps...pay attention to the engines as those flaps are deployed, you will hear them power UP to compensate for the increased drag caused by the flaps...

war posted on 2015-04-02 14:35:59 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#161. To: war (#153)
Your first mistake is equating power and speed...they are two different things and are affected by whatever forces or configurations affect drag...
So in YOUR mind, a pilot increases engine power to SLOW DOWN, eh? LOL!!!!

Secondly, there would have been no reason for a pilot, in flight, to reverse his engines but it does underscore your continued need to introduce strawmen in to the argument...
It's apparent your grasp of the English language is sub-standard, even for a government shill. I said they use thrust reversal after LANDING.

Thirdly. sit by the window the next time that you fly...as the pilot descends through 20 down to 10, you will see him/her begin to deploy flaps and as s/he begins his/her final approach, s/he will be at full flaps...pay attention to the engines as those flaps are deployed, you will hear them power UP to compensate for the increased drag caused by the flaps...
Hey genius, if they did in fact "power up" the air speed would increase and the flaps would rip off.
It's obvious you've never flown a real (or virtual) aircraft, ever.

FormerLurker posted on 2015-04-02 15:45:16 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#165. To: FormerLurker (#161)
So in YOUR mind, a pilot increases engine power to SLOW DOWN, eh? LOL!!!!

I have absolutely no idea how you could have *concluded* that based upon what was written by me.
Congrats...you've finally *stumped* me.
It's apparent your grasp of the English language is sub-standard, even for a government shill. I said they use thrust reversal after LANDING.
I know what you *said*. My response was that this was irrelevant information...you could have also typed "and when they arrive at the gate and the equipment comes to a complete stop and the captain double dings the flight attendant opens the cabin door.." which, of course, is correct but has nothing to do with the topic of FLYING...
Hey genius, if they did in fact "power up" the air speed would increase and the flaps would rip off.
You're out of your mind...again you are confusing POWER with speed...or maybe you're just fully confused...

war posted on 2015-04-02 16:12:45 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#172. To: war (#165)
So in YOUR universe, it is quite easy to fly a 757 at 500 mph with your engines 3 feet off the ground, after dropping from a higher altitude seconds earlier, without diving nose first into the ground, eh?

FormerLurker posted on 2015-04-02 16:54:04 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#174. To: FormerLurker (#172)
So in YOUR universe, it is quite easy to fly a 757 at 500 mph with your engines 3 feet off the ground, after dropping from a higher altitude seconds earlier, without diving nose first into the ground, eh?

We just had a guy crash an A320 in to a mountain side @ cruising speed in a controlled descent...he had 600 hours...

war posted on 2015-04-02 16:58:22 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#177. To: war (#174)
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.

FormerLurker posted on 2015-04-02 17:12:28 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#183. To: FormerLurker (#177)
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.

Apparently, not.

war posted on 2015-04-03 7:58:04 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#194. To: war (#183)
Apparently, not.

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.

FormerLurker posted on 2015-04-03 10:10:10 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#200. To: FormerLurker (#194)
Omar Campo

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

war posted on 2015-04-03 10:40:20 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#201. To: war (#200)
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.

FormerLurker posted on 2015-04-03 10:44:45 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#202. To: FormerLurker (#201)
I don't care what some yokel has to say,

Right...why take the word of the hundreds who saw the plane when you can focus on something nonsensical.

war posted on 2015-04-03 10:49:23 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#205. To: war (#202)
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.

FormerLurker posted on 2015-04-03 10:56:03 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#206. To: FormerLurker (#205)
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.
Geezus...
911rese arch.wtc7.net/pent...dence/witnesses/bart.html
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.

war posted on 2015-04-03 11:09:11 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#207. To: war (#206)
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.

FormerLurker posted on 2015-04-03 11:18:00 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#208. To: FormerLurker (#207)
He didn't state that it hit the lawn.
Stick to what was said...not how you care to contort it...

war posted on 2015-04-03 11:35:20 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#212. To: war (#208)
He didn't state that it hit the lawn.

Well how exactly do you claim it to have cartwheeled if it didn't hit the ground?

FormerLurker posted on 2015-04-03 12:41:25 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
Replies to Comment # 212.
#220. To: FormerLurker (#212)
Well how exactly do you claim it to have cartwheeled if it didn't hit the ground?

He stated exactly where he believed that it hit. He stated exactly what he thought the aircraft did.
You and someone else chose to misstate what he said...his words stand for what they are...
If you would have asked me @ 10 after 9 where I *thought* the second plane had hit I would have stated much lower than where it did hit. When I reached the Battery Park area around 9:20 and I saw the South Face of the South Tower I was a bit surprised that the entry point was as high as it was...

war posted on 2015-04-06 07:01:32 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
End Trace Mode for Comment # 212.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um