You link put me on your own moronic videos and some incoherent blabbering not making any sense. What were you trying to say?

Remember Yankee, that you are the guy who thinks he can attach a wing to a rocket sled, fill it with water, and accelerate it to 500 mph in 2 seconds and have it arrive at it's target in one piece.

A gallon of water weighs 8 pounds. During the acceleration a gallon of water will have a weight of 88 pounds pushing back against the rivets holding the wing skin onto the aft spar. It was not designed for this kind of acceleration. The rivets will fail and you will be spewing out water all the way to the target.

It's lmost as if this whole performance was only to drive traffic to his own website, or to make more links to it in order to impress Google and prop up its ranking.

But you do see a *black* CGI plane and not a silvery one. Why did the evil geniuses, who leave no detail to chance, decide to make their CGI plane appear black in that frame?

If the wind direction had been different, eagle-eyed investigators like yourself would be using the fact that the plane should have been in full sunlight as their gotcha. Instead you can only keep banging on about some fragment of cladding where it's far from clear how it's still attached to the building anyway. And hollow wings. And butter.

So, this black plane. Why is it black, exactly?

Same response RE- Rodan.

My expertise in Rodan is greater than yours in missile technology. Hell, my expertise in missile technology is greater than yours in missile or Rodan.

Not only have you not proven Rodan attacks as wrong, you've not even addressed it. You cower away from it. Like you do when you are asked to explain how you know anything about missiles.

yankee451: Have you read the sentence after the one you highlighted? You know, the one that says how the aircraft fuel spread out after the impact, but remained relatively dense, and was able to penetrate to the building core? I think you also missed the part where it says that large fragments, including both engines, remained intact. Where did these pieces come from?

Oh, and I am still, despite the overwhelming folly of this position, optimistic that you really, really will link to all those answers you claim to have given to my questions. They must be there, because you're not one of the liars you claim are on this forum, are you? You wouldn't do that. Right?

You really need to learn physics. Yes the fuel added weight, but how is this weight manifested?????
It is mass times gravity(in this case), so the mass of the fuel is additive to the mass of the wing. Now since the fuel is less dense than the aluminum then the combined densities will be less than that of aluminum, but it has added to the density. Boy you are really ignorant.

Yes, it would be consistent with everything else he doesn't know.

I'm still waiting for Yankee to prove the Twin Towers were actually destroyed and are not - as I claim - masked by a cloaking device to hide the Reptilian Empire's Earth Base 1. I mean why not fill in the foundations of the towers? Why turn them into "fountains"?

Wake up, Sheeple.

I also want to know how much the CIA is paying Yankee.

Whatever the amount, they're probably paying it in MPC.

Miles Per Conspiracy?

Density is mass per unit volume. A wing full of fuel has a greater mass than an empty wing, but it has the same volume, ergo, the addition of a full fuel tank increases the density of the wing.

This is a verifiable, irrefutable fact - your erroneous statement on basic grade-school physics are a further plunge down the rabbit hole of stupid.

Maybe we need a website. Or a newsletter. so we can link to it.

Well, the wing is not empty. It's filled with air. You are swapping out the compressible air with a non-compressible fluid too. But's still an ignorant statement to claim that swapping out a less dense material (air) with jet fuel somehow adds weight without changing the density of the wing.

Since it was done by Rodan, it's meaningless.

Gasp, you're saying that fuel has a higher density than air? :jaw-dropp

Yeah, throw an empty soda can at a window, then throw a full soda can at a window and see which one is more likely to break the window.

It's just awesomely stupid to claim fuel wouldn't increase density.

So you are saying that videos and photographs can only be proof of anything if they have infinite resolution so that every single detail no matter how small can be seen, but offer fuzzy photographs as 'proof' of your own contentions.

Interesting argument. Carry on!

The real truth is COMMENT REDACTED BY; SIGMA 7 TASK FORCE L; CLEAR: 7-5-LIMA-0-NINER-CHARLIE

Consider for a moment moths' tendency to avoid sunlight. If, purely hypothetically, a gigantic moth-like creature was in the area that day and, distressed by the sunshine, it took refuge by flying in the dark shadow of a long, dense smoke cloud, then flying along beneath that cloud would inexorably guide the monster directly to the source of the smoke. Worth considering, I reckon.

The Batra theory? Not out of the realm of possibility. But it adds a layer of complexity not needed when Rodan could cover the distances needed so a second actor just isn't needed. Can't rule him out, just don't need him.

Could this moth carry coconuts? If so, how many?

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








the above is sarcasm

I do vaguely remember some illiterate nonsense about the water cutting is possible only "because the water jet is concentrated". I left it without comment, because I have no time to answer all the colossal nonsenses you produce. But let's get back to this one anyway...
The water jet used for cutting is very narrow because usually some precision is required. We do can make it wider if required for some reason, but our problem will be the obscene amount of energy needed to accelerate the increased amount of water to the required speed. If we are happy (and able) to supply it, we can make the cut as wide as we wish. As wide as an airliner wing thickness, for instance :-).

Why are you unable to grasp science?

You showed a wing segment breaking the WTC shell, debunking your paranoid missile fantasy. Your missile lacks the mass to do anything like a the Boeing jet did, and you don't have a clue why your can't comprehend the engineering physics and math. The school of hard-knocks left you clueless on physics.

You don't do physics, engineering and math, thus you do lies, fantasy, and paranoid claims based on ignornace of math, science, and physics.

wow - another 9/11 truthism fuel and density - wow
 

Add weight, density and mass to the things you are clueless on as proved by your posts!

Bingo, proof the school of hard-knocks (your school) left out science, math, and physics - and concentrated on BS, paranoia, fantasy, and lies.

oops, the empty tanks on a jet would have air in them, the jet fuel does add density, and would be something called mass. (aka the mass "M" in KE=1/2MV²) Try to get some training in science, your posts debunk themselves and your posts are evidence of an apparent total ignorance in science.

The fuel in Flights 11 and 175 were part of the overall mass of the jets, and contributed to the kinetic energy which caused the jet to break the WTC shell, and were equal in energy to 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT. The energy of large bombs, but you don't do science so you can't debunk me, NIST, or anyone at this forum who understands you spread lies and fantasy and don't care about the thousand of Americans you mock with dumbed down lies.

You can't be serious about this missile fantasy, mocking the murder of thousands of your fellow citizens - you put zero effort into this, and is shows.

Go ahead, accelerate 10,000 gallons of jet fuel to 500 mph and see what the mass of the jet fuel can do, or the water jet you can't comprehend, or any science issue.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

you don't have clue the videos were not faked, and failed to prove they were fake - no clue what density is, and no clue what mass is, and you don't care

Battra is not a moth. He is a gigamoth. He was able to lift Godzilla, with the help of Mothra, and Godzilla clocks in at a hefty 164,000 tons (sources vary). So at least 82,000 tons. If they were properly netted. if not, then 3, one in each claw, one in mouth.

Would you believe that Popular Mechanics also tried to debunk Godzilla? Clearly they are tools of them.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/cul...illa-16785535/

African moth? or European?

And what is the density of a coconut?

Here we are headed in the right direction.

There were no planes.

There were no missiles.

There were no explosions, no fires and no smoke.

There were and are no videos and no still photos.

There were no eye witnesses.

Nobody died at the WTC site.

In fact there were no tall buildings of any description.

This was all fabricated by yankee451 and he has convinced some people that something unusual happened in NYC on Sept 11 2001. yankee451 has not provided any evidence that anything noteworthy happened on that day for the simple reason that he has no such evidence.

yankee451, please explain exactly what noteworthy event you think happened in NYC on Sept 11 2001 and provide direct evidence. No speculation, no questions, no links to sketchy websites or videos. Just a succinct and evidenced hypothesis that can be used as a basis to form a consistent theory.

No one believes Popular Mechanics, do they?

I think it's Japanese. Remember that New Pearl Harbour book. That's gotta prove something.

Remember coconut milk does not add density to the coconut.

There are a few problems with your request Steve

I have highlighted them for you

I know. I know. But what do you think of my theory that nothing of interest happened on Sept 11 2001?

IMO, it is every bit as close to reality as the unevidenced tripe that yankee451 has been spouting.

Thanks for the videos. Despite of having a fair idea about the physics involved, the experiment with the car still shocked me ;-). I made some simple calculation based on the estimated height of the drop being 8 m. The speed of the water at the point of impact was was a measly 12 m/s - 45 km/h. It still caused a wholesale destruction despite of the gradual release of the water reducing the final effect significantly!

Furthermore, in neither case was it anywhere near the amount of fuel in an aircraft wing.

He's obviously an operative for Lockheed/PIXAR. Who benefits from a theory about invisible cruise missiles masked by instantaneous CGI? Probably works in the front office which explains his lack of basic science knowledge.

Fact: Ground Zero was never tested for coconut residue of any kind. What were they trying to hide?

:newlol