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: 11438
Comments: 402

Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 213.
#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
#98. To: war (#92) (Edited)
how come the.tower that was hit second fell first?

Greater weight of the upper floors...

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.
Comparing the Towers to steel box beams and the alleged impact zones as similar to the first deconstruction dismantling-step of material removal to make segments of a beam topple over, a welder could take out triangular parts on each side of that space, pointed towards the back like this: < > and it likely still wouldn't slant forward that far up and topple off until they stepped around to the back area and blowtorched it across from one triangular point to the other.
Edited for a word replacement.

GreyLmist posted on 2015-04-01 18:18:36 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#102. To: GreyLmist, FormerLurker (#98) (Edited)
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*....

war posted on 2015-04-02 7:24:51 ET (1 image) Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#189. To: war (#102) (Edited)
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*:
Tower tilt pic
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.

GreyLmist posted on 2015-04-03 9:14:55 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#193. To: GreyLmist (#189) (Edited)
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.

war posted on 2015-04-03 9:48:28 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#213. To: war, titorite (#193)
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-inserting the 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.

GreyLmist posted on 2015-04-03 15:35:03 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
Replies to Comment # 213.
#219. To: GreyLmist (#213)
Your gravitational-sameness oversimplification...

I've put this challenge forth before...score a couple of 1x4s in several places and then support it on the ends and suspend the middle...put a 50'lb weight on one and a 100bln weight on the other and then bounce the boards slightly...which one breaks first.
This basic test underscores how what you folks try to promote stands at stark odds with reality...
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 WTC7
Can you point out wherein I made this argument regarding the *chemical* differences in steel between the structures.
Thanks...

war posted on 2015-04-06 06:56:59 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
End Trace Mode for Comment # 213.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um