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:11294 Comments:402
Your assertion that the collapsing South Tower caused damages to buildings around it is irrelevant to that issue except that it reinforces the anomaly of it visibly only being as impactful as a huge powder puff on the North Tower.
If that is the *truth* then you should have no problem providing supporting evidence for it...
I've already done that here 3 times: at #73, #237 and #247. Your problem, not mine, if that example isn't good enough for you. Nobody else is complaining.
Your assertion that the collapsing South Tower caused damages to buildings around it is irrelevant...
Says you for no reason other than you felt like typing...
Says you and your assertion about damages from the collapsing South Tower to buildings around it still remains irrelevant except as reinforcement for the anomalous lack of significant damage from it to the North Tower.
Edited formatting and spelling.
-------
"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
I've already done that here 3 times: at #73, #237 and #247. Your problem, not mine, if that example isn't good enough for you.
Your video does not show the ground...the angle is such that a building in the foreground obscures half the view and the ensuing dust cloud obscures the rest. To claim that video *proves* anything other than a) the building collapsed and b) generated a HUGE dust cloud is, to be kind, problematic.
Nobody else is complaining.
I care about what others do or don't do why, again?
You might want to explain, though, why no helicopters were dispatched to try and rescue them.
www.wsj.com/articles/SB 1003784754436648720
I'm not going to subscribe to the Wall Street Journal to read that article. Helicopters could have and should have been dispatched to try and rescue the alleged jumpers if need be.
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
You at #258: I care about what others do or don't do why, again?
I care why about repetitively backtracking over your incapability to see the obvious there and neglect to do your own news-footage research if you think it could demonstrate a provable counterpoint for you? I don't. Once again, you just have nothing but baseless denial.
Edited sentence 1 + quote section.
-------
"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 you're saying that it should take only an extra 2.5 seconds to smash and demolish 70 floors of concrete and steel, since that's what's left if you subtract the time it'd take an object to fall through thin air...
Okie dokie.
"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
Me at #189: ...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.
You at #193: 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?
Me at #214: No, my claim wasn't about no visible smoke. It was about the lack of significantly visible smoke damages to the Towers.
You at #221: Tell me why I should care about smoke damage at all...
It's a Physics issue from my short-list here at Post #189 re: 9/11 Laws of Physics anomalies, which you were supposedly addressing but didn't really. Tell me why you'd think that you shouldn't be concerned at all with the incongruity of it, if you aren't.
Edited sentence 2.
-------
"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
Ref. Post #s 241, 249 [+ 443 of another thread], 254 and You at 255: "The inferno was sweeping through the building at the floors above 91. The context is quite clear to anyone who does not have an agenda. No one jumped from the 20th floor."
The current issue in this discussion isn't the alleged jumpers. It's heat-generated paper-combustion and the extent of it. As another side issue, we could even debate the explosive combustibility of pressurized cleaning supply cans and whatnot in all of the burning WTC buildings but that's also not the paper-issue in question. Is it your #443 clarification per steel compromising temps that "the inferno swept through the building" upwards only? -- despite your contradictory view at #193 [and quoted at #241] that "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..."
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
I'm not going to subscribe to the Wall Street Journal to read that article. Helicopters could have and should have been dispatched to try and rescue the alleged jumpers if need be.
The article details that helicopters were on scene not long after impact but that no one was on the roof...probably because the doors to the roof were locked...
The current issue in this discussion isn't the alleged jumpers
Correct...it's you trying, for reasons which defy logic, to claim that a discussion of what occurred above WTC1's impact zone should have set every scrap of paper BELOW the impact zone on fire.
despite your contradictory view at #193 [and quoted at #241] that "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..."
Either you don't know what the word *contradictory* means or you do and chose to ignore that meaning.
It's a Physics issue from my short-list here at Post #189 re: 9/11 Laws of Physics anomalies, which you were supposedly addressing but didn't really. Tell me why you'd think that you shouldn't be concerned at all with the incongruity of it, if you aren't.
How is a lack of smoke damage on the OUTSIDE of the Towers an *anomaly* of physics?
Since gravity is exponential, that 2.5 seconds is significant...
Yes, in that it proves the floors fell through NOTHING but thin air for the majority of the distance travelled.
"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
Uh...no...and that would be just as wrong if it was a CD...
Uh, yes. That it only took 2.5 seconds more time to drop through 70 or so undamaged floors indicates those lower floors were destroyed BEFORE the upper structure dropped through their location above ground.
If there had been any significant resistance to the collapse, the velocity would have dropped to zero or close to it, and it would have taken significantly longer for the entire collapse to occur since the structure would need to begin accelerating from a velocity close to zero again rather than the speed it would have attained as if it had been falling through thin air.
"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
Uh, yes. That it only took 2.5 seconds more time to drop through 70 or so undamaged floors indicates those lower floors were destroyed BEFORE the upper structure dropped through their location above ground.
It indicates no such thing.
The building fell from the top down beginning at the site of the impact...
10's of millions of tons falling was going to be abated significantly by what, exactly?
Exactly the same thing that held up those 10's of millions of tons from the time they were first put there.
You know the answer, do I have to tell you?
"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 in your mind, it only takes 2.5 seconds to demolish millions of tons of concrete and steel, where they offer no more resistance than thin air, eh?
"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'll give ya credit though, you do seem to be tight on the establishment viewpoints...
...I've accepted nothing more than the broad strokes of 9/11...OBL orchestrated hijacked planes...crashed into buildings...@ WTC the damage, which I personally witnessed, was as fatal to the structures as it was to the people inside.
I firmly believe that 93 was shot down on The Big Dick Cheney's order which turned out to be problematic for them - because The Big Dick had no authority to do so - so they simply denied it.
Not one of the other scenarios I have been presented with, especially the controlled demolition or drone nonsense, has ever given me pause, i.e. it was too easily falsified...
You completely ignored most of the points made by myself and GL and the evidence provided in many posts prior to this.
I believe that I have responded to every post. And any *evidence* that you may have thought that you provided wasn't evidence at all.
I was employed for a company located @ 165 Broadway and I had a desk at the NW corner of the building and was there, in my desk, that morning. Both towers were at my shoulder.
So you were there, in all three places, to see it all unfold?
I almost let this jab go by but I simply cannot.
What misfires in the mind of you folks that makes you *think* such abjectly *stupid* things? There was nothing that I stated/posted here from which such a conclusion of the meaning of what I stated/posted here could be reached.
Has the fact that it was FALLING and therefore, by definition, NO LONGER BEING HELD UP, escaped you?
"FALLING" through WHAT exactly?
"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 *shudder* to ask but will anyway, where in your *mind, did you reach such a conclusion?
With unimpeded motion, an object would have taken 9 seconds to hit the ground if it had been dropped from the very top of the WTC towers.
Being that it took 11.5 seconds for the top of WTC 2 to hit the ground, and 12.5 seconds for WTC 1 to do the same, can you not at least admit the fact that it only took 2.5 seconds to effectively vaporize WTC 2 and 3.5 seconds to vaporize WTC 1?
In fact, those lower floors HAD to have been pulverized PRIOR to the upper structure reaching their level for the upper structure to have hit the ground ONLY 2.5/3.5 seconds later than if it had fallen through thin air.
"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
Whatever was below it. From every video available that would be through the rest of the building...
Ok, so the REST OF THE BUILDING supported all those tons above it since it was built. Now why all of a sudden were they unable to continue to support that weight?
"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
Being that it took 11.5 seconds for the top of WTC 2 to hit the ground, and 12.5 seconds for WTC 1 to do the same, can you not at least admit the fact that it only took 2.5 seconds to effectively vaporize WTC 2 and 3.5 seconds to vaporize WTC 1?
Chuckles...you've gone from claiming that they fell at free fall speed, to now recognizing that they did not (without overtly admitting it) and now want me to admit to what I myself posted as if it would be some sort of victory for you.
Do yourself a favor, if you ever get sued...settle the case...you'd be a mess on the witness stand...
This is very simple...gravity does not change...controlled demolitions rely on gravity...using gravity as proof, first that the Towers could not fall on their own, and then to prove that they did fall on their own albeit with help* is extremely illogical.
Why don't we approach it this way...assume for one moment that there was no controlled demolition...how should the Towers have collapsed and, most importantly, why?
*PS: BTW, that *help* would be no different from what actually happened...the remaining supporting columns were so compromised that they could no longer support the structure.
Chuckles...you've gone from claiming that they fell at free fall speed, to now recognizing that they did not (without overtly admitting it) and now want me to admit to what I myself posted as if it would be some sort of victory for you.
You are a liar.
I have said OVER and OVER and OVER AGAIN, that the WTC towers fell AT OR NEAR FREE FALL SPEED.
Are you able to understand it now that I have said it in all CAPS?
FREEFALL SPEED of 9 SECONDS, PLUS TWO and ONE HALF SECONDS, EQUALS NEAR FREEFALL SPEED.
YOU need to admit that it would take longer than 2.5 seconds to totally destroy 70 floors worth of steel and concrete, yet that is what took place.
The ONLY way for that to have happened in that amount of time is by controlled demolition.
"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
He's clearly a product of the media, but there's something else amiss.
He clearly posts (works ???) on the Internet 9 to 5 EST, has been doing so for quite some time, and ALWAYS takes the government's side on whatever it is he's "discussing".
He ignores indisputable facts, or at minimum distorts and twists those facts into meanings totally opposite of what they indicate.
So yep, there is SURELY something "amiss" with our little friend, war.
"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
*PS: BTW, that *help* would be no different from what actually happened...the remaining supporting columns were so compromised that they could no longer support the structure.
So now you're trying to claim that the entire length of the lower 70 floors was "compromised", eh?
Maybe the "muzzies" dug a hole from a cave in Afghanistan all the way to under the WTC towers, and THAT is what made them fall, right?
"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
He clearly posts (works ???) on the Internet 9 to 5 EST, has been doing so for quite some time, and ALWAYS takes the government's side on whatever it is he's "discussing".
Has the government come out and stated that it shot down Flt93?