Loose change 911 2nd edition

Advanced embedding details, examples, and help! Topics 36 , Loose , Change , 2nd , Edition. This film shows direct connection between the attacks of September 11, and the United States government.

Evidence is derived from news footage, scientific fact, and most important, Americans who suffered through that tragic day. Addeddate Color color Identifier LooseChange2ndEdition Sound sound. There are no reviews yet. Be the first one to write a review. He could not fly at all. This is misleading because it omits context. It's unsafe,'making it clear that the air traffic controllers' opinionwas based on the way the plane was being flown. The implication that the maneuvers were beyond the capabilities of a isfalse.

The CNN. The plane crashed 1. But even if it did, the Loose Change 's errors would include: Ignoring the differences between the two crashes:small Gulfstream-II versus large Boeing aircraft;low-speed mph versus high-speed mph impact;and potential differences in composition of the lamp polesat the two different crash sites.

Asserting without evidencethat Flight 77's wings weren't damaged by the lamp poles. Claiming that the lamp poles near the Pentagon weren't damaged,when the very photographs it displaysclearly show that poles are severed off. Implying that lamp poles breaking off at their bases is peculiar,when in fact they are built with breakaway bases for the safety of motorists. This is a straw man argumentbased on the baseless claim that the plane bounced off the lawn. However, parts of the plane did hit obstacles on its low-angled approach.

The left engine apparently clipped a retaining wall,whose damage can be seen in the far right of the adjacent photograph. In the photograph Loose Change features shown above ,the chain-link fence behind the firefighters appears close to the building.

However, it is actually about feet from the facade. The photograph to the right shows that the lawn within feetof the facade was not 'without a single scratch. To the contrary, there are many traces. Available photographs show engine parts, landing gear parts,and scraps of fuselage that match the livery of anAmerican Airlines Boeing The unidentified FOX reporter may not have realized that the planewas going mph or had any familiarity with the results ofhigh speed plane crashes.

The plane did not crash near the Pentagon, it punctured throughits first-floor facade. Thenumerous photographs of aircraft debrisshow areas that may not have been visible to the reporter. This is another straw man argument. Although someone may have said the plane was vaporized,it has never been the official explanation.

The extent of the facade punctures meant that the impactinjected the vast majority of debris inside the building,where it was not readily visible. The very photograph that Loose Change uses to claim there is 'no trace of a Boeing 'shows a great deal of crash debris.

And other photographs, such as the one on the right,show scraps identifiable as pieces of an American Airlines jet. Even ignoring the fact thata is not a 'jumbo-jet,'and that the plane was not 'incinerated,'the idea that even severe fires render bodies unidentifiable is not supported.

The Station Night Club fire in Rhode Islandkilled 97 people, but did not prevent their identification. The point of this being? Is it a suspicious secret what planes are made out of? This oversimplifies the size of a turbofan engine and its parts. Only the fan has a diameter of slightly less than nine feet,while all of the other compressors and turbines have onlya fraction of that diameter. This is a straw man argument no one claims the engines were vaporized following two errors: Jet fuel won't burn at Celsius unless it'sburned in pre-heated or pressurized air.

The jet fuel did not burn off 'immediately'but burned for several minutes. No, a turbine rotor not engine was found outside the building. Perhaps 'engines should have been found relatively intact'if the Pentagon were made out of bamboo. Since when has an engine survived a mph impact witha masonry building relatively intact? Furthermore, a number of other engine partswere not only found, but documented in photographs.

The 3-foot-diameter rotor in the photograph was outside of the building,and isconsistent with a Boeing Because Bollyn had contacted the Indiana plantthat makes engine parts for small planes. Not working in a factory that services engines,Brown wouldn't be expected to be familiar with the part.

This digression into the A-3 theory is a product of a chain of errors. Loose Change : Mis-describes a turbine rotor as a turbojet engine. Showcases the pet theory of Karl Schwarz,whose only qualifications mentioned are being Presidentand Chief Executive Officer of two companies of questionable existence.

Loose Change presents no evidence for the A-3 Skywarrior theorybut does show us a picture of an A-3 firing a missile. The second of how many pieces? To listen to Loose Change one would think there were exactly three pieces of aircraft debrisat the Pentagon crash site.

Should the piece have been singed by the crash? It's not difficult to find photographs of unsinged piecesin other jetliner crashes,such as the remains of a DC in the photograph to the right.

Loose Change shows a diagram of a diffuser case thatdoesn't match the diffuser case debris in the photograph. But what engine does their diagram illustrate? Flight 77 apparently had RBE4B engines. The diagram at the right shows an RB series engine,whose diffuser case does appear to match the debris. Some of the parts that Loose Change fails to mention includelanding gear wheel hubs,a landing gear shaft,and pieces of fuselage about the size of a person.

In fact, the blue object is a tent,not a box with mysterious plane parts,as Russell Pickering has pointed out on PentagonResearch. Other photographs show views of blue-and-white tentsthat clearly match the light object being carried by the men.

Loose Change continues to work the 'vaporizing plane' straw man. The Pentagon crash may have left less large debristhan the Helios Airways crash, but it's hardly surprising,given the estimated mph speed of the Pentagon crash. Press reports of the Helios Airways crash do not appear to support Loose Change 'sassertion that the hit the ground 'at full speed.

To the contrary, it isconsistent in every waywith the crash of a That includes: Damage to facade fitting the frontal profile of a ,with punctures in the paths of the densest parts of the plane,and breached limestone in the paths of the wing ends. Damage to a swath of columns inside the building,with the columns consistently bent in the direction of the plane's travel. Damage to the generator and retaining wall consistent withthe paths of a 's two engines. Fires spread far along the facade immediately after impact.

This is wildly inaccurate. Pre-collapse photographs clearly show that the facadewas punctured for a width of at least 96 feet on the first floor. To make its point Loose Change shows you a photo in which fire spray conceals the broadfirst-floor damage,and reveals only the foot-wide second floor damage. No, the vast majority passed through the punctures in the first-floor facade,which extended more than 96 feet in width. Parts that didn't penetrate the building comprise the debris fieldsoutside the building.

The graphic used by Loose Change is misleading because fire foam spray conceals the broadfirst-floor damage. In fact, the engines would have easily cleared the foot-wideimpact punctures on the first floor. As for the ends of the wings and the vertical stabilizer,there was extensive damage to the limestone facade far to either sideof the primary impact puncture,and scored limestone on the fourth-floor facade --easily consistent with the impacts of such light componentsof the airframe.

Again Loose Change displays a photograph in which smoke obscuresmost of the first-floor punctures. To say there was no damage from where the engines would havehit is a blatant falsehood contradicted by even that photograph. Maybe because they were made ofblast-resistant polycarbonatenearly two inches thick?

First, the cable spools were not 'directly in front of the hole. The photograph at the left, taken from about feet from the facade,gives a sense of the distances between the spools and the facade.

The spools appear close in the previous photographbecause of the foreshortening caused by the photographer's distance of about feet. Second, the spools were obviously not untouched,one being visibly damaged and knocked over. The others may have been disturbed as well. No, the C-ring punch-out hole is 12 feet in diameter, not 16 feet. And its being made by the aircraftdidn't require that the aircraft punch through several wallsas the passage implies.

In fact, the debris that made the hole didn't have to smash through anysteel-reinforced concrete, since only the columns were of such construction,with the infill being brick backed by Kevlar.

The debris would not have to penetrate any intervening masonry walls,since theC-, D-, and E-rings were merged on the first and second floors. This is another straw man,since the official story does not blame the nose which, by the way, is only the frontmost portion of thefuselage, which is about feet long, and contains many materialsheavier than carbon.

The photograph shown by Loose Change shows the punch-out hole at a time afterthe considerable debris that was originally piled around ithad been removed. After repeating two gross errors flagged above foot hole, and 9 feet of steel-reinforced concrete Loose Change proposes an idea for which there is no evidence whatsoever,by selectively showing the Pentagon's second-floor damageand highlighting its superficial resemblance to two window baysin a Belgrade building destroyed by a cruise missile.

See thisanalysisof the breakdown of reports of sightings of a jetliner over 30 versus a commuter jet 2 -- both from far away. And what does the presence of a helicopter have to do withwhat kind of plane hit the Pentagon? Jim Marrs' book contains additional details about Gallop'sexperience during the attack.

She was inside the Pentagon when the plane hit,which she thought was a bomb. She describes being buried in rubble. Since April didn't see the crash, and may have been injured,it is not surprising that she 'never saw a plane':many people who witnessed the crash were surprisednot to see recognizable plane pieces.

Software Images icon An illustration of two photographs. Images Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape Donate Ellipses icon An illustration of text ellipses. It appears your browser does not have it turned on. Please see your browser settings for this feature. EMBED for wordpress. Want more?