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: 17904
Comments: 402
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 361.
#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.
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? No, my claim wasn't about no visible smoke. It was about the lack of significantly visible smoke damages to the Towers. Edited formatting.
Tell me why I should care about smoke damage at all...
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.
How is a lack of smoke damage on the OUTSIDE of the Towers an *anomaly* of physics?
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.
Putting aside the issue that you refuse to state why this is *anomalous*, what's that black stuff on the exterior of the WTC? Or this: Or this: You seeing bright shiny aluminum there?
Yes -- way more than there should be after the blasts and so much smoke. Doubtful anybody here but you wouldn't agree and you almost never do, so no need for me to post a bunch of counter-pictures too. Many pics online that others can compare themselves to yours.
www.veteranstoday.com/author/jim/
#387. To: Neo TryingtoWarnYou (#361)
Thanks for the link, Neo.
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..
#214. To: war (#193)
(Edited)
So, since you didn't have a counterpoint to speak of, how about you try to explain other things of gravitas for us like 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.
#221. To: GreyLmist (#214)
No, my claim wasn't about no visible smoke. It was about the lack of significantly visible smoke damages to the Towers.
#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.
#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.
#348. To: war (#267)
(Edited)
How is a lack of smoke damage on the OUTSIDE of the Towers an *anomaly* of physics?
#357. To: GreyLmist (#348)
(Edited)
It's the inexplicable lack of smoke damage to the exterior of the Towers from the blasts and sooty burnings.
#360. To: war (#357)
You seeing bright shiny aluminum there?
#361. To: GreyLmist (#360)
Replies to Comment # 361.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 361.