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: 18101
Comments: 402
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-311) not displayed.
.
.
.
#312. To: war (#311)
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
Amazing that you had to be told this... In other words, you felt the need to add that snide remark even though what you had just said made no sense in regards to my original statement. Snow does not fall *off* mountains. Down...but not off..., Er, not quite. Snow does not FALL DOWN a mountain, in terms of an avalanche it ROLLS down AND off a mountain. He sure is. By trying to "prove" the government story, he's actually bringing the inconsistencies of it to the forefront.
So all of those videos of the WTC tower collapses, you're saying are fake, since they obviously did NOT fall sideways in ANY of those videos. Wasn't there some one named youclown or something like that years ago?
World Trade Center - Wikipedia Two World Trade Center (the South Tower) became the second tallest building in the world at 1,362 feet Height divided by war's alleged fall rate of 32 feet per second But that would be highly incomparable with the evidence so I'm thinking it's your calculation that's off. ------- "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
Roger
I know you don't despite my having stated it numerous times. Well I should hope so, it's the first thing you look at every morning and the last thing every night in the mirror when presumably you brush bullshit's teeth.
I honestly don't know why you are interacting with war. It's clearly an enormous waste of time. He's the perfect example of the definition of the problem in this country. He's a perfect product of Television and the electronic gadget culture. He thinks that everything he sees on TV is real.
Considerately stop sprawling the thread, please, to evade answering the issue -- which isn't what your pseudo-techno opinion is of a physics anomaly vs. a chemistry anomaly or not. It's the inexplicable lack of smoke damage to the exterior of the Towers from the blasts and sooty burnings. Once again, you have no substantive reply and should just leave it at that this time. Edited next to last sentence + 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
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... Irrelevant. Doesn't explain anything about why helicopters weren't dispatched to where they reportedly were. ------- "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
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. Wrong....this isn't a discussion "of what occurred above WTC1's impact zone", despite your focusings on that Tower here and elsewhere. And it's you, not me, who has claimed steel compromising (i.e. paper combustive) high heat temps in the buildings for your en masse "pancaking" summations. That's not even getting into the puzzlement that the topmost section of WTC 7 isn't what should have fallen there first under such conditions and according to your own assertion at #326 that the 13th floor was the point of failure. What you need to do is be more precise about where you're guesstimating that steel compromising (i.e. paper combustive) high heat temps in the buildings stopped "weakening" those structures, even though you weren't in them at the time and neither were the bulk of officalry's NIST theorizers, etc. Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center Edited at first 2 sentences + 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
But that would be highly incomparable with the evidence so I'm thinking it's your calculation that's off. war didn't calculate anything, he simply posted the known and observed rate of acceleration due to earth's gravity. The algebraic form of the relevant equations are as follows; v = d/t, and a = v/t, where v = velocity, d = distance, t = time in seconds, and a = acceleration (rate of change of velocity). g (the acceleration due to earth's gravity) = 32 feet per second per second, and represents the rate of change of velocity of an object for every second the object falls through a vacuum. The following equation is derived from calculus and is well known. t = SQRT(2d/g) So to solve for the amount of time it would take for an object to fall through a vacuum from a given height, we plug the known numbers into the equation; Known values are thus; d1 = height of WTC 1 = 1,368 feet, d2 = height of WTC 2 = 1,362 feet t1 = time to fall from a height of d1 through a vacuum t2 = time to fall from a height of d2 through a vacuum g = 32 feet per second per second t1 = SQRT(2 * 1,368 feet / (32 feet/second2) = 9.25 seconds t2 = SQRT(2 * 1,362 feet / (32 feet/second2) = 9.23 seconds So what it comes down to is that war is using an acceleration rate of an object falling through a vacuum, whereas there was more than just an empty vacuum under the WTC towers. They fell NEAR free fall speed, SO close to it in fact that it would be virtually impossible to have happened UNLESS the supporting lower floors were destroyed sequentially just before the upper structure reached them during its fall.
Comments (353 - 402) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
"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,
#340. To: war (#332)
Uh...no...that appears in my #311...a post that has not been edited and which precedes you using the same phrase.
"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
#341. To: Neo TryingtoWarnYou (#335)
"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
#342. To: war (#334)
No matter how many times you repeat this fable it will not move it to the non- fiction section...
"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
#343. To: FormerLurker (#341)
#344. To: war (#288)
the top millions of tons had decoupled from the bottom and began falling at a rate of 32 feet per second per second.
North Tower (One World Trade Center), the tallest building in the world at 1,368 feet
per second = 42.5 seconds+ for each.
#345. To: FormerLurker (#293)
#346. To: war, All (#295)
Once again, I have no idea what your reference or context is.
Unfortunately for you, I simply recognize bullshit when I see it...
#347. To: GreyLmist, FormerLurker, All (#344)
#348. To: war (#267)
(Edited)
How is a lack of smoke damage on the OUTSIDE of the Towers an *anomaly* of physics?
#349. To: war (#265)
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.
#350. To: war (#266)
(Edited)
The current issue in this discussion isn't the alleged jumpers
I turned my attention to steel beams that fell in freefall next to the building as it collapsed. The beams were falling at the same rate that the towers themselves were descending. Familiar with elementary physics, including principles of conservation of energy and momentum, this seemed quite impossible if the towers were indeed "pancaking," which is the official theory.
#351. To: GreyLmist, war (#344)
Height divided by war's alleged fall rate of 32 feet per second per second = 42.5 seconds+ for each.
"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
#352. To: GreyLmist, war (#344)
"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
.
.
.