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: 17923
Comments: 402
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-298) not displayed.
.
.
.
#299. To: war (#297)
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. Yes, all you need to do is read your own words. Are you now denying that you wrote these words? the remaining supporting columns were so compromised that they could no longer support the structure. 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*?
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*?
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? 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. 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? 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*?
Nope. PING me when you want to stop playing games. Thanks. --Are you a *Jew*?
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. 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. 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*?
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. 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. Avalanches are simply snow rolling off those mountains, the mountains themselves are not collapsing. Amazing that you had to be told that. 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*?
You felt the need to repeat back to me what I stated to you why, exactly? --Are you a *Jew*?
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"? 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. Please point out where I stated that anything other than the *materials* were falling. Thanks... --Are you a *Jew*?
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. I stated mountains don't fall down. You stated avalanches make my statement false, in so many words. That makes you a liar. Can you please simply point out the post...not your warped interpretations. Thanks. --Are you a *Jew*?
The law of physics which states than an object will always take the path of LEAST resistance. Look it up. Can you please point to where there might reside any working brain cells in the room you are currently in?
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... WTC7 did have a minor break up in that the penthouse structure collapsed along with some of the roof but, essentially, it remained intact...on that I concur but the failure was much lower...13th floor... As for WTC 1 and 2 to claim that they fell straight down and did not spew huge chucks of debris all over nor did it break apart is simply insanity. The debris field for WTC 1 and 2 spanned blocks and damaged structures in a wide radius... --Are you a *Jew*?
That statement is 100% correct. Nowhere in that statement do I state that anything has fallen other than the materials which comprise the avalanche. The word *mountain* appears nowhere. The word *collapse* appears nowhere. I am beginning to wonder if English is your first language. --Are you a *Jew*?
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... --Are you a *Jew*?
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. Debris was ejected horizontally, yet the structure itself collapsed into its own footprint, ie. it did not tumble over and drop sideways into the surrounding buildings or street. It was a symmetrical collapse, not asymmetrical. Do you know what those words mean? You added the above phrase after you responded with your avalanche statement in regards to my statement that mountains don't collapse because they're above ground. So sure, snow falls off mountains. Mountains don't collapse. The two do not equate and are not related. Do you fail to understand that? Uh...no...that appears in my #311...a post that has not been edited and which precedes you using the same phrase. You've just been caught in a possible lie...what do you do? So sure, snow falls off mountains. Mountains don't collapse. Snow does not fall *off* mountains. Down...but not off... The two do not equate and are not related. Do you fail to understand that? I've given you absolutely no cause for you to *think* that I don't. --Are you a *Jew*?
Free fall speed for those 18 or 19 stories that are visible from the North would be 3.9 seconds...it takes 5.4 seconds for those 18 floors to disappear... So no...debunked...again... --Are you a *Jew*?
No matter how many times you repeat this fable it will not move it to the non- fiction section... --Are you a *Jew*?
war is doing a great job keeping this at the top so every one can see it, isn't he?
War is a Jew fag taking it in the ass while typing stupid responses in his mother's basement.
"We're all on death row, only the execution date is uncertain". Doug Scheidt 2015
4um has an edit feature... --Are you a *Jew*?
You're welcome!
--Are you a *Jew*?
That's been debunked. Several times. WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II) - 5.5 minute YouTube ------- "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
Comments (340 - 402) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestHas the government come out and stated that it shot down Flt93?
"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
#300. To: war (#295)
Unfortunately for you, I simply recognize bullshit when I see it...
"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
#301. To: war (#296)
Uh no...go back and re-read the deliberately simple English that I used and try again.
"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
#302. To: FormerLurker (#292)
FREEFALL SPEED of 9 SECONDS, PLUS TWO and ONE HALF SECONDS, EQUALS NEAR FREEFALL SPEED.
#303. To: FormerLurker (#301)
the remaining supporting columns were so compromised that they could no longer support the structure.
#304. To: war (#288)
Because the top millions of tons had decoupled from the bottom and began falling at a rate of 32 feet per second per second.
"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
#305. To: war (#302)
"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
#306. To: war (#303)
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...
"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
#307. To: FormerLurker (#304)
Explain "decoupled".
#308. To: FormerLurker (#306)
So now you're changing your mind again.
#309. To: war (#307)
"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
#310. To: war (#289)
"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
#311. To: FormerLurker (#309)
WTC 7 DID fall at free fall speed,
#312. To: war (#311)
"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
#313. To: war (#311)
WTC 1 fell at nearly twice Free Fall speed.
"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
#314. To: war (#311)
(Edited)
Avalanches occur when what was supporting the materials which are now falling can no longer support them...
"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
#315. To: FormerLurker (#310)
A) They should NOT have collapsed. The lower structures were still intact and should not have instanaeously (sic) failed.
#316. To: FormerLurker (#314)
Avalanches are simply snow rolling off those mountains, the mountains themselves are not collapsing.
#317. To: war (#315)
The lower structure did no such thing. It failed in stages as ever increasing weight compromised the support structure.
"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
#318. To: war (#316)
You felt the need to repeat back to me what I stated to you why, 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
#319. To: FormerLurker (#318)
You're equating snow rolling off a mountain to a total collapse of that mountain.
#320. To: war (#315)
As has been previously pointed out to you in both video and photos, it's a good thing that they didn't then...
"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
#321. To: war (#319)
"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
#322. To: FormerLurker (#321)
You stated avalanches make my statement false, in so many words.
#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.
"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
#324. To: war (#322)
"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
#325. To: war (#322)
Can you please simply point out the post...not your warped interpretations.
So you're equating snow rolling off a mountain to a mountain collapse.
"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
#326. To: FormerLurker (#320)
As all videos and photos show, neither the towers nor WTC7 broke up and slid off in chunks
#327. To: FormerLurker (#325)
Avalanches occur when what was supporting the materials which are now falling can no longer support them...
#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.
#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...
"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
#330. To: war (#326)
The debris field for WTC 1 and 2 spanned blocks and damaged structures in a wide radius...
"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
#331. To: war (#327)
Amazing that you had to be told this...
"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
#332. To: FormerLurker (#331)
You added the above phrase after you responded with your avalanche statement in regards to my statement that mountains don't collapse because they're above ground.
#333. To: FormerLurker (#312)
There is a video proof of WTC7 falling AT free fall speed
#334. To: FormerLurker (#330)
...yet the structure itself collapsed into its own footprint...
#335. To: FormerLurker (#331)
#336. To: Neo TryingtoWarnYou (#335)
#337. To: noone222 (#336)
War is a Jew fag taking it in the ass while typing stupid responses in his mother's basement.
#338. To: Neo TryingtoWarnYou (#335)
#339. To: war, FormerLurker (#311)
WTC 7 DID fall at free fall speed,
.
.
.