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:11169 Comments:402
The lower structure did no such thing. It failed in stages as ever increasing weight compromised the support structure.
Oh, so the towers took hours to collapse, sections at a time?
No of course they didn't.
Ever increasing weight? Are you for real? Are you saying that the muzzies were shoveling lead out of helicopters or something to add that "extra 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
You felt the need to repeat back to me what I stated to you why, exactly?
You're equating snow rolling off a mountain to a total collapse of that mountain.
Whatever it is you're being paid for this, it's too much.
"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
As has been previously pointed out to you in both video and photos, it's a good thing that they didn't then...
As all videos and photos show, neither the towers nor WTC7 broke up and slid off in chunks, nor did they tumble sideways in one direction. They FELL straight DOWN, no matter how many times you lie about it.
"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 stated mountains don't fall down. You stated avalanches make my statement false, in so many words.
That makes you a liar.
"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
Under what theory does gravity so affect a vertical structure? Your *belief* is contingent upon the very flawed premise that only a controlled demolition can cause supporting columns to fail.
The law of physics which states than an object will always take the path of LEAST resistance. Look it up.
"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
Can you please point to where there might reside any working brain cells in the room you are currently in?
"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
Can you please simply point out the post...not your warped interpretations.
In case you're either too retarded or too lazy to look up your own words..
FL : Just as mountains don't simply "fall down" because they're above ground, neither do man-made objects.
war: Avalanches occur when what was supporting the materials which are now falling can no longer support them...
Amazing that you had to be told this...
So you're equating snow rolling off a mountain to a mountain collapse.
"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
As all videos and photos show, neither the towers nor WTC7 broke up and slid off in chunks
WTC7 did have a minor break up in that the penthouse structure collapsed along with some of the roof but, essentially, it remained intact...on that I concur but the failure was much lower...13th floor...
As for WTC 1 and 2 to claim that they fell straight down and did not spew huge chucks of debris all over nor did it break apart is simply insanity. The debris field for WTC 1 and 2 spanned blocks and damaged structures in a wide radius...
Avalanches occur when what was supporting the materials which are now falling can no longer support them...
That statement is 100% correct.
Nowhere in that statement do I state that anything has fallen other than the materials which comprise the avalanche. The word *mountain* appears nowhere. The word *collapse* appears nowhere.
I am beginning to wonder if English is your first language.
The law of physics which states than an object will always take the path of LEAST resistance. Look it up.
So, the top of the WTC, now detached from the bottom of WTC, looks down and says..."Gee, look at that building...I better tilt over the other way!!!"
The fact is, when one vertical structure becomes two vertical structures the path of least resistance for the one on top, when the only inertial force upon it is gravity, is downward and not sideways...
The fact is, when one vertical structure becomes two vertical structures the path of least resistance for the one on top, when the only inertial force upon it is gravity, is downward and not sideways...
Wrong. Unless the supporting structure is instantaneously destroyed across all quadrants, the path of least resistance is in the direction of the failed quadrant or section. Thus any collapse other than total failure of the supporting floors and central core would have caused the top structure to tilt, tumble, and/or slide off the undamaged section. A straight downwards path is not possible without the help of explosives, and the duration of the fall indicates there was practically NO resistance at all to the downwards motion of the upper section.
You are also wrong about the top of the WTC towers "detaching". They were still resting upon their supporting elements, it's not as if a UFO came down and PICKED UP the top of the towers then dropped 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
The debris field for WTC 1 and 2 spanned blocks and damaged structures in a wide radius...
Debris was ejected horizontally, yet the structure itself collapsed into its own footprint, ie. it did not tumble over and drop sideways into the surrounding buildings or street. It was a symmetrical collapse, not asymmetrical.
Do you know what those words mean?
"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
You added the above phrase after you responded with your avalanche statement in regards to my statement that mountains don't collapse because they're above ground.
So sure, snow falls off mountains. Mountains don't collapse.
The two do not equate and are not related. Do you fail to understand that?
"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
You added the above phrase after you responded with your avalanche statement in regards to my statement that mountains don't collapse because they're above ground.
Uh...no...that appears in my #311...a post that has not been edited and which precedes you using the same phrase.
You've just been caught in a possible lie...what do you do?
So sure, snow falls off mountains. Mountains don't collapse.
Snow does not fall *off* mountains. Down...but not off...
The two do not equate and are not related. Do you fail to understand that?
I've given you absolutely no cause for you to *think* that I don't.
There is a video proof of WTC7 falling AT free fall speed
Free fall speed for those 18 or 19 stories that are visible from the North would be 3.9 seconds...it takes 5.4 seconds for those 18 floors to disappear... So no...debunked...again...
Uh...no...that appears in my #311...a post that has not been edited and which precedes you using the same phrase.
Amazing that you had to be told this...
In other words, you felt the need to add that snide remark even though what you had just said made no sense in regards to my original statement.
Snow does not fall *off* mountains. Down...but not off...,
Er, not quite. Snow does not FALL DOWN a mountain, in terms of an avalanche it ROLLS down AND off a mountain.
"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 sure is. By trying to "prove" the government story, he's actually bringing the inconsistencies of it to the forefront.
"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
No matter how many times you repeat this fable it will not move it to the non- fiction section...
So all of those videos of the WTC tower collapses, you're saying are fake, since they obviously did NOT fall sideways in ANY of those videos.
"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
Once again, I have no idea what your reference or context is.
I know you don't despite my having stated it numerous times.
Unfortunately for you, I simply recognize bullshit when I see it...
Well I should hope so, it's the first thing you look at every morning and the last thing every night in the mirror when presumably you brush bullshit's teeth.
I honestly don't know why you are interacting with war. It's clearly an enormous waste of time. He's the perfect example of the definition of the problem in this country. He's a perfect product of Television and the electronic gadget culture. He thinks that everything he sees on TV is real.
How is a lack of smoke damage on the OUTSIDE of the Towers an *anomaly* of physics?
Considerately stop sprawling the thread, please, to evade answering the issue -- which isn't what your pseudo-techno opinion is of a physics anomaly vs. a chemistry anomaly or not. It's the inexplicable lack of smoke damage to the exterior of the Towers from the blasts and sooty burnings. Once again, you have no substantive reply and should just leave it at that this time.
Edited next to last sentence + 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'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...
Irrelevant. Doesn't explain anything about why helicopters weren't dispatched to where they reportedly were.
-------
"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 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.
Wrong....this isn't a discussion "of what occurred above WTC1's impact zone", despite your focusings on that Tower here and elsewhere. And it's you, not me, who has claimed steel compromising (i.e. paper combustive) high heat temps in the buildings for your en masse "pancaking" summations. That's not even getting into the puzzlement that the topmost section of WTC 7 isn't what should have fallen there first under such conditions and according to your own assertion at #326 that the 13th floor was the point of failure. What you need to do is be more precise about where you're guesstimating that steel compromising (i.e. paper combustive) high heat temps in the buildings stopped "weakening" those structures, even though you weren't in them at the time and neither were the bulk of officalry's NIST theorizers, etc.
I turned my attention to steel beams that fell in freefall next to the building as it collapsed. The beams were falling at the same rate that the towers themselves were descending. Familiar with elementary physics, including principles of conservation of energy and momentum, this seemed quite impossible if the towers were indeed "pancaking," which is the official theory.
Edited at first 2 sentences + 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
Height divided by war's alleged fall rate of 32 feet per second per second = 42.5 seconds+ for each.
But that would be highly incomparable with the evidence so I'm thinking it's your calculation that's off.
war didn't calculate anything, he simply posted the known and observed rate of acceleration due to earth's gravity.
The algebraic form of the relevant equations are as follows;
v = d/t, and a = v/t, where v = velocity, d = distance, t = time in seconds, and a = acceleration (rate of change of velocity).
g (the acceleration due to earth's gravity) = 32 feet per second per second, and represents the rate of change of velocity of an object for every second the object falls through a vacuum.
The following equation is derived from calculus and is well known.
t = SQRT(2d/g)
So to solve for the amount of time it would take for an object to fall through a vacuum from a given height, we plug the known numbers into the equation;
Known values are thus;
d1 = height of WTC 1 = 1,368 feet,
d2 = height of WTC 2 = 1,362 feet
t1 = time to fall from a height of d1 through a vacuum
t2 = time to fall from a height of d2 through a vacuum
"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 what it comes down to is that war is using an acceleration rate of an object falling through a vacuum, whereas there was more than just an empty vacuum under the WTC towers.
They fell NEAR free fall speed, SO close to it in fact that it would be virtually impossible to have happened UNLESS the supporting lower floors were destroyed sequentially just before the upper structure reached them during its fall.
"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 what it comes down to is that war is using an acceleration rate of an object falling through a vacuum, whereas there was more than just an empty vacuum under the WTC towers.
They fell NEAR free fall speed, SO close to it in fact that it would be virtually impossible to have happened UNLESS the supporting lower floors were destroyed sequentially just before the upper structure reached them during its fall.
Thanks for the math demonstration. Much more complex than I had thought. Btw, I've noticed that official storytellers don't count the North Tower as having actually collapsed until the steel columns that were still partially standing vanish too -- so as to expand the drop time there.
-------
"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 collapse starts when the penthouse collapses which is not shown on your video...I finally got FL to *admit* to the truth that the collapse started sooner...it's time for you as well...
Start around 2:40ish...note what is in my video that is not in yours...
Unless the supporting structure is instantaneously destroyed across all quadrants
Can you provide any video which shows an *instantaneous* destruction? I have been unable to find any...each and every one reveals a building collapse in sequence from top to bottom...
Wrong....this isn't a discussion "of what occurred above WTC1's impact zone",
Sorry...you don't get to define how I rebut your nonsense which appears to be that all of the paper in WTC should have spontaneously combusted even though anyone can see that a) the building was not solely made of nor did it solely contain, paper b) the area of the fires was at the impact zone...
I turned my attention to steel beams that fell in freefall next to the building as it collapsed
Huh?
Neither he nor you have provided any video support for that statement....