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:11442 Comments:402
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....
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...
https://youtu.be/A34_NXwLyfo
It's an Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth video -- Part 2 of 3. You can dispute it with them at the YouTube site. As for the video you posted by MrSkunkwork100...aka MrLockheedMartin (?!), "Establishmentarian VIP", I reckon.
-------
"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
It's an Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth video -- Part 2 of 3. You can dispute it with them at the YouTube site. As for the video you posted by MrSkunkwork100...aka MrLockheedMartin (?!), "Establishmentarian VIP", I reckon.
I couldn't care less if it's a Barney video which it may as well be...they make the same *error*..NIST starts the clock when the penthouse collapses which is what my video shows and yours does not...your video LIES about when NIST starts the clock too...
Yes -- way more than there should be after the blasts and so much smoke. Doubtful anybody here but you wouldn't agree and you almost never do, so no need for me to post a bunch of counter-pictures too. Many pics online that others can compare themselves to yours.
-------
"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
Yes -- way more than there should be after the blasts and so much smoke...
Wha...chuckle...huh?
Doubtful anybody here but you wouldn't agree and you almost never do, so no need for me to post a bunch of counter-pictures too. Many pics online that others can compare themselves to yours...
I finally got FL to *admit* to the truth that the collapse started sooner...it's time for you as well...
Your definition of "collapse" differs from what the video shows. A roof collapse inwards isn't what most people think of when they say "total collapse".
The TOTAL COLLAPSE of WTC7, where ALL sections of the building began a descent into its own footprint, at or near free fall speed, is what I mean by TOTAL 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
NIST starts the clock when the penthouse collapses which is what my video shows and yours does not...your video LIES about when NIST starts the clock too...
So if I wiggle my fingers before I drop a ball to measure the time it takes for the ball to drop, would you include the finger wiggling time in the total descent time?
"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 if I wiggle my fingers before I drop a ball to measure the time it takes for the ball to drop, would you include the finger wiggling time in the total descent time?
If I respond with an equally ridiculous and spurious post will you respond that I'm claiming something *different* now?
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...
To clarify, the words "the supporting structure is instantaneously destroyed across all quadrants ", I mean ALL SUPPORT ACROSS ALL WEIGHT BEARING ELEMENTS OF THE LOWER STRUCTURE IS INSTANTANEOUSLY LOST".
Do capital letters help you out?
Can you not understand what it means to lose ALL support from the lower structure?
"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
In other words war, you can't include time PRIOR to the BUILDING DESCENDING, as it is the BUILDING DESCENT WHICH IS BEING MEASURED IN TERMS OF DESCENT TIME.
Capish?
"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
In other words war, you can't include time PRIOR to the BUILDING DESCENDING
The building was descending at that point...the penthouse most certainly did not collapse in any other direction...as the weight load shifted from the failure of the columns to other columns which failed the main collapse began...
Quick again make the ridiculous argument that gravity doesn't affect all falling things equally and that only a controlled demolition makes gravity work...
Sure, but it also relies upon explosives. Does that help?
"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
PART of the ROOF fell INTO the building, but the 4 CORNERS of the TOP of the BUILDING didn't budge, nor did the outer 4 WALLS (unless you include the bulging outwards due to the apparent explosives).
As far as rate of descent of the BUILDING itself (which includes all FOUR CORNERS OF THE TOP AND THE FOUR OUTER WALLS), that HAS to be measured from the point in time the ENTIRE STRUCTURE BEGINS ITS DESCENT.
Did you ever graduate Jr. High?
"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
PART of the ROOF fell INTO the building, but the 4 CORNER of the TOP of the BUILDING didn't budge, nor did the outer 4 WALLS (unless you include the bulging outwards due to the apparent explosives).
Please use the edit feature so that mess of a question makes some sense *above* the no sense that it makes now.
"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 far as rate of descent of the BUILDING itself (which includes all FOUR CORNERS OF THE TOP AND THE FOUR OUTER WALLS), that HAS to be measured from the point in time the ENTIRE STRUCTURE BEGINS ITS DESCENT.
A collapse goes in what direction? Up?
The fact is, the collapse went in stages...it was not all at once...that is the fatal blow to your CD nonsense...the roof collapsed because of column failure and not because of explosives so powerful ye able to be unseen were detonated...your claim also is that the main collapse was the result of a controlled demolition...
When has a controlled demolition ever been done in two stages starting with the only the top corner of a building?
Ooopsie...that logic mixed with a healthy dose of reality rears its ugly head yet again...
That, and cause a TOTAL failure of SUPPORT causing the structure to COLLAPSE into its own footprint in most cases, unless for whatever reason it's desired to topple the structure, as in smokestack demolitions for instance.
"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 to you, descent time begins when ANY ONE thing falls, such as a window or chimney.
So if the chimney fell 10 minutes before the ENTIRE BUILDING collapsed, you'd add ten minutes to the descent time, eh?
Of course YOU would, if it suited your agenda.
"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
Don't have time today to play your childish games. Why don't you go haunt Stone's site for some fun, you might actually find people who agree with you there.
"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
