Which means they would strike the columns more or less sequentially, from wing root to wing tip.

Why do you suppose the NIST got it so wrong?

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...wing-burst.png

Which returns us back to you needing to prove your claim that it didn't, which so far you have failed to accomplish. Your attempts so far haven't been convincing because you apparently can't do physics. I'm not holding my breath on this one either.

They weren't "mostly hollow". The wing tanks were filled. And years ago I explained the concept of "sectional density" to you. It seems that meanwhile you have learned nothing and forgotten everything.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectional_density)

Nope, it's not up to me to prove their claim is true pr false. I only have to call BS to it. But because you have a double standard when it comes to who's onus it is to prove one's claims, I did provide the reasons for my calling BS to that claim. Namely the lightly damaged aluminum sheeting, and the steel columns bent sharply in a completely different direction than the mostly hollow aluminum jet was traveling.

How much fuel is in the wing tip, would you say?

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...l-tank-1-1.png

How much of that fuel would have remained after the wing root and engine were "completely fragmented?"

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...ighlighted.png

I await your 3D animation to explain how the left side remained attached after a direct hit from the left by a cruise missle
You will have to supply a picture of that one. I haven't seen it yet.

I have only seen the one where the front is punched out and it is still attached on the left hand side. Just follow the window cleaning track (which is on the front) up and you get to a hole.

Look on the left hand and it is still attached, top to bottom:

So you need to explain how the front of the cladding was punched out and the left hand side remained attached.
https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...e-11.png?w=861

Fuel added weight, but not density.

Thanks again! :D

None, which is why the wingtip didn't break through anything except a little bit of cladding.

Also thanking you in advance for your explanation of how the left hand side of the cladding miraculously survived a direct hit from the left by a cruise missle.

Patience. You'll love it. :D

Can't have one without the other, as will be explained in excruciating detail. :D

Which, as we keep explaining to you, doesn't actually indicate the building was not hit by a plane. So we're still waiting on actual evidence from you to indicate otherwise. Also thanks for demonstrating the lack of physics knowledge with that density comment, I find it intriguing that a fluid of heavier density than air occupying the same space as air would have otherwise somehow only make the space heavier, but not more dense. Fascinating stuff.

Yes it did.

ABC chopper live.

The plane is in the shadow of the smoke.


https://i.imgur.com/ZuV8NLJ.png


You are starting to foam around the mouth a little.

Actually it does, but it takes being intellectually honest to admit it.

The plane is a cartoon, as can be seen by the laterally bent steel columns and the lightly damaged aluminum sheeting. Cartoons with transparent backgrounds can be easily inserted into live videos, by virtue of the broadcast delay.

The wing box fragmenting does not lessen the force with which the columns are hit.

That force has still been transmitted to the columns and will cause damage even after the fragments have bounced off or passed through the windows:

This is an in the shadow of the smoke aircraft. How did they know it would be in the shadow when they were creating the animated model.


https://i.imgur.com/ZuV8NLJ.png

You are unable to answer this question.

Nothing bounced off. Didn't you see the videos? Didn't you watch the purdue cartoon? Didn't you read the reports from MIT, the NIST, Wierzbicki, et al?

I don't see a shadow of smoke on the black CGI plane. Please explain.

See, I told you so.

Huh. Guess that must be intellectual honesty.

Anyone can watch it frame by frame for themselves. If you think there's a shadow there, you should be able to demonstrate it, or stop saying it. You could say you see unicorns too, but I don't see those either. Please explain why you think there's a shadow there, and how that overrides the evidence of the lateral impact of small projectiles.

Admitting error takes courage too. You won't find any skeptics doing that either.

A truly stunning statement.

A question for you Yankee.

Which is more dense ice or water?

I asked before if you can point out any high res close up videos of the crash. I am not aware of any.

Only low res ones where you can't see the fragment, just as you can't see the fragments in videos of cruise missile impacts.
That is relevant - how?
Yep. Hopefully you will also get around to them.

Or are you claiming that the NIST report does not show any fragments bouncing off??

https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...e-2.png?w=1024

Aluminum sheeting isn't made more dense by a full fuel tank, or is in your world?

Can't see any fragments in this picture - so there must be no fragments!

https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...-25.png?w=1024

I see, so the fancy media outlets with top of the line optics couldn't provide anything other than low resolution shots of the crashes, which you claim are too poor to discern whether or not any parts of the jet bounced off. Well that's handy! Poor video quality also makes video fakery much easier, so thanks for that.

Answer the question Yankee.



Which is more dense ice or water?

Interesting argument. On the one hand the videos are proof of jet impacts, but on the other hand the resolution is too crappy to be sure about anything. Carry on!

Back to school...
Vikipedia:
"The density (more precisely, the volumetric mass density; also known as specific mass), of a substance is its mass per unit volume. The symbol most often used for density is ρ (the lower case Greek letter rho), although the Latin letter D can also be used. Mathematically, density is defined as mass divided by volume."

In my world... YES

6 pounds per gallon more density.

Don't we love anything you say! :D

I am well aware of the answer. I grew up near the arctic, genius. But I can't help but notice how irrelevant this question is in relation to the topic of whether or not the fuel in a fuel tank makes the aluminum sheeting of the wing more dense. Of course it doesn't. If anything it would add more stress to the aluminum sheeting connections making the wing weaker - but it wouldn't effect it's density one way or the other.

In your world the aluminum sheeting of a wing becomes more dense as you add fuel to the tanks? Well, I can't argue with that! I'll just bronze this post and leave you to it!

And yet I'm not referring to the mass density of the wing, am I? I'm referring to the mass of the aluminum sheeting. In the same way filling a water balloon with water gives it more mass density, the mass of the rubber balloon is not increased by the volume of water. If anything it makes it more prone to burst.

You don't seem to understand the fuel/tank system will, subject to sufficient acceleration, behave like a single object. The structural strength of the tank will become insignificant in comparison with the force of the decelerating mass of the fuel. That's why we can cut steel by water.

You don't seem to understand that even the official propaganda organs from MIT threw in the towel when it came to calculating the collision between the wings and the wall columns.
https://911crashtest.org/chapter-4/

I shot down the water jet canard a couple thousand comments ago.

So you are saying that the media organisations should have been able to magically predict that this was going to happen so that they could have all their best cameras and lenses in just the right place-yes?