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: 30022
Comments: 402
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 120.
#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.
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...
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.
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...
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?
Duh... South Tower hit @ 9:03 AM...collapses @ 9:59 AM...56 minutes...less than an hour... Congrats...you finally stated something *truthful*...
how come the.tower that was hit second fell first?
Greater weight of the upper floors...
thats not a very good guess if you are.trying to argue fire as the cause. see when the second tower allegedly got hit the big fire ball we all saw was supposed to be all the fuel burning outside. see the first tower allegedly got a direct hit putting most of the.fuel into the.building BUT the.second tkwer was a corner hit distrubuting most of.the.fuel into the air . so if you wanna say fire caused it and tbat it fell first because it had more weight on a fire weakened load... thats fine.... can you tell me what floor the impact was on in both buildings?
Good thing that I'm not guessing then but merely stating fact which is ALWAYS good. if you are.trying to argue fire as the cause. see when the second tower allegedly got hit the big fire ball we all saw was supposed to be all the fuel burning outside Uh...no...about 15% of the fuel burned outside... can you tell me what floor the impact was on in both buildings? North Tower...90-100...center impact ~95 South...75-85...center impact ~78...
the south tower was not a.direct impact not even according the the governments nist offical story. it was alleged to be an indirwct corner impact. i think you may care more about arguing and less about facts.
The plane hit the tower...that makes it a *direct* hit...for it to be an *indirect* hit it would have had to have hit something *else* first...where it directly hit is inconsequential... You're trying to pick gnat shit out of pepper, outdoors, in the winter...
I'm sorry, but anyone that thinks that a plane came in at a vertical angle, entirely disappeared through that hole, then through several other walls at a no angle, i.e. horizontal to the ground, is either a moron or a willing dupe/willful ignoramus. There is no other alternative.
Which way do you want it...vertically or horizontally? I ask because your statements are wholly incongruous to each other... Any plane going from inflight to the ground is following a vertical flight path...for any object to hit one object and then continue through that object to impact an object existing on a horizontal plane directly behind that object would have to be, at some point, traveling horizontally...that's basic geometry...
#122. To: war (#120)
So how do you explain how a large heavy aircraft such as a 757 could be flown at over 500 mph while at ground level, its engines 3 feet off the ground, and enter the ground floor for the Pentagon while flying level, not touching the lawn on its way? Do you not see a major problem with that?
Any plane going from inflight to the ground is following a vertical flight path...for any object to hit one object and then continue through that object to impact an object existing on a horizontal plane directly behind that object would have to be, at some point, traveling horizontally...that's basic geometry... Congratulations Einstein, you just made my initial point again! So tell me there, and once again, how does a plane come in at an angle, which is indisputable for the story of it being a plane, hit the first ring of the Pentagon, and then not only disintegrate entirely into a hole that's not even big enough for a fuselage, factually, then alter it's path and transform a vertical (as you call it) or angled (as I call it with the difference appearing to be semantical only) into a near if not perfectly horizontal one as it then subsequently drills through other rings and walls of concrete in the Pentagon? You're starting to come across as a real moron here, so answer that. You even agreed that it's impossible, so how come the evidence is just that but you still insist that it was a plane? I can't wait for the answer to this. I think anyway.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#81. To: RickyJ (#2)
They definitely were "hijacked" in a sense because they never reached their destinations...
#83. To: war (#81)
(Edited)
CTers
#84. To: GreyLmist (#83)
(Edited)
The official story is a ridiculous conspiracy theory...
#85. To: war, GreyLmist (#84)
#88. To: FormerLurker (#85)
Sure there were OFFICE fires, but they burned for less than an hour
#91. To: war (#88)
#92. To: titorite (#91)
how come the.tower that was hit second fell first?
#95. To: war (#92)
#105. To: titorite (#95)
thats not a very good guess
#112. To: war (#105)
#113. To: titorite (#112)
(Edited)
the south tower was not a.direct impact not even according the the governments nist offical story. it was alleged to be an indirwct corner impact.
#116. To: All (#113)
#120. To: Katniss (#116)
then through several other walls at a no angle, i.e. horizontal to the ground
Replies to Comment # 120.
#133. To: war, All (#120)
Which way do you want it...vertically or horizontally? I ask because your statements are wholly incongruous to each other...
End Trace Mode for Comment # 120.