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:18198 Comments:402
As far as how a plane descends, in a controlled descent at least, power is REDUCED in order to reduce air speed, decreasing the air flow over the wing causing a reduction in lift.
I'll cut to the chase here because you obviously *think* you can simply rephrase what it is that you *think* you've read on Wikipedia...
Your first mistake is equating power and speed...they are two different things and are affected by whatever forces or configurations affect drag...
Secondly, there would have been no reason for a pilot, in flight, to reverse his engines but it does underscore your continued need to introduce strawmen in to the argument...
Thirdly. sit by the window the next time that you fly...as the pilot descends through 20 down to 10, you will see him/her begin to deploy flaps and as s/he begins his/her final approach, s/he will be at full flaps...pay attention to the engines as those flaps are deployed, you will hear them power UP to compensate for the increased drag caused by the flaps...
You haven't presented any other than for how long WTC2 fires burned...and that was by accident...
Hey tinker bell, I mentioned it at least several times over the past few days that the South Tower collapsed after burning for less than an hour.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. Thats not a threat. Thats a promise. LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
You were trying to "prove" he did it by posting some bogus material about him claiming credit, but when he TWICE denied he was involved, then what he says doesn't make a difference.
He's guilty simply because YOU say it, right?
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. Thats not a threat. Thats a promise. LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
I made a statement (116), you thought you challenged it when instead you merely, and apparently unwittingly (which is the laugh of the day so far for me) reinforced it thinking that you were contesting me (120), then in 133 I asked you a question based on that and you have ignored answering that question.
That pretty much says all that we need to know about you.
Seriously, I doubt that this clown has an IQ of much better than 90 with the jibberish that he's spewing. My only question is whether or not he has a teleprompter telling him what to say.
Your first mistake is equating power and speed...they are two different things and are affected by whatever forces or configurations affect drag...
So in YOUR mind, a pilot increases engine power to SLOW DOWN, eh? LOL!!!!
Secondly, there would have been no reason for a pilot, in flight, to reverse his engines but it does underscore your continued need to introduce strawmen in to the argument...
It's apparent your grasp of the English language is sub-standard, even for a government shill. I said they use thrust reversal after LANDING.
Thirdly. sit by the window the next time that you fly...as the pilot descends through 20 down to 10, you will see him/her begin to deploy flaps and as s/he begins his/her final approach, s/he will be at full flaps...pay attention to the engines as those flaps are deployed, you will hear them power UP to compensate for the increased drag caused by the flaps...
Hey genius, if they did in fact "power up" the air speed would increase and the flaps would rip off.
It's obvious you've never flown a real (or virtual) aircraft, ever.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. Thats not a threat. Thats a promise. LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
Most likely is fed "talking points" via IM or something.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. Thats not a threat. Thats a promise. LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
I just think he's your typical American, has a political agenda and will accept anything that doesn't step on it, combined with not being among the brighter ones in the populace.
Hey, someone's gotta be in that 50% below average intelligence.
I guess I get pissed off and start suspecting either idiocy or subterfuge when people don't answer direct questions, particularly when they initiate the topic, and in his case, completely misunderstood my point, then made it thinking he was slamming me but foolishly reinforced it, but now is running from it like a frightened little girl. I have zero respect for people like that. That's how cops behave. They do their damage and then hide behind the apron strings of societie's corrupt system/establishment, rarely stepping up and telling the truth about their own deeds.
Hell, who knows, maybe war's a cop. He certainly fits the profile.
Hell, who knows, maybe war's a cop. He certainly fits the profile.
Maybe, as he certainly falls into their low IQ hiring standard.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. Thats not a threat. Thats a promise. LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
So in YOUR mind, a pilot increases engine power to SLOW DOWN, eh? LOL!!!!
I have absolutely no idea how you could have *concluded* that based upon what was written by me.
Congrats...you've finally *stumped* me.
It's apparent your grasp of the English language is sub-standard, even for a government shill. I said they use thrust reversal after LANDING.
I know what you *said*. My response was that this was irrelevant information...you could have also typed "and when they arrive at the gate and the equipment comes to a complete stop and the captain double dings the flight attendant opens the cabin door.." which, of course, is correct but has nothing to do with the topic of FLYING...
Hey genius, if they did in fact "power up" the air speed would increase and the flaps would rip off.
You're out of your mind...again you are confusing POWER with speed...or maybe you're just fully confused...
It's not the *thinking* that you *just* do...as minimal as it is...it's what you do with it afterward that's the issue...
Hey, someone's gotta be in that 50% below average intelligence.
Um...don't look now but...
I guess I get pissed off and start suspecting either idiocy or subterfuge when people don't answer direct questions, particularly when they initiate the topic, and in his case, completely misunderstood my point, then made it thinking he was slamming me but foolishly reinforced it, but now is running from it like a frightened little girl. I
Whoa...take a breath there, Oswald...then use the EDIT feature that 4um so graciously provides...
Hell, who knows, maybe war's a cop. He certainly fits the profile.
Most likely is fed "talking points" via IM or something.
This site is lucky if it gets 50 different views a day beyond a random web hit...you're an anonymous clown who has absolutely no clue about what it is that you purport to *talk* about...but, yea...government time, resources and money are being spent to discredit you...
PS: Add in *megalomaniacally paranoid* to that description...
As I said, YOU tried to paint him as confessing to being involved in the attacks, where he had actually said he was NOT involved.
So that shows how you like to toss out propaganda as if it's fact.
And what it comes down to is that there is NO evidence that bin Laden was involved one bit whatsoever.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. Thats not a threat. Thats a promise. LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
This site is lucky if it gets 50 different views a day beyond a random web hit
I guess you don't keep track of the view count at the top of the thread, eh?
Right now it's at 791.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. Thats not a threat. Thats a promise. LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
So in YOUR universe, it is quite easy to fly a 757 at 500 mph with your engines 3 feet off the ground, after dropping from a higher altitude seconds earlier, without diving nose first into the ground, eh?
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. Thats not a threat. Thats a promise. LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
Well, let's see, unless it came in at the exact same angle, which would have meant that the engines would have at least divoted the lawn, the angle of descent (if it was a plane) was different than the much more closer to horizontal angle of the holes in the walls.
You're assuming that the only damage to the Pentagon walls were made by the pane and not from collapse or fire...
So in YOUR universe, it is quite easy to fly a 757 at 500 mph with your engines 3 feet off the ground, after dropping from a higher altitude seconds earlier, without diving nose first into the ground, eh?
We just had a guy crash an A320 in to a mountain side @ cruising speed in a controlled descent...he had 600 hours...
We just had a guy crash an A320 in to a mountain side @ cruising speed in a controlled descent...he had 600 hours
Yeah, he CRASHED into the side of a mountain, which is pretty hard to miss.
The ground floor of the Pentagon is a much smaller target, and is MUCH closer to the ground, and if you eliminate the choice of DIVING into it, but instead FLY into it with the nose level, well, that's pretty much impossible for a large commercial airliner.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. Thats not a threat. Thats a promise. LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
This site is lucky if it gets 50 different views a day beyond a random web hit...you're an anonymous clown who has absolutely no clue about what it is that you purport to *talk* about...but, yea...government time, resources and money are being spent to discredit you...
So war is your real name? Talk about anonymous! If the government did hire you then they are getting a bad deal, but then again the government is use to wasting taxpayer money. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature can see those buildings did not come down the way they did due to the plane impacts and fires alone. I don't usually respond to you because you are pretty much a waste of time.
You're assuming that the only damage to the Pentagon walls were made by the pane and not from collapse or fire...
That's a faulty assumption...
Dude, you really really are dense. Seriously, have you ever had your IQ measured? I cannot imagine that it's above 100. Seriously.
You're so stupid that in your response you completely ignore, once again, the pic that I posted showing the f'ing building in its pre-collapse phase.
Whether you personally choose to post like a stupid fuck or whether you're simply too stupid for your own polemical good notwithstanding, you're a fool and a moron.
You're also extremely dishonest and disingenuous, clearly, which is why people think you're a government employee. You match most of the criteria, certainly all of the critical ones.
Please do not make me put you on ignore with further idiocy, willful ignornace, and further proof that you are indeed an ignoramus!
Honestly, is it even possible for someone that can express themself in writing so well be so fucking stupid? Honestly, run for federal office, that's exactly where you belong, with the rest of the ignorant lying pigs with agendas that are counter to the interests of the people. Why do you even post here? Your posts are like a turd on top of a hot fudge sunday here.
I'm going to respond only to the part of your post that is spittle free:
the pic that I posted showing the f'ing building in its pre-collapse phase.
A context that you neither provided nor established when you posted that cropped, out of focus, mostly darkened, very small picture with the box on it.
Anyone with an IQ above room temperature can see those buildings did not come down the way they did due to the plane impacts and fires alone.
Anyone with eyes can see whatever it is that they want to see.
BTW, gravity helped, too.
Get a 10 foot length of 1x6 and score the board about 3/8 x 3/8 4nches from both ends and dead center...suspend the board at the ends only and put a 100lb weight in the middle...
The ground floor of the Pentagon is a much smaller target, and is MUCH closer to the ground, and if you eliminate the choice of DIVING into it, but instead FLY into it with the nose level, well, that's pretty much impossible for a large commercial airliner.
That planes have been hijacked before doesn't mean they were that day
If they weren't hijacked why did they not reach their destination?
You omitted a considerable part of my statement there at #96, which was: "in the conventional sense of terrorist pilots aboard commandeering the aircraft."
A scene from the latest presentation by Pilots For 9/11 Truth - SKYGATE 911. Visit http://pilotsfor911truth.org for full film and comprehensive analysis produced by professional aviators. Thank you for your support!
-------
"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
YOU posted a photo and gave no context whatsoever for it.
YOU posted a photo with contrasts that are barely distinguishable.
YOU posted a photo that is barely in focus.
YOU posted a photo that has a small square around a BLACKENED INDISTINGUISHABLE area on the photo.
YOU then pretended that you can actually *see* something in that BLACKENED INDISTINGUISHABLE area.
YOU are trying to claim that this photo *proves* that the plane that people saw fly into the Pentagon and which took out several light poles, including one that hit a vehicle with a driver who saw the plane you claim does not exist, was not really a plane.
But it's me who's *dishonest* and *stupid*.
"IF I say I am floating off of the floor...and you say that I am floating off of the floor...then who is to argue that I am not floating off of the floor."
O'Brien to Winston Smith, 1984
You may be O'Brien but I ain't Winston Smith, pumpkin...
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.
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.
-------
"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