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: 17926
Comments: 402
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-242) not displayed.
.
.
.
#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?
--Are you a *Jew*?
What point are you trying to make? Only the floors with steel compromising fire had paper that somehow withstood those temps? ------- "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
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? --Are you a *Jew*?
BTW, anyone who has read Ray Bradbury knows at what temperature paper combusts...
--Are you a *Jew*?
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. ------- "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
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... --Are you a *Jew*?
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)"] ------- "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
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. --Are you a *Jew*?
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. ------- "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 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 --Are you a *Jew*?
If that is the *truth* then you should have no problem providing supporting evidence for it... Your assertion that the collapsing South Tower caused damages to buildings around it is irrelevant... Says you for no reason other than you felt like typing... --Are you a *Jew*?
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. ------- "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 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. --Are you a *Jew*?
--Are you a *Jew*?
If that is the *truth* then you should have no problem providing supporting evidence for it... I've already done that here 3 times: at #73, #237 and #247. Your problem, not mine, if that example isn't good enough for you. Nobody else is complaining. Says you for no reason other than you felt like typing... Says you and your assertion about damages from the collapsing South Tower to buildings around it still remains irrelevant except as reinforcement for the anomalous lack of significant damage from it to the North Tower. Edited formatting and 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
Your video does not show the ground...the angle is such that a building in the foreground obscures half the view and the ensuing dust cloud obscures the rest. To claim that video *proves* anything other than a) the building collapsed and b) generated a HUGE dust cloud is, to be kind, problematic. Nobody else is complaining. I care about what others do or don't do why, again? --Are you a *Jew*?
An *anamoly* for which you've established no proof. --Are you a *Jew*?
www.wsj.com/articles/SB 1003784754436648720 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. Edited formatting. ------- "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 care why about repetitively backtracking over your incapability to see the obvious there and neglect to do your own news-footage research if you think it could demonstrate a provable counterpoint for you? I don't. Once again, you just have nothing but baseless denial. Edited sentence 1 + quote section. ------- "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
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. You at #193: 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? Me at #214: No, my claim wasn't about no visible smoke. It was about the lack of significantly visible smoke damages to the Towers. You at #221: Tell me why I should care about smoke damage at all... It's a Physics issue from my short-list here at Post #189 re: 9/11 Laws of Physics anomalies, which you were supposedly addressing but didn't really. Tell me why you'd think that you shouldn't be concerned at all with the incongruity of it, if you aren't. Edited sentence 2. ------- "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. 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. ------- "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 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... alleged jumpers... So those people were really Dime Store dummies? --Are you a *Jew*?
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. --Are you a *Jew*?
How is a lack of smoke damage on the OUTSIDE of the Towers an *anomaly* of physics? --Are you a *Jew*?
Since gravity is exponential, that 2.5 seconds is significant... --Are you a *Jew*?
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... --Are you a *Jew*?
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. It indicates no such thing. The building fell from the top down beginning at the site of the impact... --Are you a *Jew*?
10's of millions of tons falling was going to be abated significantly by what, exactly? --Are you a *Jew*?
Exactly the same thing that held up those 10's of millions of tons from the time they were first put there. You know the answer, do I have to tell you? 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? Has the fact that it was FALLING and therefore, by definition, NO LONGER BEING HELD UP, escaped you? --Are you a *Jew*?
I *shudder* to ask but will anyway, where in your *mind, did you reach such a conclusion? --Are you a *Jew*?
Yes, you seem to selectively miss a whole lot everywhere. I'll give ya credit though, you do seem to be tight on the establishment viewpoints and all but in lock-step with them.
I stated exactly what is obvious there...no more...no less... --Are you a *Jew*?
...I've accepted nothing more than the broad strokes of 9/11...OBL orchestrated hijacked planes...crashed into buildings...@ WTC the damage, which I personally witnessed, was as fatal to the structures as it was to the people inside. I firmly believe that 93 was shot down on The Big Dick Cheney's order which turned out to be problematic for them - because The Big Dick had no authority to do so - so they simply denied it. Not one of the other scenarios I have been presented with, especially the controlled demolition or drone nonsense, has ever given me pause, i.e. it was too easily falsified... --Are you a *Jew*?
So you were there, in all three places, to see it all unfold? Impressive. If you say that you saw it on TV then you'll simply prove that you're more stupid than I thought you were. You completely ignored most of the points made by myself and GL and the evidence provided in many posts prior to this. There's not much to discuss at that point and combined with your other idiotic statements tells the world all that we need to know about you.
I believe that I have responded to every post. And any *evidence* that you may have thought that you provided wasn't evidence at all. I was employed for a company located @ 165 Broadway and I had a desk at the NW corner of the building and was there, in my desk, that morning. Both towers were at my shoulder. --Are you a *Jew*?
I almost let this jab go by but I simply cannot. What misfires in the mind of you folks that makes you *think* such abjectly *stupid* things? There was nothing that I stated/posted here from which such a conclusion of the meaning of what I stated/posted here could be reached. --Are you a *Jew*?
Comments (284 - 402) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#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?
#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?
#246. To: GreyLmist (#241)
#247. To: war (#238)
(Edited)
News footage.
#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.
#249. To: war (#245)
Not all the floors were on fire...not all of the paper in the WTCs burned...
#250. To: GreyLmist (#249)
#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.
#252. To: GreyLmist (#251)
It's not my job to spoonfeed you more supporting evidence....
#253. To: GreyLmist (#251)
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.
#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.
#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"
#256. To: GreyLmist (#254)
You might want to explain, though, why no helicopters were dispatched to try and rescue them.
#257. To: war (#253)
(Edited)
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.
Your assertion that the collapsing South Tower caused damages to buildings around it is irrelevant...
#258. To: GreyLmist (#257)
(Edited)
I've already done that here 3 times: at #73, #237 and #247. Your problem, not mine, if that example isn't good enough for you.
#259. To: GreyLmist (#257)
...for the anonalous lack of significant damage from it to the North Tower.
#260. To: war (#256)
(Edited)
You might want to explain, though, why no helicopters were dispatched to try and rescue them.
#261. To: war (#259)
(Edited)
You at #258: I care about what others do or don't do why, again?
#262. To: war (#252)
"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
#263. To: war (#221)
(Edited)
Me at #189: ...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.
#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."
#265. To: GreyLmist (#260)
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.
#266. To: GreyLmist (#264)
The current issue in this discussion isn't the alleged jumpers
#267. To: GreyLmist (#263)
(Edited)
It's a Physics issue from my short-list here at Post #189 re: 9/11 Laws of Physics anomalies, which you were supposedly addressing but didn't really. Tell me why you'd think that you shouldn't be concerned at all with the incongruity of it, if you aren't.
#268. To: FormerLurker (#262)
(Edited)
So you're saying that it should take only an extra 2.5 seconds
#269. To: war (#268)
Since gravity is exponential, that 2.5 seconds is significant...
"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
#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.
#271. To: war (#270)
Uh...no...and that would be just as wrong if it was a CD...
"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
#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.
#273. To: FormerLurker (#271)
If there had been any significant resistance to the collapse
#274. To: war (#273)
10's of millions of tons falling was going to be abated significantly by what, exactly?
"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
#275. To: war (#272)
It indicates no such thing.
"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
#276. To: FormerLurker (#274)
Exactly the same thing that held up those 10's of millions of tons from the time they were first put there.
#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?
#278. To: war, All (#243)
Did I miss something somewhere?
#279. To: GreyLmist (#261)
I care why about repetitively backtracking over your incapability to see the obvious there
#280. To: Katniss (#278)
I'll give ya credit though, you do seem to be tight on the establishment viewpoints...
#281. To: war (#280)
which I personally witnessed
#282. To: Katniss (#281)
You completely ignored most of the points made by myself and GL and the evidence provided in many posts prior to this.
#283. To: Katniss (#281)
(Edited)
So you were there, in all three places, to see it all unfold?
.
.
.