I am a physics major at GSU and just found some inconsistencies and inaccuracies with the second version of loose change that I saw on youtube.

1) [flight 77] could not have possibly flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into a high speed stall.
- The problem with this is that first you don't say what the speed was, the 747 is fully capable of flying at over 600mi/h, and as for the manuvers you claim the 747 cannot pull off I beg you to take a moment and watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ546BEps-M that is a boeing 707, a ten year more primitive aircraft, doing a barrel roll.
2) The speed and manuverability, the way he turned, we all though it was a millitary plane.
- again there are two important factors to consider here. One is that boeing 747s aren't going around flying at top speed all day long, doing that would be like driving your car to work (sans traffic) at 120. The engine would give out much more quickly and that just isn't economical for a business that has so many planes to keep up with. The sole reason that the Jet took over the role the Prop plane had was because the fuel (kerosene) was much cheaper. The second thing to keep in mind is that some millitary bombers have started out as passenger airplanes, take some of the german bombers of WWII they were nothing more than converted airliners.... or military bombers converted to airliners depending on how you look at the german war effort prior to 1939. This is a predictable phenomenon, because a bomber and an air liner have the exact same goal, carrying a payload (people or bombs) to an intended destination, but a bomber needs more armor, guns, and mechanisms to open the bay door. So it's easy to see why modern transports can be just as fast as military bombers.

3 Damage to the pentagon and light poles.
- the goal of the terrorists was to inflict maximum damage so they would be flying in at top speed (500 knots) but the pilot that crashed years before must have been trying to save people, I.E. braking. Given the difference in speed alone, not to mention that the terrorist would have been accelerating and the pilot that crashed would have been trying to decelerate, it is not surprising that the terrorists did more damage to the lightpoles, even the fact that there was less "damage" to the plane can be explained. The simple fact is that inertia is a fundamental law and the wing of the plane even it had come clean off would have followed into the pentagon with it.
- Damage to the pentagon, while less than one would have expected is on par with what was seen at the trade centers, the fact that none of the wreckage was found is also predictable, with the shear energy the plane had combined with it mainly being hollow one would expect the plane to disintegrate. After all, the small fertillizer bomb that blew up the Oklahoma City building nearly erased the truck that carried it. Keep in mind also that the terrorists made sure to choose planes so that they would have near to maximum fuel at impact. (as a side not most airliners and most military aircraft are almost entirely made up of either aluminum or Titanium, steel is too heavy and reserved for the engines only.)
- the 3 foot turbine engine. As I saw this it struck me as odd that one would have thought it to be a part of the APU, I'm studying to be an engineer when I get out of college and from the video it looks more like a compressor for the main engines of the 747 not part of th APU and certainly not part of any military aircraft I know of.
- The assumption that the engines should have been found intact is ludicris, and I use this language selectively, because at 600 miles per hour a 747 with a weight of Nearly 100,000 pounds would have produced enough energy to completely disintegrate everything and it alone would generate the remaining heat needed to melt itself into the pentagon wreckage. (remeber as a car crashes part of the energy of both cars conver that energy into heat, and as a result the cars stop instead of bump off of each other.)

4) the Diffuser case
- There are many different variants of the 747 and some aircraft variants of of the sme aircraft use slightly different engines, so this should be looked into to see exactly which model 747 flight 77 was. and find the correlating part for it.

5) pentagon damage II
- the damage is, again, expected given the senario that the wing fell off, as the plane would have twisted in mid air and hit the pentagon at a 90 degree angle from the verticle. with the wing following behind. (also your dimensions for the 747 are completely incorrect the wingspan is between 195 and 211 feet and up to 63ft high depending on model)

(more to come)

I am embarrassed for you. This is clearly new material for you. Do some homework.
Ask polite questions. There are a great many knowledgeable people here willing
to help you with any questions.

BTW, American Airlines Flight 77 was a Boeing 757.

Did loose change say 757 I could have sworn I heard 747 either way the same things apply, there are multiple 757 variants as well.

No, if you ask polite questions here, you WILL get rude answers. That's what I've found. I mean, look what happened here! This man didn't make fun of anyone or say anything derogatory. Yet the first thing you say is "I am embarrassed for you, do some homework". Talk about RUDE!!!

No, if you ask polite questions here, you WILL get rude answers. That's what I've found. I mean, look what happened here! This man didn't make fun of anyone or say anything derogatory. Yet the first thing you say is "I am embarrassed for you, do some homework". Talk about RUDE!!!

Yet, you just can't stay away from us infadel can you. Come on. Some of us are nice....right?

Infidel, that Ain't funny I already have theories that the whole 9/11 conspiracy was started by the terrorists to undermine the government.

Gosh, how strange. I already have theories that the powers that be are doing their best to discredit the 911 Truth movement by trying to link them with terrorists.

The sword you are trying to wield has two edges.

"do some homework" how about try to debunk him instead of telling him to do homework. just like most inside jobers i have encountered. they say "you need to open your eyes and us google video to find the truth." this guy has obviously done his homework but just because he has come to a different conclusion than you doesn't mean he hasn't done any research.



douche

Yes well he could have asked these questions in the Pentagon forum and he would have got polite answers from knowledgeable people there.

This is the place where the schills get herded to.

gendoikari87 does seem to be genuine, you can tell because he is not afraid to put his beliefs across, schills are afraid to do this. Ask them a question and they ignore it and ask you a question. By this ye shall know them.

I think the claim involving a 747 was debunked sufficiently.

Do you need a homework assignment?

Here's one for you.

Who Is Abdussattar Shaikh?
http://www.911blogger.com/node/11409

When someone shows up here with a rant starting with "just found some inconsistencies and inaccuracies with the second version of loose change" and then posts gross "inconsistencies and inaccuracies" it needs to be pointed out.

Had he asked a question about the dimensions of the 747 he thought crashed into the Pentagon, he would have been politely corrected.

I know who Shaikh is. I live in San Diego. the claim on the 747 was not enough debunking at all. well answer me this if you have the time. Explain the lightposts by the pentagon. how were they taken out if a missile struck the pentagon? it's a simple question and i expect a straight forward response from you.

oh and of course no response to my question. maybe.... oh just maybe... you don't have an answer?

Do you have any opinions about the fireball at the Pentagon?

It seems to me that since it is so consistent in volume to the ones at WTC, it would indicate that it was a plane of similar dimension, flight duration (i.e. fuel remaining in tanks), and lack of "large" pieces of wreckage. If you didn't find an intact tail at WTCs 1 and 2, why would you expect it at the Pentagon site for example.

For example, if it were a fast-moving missile, the fireball would not be as large since there would not be the thousands of gallons of jet fuel present. There would also not the be the downed lightpoles that were present.

Anyway, just a question.

PS: I'm betting you're happy you came here...30 posts about whether or not the rank and file are rude and commentary that indicates that the reception you receive is based on the forum not the content...as if Roscoe acts one way on one thread, a different way on another and a thrid way on a third thread based on whether it is in the WTC forums or the Skeptics Area. That statement is certifiably insane.

Ok light polls. You mean the ones that had no pieces of plane nearby. Or the fact that none of the polls look like they where hit with anyhting going at high speed. Or the simple fact that the main eye witness could not have seen the plane crash into the pentagon from where he was alegadly driving.

You should be asking how did a 747/757 go threw 5 light polls without leaving a piece or full wing on that lawn? I know for a fact to much weight on a wing will rip it off let alone high impact on a Metal light poll. So till the events line up with the evidence I still say theres something wrong with the offical story.

Do you actually know if there was no debris nearby? Or are you saying that because there is no photo of "debris of wing that hit pole" photo on the internet (which you could allege was faked anyway) means it doesn't exist? We already know airplane debris was discovered around the Pentagon, how do you know none of it was the debris you were looking for? And if a plane travelling 500mph hits a light pole, fragments would immediately decelerate to 0mph and falls to the ground right on the spot? How long - in seconds, or fractions of a second - was the plane from impact with the pentagon when it struck the light poles? I.e. if anything had been dislodged and has been airborne for 0.2 more seconds, wouldn't it have ended up with the rest of the plane debris at the point of impact anyway?

This is hearsay. What do light poles look like when they are hit by airplanes? You have some particular experience or expertise in the light pole hit by airplanes topic that means we should take your word for it?

A light pole would knock the wing off a quarter million pound airplane? Funny how the truther story is that planes couldn't be obliterated by colliding with reinforced concrete walls or smashing nose first into the ground. Yet wings are supposed to fall off from hitting a light pole.

OK so the question is how do you know "for a fact" that a metal poll [sic] is to [sic] much weight? Do you know that light poles are designed to be easily dislodged? If they can be dislodged easily by a car travelling at highway speeds, why are they going to rip the wing off a 250,000lb airplane travelling at 500mph?

I don't have any degrees in light pole accidents, but if a flesh and bone body can be hit by a car at 65MPH and the damage done to both the car and the body can be severe enough to kill both the driver and the body being hit...

I can only imagine the velocity of a 400+ MPH several ton object hitting a stand still metalic pole even with a design to be easily (relative to an alternate design) dislodged, there would be some form of damage to alter the wing's integrity such that as presidence shows, can tear a wing from the air craft. And we're not talking about just one pole, but rather 5 that were 'hit'.

While I would agree that any material torn from the craft from hitting such poles would not come to a magic stop to 0MPH and fall at the location of the pole, you would think that the aero dynamics of this newly torn wing, or what have you, would no longer fly/glide smoothly through the air and would certainly not fly/glide through the air with the same path as the remainder of the plane. More likely, any portions of the craft ripped away from the craft's remaining whole, would very likely do some sort of aerial rolls and tumbles and quickly hit the ground where it would likely do more rolls and tumbles and likely alter the ground to some degree as it did so.

My sneakers and knees do more damage to a football field than that plane ever did to any lawn.

A bird won't knock the side mirror off your ~1.5 ton car, assuming similar comparitive situation?

Are the airplane wings made of steel?

Has not a plane hit a light pole in the past?

Is this a serious question?

You're comparing a 1.5ton 45MPH collision with a light pole against a several ton object moving in excess of 400MPH with the same light pole.

You add fuel to your fire does not the fire grow?

Speed & Mass = Velocity.

The velocity of the two collisions you're trying to compare are mighty different.

A plane moving in reserve of 10MPH would very likely knock the same light pole over with ease.

The plane wasn't moving at 10MPH... and the plane doesn't weigh 1.5tons as a whole.

The wings themselves are very light relative to the rest of the craft as far as actual air craft material goes. Think Aluminum. The bulk of the weight of a 757 air craft wing in flight is probably largely that of fuel and the engines.

I didn't find anything quoted here funny. Where was the haha?

The engines of a 757 are like what? 5 tons of titanium steel alloy? I don't care what accident the plane is in, it's probably impossible to destroy those engines in any crash to a point that they become unrecognizeable as engines.

If they were trying to go for maximum damage, why did they supposedly drop some 7 thousand? feet in a 330 degree loop around turn to hit the one area of the pentagon that was recently renovated specifically to help lessen terrorism damage? Interesting the type of information held in that location too...

Interesting too:
"The plane is 50 miles out... The plane is 10 miles out... blah blah... do the orders still stand?..."
"of course they still stand!"

'yay let's stand around and wait for the plane or its payload to crash into us'

And the Pilot that supposedly pulled that crash off couldn't even fly a sesna? a month earlier.

"Nearly erased the truck that carried it"... hmmm

What part of the truck was a titanium steel alloy?

"747 with a weight of Nearly 100,000 pounds"

only nearly 100,00 pounds? Hey physics major (it's not that hard to use the backspace key by the way), I'm a nobody, but... I can use google.

Boeing's website says a 747 (assuming we are talking about a 747), has a max fuel capacity of 48,445 US Gal.

Jet Fuel is 6.84 pounds per gallon eh? The fuel's potential weight alone at half a tank surpasses your "nearly 100,000 pounds" mark by a good bit... nevermind the plane itself.


Hard to take your physics "facts" to heart if any single piece of information you throw out can easily be googled to show otherwise.

Man, physics in high schools must really be lacking, I don't recall learning this tid bit. (That or you aren't real good as writing what you mean...)

So, if I read you right... and I think I am...

Heat is the cause of vehicular collisions to come to a stop rather than bump off each other?

I always thought there was something to do with conservation of momentum. Energy transfers between one object to another... you know... kinda like playing a game of pool? And that objects wouldn't stop moving if it weren't for something we know as friction... where friction causes heat.

Titanium is normally only used for the casings, structural components and compressor rotors. Typically these engines (RB211 and PW20XX) will contain lots of Nickel, Molybdenum, Iron and Chromium.

That is not to say that alloys made from these base metals are not robust enough to survive a crash.