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: 17887
Comments: 402
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 330.
#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...
Greater weight of the upper floors... Didn't you say elsewhere that the upper floors angularly toppled over rather than falling directly downward? -- which would be less weight on the floors below. Comparing the Towers to steel box beams and the alleged impact zones as similar to the first deconstruction dismantling-step of material removal to make segments of a beam topple over, a welder could take out triangular parts on each side of that space, pointed towards the back like this: < > and it likely still wouldn't slant forward that far up and topple off until they stepped around to the back area and blowtorched it across from one triangular point to the other. Edited for a word replacement.
No. As they fell they began to tilt....as is clearly indicated on the videos... Here's a pic from a CT site so it will have credibility in your *mind*: In fact, it tilted for a number of reasons not the least of which was because the damage to the supporting columns was not uniformly horizontal...another annoying fact that the controlled demolition crowd cannot accept... Note also the visible fire...which FormerLurker claims were *out*....
No. As they fell they began to tilt....as is clearly indicated on the videos... Here's a pic from a CT site so it will have credibility in your *mind*: In fact, it tilted for a number of reasons not the least of which was because the damage to the supporting columns was not uniformly horizontal...another annoying fact that the controlled demolition crowd cannot accept... Note also the visible fire...which FormerLurker claims were *out*.... You at #139: "referring to a source as proof of *fact* is illogical...it's called *circular*" ...unless it's posted by you and then it's merely more like...loopy. A 9/11 CT [Conspiracy Theory] site, imo, would be an official story dispensary -- i.e. the most illogical sort. I didn't ask about why the floors tilted or the visiblity of fire, which is questionable as such in your pic and is better evidence of the much huger absence of raging fires. Tilted...toppled, either way it would be less weight on the floors below, as I said. So, 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. Were their exterior surfaces made of teflon or something like that, do you think? And the first Tower that fell without significanly damaging the one next to it, as it did others farther away. How'd that happen? What of all that indestructible paper debris which didn't spontaneously combust in the high-temperatures you claim weakened the steel? Shouldn't WTC 7 have fallen quicker than the Towers, smaller as it was with less steel to heat up -- or what's the difference between WTC 7 steel and the Towers? That'll do for now as my short-list presently re: 9/11 Laws of Physics anomalies. Awaiting your input. Edited spelling + comment sentences 2 and 6.
...and ignoring the direct effect of gravity as you did so... So, 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. 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? And the first Tower that fell without (significantly) damaging the one next to it, as it did others farther away. A) Where's your evidence for that? B) The South Tower was closer to the Banker's Trust building which, was directly across Liberty Street, than it was to the North Tower...IIRC, the South Tower actually collapsed in the direction of the SW and took out the Banker's Trust Building and the Winter Garden of the WFC. What of all that indestructible paper debris which didn't spontaneously combust in the high-temperatures you claim weakened the steel? When the North Tower was impacted and I looked out the window from my vantage point in the northwest corner of 1 Liberty, it was like a ticker tape parade and some of the papers that were fluttering were singed...I remember one piece of paper hitting the window right before my nose that had a FUJI BANK letterhead. As for your question...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... Shouldn't WTC 7 have fallen quicker than the Towers... Gravity affects all objects equally...the construction of WTC7 and WTC1 and 2 were not the same.
You at #193: A) Where's your evidence for that? News footage. 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.
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...
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.
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...
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.
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
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.
Since gravity is exponential, that 2.5 seconds is significant...
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...
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...
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?
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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...
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?
#334. To: FormerLurker (#330)
No matter how many times you repeat this fable it will not move it to the non- fiction section...
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?
#98. To: war (#92)
(Edited)
how come the.tower that was hit second fell first?
#102. To: GreyLmist, FormerLurker (#98)
(Edited)
Didn't you say elsewhere that the upper floors angularly toppled over rather than falling directly downward? -- which would be less weight on the floors below.
#189. To: war (#102)
(Edited)
Didn't you say elsewhere that the upper floors angularly toppled over rather than falling directly downward? -- which would be less weight on the floors below.
#193. To: GreyLmist (#189)
(Edited)
Tilted...toppled, either way it would be less weight on the floors below, as I said..
#237. To: war (#193)
Me at #189: the first Tower that fell without significanly damaging the one next to it, as it did others farther away. How'd that happen?
You at #193: B) The South Tower was closer to the Banker's Trust building which, was directly across Liberty Street, than it was to the North Tower...IIRC, the South Tower actually collapsed in the direction of the SW and took out the Banker's Trust Building and the Winter Garden of the WFC.
#238. To: GreyLmist (#237)
News footage.
#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.
#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....
#262. To: war (#252)
#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...
#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...
#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.
#275. To: war (#272)
It indicates no such thing.
#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?
#286. To: war (#277)
I *shudder* to ask but will anyway, where in your *mind, did you reach such a conclusion?
#289. To: FormerLurker (#286)
(Edited)
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?
#310. To: war (#289)
#315. To: FormerLurker (#310)
A) They should NOT have collapsed. The lower structures were still intact and should not have instanaeously (sic) failed.
#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...
#326. To: FormerLurker (#320)
As all videos and photos show, neither the towers nor WTC7 broke up and slid off in chunks
#330. To: war (#326)
The debris field for WTC 1 and 2 spanned blocks and damaged structures in a wide radius...
Replies to Comment # 330. ...yet the structure itself collapsed into its own footprint...
End Trace Mode for Comment # 330.