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: 11291
Comments: 402

Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 379.
#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
#237. To: war (#193)
Me at #189: the first Tower that fell without significanly damaging the one next to it, as it did others farther away. How'd that happen?

You at #193: A) Where's your evidence for that?

News footage.

You at #193: 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.

Ref. the film clip linked above in this thread at Post #73 for an example from the video at Post #53: first falling Tower impacting the other [at 2:09-2:31] without significantly damaging it.

GreyLmist posted on 2015-04-07 13:45:31 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#238. To: GreyLmist (#237)
News footage.
Ref. the film clip linked above in this thread at Post #73 for an example from the video at Post #53: first falling Tower impacting the other [at 2:09-2:31] without significantly damaging it.

You mean that in the less than 10 seconds that you can actually see *some* of the Towers, you've concluded that?
Okay...the reason that there is no counter-point is because you have no point...

war posted on 2015-04-07 14:02:24 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#247. To: war (#238) (Edited)
News footage.
Ref. the film clip linked above in this thread at Post #73 for an example from the video at Post #53: first falling Tower impacting the other [at 2:09-2:31] without significantly damaging it.

You mean that in the less than 10 seconds that you can actually see *some* of the Towers, you've concluded that?
Okay...the reason that there is no counter-point is because you have no point...

I wasn't in charge that day of how fast the Tower fell at near free-fall speed or not to suit your observatory preferences. You were provided a source right in this very thread and simply have no counterpoint about the impact to the other one with insignificant damage to it, even though there are numerous other news footage clips that you could reference.
Edited link formatting.

GreyLmist posted on 2015-04-07 15:20:57 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#248. To: GreyLmist (#247)
I wasn't in charge that day of how fast the Tower fell at near free-fall speed or not to suit your observatory preferences.

Are you saying that if you were that they would have actually fallen at free fall speed instead of at the less than free fall speed at which they fell that day?
You were provided a source right in this very thread and simply have no counterpoint about the impact to the other one with insignificant damage to it, even though there are numerous other news footage clips that you could reference.
Feel free to provide them but, as I stated before, the collapsing South tower DID cause damage to the buildings around it and photos of that damage have been provided.
On the other hand, your statement about not causing any damage remains...unsupported...

war posted on 2015-04-07 15:27:06 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#251. To: war (#248)
You were provided a source right in this very thread and simply have no counterpoint about the impact to the other one with insignificant damage to it, even though there are numerous other news footage clips that you could reference.

Feel free to provide them but, as I stated before, the collapsing South tower DID cause damage to the buildings around it and photos of that damage have been provided.
On the other hand, your statement about not causing any damage remains...unsupported...

It's not my job to spoonfeed you more supporting evidence, let alone slow down the speed of the South Tower collapse for you to notice the lack of significant damage from it to the North Tower that others can readily see. 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.

GreyLmist posted on 2015-04-07 16:00:27 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#252. To: GreyLmist (#251)
It's not my job to spoonfeed you more supporting evidence....

I was comfortable asking for that evidence because I know that it does not exist.
let alone slow down the speed of the South Tower collapse for you

war posted on 2015-04-07 16:05:51 ET (1 image) Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#262. To: war (#252)
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.

FormerLurker posted on 2015-04-07 18:16:26 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#268. To: FormerLurker (#262) (Edited)
So you're saying that it should take only an extra 2.5 seconds

Since gravity is exponential, that 2.5 seconds is significant...

war posted on 2015-04-08 8:44:31 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#269. To: war (#268)
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.

FormerLurker posted on 2015-04-08 10:10:29 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#270. To: FormerLurker (#269) (Edited)
Yes, in that it proves the floors fell through NOTHING but thin air for the majority of the distance travelled.

Uh...no...and that would be just as wrong if it was a CD...

war posted on 2015-04-08 11:07:05 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#271. To: war (#270)
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.

FormerLurker posted on 2015-04-08 11:29:47 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#272. To: FormerLurker (#271) (Edited)
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...

war posted on 2015-04-08 11:59:03 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#275. To: war (#272)
It indicates no such thing.

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?

FormerLurker posted on 2015-04-08 12:35:33 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#277. To: FormerLurker (#275) (Edited)
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?

I *shudder* to ask but will anyway, where in your *mind, did you reach such a conclusion?

war posted on 2015-04-08 12:52:55 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#286. To: war (#277)
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.

FormerLurker posted on 2015-04-08 13:32:40 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#289. To: FormerLurker (#286) (Edited)
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.

war posted on 2015-04-08 13:48:51 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#310. To: war (#289)
Ok, I missed ONE of your numerous questions that I'm sure I've answered repeatedly over the last week or so of fun and games with you, but here goes..
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?
A) They should NOT have collapsed. The lower structures were still intact and should not have instanaeously failed.
B) IF there had been SOME structural failure at the upper levels of the towers, then the upper structures should have crumbled and slid off the UNDAMAGED sections below, or tumbled off them, depending on the angle of the collapse and whether they broke up as they were shifting weight.
C) There is no way possible for them to drop straight down into their own footprint UNLESS there was a complete and total loss of support below them. That would not happen UNLESS the supporting structure below was demolished through the use of explosives.

FormerLurker posted on 2015-04-08 15:10:37 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#315. To: FormerLurker (#310)
A) They should NOT have collapsed. The lower structures were still intact and should not have instanaeously (sic) failed.

The lower structure did no such thing. It failed in stages as ever increasing weight compromised the support structure.
IF there had been SOME structural failure at the upper levels of the towers, then the upper structures should have crumbled and slid off the UNDAMAGED sections below...
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.
There is no way possible for them to drop straight down into their own footprint
As has been previously pointed out to you in both video and photos, it's a good thing that they didn't then...

war posted on 2015-04-08 15:19:41 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#323. To: war (#315)
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.

FormerLurker posted on 2015-04-08 15:27:16 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#328. To: FormerLurker (#323) (Edited)
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...

war posted on 2015-04-08 15:49:25 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#329. To: war (#328)
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.

FormerLurker posted on 2015-04-08 16:08:40 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#355. To: FormerLurker (#329)
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...

war posted on 2015-04-09 7:28:48 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#367. To: war (#355)
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?

FormerLurker posted on 2015-04-09 10:39:43 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#369. To: FormerLurker (#367)
Do capital letters help you out?

No...the volume of my laughter is the same.
True or False:
A controlled demolition relies upon gravity?

war posted on 2015-04-09 10:45:56 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#371. To: war (#369)
A controlled demolition relies upon gravity?

Sure, but it also relies upon explosives. Does that help?

FormerLurker posted on 2015-04-09 10:50:48 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#374. To: FormerLurker (#371)
Sure, but it also relies upon explosives. Does that help?

And those explosives do what?

war posted on 2015-04-09 11:03:04 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#377. To: war (#374)
And those explosives do what?

Blow things up.
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.

FormerLurker posted on 2015-04-09 11:18:12 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#379. To: FormerLurker (#377)
Blow things up.

What *things*...(please limit your answer to the materials used in building construction)?

war posted on 2015-04-09 11:20:38 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
Replies to Comment # 379.
#381. To: war (#379)
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.

FormerLurker posted on 2015-04-09 11:21:54 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
End Trace Mode for Comment # 379.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um