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: 17982
Comments: 402
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 225.
#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.
You don't need to apologize but who *thinks* that 77 went in *vertically*? Given that it took out 5 light poles...some hundreds of yards from the Pentagon, that would have been a neat trick...
Given that it took out 5 light poles...some hundreds of yards from the Pentagon, that would have been a neat trick... Well, let's see, unless it came in at the exact same angle, which would have meant that the engines would have at least divoted the lawn, the angle of descent (if it was a plane) was different than the much more closer to horizontal angle of the holes in the walls. Simple (simple) geometry attests to that.
You're assuming that the only damage to the Pentagon walls were made by the pane and not from collapse or fire... That's a faulty assumption... https://youtu.be/Vknf19mfwkw
That's a faulty assumption... Dude, you really really are dense. Seriously, have you ever had your IQ measured? I cannot imagine that it's above 100. Seriously. You're so stupid that in your response you completely ignore, once again, the pic that I posted showing the f'ing building in its pre-collapse phase. Whether you personally choose to post like a stupid fuck or whether you're simply too stupid for your own polemical good notwithstanding, you're a fool and a moron. You're also extremely dishonest and disingenuous, clearly, which is why people think you're a government employee. You match most of the criteria, certainly all of the critical ones. Please do not make me put you on ignore with further idiocy, willful ignornace, and further proof that you are indeed an ignoramus! Honestly, is it even possible for someone that can express themself in writing so well be so fucking stupid? Honestly, run for federal office, that's exactly where you belong, with the rest of the ignorant lying pigs with agendas that are counter to the interests of the people. Why do you even post here? Your posts are like a turd on top of a hot fudge sunday here.
I'm going to respond only to the part of your post that is spittle free: the pic that I posted showing the f'ing building in its pre-collapse phase. A context that you neither provided nor established when you posted that cropped, out of focus, mostly darkened, very small picture with the box on it.
You're both dishonest and stupid.
YOU posted a photo and gave no context whatsoever for it. YOU posted a photo with contrasts that are barely distinguishable. YOU posted a photo that is barely in focus. YOU posted a photo that has a small square around a BLACKENED INDISTINGUISHABLE area on the photo. YOU then pretended that you can actually *see* something in that BLACKENED INDISTINGUISHABLE area. YOU are trying to claim that this photo *proves* that the plane that people saw fly into the Pentagon and which took out several light poles, including one that hit a vehicle with a driver who saw the plane you claim does not exist, was not really a plane. But it's me who's *dishonest* and *stupid*. "IF I say I am floating off of the floor...and you say that I am floating off of the floor...then who is to argue that I am not floating off of the floor." O'Brien to Winston Smith, 1984 You may be O'Brien but I ain't Winston Smith, pumpkin...
As I said, you're both dishonest and stupid. Seriously, which government agency do you work for? Sorry, but this isn't a place whereby when things are told often enough people believe them. Go back to whatever LP's pyscho tearoom replacement is. You don't belong here. Interesting that you're at war with everyone on everything. That's always a tell-tale sign.
I noticed that right away -- he does nothing but bitch at others and call them names in my limited experience here.
You obviously don't read my posts.
My nomination for the funniest post of the day so far. One poster running around the room shitting on everything in sight, insisting that his shit doesn't stink while blaming everyone else for the stench. Classic! I'm sure he'll top himself, ... it's early yet.
Can you point out any post in which I have attacked, for lack of a better word, you in a manner commensurate to how you have attacked me? I'll wait...thanks...
There are no replies to Comment # 225. End Trace Mode for Comment # 225.
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)
#118. To: Katniss (#116)
I'm sorry, but anyone that (sic) thinks that a plane came in at a vertical angle...
#131. To: war (#118)
You don't need to apologize but who *thinks* that 77 went in *vertically*?
#173. To: Katniss (#131)
Well, let's see, unless it came in at the exact same angle, which would have meant that the engines would have at least divoted the lawn, the angle of descent (if it was a plane) was different than the much more closer to horizontal angle of the holes in the walls.
#179. To: war, All (#173)
(Edited)
You're assuming that the only damage to the Pentagon walls were made by the pane and not from collapse or fire...
#180. To: Katniss (#179)
(Edited)
#186. To: war (#180)
#187. To: Katniss (#186)
You're both dishonest and stupid.
#215. To: war, All (#187)
(Edited)
#216. To: Katniss (#215)
#218. To: NeoconsNailed (#216)
I noticed that right away -- he does nothing but bitch at others and call them names in my limited experience here.
#223. To: war, All (#218)
You obviously don't read my posts.
#225. To: Katniss (#223)
Replies to Comment # 225.