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: 11397
Comments: 402

Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 356.
#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
#241. To: war, FormerLurker (#193)
Me at #189: What of all that indestructible paper debris which didn't spontaneously combust in the high-temperatures you claim weakened the steel?

You at #193: 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...

Autoignition temperature - Wikipedia

Paper: Autoignition Celsius 218–246 °C | Autoignition Fahrenheit 424–475 °F

You #129 above to FormerLurker at #121:
FormerLurker: The FEMA report states...
war: ...on 2-22 that the temps were as high as 1100c [My note: 2012 °F] at ceiling level and 400c [My note: 752 °F] to 800c [My note: 1472 °F] elsewhere...
Those temps are well capable of compromising the strength of steel...

...and spontaneously combusting paper. You're not presuming to tell me that all of the paper seen in the first two videos at 4um Title: NIST FOIA: William Cirone, Clips 01-49 (WTC Complex & WTC7 after 10:28am) would have fluttered out of the Towers before they fell, are you? -- because news footage doesn't support that.

GreyLmist posted on 2015-04-07 14:29:57 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#243. To: GreyLmist (#241)
Did I miss something somewhere? The part where the floors which were on fire were the only floors with paper, maybe?

war posted on 2015-04-07 14:36:21 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#244. To: war (#243)
Did I miss something somewhere? The part where the floors which were on fire were the only floors with paper, maybe?

What point are you trying to make? Only the floors with steel compromising fire had paper that somehow withstood those temps?

GreyLmist posted on 2015-04-07 14:40:15 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#245. To: GreyLmist (#244)
What point are you trying to make? Only the floors with steel compromising fire had paper that somehow withstood those temps?

Not all the floors were on fire...not all of the paper in the WTCs burned...
Is there a reason you're not *getting* this?

war posted on 2015-04-07 14:47:09 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#249. To: war (#245)
Not all the floors were on fire...not all of the paper in the WTCs burned...
Is there a reason you're not *getting* this?

"the inferno swept through the building" [You at #443 of 4um Title: "Methodical Illusion: The 9/11 Con Begins to Crumble — Rebekah Roth (Flight Attendant)"]

GreyLmist posted on 2015-04-07 15:39:08 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#250. To: GreyLmist (#249)
Why did you leave this part out:
From the 91st floor upwards, it is believed no one got out alive, even though as many as 1,100 may have survived the initial crash.
Either they would have been burned or smothered by smoke as the inferno swept through the building, or they would have been forced by the unbearable heat to jump, or else perished as the tower collapsed.

war posted on 2015-04-07 15:47:00 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#254. To: war (#250)
Why did you leave this part out:

From the 91st floor upwards, it is believed no one got out alive, even though as many as 1,100 may have survived the initial crash.

Either they would have been burned or smothered by smoke as the inferno swept through the building, or they would have been forced by the unbearable heat to jump, or else perished as the tower collapsed.

I left that part out because it has nothing to do with the paper combustion issue here of the "inferno", as you call it, sweeping "through the building" -- not upward only. It's already been addressed at #96 above that the alleged jumpers "weren't even demonstrably under threat of smoke inhalation, much less about to be incinerated" from fire or withering heat. You might want to explain, though, why no helicopters were dispatched to try and rescue them.

GreyLmist posted on 2015-04-07 16:15:50 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#255. To: GreyLmist (#254)
I left that part out because it has nothing to do with the paper combustion issue here of the "inferno", as you call it, sweeping "through the building"

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.

war posted on 2015-04-07 16:26:49 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#264. To: war (#255) (Edited)
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.

GreyLmist posted on 2015-04-07 21:25:19 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#266. To: GreyLmist (#264)
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.

war posted on 2015-04-08 8:38:44 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#350. To: war (#266) (Edited)
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.
Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center

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.

GreyLmist posted on 2015-04-08 21:37:06 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#356. To: GreyLmist (#350) (Edited)
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....

war posted on 2015-04-09 8:00:40 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
Replies to Comment # 356.
#385. To: war, FormerLurker (#356) (Edited)
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 or nor did it solely contain, paper b) the area of the fires was at the impact zone...

Since b), localizing the diminishing fires to impact zone, is the only part there that doesn't sound thoroughly like you're not a serious debater or even reader -- just here mainly to fill the place voluminously with your rumbling disagreeableness -- I'll be redirecting my inquiry (from way back at #189) about the compacter WTC 7 steel heat-durability in comparison to steel in the Towers to FormerLurker, not you henceforth (allegedly a "corner-officer" of the former US Steel Building by the WTC). Also, I'm gonna have to conclude by now that you won't be providing any info, even if you could, about "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", as requested way back at #213.
Edited sentence 1.

GreyLmist posted on 2015-04-09 11:32:17 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
End Trace Mode for Comment # 356.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um