[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Dear Horse, which one of your posts has the Deep State so spun up that's causing 4um to run slow? Bomb Cyclone Pacific Northwest Death Certificates Reveal FBI 'Revised' Murder Stats Still Bogus A $110B bubble on $500M earnings. History warns: Bubbles always burst. Joy Behar says people like their show because they tell the truth, unlike "dragon believer" Joe Rogan. Male Passenger Disappointed After Another Flight Ends Without A Stewardess Frantically Asking If Anyone Can Land The Plane Could the Rapid Growth of AI Boost Gold Demand? LOOK AT MY ASS! Elon Musk Responds As British Government "Summons" Him To 'Disinformation' Hearing MSNBC Contributor Panics Over Trump Nominating Bondi For AG: Dangerous Because Shes Competent House passes dangerous bill that targets nonprofits, pro-Palestine groups Navy Will Sideline 17 Support Vessels to Ease Strain on Civilian Mariners Israel carries out field executions, massacres in north Gaza AOC votes to back Israel Lobby's bogus anti-Semitism definition Biden to launch ICE mobile app, further disrupting Trump's mass deportation plan: Report Panic at Mar-a-Lago: How the Fake Press Pool Fueled Global Fear Until X Set the Record Straight Donald Trumps Nominee for the FCC Will Remove DEI as a Priority of the Agency Stealing JFK's Body Trump plans to revive Keystone XL pipeline to solidify U.S. energy independence ASHEVILLE UPDATE: Bodies Being Stacked in Warehouses & Children Being Taken Away American news is mostly written by Israeli lobbyists pushing Zionist agenda Biden's Missile Crisis British Operation Kiss kill Instantly Skripals Has Failed to Kill But Succeeded at Covering Up, Almost NASA chooses SpaceX and Blue Origin to deliver rover, astronaut base to the moon The Female Fantasy Exposed: Why Women Love Toxic Love Stories United States will NOT comply with the ICC arrest warrant for Prime Minister Netanyahu: Mississippi’s GDP Beats France: A Shocking Look at Economic Policy Failures (Per Capita) White House Refuses to Recognize US Responsibility for Escalation of Conflict in Ukraine MAKE EDUCATION GREAT AGAIN!! They will burn it with a "Peresvet" or shoot it down with a "hypersound"

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: 18107
Comments: 402

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

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   Trace   Private Reply  

Whatever was below it. From every video available that would be through the rest of the building...

Ok, so the REST OF THE BUILDING supported all those tons above it since it was built. Now why all of a sudden were they unable to continue to support that weight?

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-04-08   13:34:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Now why all of a sudden were they unable to continue to support that weight?

Because the top millions of tons had decoupled from the bottom and began falling at a rate of 32 feet per second per second.

And I'll note that the answer to my question regarding your questions in my last post is obviously *no*...

--Are you a *Jew*?

war  posted on  2015-04-08   13:37:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

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.

--Are you a *Jew*?

war  posted on  2015-04-08   13:48:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Once again, you ignore the core points of the post.

I will give you props for that, you're a master at polemical evasion.

Katniss  posted on  2015-04-08   14:03:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Something's not passing the smell test here, regarding war.

He's clearly a product of the media, but there's something else amiss.

Katniss  posted on  2015-04-08   14:04:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

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.

You are a liar.

I have said OVER and OVER and OVER AGAIN, that the WTC towers fell AT OR NEAR FREE FALL SPEED.

Are you able to understand it now that I have said it in all CAPS?

FREEFALL SPEED of 9 SECONDS, PLUS TWO and ONE HALF SECONDS, EQUALS NEAR FREEFALL SPEED.

YOU need to admit that it would take longer than 2.5 seconds to totally destroy 70 floors worth of steel and concrete, yet that is what took place.

The ONLY way for that to have happened in that amount of time is by controlled demolition.

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-04-08   14:10:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

He's clearly a product of the media, but there's something else amiss.

He clearly posts (works ???) on the Internet 9 to 5 EST, has been doing so for quite some time, and ALWAYS takes the government's side on whatever it is he's "discussing".

He ignores indisputable facts, or at minimum distorts and twists those facts into meanings totally opposite of what they indicate.

So yep, there is SURELY something "amiss" with our little friend, war.

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-04-08   14:14:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

*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.

So now you're trying to claim that the entire length of the lower 70 floors was "compromised", eh?

Maybe the "muzzies" dug a hole from a cave in Afghanistan all the way to under the WTC towers, and THAT is what made them fall, right?

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-04-08   14:16:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Once again, you ignore the core points of the post.

Once again, I have no idea what your reference or context is.

I will give you props for that, you're a master at polemical evasion.

Unfortunately for you, I simply recognize bullshit when I see it...

--Are you a *Jew*?

war  posted on  2015-04-08   14:17:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

So now you're trying to claim that the entire length of the lower 70 floors was "compromised", eh?

Uh no...go back and re-read the deliberately simple English that I used and try again.

--Are you a *Jew*?

war  posted on  2015-04-08   14:18:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

He clearly posts (works ???) on the Internet 9 to 5 EST, has been doing so for quite some time, and ALWAYS takes the government's side on whatever it is he's "discussing".

Has the government come out and stated that it shot down Flt93?

--Are you a *Jew*?

war  posted on  2015-04-08   14:19:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

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.

So every skycraper on earth should be falling down right now according to your logic, since gravity makes them all "fall".

Mountains should be "falling" too I guess, in YOUR universe.

Blowing up the supporting lower structure with explosives is not "allowing the towers to fall on their own". Do you need diagrams to understand that?

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-04-08   14:20:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Has the government come out and stated that it shot down Flt93?

Of course not. Nor are they admitting that it landed at Cleveland, Ohio, even though there are credible reports that it actually did just that.

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-04-08   14:23:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Unfortunately for you, I simply recognize bullshit when I see it...

Yes, all you need to do is read your own words.

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-04-08   14:24:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Uh no...go back and re-read the deliberately simple English that I used and try again.

Are you now denying that you wrote these words?

the remaining supporting columns were so compromised that they could no longer support the structure.

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-04-08   14:26:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

FREEFALL SPEED of 9 SECONDS, PLUS TWO and ONE HALF SECONDS, EQUALS NEAR FREEFALL SPEED.

2.5 seconds for, essentially, the short distance the South Tower had to fall is not a small amount of time and that was only the observable time, btw...

YOU need to admit that it would take longer than 2.5 seconds to totally destroy 70 floors worth of steel and concrete, yet that is what took place.

What makes you *think* that the collapsing structure had to destroy the floors? All it had to do was take out whatever supports were below it...do you think a controlled demolition would have destroyed the entire FLOOR? No, doofus, it destroys support...

Geez...stop and *think* please....

Engineer, my ass...

--Are you a *Jew*?

war  posted on  2015-04-08   14:29:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

the remaining supporting columns were so compromised that they could no longer support the structure.

Yea...the structure being what was ABOVE the impact zones, doof...the columns that were compromised didn't support what was below it...only above it...

Your mind is a mess...

--Are you a *Jew*?

war  posted on  2015-04-08   14:31:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Because the top millions of tons had decoupled from the bottom and began falling at a rate of 32 feet per second per second.

Explain "decoupled".

And explain why the lower structure suddenly behaved as if it were thin air, or perhaps THICK air, giving at least SOME resistance to the FREE FALL ACCELERATION of the upper structure.

If you'd like, we could use some equations to illustrate some laws of physics. Do you like equations war?

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-04-08   14:32:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

2.5 seconds for, essentially, the short distance the South Tower had to fall is not a small amount of time and that was only the observable time, btw...

So now you're saying that you DO believe it'd only take 2.5 seconds to destroy 70 floors worth of concrete and steel.

Yep, at least now you said it.

What makes you *think* that the collapsing structure had to destroy the floors? All it had to do was take out whatever supports were below it...do you think a controlled demolition would have destroyed the entire FLOOR? No, doofus, it destroys support...

So now you're admitting that explosives were used? Cool, so now we can go to a different topic, and you concede that I was right.

Thanks.

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-04-08   14:36:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Yea...the structure being what was ABOVE the impact zones, doof...the columns that were compromised didn't support what was below it...only above it...

So now you're changing your mind again. You're saying that the UPPER columns are what failed, and that is why the LOWER STRUCTURE suddenly behaved like THICK AIR?

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-04-08   14:38:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Explain "decoupled".

No longer attached to.

What do you *think* it means?

And explain why the lower structure suddenly behaved as if it were thin air...

Given the dust and debris that was being spewed by the collapse, I reject the premise that anything was falling through thin air.

If you'd like, we could use some equations to illustrate some laws of physics. Do you like equations war?

Use as many as you want...it's all mumblewerve given that, as you have now admitted, the buildings did NOT come down at Free Fall speed.

It's time for you to respond to the questions that you were given in #289...

--Are you a *Jew*?

war  posted on  2015-04-08   14:41:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

So now you're changing your mind again.

Nope.

PING me when you want to stop playing games.

Thanks.

--Are you a *Jew*?

war  posted on  2015-04-08   14:46:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

It's time for you to wake up, smell the coffee, and stop shilling for those who wish to suppress the truth..

WTC 7 DID fall at free fall speed, WTC 1 and 2 fell at NEAR free fall speed, and there was no reason for ANY of them to FALL, since they all had supporting structures holding them up.

ANYTHING will FALL (accelerate downwards) when there is LESS resistance below than the force being exerted downwards by gravity.

Thing is, those structures were built to safely resist that force, otherwise no tall buildings on earth would be safe to inhabit.

Just as mountains don't simply "fall down" because they're above ground, neither do man-made objects.

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-04-08   14:58:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

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   Trace   Private Reply  

WTC 7 DID fall at free fall speed,

That's been debunked. Several times.

WTC 1 and 2 fell at NEAR free fall speed,

WTC 1 fell at nearly twice Free Fall speed.

ANYTHING will FALL (accelerate downwards) when there is LESS resistance below than the force being exerted downwards by gravity..

A point that you ignore when it's convenient or promote when it's convenient.

Thing is, those structures were built to safely resist that force, otherwise no tall buildings on earth would be safe to inhabit.

Thanks, Mr. Obvious.

Just as mountains don't simply "fall down" because they're above ground, neither do man-made objects.

Avalanches occur when what was supporting the materials which are now falling can no longer support them...

Amazing that you had to be told this...

--Are you a *Jew*?

war  posted on  2015-04-08   15:12:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

That's been debunked. Several times.

BS. There is a video proof of WTC7 falling AT free fall speed during at least PART of its collapse. And unlike the other buildings, the main collapse WAS from the bottom, where the entire structure FELL into its own footprint as one piece.

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-04-08   15:14:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

WTC 1 fell at nearly twice Free Fall speed.

LOL!!!!

So were rocket engines attached to the top of WTC1 to make it accelerate FASTER than gravity?

You see, UNLESS there is some EXTRA acceleration involved, such as a pilot flying a jet aircraft pointing its nose straight down and pushing the throttle, an object can't fall FASTER than free fall speed.

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-04-08   15:18:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Avalanches occur when what was supporting the materials which are now falling can no longer support them...

Avalanches are simply snow rolling off those mountains, the mountains themselves are not collapsing.

Amazing that you had to be told that.

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-04-08   15:19:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

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...

--Are you a *Jew*?

war  posted on  2015-04-08   15:19:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Avalanches are simply snow rolling off those mountains, the mountains themselves are not collapsing.

You felt the need to repeat back to me what I stated to you why, exactly?

--Are you a *Jew*?

war  posted on  2015-04-08   15:20:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The lower structure did no such thing. It failed in stages as ever increasing weight compromised the support structure.

Oh, so the towers took hours to collapse, sections at a time?

No of course they didn't.

Ever increasing weight? Are you for real? Are you saying that the muzzies were shoveling lead out of helicopters or something to add that "extra weight"?

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-04-08   15:21:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You felt the need to repeat back to me what I stated to you why, exactly?

You're equating snow rolling off a mountain to a total collapse of that mountain.

Whatever it is you're being paid for this, it's too much.

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-04-08   15:23:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You're equating snow rolling off a mountain to a total collapse of that mountain.

Please point out where I stated that anything other than the *materials* were falling.

Thanks...

--Are you a *Jew*?

war  posted on  2015-04-08   15:24:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

As has been previously pointed out to you in both video and photos, it's a good thing that they didn't then...

As all videos and photos show, neither the towers nor WTC7 broke up and slid off in chunks, nor did they tumble sideways in one direction. They FELL straight DOWN, no matter how many times you lie about it.

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-04-08   15:24:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I stated mountains don't fall down. You stated avalanches make my statement false, in so many words.

That makes you a liar.

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-04-08   15:25:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You stated avalanches make my statement false, in so many words.

Can you please simply point out the post...not your warped interpretations.

Thanks.

--Are you a *Jew*?

war  posted on  2015-04-08   15:26:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

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   Trace   Private Reply  

Can you please point to where there might reside any working brain cells in the room you are currently in?

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-04-08   15:28:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Can you please simply point out the post...not your warped interpretations.

In case you're either too retarded or too lazy to look up your own words..

FL : Just as mountains don't simply "fall down" because they're above ground, neither do man-made objects.

war: Avalanches occur when what was supporting the materials which are now falling can no longer support them...

Amazing that you had to be told this...

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-04-08   15:33:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Comments (326 - 402) not displayed.

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]