so your saying that the plane hit the building at an angle and not dead on like movie Loose Change shows? i don't mean to argue but i find it a little hard to comprehend that the nose to tail just vanishes. plus this guy who is arguing with you a month ago known as "heavenlydemonic23" says he won't do the research cause "it really doesnt matter". i have reason to believe that he won't do the research cause he's too goddamn lazy. i'm suprised you never mentioned that to him at the time.
@TheMostAwesomeMan242 the evidence shows the generator in front of the impact point moved and damaged by the plane, also the hole was not shaped as if a plane hit the side of the pentagon, that hole was made by the explosion of the plane and not the plane itself, the left wing hit the generator and caught the roof sending it into a nosedive thru the roof and the walls snapped both wings back, nose to tail the plane was gone in .2 seconds. it was going 777 feet per second.
@loosechangeexposed oh okay. i thought it was the right wing. but instead it was the left wing!!! wow that's incredible!!! the plane's explosion damaged the pentagon. i mean yes the Pentagon has reinforced concrete and has windows that prevent bombs from shattering it but i doubt the Pentagon was built to withstand a huge plane full of jet fuel that was deliberately being flown into the Pentagon at 777 feet per second plus the Pentagon was still going under renovation at the time.
@loosechangeexposed also why are pieces of the fuselage not scorched as would be expected from a fiery explosion as shown in The Pentagon Check Point security cameras? the pieces of the fuselage scattered across the lawn look as though it was cut off with can opener and just scattered across the lawn.
@TheMostAwesomeMan242 the plane did hit 5 light poles that 1 or more of could have ripped a piece or more off of the plane before impact. and when it hit the outter wall could have also ripped pieces off of the plane just before it exploded, remember the plane did hit the generator too and when the walls snapped the wings back parts could have been flying everywhere, obviously they did.
I almost wonder how much you are getting paid to make these bullshit videos?? You do know people that came out of that fucking hole from inside the Pentagon have stated that there was no fucking plane??? I wont do your research for you because it really doesnt matter. As i have said to you before you wont change your views and i wont change mine. You do know where that hit though right?? The day after a press conference stating that they didnt know where over a trillion dollars went.
@heavenlydemonic23 if people came out of the hole it was after the fire was out, if those people said anything about a plane they said it does not look like a plane crashed cuz like i said in the video it hit at 777 fps and nose to tail vanished in .2 seconds fast enough to disinegrate it, physics tells us that.
the people that said they didn't see a plane weren't looking, and none of them said they saw a missile.
your comment proves nothing except you don't understand.
@heavenlydemonic23 if people came out of the hole it was after the fire was out, if those people said anything about a plane they said it does not look like a plane crashed cuz like i said in the video it hit at 777 fps and nose to tail vanished in .2 seconds fast enough to disinegrate it, physics tells us that.
the people that said they didn't see a plane weren't looking, and none of them said they saw a missile.
your comment proves nothing except you don't understand.
@loosechangeexposed You are saying it fucking vaporized????? Come on man seriously?? This is not a god damn syfy channel Sunday night super B rated movie. This shit is real. You cannot honestly expect anyone to believe it fucking vaporized. Why did they only release only one video of it?? Why did it hit where the finace center at the pentagon was??? Come on man. Why is it you cant believe that our Government is capable of pulling this off?? Our Country has a history of atrocities and crimes
@heavenlydemonic23 our country has a history of people making up theories, there is not enough evidence of an inside job, in 10 years no domestic arrests which is lack of evidence, no proof of explosives in any buildings cuz the impact of the towers would have set them off and dropped them within seconds and that didn't happen.
the similarities of flights 77 and 93 are that they nose dived, and both mostly disappeared.
flight 77 hit the pentagon, nose to tail was gone in .2 seconds, flight 93 was gone nose to tail in .25 seconds.
flight 77 crashed into a box and along with the explosion the metal collapsing in on itself was super heated and most of it disintigrated, flight 93 hit the ground and penetrated the dirt the jet fuel fire mixed in the sand along with the metal collapsing in on itself and it disintigrated, i guess you don't understand physics or 3rd grade.
Are you really saying that the 757 hit the roof and not the wall near the base of the first floor? Your theory is very confusing. What knocked down the 5 light poles? How could the aircraft go from near ground level to knock down the 5 poles, and then go high enough to hit the roof in just a split second? With all due respect, I think you're wrong on this point.
@jdh501 the plane was probably heading towards the ground too quick so the hijacker pulled up enough to not hit the lawn, he then banked left. (the 5 frames that were released shows the tip of the left wing)
the plane knocked down the 5 light poles and in a fraction of a second, going 777 feet per second it gained enough height. the left wing hit a huge generator which with the hijacker having to nose dive it forced the plane thru the roof. the hole was made by the explosion not the plane.
@loosechangeexposed So, what's your opinion of the YouTube video by mikejwilson called
"911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77"?
The CGI in his case study shows the RIGHT ENGINE striking the generator, not the LEFT WING as you wrote here. Just curious if you've seen that presentation.
@jdh501 since we have no video of the entire plane we can only guess from the clues we do have, the footage of the 5 frames released by the gov't looks like the tip of the left wing, i would say it would have more likely been the left engine that hit the generator which would have caused it to nose dive in to and thru the roof, also if it was the left engine it would have put the plane in a high enough position to hit the building the way i think it did.
@puffintuffer no i'm not afraid of a debate, here is how it works, i said what i am going to about the pentagon, now it's your turn to explain your side. but stick to the subject of what the video is about, don't side step and change the subject to building 7 or the black boxes. this video is about the pentagon so keep the debate about the pentagon. if anyone wants to debate me they must comment otherwise what you have is my side and unless someone raises points how can i debate?
the fire was so hot that it failed to burn an book and a plastic monitor 10 meters away from the impact sight.....lol. great research my republican friend.
@slimithy13 no it was photo shopped by a conspiracy theorist who is trying to make it look like an inside job, check out my video sept 11th the smoking gun and see how i expose loose change for hiding information and covering up the truth, the entire conspiracy theory movement is a big scam to make money off of idiots who need to believe it was an inside job.
@loosechangeexposed are you honstly this stupid? that photo is taken from a news video. it's not a still photo that was changed, it is just a paused camara image. you can watch the video and see the computer and book! that video was shown to the world just hours after the attack you silly little child. did fox news fake that footage? or cnn? or bbc?....LMAO!
@slimithy13 where can i find the info that shows they are the ones that revealed the picture?
i was told about a video over a year ago and the person who told me about it said it was a photo shop and that those things could not have survived the fire, in that video it did look like a photo shop.
pause this video at 0:38 and really study the scene, if you look over the right wing you can see the twin towers, the left tower has part of a face in it, an eye, nose, and mouth. the white smoke over and behind the tower looks like a turbin. to the left of that face is the grim reaper with hood, his hood is actually touching the turbin. under the grim reapers chin is a hand with finger pointing down. in between those 2 faces is another with nose touching the tower and chin touching the wing.
@SecretAgentMan4life when it comes to this channel and the debate i am always in F.U. mode and when i can't get thru with the logic and common sense, it's like trying to get thru to children, when they get mad they still don't have proof when i get mad it's because they just don't want to hear the truth because it proves they are wrong. i am still proving my side while they can't prove theirs. i get over being mad quickly and know their anger lasts to the point where they lose sleep. it's fun.
@greenybaby1 the cores of the towers stopped the planes, the plane that hit the south tower was tilted and over to the right, the engine and landing gear from that side went through and out of the tower, they both landed on the street because they missed the core and went through office space, the engine was found 6 blocks to the north on murray street. if the plane hit the pentagon the same way it would have went thru more of the walls then it did, like the explosion that did.
lol moron of massiv eproportions, people actually think the wings would go in the opposite direction to what the forces acting upon them would suggest, this guy seems to think that its somhow OK to look at the building AFTER it collapsed? this just shows how impossible it is to argue a plane hit the building
the plane hit the building at 777 feet per second, when the wings hit the 2 walls they were held back and pulled inward as the plane kept going in the same direction pulling them down and inward.
use your brain when you think, here is an example you might be able` to grasp.
imagine for a second taking the empty tube from a roll of paper towels in your hand so there is the same amount of roll sticking out of each side of your hand (hold it in the middle) with roll in hand push your fist into the front of a private type of mail box like the ones close to the street, what happens to the ends of the roll? by the way it is called an analogy.
and you didn't prove me wrong you only proved that you can't grasp the concept of the effects of how things work.
the plane didn't completely disappear, they found debris.
the plane was going 777 feet per second,
nose to tail were gone in 0.2 seconds, 1 fifth of a second.
and when you clap your hands togeather as hard as you can you can feel the heat it generates.
metal heats up too when it collapses in on itself, when it ended up inside the pentagon the heat was contained with no way to cool it down, it did get hot enough, most of the plane was hollow not solid. think about it.
people with common sense understand how the light poles got knocked down.
the wing of the plane knocked them down.
i didn't forget to address the light poles they are not the issue in this video the way the plane hit the building is.
am i suppose to start with the hospital where each terrorists was born in every video i make? my videos get the point across, ask an adult to explain what i mean.
@loosechangeexposed Man to funny just caught you in a lie. Funny shit. Man in another so called debunking video number 032 you claim a piece of the plane got knocked off by the lightpoles, yet that piece was part of the fusilage, and dont say i puting words in your mouth. Your putting them there urself you just dont want to say them.
i said the piece was ripped off by the light pole not knocked off. (more words in my mouth) the piece was the cover to the landing gear. loose change said the piece was "allegeabily" a piece of the fusalage i said it was part of the plane. (more words in my mouth) i never said it was part of the fusalage, learn how to argue, you are out of your league.
@loosechangeexposed ok so the cover to the landing gear is not part of the fuselage. Man i just caught u lieing again. You try to cover a lie with anthother one and just look like a fool. Im out of my league eh. I guess i dont need to use idoit tricks like quotes or saying i put words in your mouth. Man your a fucking joke.
appearently your definition of common sense is different than everyone elses. Everyone knows the roof collapsed after the crash. Even those who think a missile hit it know that. Plus if the plane hit the roof, the roof wouldn't collapse, the plane whould go right through it. Not to mention that this plane hit in a reinforced section of the Pentagon, hence why it didn't go through the building
the part of the roof that collapsed later was the rest of the top of the remaining outer wall.
the entire roof at the outer wall wasn't damaged, just the part that snapped back the wing and the size of the hole it made in the roof at the top of the wall was only about the size of the engine.
the entire roof didn't collapse later on just the part that was remaining that wasn't damaged in the impact. where is the video of the entire roof being intact after impact? it doesn't exist make a video
Your nose to tail theory is a bit off. The planes wouldn't just "disappear". Where would they go? And I don't think the heat would've been enough to completely destroy the plane.
The theory of the angle the plane came in in relation to the lack of wings etc is a good one though.
if you look at the speed of the plane, it was going 777 feet per second, and the plane was 155 feet long, at that rate as soon as the nose touched the tail was at that exact point within .20 seconds,crashing into a box where the heat was contained with no way to cool it down,not only that the metel from the plane generated heat from collapsing in on itself,if you look at the pic you will see the wall of the second ring had no damage from the wing cuz the first ring folded both wings back.
I agreed, until you said it hit the roof. You have to remember that the collapse here happened nearly 30 mintures after the initial hit. You theory works great if you had said that the building was hit lower than thought.
where are the pictures of your claim? and before you say in the loose change video, that shot is covered by smoke, that is what loose change does it uses smoke and mirrors.the entire video is an illusion.
so your saying that the plane hit the building at an angle and not dead on like movie Loose Change shows? i don't mean to argue but i find it a little hard to comprehend that the nose to tail just vanishes. plus this guy who is arguing with you a month ago known as "heavenlydemonic23" says he won't do the research cause "it really doesnt matter". i have reason to believe that he won't do the research cause he's too goddamn lazy. i'm suprised you never mentioned that to him at the time.
TheMostAwesomeMan242 3 months ago
@TheMostAwesomeMan242 the evidence shows the generator in front of the impact point moved and damaged by the plane, also the hole was not shaped as if a plane hit the side of the pentagon, that hole was made by the explosion of the plane and not the plane itself, the left wing hit the generator and caught the roof sending it into a nosedive thru the roof and the walls snapped both wings back, nose to tail the plane was gone in .2 seconds. it was going 777 feet per second.
loosechangeexposed 3 months ago
@loosechangeexposed oh okay. i thought it was the right wing. but instead it was the left wing!!! wow that's incredible!!! the plane's explosion damaged the pentagon. i mean yes the Pentagon has reinforced concrete and has windows that prevent bombs from shattering it but i doubt the Pentagon was built to withstand a huge plane full of jet fuel that was deliberately being flown into the Pentagon at 777 feet per second plus the Pentagon was still going under renovation at the time.
TheMostAwesomeMan242 3 months ago
@loosechangeexposed also why are pieces of the fuselage not scorched as would be expected from a fiery explosion as shown in The Pentagon Check Point security cameras? the pieces of the fuselage scattered across the lawn look as though it was cut off with can opener and just scattered across the lawn.
TheMostAwesomeMan242 3 months ago
@TheMostAwesomeMan242 the plane did hit 5 light poles that 1 or more of could have ripped a piece or more off of the plane before impact. and when it hit the outter wall could have also ripped pieces off of the plane just before it exploded, remember the plane did hit the generator too and when the walls snapped the wings back parts could have been flying everywhere, obviously they did.
loosechangeexposed 3 months ago
@loosechangeexposed oh okay. thank you man!!!! :D
TheMostAwesomeMan242 3 months ago
I almost wonder how much you are getting paid to make these bullshit videos?? You do know people that came out of that fucking hole from inside the Pentagon have stated that there was no fucking plane??? I wont do your research for you because it really doesnt matter. As i have said to you before you wont change your views and i wont change mine. You do know where that hit though right?? The day after a press conference stating that they didnt know where over a trillion dollars went.
heavenlydemonic23 5 months ago in playlist Loose Change Exposed
@heavenlydemonic23 if people came out of the hole it was after the fire was out, if those people said anything about a plane they said it does not look like a plane crashed cuz like i said in the video it hit at 777 fps and nose to tail vanished in .2 seconds fast enough to disinegrate it, physics tells us that.
the people that said they didn't see a plane weren't looking, and none of them said they saw a missile.
your comment proves nothing except you don't understand.
loosechangeexposed 5 months ago
@heavenlydemonic23 if people came out of the hole it was after the fire was out, if those people said anything about a plane they said it does not look like a plane crashed cuz like i said in the video it hit at 777 fps and nose to tail vanished in .2 seconds fast enough to disinegrate it, physics tells us that.
the people that said they didn't see a plane weren't looking, and none of them said they saw a missile.
your comment proves nothing except you don't understand.
loosechangeexposed 5 months ago
@loosechangeexposed You are saying it fucking vaporized????? Come on man seriously?? This is not a god damn syfy channel Sunday night super B rated movie. This shit is real. You cannot honestly expect anyone to believe it fucking vaporized. Why did they only release only one video of it?? Why did it hit where the finace center at the pentagon was??? Come on man. Why is it you cant believe that our Government is capable of pulling this off?? Our Country has a history of atrocities and crimes
heavenlydemonic23 5 months ago
@heavenlydemonic23 our country has a history of people making up theories, there is not enough evidence of an inside job, in 10 years no domestic arrests which is lack of evidence, no proof of explosives in any buildings cuz the impact of the towers would have set them off and dropped them within seconds and that didn't happen.
the similarities of flights 77 and 93 are that they nose dived, and both mostly disappeared.
cont next post
loosechangeexposed 5 months ago
@loosechangeexposed cont from prev post.
flight 77 hit the pentagon, nose to tail was gone in .2 seconds, flight 93 was gone nose to tail in .25 seconds.
flight 77 crashed into a box and along with the explosion the metal collapsing in on itself was super heated and most of it disintigrated, flight 93 hit the ground and penetrated the dirt the jet fuel fire mixed in the sand along with the metal collapsing in on itself and it disintigrated, i guess you don't understand physics or 3rd grade.
loosechangeexposed 5 months ago
Are you really saying that the 757 hit the roof and not the wall near the base of the first floor? Your theory is very confusing. What knocked down the 5 light poles? How could the aircraft go from near ground level to knock down the 5 poles, and then go high enough to hit the roof in just a split second? With all due respect, I think you're wrong on this point.
jdh501 9 months ago
@jdh501 the plane was probably heading towards the ground too quick so the hijacker pulled up enough to not hit the lawn, he then banked left. (the 5 frames that were released shows the tip of the left wing)
the plane knocked down the 5 light poles and in a fraction of a second, going 777 feet per second it gained enough height. the left wing hit a huge generator which with the hijacker having to nose dive it forced the plane thru the roof. the hole was made by the explosion not the plane.
loosechangeexposed 9 months ago
@loosechangeexposed So, what's your opinion of the YouTube video by mikejwilson called
"911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77"?
The CGI in his case study shows the RIGHT ENGINE striking the generator, not the LEFT WING as you wrote here. Just curious if you've seen that presentation.
jdh501 9 months ago
@jdh501 since we have no video of the entire plane we can only guess from the clues we do have, the footage of the 5 frames released by the gov't looks like the tip of the left wing, i would say it would have more likely been the left engine that hit the generator which would have caused it to nose dive in to and thru the roof, also if it was the left engine it would have put the plane in a high enough position to hit the building the way i think it did.
thanks for the info.
loosechangeexposed 9 months ago
Are you afraid of a real debate?
puffintuffer 9 months ago
@puffintuffer no i'm not afraid of a debate, here is how it works, i said what i am going to about the pentagon, now it's your turn to explain your side. but stick to the subject of what the video is about, don't side step and change the subject to building 7 or the black boxes. this video is about the pentagon so keep the debate about the pentagon. if anyone wants to debate me they must comment otherwise what you have is my side and unless someone raises points how can i debate?
loosechangeexposed 9 months ago
the fire was so hot that it failed to burn an book and a plastic monitor 10 meters away from the impact sight.....lol. great research my republican friend.
slimithy13 1 year ago
@slimithy13 i saw the pic you are talking about, you can't tell it was a photo shop?
loosechangeexposed 9 months ago
@loosechangeexposed yeah it was photo shopped back in 2001, 2 days after the attack by bbc reporters....lol. you moron!
slimithy13 6 months ago
@slimithy13 no it was photo shopped by a conspiracy theorist who is trying to make it look like an inside job, check out my video sept 11th the smoking gun and see how i expose loose change for hiding information and covering up the truth, the entire conspiracy theory movement is a big scam to make money off of idiots who need to believe it was an inside job.
loosechangeexposed 6 months ago
@loosechangeexposed are you honstly this stupid? that photo is taken from a news video. it's not a still photo that was changed, it is just a paused camara image. you can watch the video and see the computer and book! that video was shown to the world just hours after the attack you silly little child. did fox news fake that footage? or cnn? or bbc?....LMAO!
slimithy13 6 months ago
@slimithy13 where can i find the info that shows they are the ones that revealed the picture?
i was told about a video over a year ago and the person who told me about it said it was a photo shop and that those things could not have survived the fire, in that video it did look like a photo shop.
loosechangeexposed 6 months ago
pause this video at 0:38 and really study the scene, if you look over the right wing you can see the twin towers, the left tower has part of a face in it, an eye, nose, and mouth. the white smoke over and behind the tower looks like a turbin. to the left of that face is the grim reaper with hood, his hood is actually touching the turbin. under the grim reapers chin is a hand with finger pointing down. in between those 2 faces is another with nose touching the tower and chin touching the wing.
loosechangeexposed 1 year ago
@SecretAgentMan4life when it comes to this channel and the debate i am always in F.U. mode and when i can't get thru with the logic and common sense, it's like trying to get thru to children, when they get mad they still don't have proof when i get mad it's because they just don't want to hear the truth because it proves they are wrong. i am still proving my side while they can't prove theirs. i get over being mad quickly and know their anger lasts to the point where they lose sleep. it's fun.
loosechangeexposed 1 year ago
oh god guy.......someone just did you dirty. When you catch feelings over it, ill tell ya who sold ya out.
SecretAgentMan4life 1 year ago
ok you say if it went in the same way they did at the WTC then why didn't the planes at the WTC go straight through it??
greenybaby1 1 year ago
@greenybaby1 the cores of the towers stopped the planes, the plane that hit the south tower was tilted and over to the right, the engine and landing gear from that side went through and out of the tower, they both landed on the street because they missed the core and went through office space, the engine was found 6 blocks to the north on murray street. if the plane hit the pentagon the same way it would have went thru more of the walls then it did, like the explosion that did.
loosechangeexposed 1 year ago
this still dosnt explain how a flight school drop out can maneuver a plane into a 5 story building at 500 miles per hour
moscarellimichele 1 year ago
it takes skill to take off, land a plane but a drunk can crash one.
loosechangeexposed 1 year ago
@loosechangeexposed
it takes skill to take off, land a plane, a drunk can crash one and it takes skill to aim at 500 miles per hour at a target so short
moscarellimichele 1 year ago
not as much skill to crash as to land, when you try to land you are not trying to crash. remember he missed the target the first time.
loosechangeexposed 1 year ago
that doesn't really answer me though,
to aim at 500 miles per hour at a target so short is very hard something Hani Hanjour couldn't have done.
moscarellimichele 1 year ago
there is more evidence that flight 77 hit the pentagon then there is not, plane parts, witnesses..etc.
there is no evidence of a missile, only speculation, how does anyone know what went on aboard flight 77?
loosechangeexposed 1 year ago
lol moron of massiv eproportions, people actually think the wings would go in the opposite direction to what the forces acting upon them would suggest, this guy seems to think that its somhow OK to look at the building AFTER it collapsed? this just shows how impossible it is to argue a plane hit the building
keflar5 1 year ago
post 1 of 2>>>
who said the wings went in the other direction?
the plane hit the building at 777 feet per second, when the wings hit the 2 walls they were held back and pulled inward as the plane kept going in the same direction pulling them down and inward.
use your brain when you think, here is an example you might be able` to grasp.
continued in next post.>>>>>>>>>
loosechangeexposed 1 year ago
post 2 of 2>>>
imagine for a second taking the empty tube from a roll of paper towels in your hand so there is the same amount of roll sticking out of each side of your hand (hold it in the middle) with roll in hand push your fist into the front of a private type of mail box like the ones close to the street, what happens to the ends of the roll? by the way it is called an analogy.
and you didn't prove me wrong you only proved that you can't grasp the concept of the effects of how things work.
loosechangeexposed 1 year ago
LOL, I dont believe loose change either but only an idiot would think a plane just dissappeared.
raiderryan34 1 year ago
the plane didn't completely disappear, they found debris.
the plane was going 777 feet per second,
nose to tail were gone in 0.2 seconds, 1 fifth of a second.
and when you clap your hands togeather as hard as you can you can feel the heat it generates.
metal heats up too when it collapses in on itself, when it ended up inside the pentagon the heat was contained with no way to cool it down, it did get hot enough, most of the plane was hollow not solid. think about it.
loosechangeexposed 1 year ago
How did the lightposts get knocked down, something your ignorant theory forgets to adress.
f0rumrr 1 year ago
people with common sense understand how the light poles got knocked down.
the wing of the plane knocked them down.
i didn't forget to address the light poles they are not the issue in this video the way the plane hit the building is.
am i suppose to start with the hospital where each terrorists was born in every video i make? my videos get the point across, ask an adult to explain what i mean.
loosechangeexposed 1 year ago
@loosechangeexposed Man to funny just caught you in a lie. Funny shit. Man in another so called debunking video number 032 you claim a piece of the plane got knocked off by the lightpoles, yet that piece was part of the fusilage, and dont say i puting words in your mouth. Your putting them there urself you just dont want to say them.
f0rumrr 1 year ago
you should comment on the right video.
i said the piece was ripped off by the light pole not knocked off. (more words in my mouth) the piece was the cover to the landing gear. loose change said the piece was "allegeabily" a piece of the fusalage i said it was part of the plane. (more words in my mouth) i never said it was part of the fusalage, learn how to argue, you are out of your league.
loosechangeexposed 1 year ago
@loosechangeexposed ok so the cover to the landing gear is not part of the fuselage. Man i just caught u lieing again. You try to cover a lie with anthother one and just look like a fool. Im out of my league eh. I guess i dont need to use idoit tricks like quotes or saying i put words in your mouth. Man your a fucking joke.
f0rumrr 1 year ago
the doors are not part of the fusalage when they are open they become part of the fusalage only when they are closed.
loosechangeexposed 1 year ago
you are making it sound like the light poles ripped open the fusalage when they ripped an open door off the plane.
there is a difference.
loosechangeexposed 1 year ago
Loose Change forgets the generator in their computer simulator that was hit and still as to the new loose change video they haven't mentioned it.
DebunkingTwoofers 2 years ago
i would imagine that when the plane took a 45 degree left bank, the left wing hit the generator and "tripped" the plane into a 45 degree nose dive.
loosechangeexposed 2 years ago
this doesnt make sense at all...
phantomlord1981 2 years ago
it does to people with common sense
loosechangeexposed 2 years ago
appearently your definition of common sense is different than everyone elses. Everyone knows the roof collapsed after the crash. Even those who think a missile hit it know that. Plus if the plane hit the roof, the roof wouldn't collapse, the plane whould go right through it. Not to mention that this plane hit in a reinforced section of the Pentagon, hence why it didn't go through the building
CHEMASTER23 2 years ago
the part of the roof that collapsed later was the rest of the top of the remaining outer wall.
the entire roof at the outer wall wasn't damaged, just the part that snapped back the wing and the size of the hole it made in the roof at the top of the wall was only about the size of the engine.
the entire roof didn't collapse later on just the part that was remaining that wasn't damaged in the impact. where is the video of the entire roof being intact after impact? it doesn't exist make a video
loosechangeexposed 2 years ago
Your nose to tail theory is a bit off. The planes wouldn't just "disappear". Where would they go? And I don't think the heat would've been enough to completely destroy the plane.
The theory of the angle the plane came in in relation to the lack of wings etc is a good one though.
42iskey 2 years ago
if you look at the speed of the plane, it was going 777 feet per second, and the plane was 155 feet long, at that rate as soon as the nose touched the tail was at that exact point within .20 seconds,crashing into a box where the heat was contained with no way to cool it down,not only that the metel from the plane generated heat from collapsing in on itself,if you look at the pic you will see the wall of the second ring had no damage from the wing cuz the first ring folded both wings back.
loosechangeexposed 2 years ago
I agreed, until you said it hit the roof. You have to remember that the collapse here happened nearly 30 mintures after the initial hit. You theory works great if you had said that the building was hit lower than thought.
TrueAmericanRebel 2 years ago
where are the pictures of your claim? and before you say in the loose change video, that shot is covered by smoke, that is what loose change does it uses smoke and mirrors.the entire video is an illusion.
loosechangeexposed 2 years ago