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:18262 Comments:402
Richard Benedetto was in his car on his way to work, stuck in traffic just outside the Pentagon. He was listening -- in horror -- to an account of what had just happened at the World Trade Center in New York. "Then the plane flew right over my head. I said to myself, boy, that plane is going awfully fast," Benedetto said. "That plane is going to crash." The jet knocked over several light posts before it smashed into the Pentagon. Other observers said it seemed to come in full throttle with no attempt to slow down. "The noise was like an artillery shell, not an explosion like a bomb," Benedetto said. Then he saw a giant billow of smoke followed by a huge fireball, presumably the exploding fuel from the crashed plane. "You couldn't even see the building because there was so much smoke," said Benedetto. Hartford Courant, September 12, 2001
"I heard an airplane. A very loud airplane. ... I heard the airplane coming from behind me. ... So I looked up, and I saw this airplane coming, heading straight down toward the ground. It was an American Airlines airplane, I could see it very clearly. ... The plane went down and for a split second it was out of my line of vision because there was a bridge there and a hill. ... I didn't actually see the impact... I didn't see any flaps, it looked like the plane was just in a normal flying mode but heading straight down, sharply down. It was straight. No flopping. It was going pretty straight. ... The only thing we saw on the ground outside there was a piece of a - the tail of a lamp post."Quoted here
Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head. "It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane," Mr Campo said. "I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here." The Guardian, September 12 2001
Why don't you look up quotes from Elmer Fudd while you're at it.
I don't care what some yokel has to say, I want you to find those videos of a 757 flying straight into the ground floor of the Pentagon. Now go find 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
So because the FBI won't release the video of people dying it has to have been a missile...
HUGE BS. The videos of the South Tower impact has been broadcast thousands upon thousands of times, AND are available on YouTube for anyone to watch over and over again.
ANYONE with at least half a brain cell knows that IF those VDOT and Pentagon surveillance videos actually DID show a 757 flying into the Pentagon, we would have seen them thousands upon thousands of times by now.
It's rather incredible that you try to use that lame excuse, the "FBI doesn't want to show people dying".
Your writers need better material.
"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
The videos of the South Tower impact has been broadcast thousands upon thousands of times, AND are available on YouTube for anyone to watch over and over again.
I'm just a-guessin' and a-ruminatin' here but maybe that is because every available TV and video camera in NYC was trained on the Towers?
Right...why take the word of the hundreds who saw the plane
Anyone can write or say anything they want, whether it's true or false. Additionally, there are NOT "hundreds" who "saw the plane", rather there are perhaps 20 or 30 who have made statements that they witnessed the alleged airliner.
In fact, there are strong indications that there were actually TWO aircraft, one which did in fact appear to be an airliner, and then there are reports of a smaller jet flying "like a missile". The reports indicate two different approach paths to the Pentagon, leading to the possibility that the airliner flew OVER the Pentagon while the smaller aircraft actually hit it.
There is actually one witness who claims to have seen the aircraft "cartwheel" on the Pentagon lawn, which I HOPE you know is both impossible and untrue.
So to eliminate any confusion, go ahead and ask the FBI for those videos so that we can see what did actually happen.
"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
Anyone can write or say anything they want, whether it's true or false.
A fact I am reminded of when I read your posts.
Additionally, there are NOT "hundreds" who "saw the plane", rather there are perhaps 20 or 30 who have made statements that they witnessed the alleged airliner.
There is actually one witness who claims to have seen the aircraft "cartwheel" on the Pentagon lawn, which I HOPE you know is both impossible and untrue.
Here's his full statement:
David Marra, 23, an information-technology specialist, had turned his BMW off an I-395 exit to the highway just west of the Pentagon when he saw an American Airlines jet swooping in, its wings wobbly, looking like it was going to slam right into the Pentagon: "It was 50 ft. off the deck when he came in. It sounded like the pilot had the throttle completely floored. The plane rolled left and then rolled right. Then he caught an edge of his wing on the ground." There is a helicopter pad right in front of the side of the Pentagon. The wing touched there, then the plane cartwheeled into the building.
There is a helicopter pad right in front of the side of the Pentagon. The wing touched there, then the plane cartwheeled into the building.
Which is pure fantasy, since the lawn was untouched, the aircraft did not cartwheel, and if it did (which it couldn't do unless it were flying at a 90 degree angle and at a MUCH lower speed) it would have never entered the Pentagon as it would have been shredded to pieces BEFORE reaching it, AND there would have been jet fuel and debris spread all over the lawn and OVER the Pentagon.
Goes to show you can't trust tales coming from so-called "eyewitnesses" when there is a "national security" operation in progress.
"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
Well how exactly do you claim it to have cartwheeled if it didn't hit the ground?
"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
titorite at #91: how come the.tower that was hit second fell first?
You at #92: Greater weight of the upper floors...
Me at #98: 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.
Your non-counterpoint at #102: No. As they fell they began to tilt....as is clearly indicated on the videos... [Pic link] ...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...
Me at #189: Tilted...toppled, either way it would be less weight on the floors below, as I said.
You at #193: ...and ignoring the direct effect of gravity as you did so...
You again at #193: Gravity affects all objects equally...the construction of WTC7 and WTC1 and 2 were not the same.
Me as quoted by you at #193: Shouldn't WTC 7 have fallen quicker than the Towers...
[Re-insertingthe full context of my question regarding alleged burn-time duration to weaken the steel to the point of alleged structural failure -- not how long it took for WTC 7 to crumple to the ground in a heap when it started to fall, as compared to the time it took the Towers to crumble to the ground, somewhat, while largely floating away:
...smaller as it was with less steel to heat up -- or what's the difference between WTC 7 steel and the Towers?]
Your gravitational-sameness oversimplification that the Tower which was hit second fell first simply because of a higher upper-floors weight-differential there (even though much of the weight was in the process of tilting overward for some length of time and so lessening strain on the floors below while doing that) has ignored those factors and every other structural issue involved which would scientifically indicate that it shouldn't have fallen first. [Ref. floors data at #196]
For now, just try to address what you think the chemical difference would be between Tower steel and WTC 7 steel, since the more compact space at WTC 7 allegedly could withstand hours of supposedly "intense" fire but the Towers that had to be structurally sturdy enough for their size to meet rather intenser building codes didn't. Address any pre-planned demolition docs that likely had to be submitted for all 3 of the highest WTC buildings before any of them were approved to be built, too, please, if you're aware of such.
-------
"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
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.
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.
-------
"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
Seriously, which government agency do you work for?
The Ministry of Inciting Paranoia...
I'm Deputy Secretary of The Internet Chatroom...
Sorry, but this isn't a place whereby when things are told often enough people believe them.
All evidence to the contrary...
Have you noticed that not one of you has put forth a viable argument that the broad outline of 9/11...hijacked planes...crashed into WTC and Pentagon...Towers and WTC7 collapsed due to structural damage...is untrue?
No...because you're too busy telling things - nonsensical at that, e.g. the planes weren't hijacked or the plane that hundreds saw crash in to the Pentagon wasn't a real plane or the plane that I stood underneath as it crashed into WTC2 wasn't a real plane or that there was very little damage to WTC7 even though every witness to the damage of WTC7 states otherwise - often enough that you hope people believe them. But when they are subject to minimal testing they are falsified...
I've put this challenge forth before...score a couple of 1x4s in several places and then support it on the ends and suspend the middle...put a 50'lb weight on one and a 100bln weight on the other and then bounce the boards slightly...which one breaks first.
This basic test underscores how what you folks try to promote stands at stark odds with reality...
For now, just try to address what you think the chemical difference would be between Tower steel and WTC 7 steel, since the more compact space at WTC7
Can you point out wherein I made this argument regarding the *chemical* differences in steel between the structures.
Well how exactly do you claim it to have cartwheeled if it didn't hit the ground?
He stated exactly where he believed that it hit. He stated exactly what he thought the aircraft did.
You and someone else chose to misstate what he said...his words stand for what they are...
If you would have asked me @ 10 after 9 where I *thought* the second plane had hit I would have stated much lower than where it did hit. When I reached the Battery Park area around 9:20 and I saw the South Face of the South Tower I was a bit surprised that the entry point was as high as it was...
Richie Allen: "Question one. Are we to presume, then, that the people on Flight 77 and the people on the other airplanes that supposedly crashed into the Towers, that those people were taken away and summarily executed somewhere else?"
Field McConnell: "Yes, they were...they all died in Whiskey 3-8-6 Alpha Airspace, except United 93. That airplane was destroyed by technology over Shanksville, Pennsylvania."
some of these passenger jets may have been flown electronically into Whiskey 386 military-training airspace [...] over the Atlantic Ocean, and detonated via preplaced, embedded incendiaries.
I'd disagree because that could have left trace evidence but Post #71 of 4um Title: "Airline whistleblower solves 9/11" has more info on Whiskey 386 [pilotsfor911truth audio file on the Langely jets and 2 more 4um refs. with additional linked sources].
Formatting edits.
-------
"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
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: A) Where's your evidence for that?
News footage.
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.
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.
-------
"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
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...
