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

Look, the document you presented to me earlier only listed one thing that could go wrong if they don't use planes. There were, in fact, MANY things that could go wrong with such a plan. I listed several possibilities, myself. (The rehearsal staff alerting everyone of what they did, the timing of the release of "live" fake footage being very tight, things going wrong with planting evidence, etc.)

Here's a question of mine, that you haven't really answered:

If the report doesn't cover all of those concerns, and possibly others, how are we supposed to trust it?

You can't merely handwave all of those issues by saying "people will do what they're told" and "they're not as independent as you think". Those aren't smart risks for an evil overlord to take. And, they don't really address the quality of that document, anyway.

And, to answer THIS question, in particular, you can't just claim "evidence of the lateral impact of small projectiles". That doesn't answer MY question.

Mine is a question about the reliability of the document you presented.

Can you give us a compelling answer for that?

It is noticeable, isn't it?
It's quite obvious why yankee451 is running from my questions: he simply has no answer.
His entire claim rests on the blurred photo he spams so enthusiastically. He claims that, as the outer cladding is bent, and there is no visible damage to the columns (in his interpretation), this could only have been caused by a cruise missile, bending/denting the cladding as it passed, and then going in between the columns, leaving them intact.
Now, his own information states that the gap between the columns was 14". His own information states that the missile was either 12" or 14" wide. From his own information, he has proven that the missile could not possibly have passed through that gap (even the 12" one was striking at an angle), without either getting stuck or blasting through. His own sources say it would have blasted through, leaving obvious damage. His whole claim rests on the idea that there is no visible damage. Therefore, according to his own information, there were no missiles.
I have repeatedly asked yankee451 to explain or acknowledge this, but he has ducked this every time.
This is presumably because he knows it's all over, but just doesn't want to admit it.
By the way, for sensible people who actually do answer questions, does this figure of 12 or 14" include the missile's wings, or is that just the warhead itself?

How did they 'layer' the smoke over the CGI jet when the smoke is part of the video?

So there was no real smoke.

All CGI. The event which seized the city's (and the world's) full attention in time for the second attack was not actually there to see as it only existed on TV. Not only were the live pictures faked but all the recordings and all the photos which have been released on the internet showing the vast plume of smoke are fakes. Nobody noticed that the pictures they saw on TV didn't match what they saw out of their window. Nobody at all.

We have gone a long, long way beyond the point that I believe yankee451 actually believes the story he's inventing. The only remaining puzzle is motive.

Cranks crank- it's just what they do.

The motive is understandable. Start with a basic distrust of the media and official sources. Yes they do spin and are (hidden) agenda driven.

Embrace the notion of "false flags"... so to get the US into a war footing a raison d'etre had to be created. Deny that US has antagonized groups around the world who have resorted to terrorism.

Believing one is smarter technically than they are. Lacking critical thinking and analytic skills, but creative enough to fabricate a alternate theory. Truthers are science deniers.

But by avoiding to answer he can keep the illusion that the ball is still rolling.


I'd say the warhead alone without wings.

Well, Yankee has pinballed between JDAM, JASSM, cruise missile and spooky unknown tech. Best you address that question to him.

Because nobody else has a ******** clue what he is on about.

Funny thing too about the JASSM, the body is made of fiberglass.

Well, since the flight characteristics don't match (a sideswiping cruise missile?) why should materials matter? It's not "hollow aluminum" so it's different and that is all it takes.

Besides, it was Rodan who has a history of sideswiping building and breathing fire. Fits all of the facts.

You are all deluded about what made those turtle shaped holes.

Gamera of course.

Gamera is a good guy and wouldn't kill people. Rodan, on the other hand, is a monster and would lay waste to 4 buildings and a plane in the middle of nowhere without concern in a single afternoon without even breaking a sweat. Not that they sweat.

Let's go back to March 4, 2001, the day the root of 911 CT's was born via the wonderful X-Files spin-off, The Lone Gunmen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZXDqlnEnc8

The conspiracy is all laid out, how the Cold War is over and a faction within the US Gub'mint needs to stage an attack in order to go to war with some easy target. The bad guys take remote control of a 727 to crash it into...the World Trade Center.

Take note: The plane is CGI and a model. The Twin Towers are the real deal, the film crew shot the footage from a helicopter and it still gives me goosebumps today. Pay attention to the CGI because unlike movies with large budgets and plenty of time this was produced fairly quickly over a matter of weeks.

It looks great for entertainment but doesn't cut it for reality.

This is the upcoming Tom Hanks movie, Greyhound, and it features state of the art, multi-million dollar CGI work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB-yVnr63IM

It looks great but lets face it, the images are still a bit off from reality.

The idea that the footage from 911 is CGI is laughable.

Missed that series completely, maybe I was working? ;)

Hollywood CGI. We are talking about military grade, pentagon level CGI needed to cover up the Rodan attack. Because, as you well know from the briefings, pentagon level CGI is decades ahead of Hollywood, for some reason.

And this is the thing that yankee451 and his "no planes" crowd just completely fail to understand.

ANY half competent CGI, first year tech can spot even state-of-the-art CGI immediately, with just a few simple tests. Yes, it may pass the "movie-goer" test, where you see the action and are convinced by it, but CGI will NOT pass any kind of decent frame-by-frame examination, error level analysis or intersection tests and any of a half dozen or more tests that will detect things such as pixel pattern repetition, rendering errors, inconsistent microtextures and clipping will make any fakery stand out like a pair of canine's gonads.

I'm Ms Lurk-a-lot and don't post much- but is it just me who thinks that if no one replied to Yankee-he'd realise he's not getting the attention he so obviously craves, and go bother someone else? Or am I just being too simplistic? I bow down to everyones patience though. I don't have any.

Some of us think of that as a service we provide, free of charge, to that someone else. If they're arguing pointlessly here, they don't have time to irritate anyone who matters.

Dave

Ah, thanks- I get it now. Although I must say, I learn a lot from the replies so look very clever when someone starts spouting CT nonsense at me.

Cheers :-)