Z4-forum.com

thanatu55 wrote: ↑Sun May 20, 2018 12:31 pm

john-e89 wrote: ↑Sun May 20, 2018 11:08 am

thanatu55 wrote: ↑Sun May 20, 2018 10:28 am

John, have I provided you with the satisfactory argument to your mass murder recruitment theory that you were looking for on the previous page? I don't think it requires that many 'in the know' to create some of the issues that I believe to be inadequately explained/

Ah now you see this how arguments happen on the keyboard, I’m laughing at the joke thanatu, not you my friend. It’s simply a funny joke, which is how it was intended unless I’m mistaken.

I don’t agree with any of your post on the previous page, well done for re-typing it though...!!

I don’t agree with any of the posts that have leanings towards the conspiracy theories but I’m certainly not laughing at them, nor the people writing them, you all have an opinion just as I have.

Haha no I got that

I was just that miffed over doing it twice I demanded to be heard! As I said before, this subject will never come to a conclusion where everybody agree's and the matter is put to bed. I would like to hear your opinion on the Pentagon incident though, what happened to the magic shrinking and vanishing plane?

I'm also a bit sad that since I've got to the end of my modding experience I am now reduced to writing stories on the forum instead

The Pentagon then...have a look at these pics thanatu...looks a bit bigger than a 5mt hole no..? Plus a part of Flight 77’s voice recorder. The illustration pic shows the position of body parts found inside the building.

TitanTim wrote: ↑Sun May 20, 2018 9:40 pm Did I miss something

I didn't think John was having a go at all, I very much respect him on here and its good to have differing views on a subject, makes for a good discussion

Tim.

Sorry Tim, it was my mistake. From the outside it looked like a low blow from John because you had a different opinion from him.

Nictrix wrote: ↑Mon May 21, 2018 7:59 am

TitanTim wrote: ↑Sun May 20, 2018 9:40 pm Did I miss something

I didn't think John was having a go at all, I very much respect him on here and its good to have differing views on a subject, makes for a good discussion

Tim.

Sorry Tim, it was my mistake. From the outside it looked like a low blow from John because you had a different opinion from him.

No worries

Tim.

This one looks to have petered out, no surprise really, not much left to say is there, we're going round in circles a bit I suppose.

Good discussion though, all views pretty much respected and (hopefully) no bad feelings anywhere, I’d call that a good result.

john-e89 wrote: ↑Tue May 22, 2018 7:05 pm This one looks to have petered out, no surprise really, not much left to say is there, we're going round in circles a bit I suppose.

Good discussion though, all views pretty much respected and (hopefully) no bad feelings anywhere, I’d call that a good result.

Seeing as you asked, hope this is not seen as a dig, in those pics of the pentagon, where is the hole that was left by the plane hitting it?
And I don't mean the pic of the building after it collapsed.
And also where is the rest of the plane other than the very small piece that looks placed on the grass?
Are those 4 cable reel looking things the engines?

Nictrix wrote: ↑Tue May 22, 2018 7:23 pm ...in those pics of the pentagon, where is the hole that was left by the plane hitting it?
And I don't mean the pic of the building after it collapsed.

That is where the plane hit the pentagon (the upper part collapsed about 20 mins after impact) - it's not like a cartoon where you get a perfect plane-shaped cutout in the building.

Plane wings are not solid, apart from the section with the engine mounts, they're essentially a thin aluminium skin with internal reinforcing members (although some aircraft have have fuel tanks in the wings). The lifting surfaces are not designed to take huge stresses along the fore-aft axis and a large proportion of the outer wing would have disintegrated upon impact with the Pentagon.

The Pentagon is one of the strongest reinforced concrete structures ever built and while the body of the plane and the inner wing/engines breached the first and second rings, the plane landing gear punched through to the third ring (Ring C)

There are photos of the clearup of the wing debris but you don't get many large fragments left after an impact against a (virtually) immovable object - you can see how thin the aluminium skin of an aircraft wing is in the photos

e.g.

So the picture of the Pentagon with foam over it is inside 20 minutes of the impact before any plane debris has been removed.
Where is the plane?
Surely not all of it entered the building completely out of sight.
If the Pentagon is one of the strongest buildings ever built would quite a large portion of the plane not make it inside the building?
When you see other pictures of passenger planes that have crashed and hit buildings there are still huge portions of the rear of the plane intact and outside the buildings. Why not here.

Nictrix wrote: ↑Tue May 22, 2018 7:23 pm

john-e89 wrote: ↑Tue May 22, 2018 7:05 pm This one looks to have petered out, no surprise really, not much left to say is there, we're going round in circles a bit I suppose.

Good discussion though, all views pretty much respected and (hopefully) no bad feelings anywhere, I’d call that a good result.

Seeing as you asked, hope this is not seen as a dig, in those pics of the pentagon, where is the hole that was left by the plane hitting it?
And I don't mean the pic of the building after it collapsed.
And also where is the rest of the plane other than the very small piece that looks placed on the grass?
Are those 4 cable reel looking things the engines?

Not seen as a dig whatsoever Nictrix, my previous comment about a dig was in response to you saying ‘John has spoken’. I was only trying to get peoples views on my mass murder question which, I admit, I probably rattled on too much about, but I seriously think it’s a valid question, then the meme about Tim, which fair shout could be seen as a dig at him if you don’t know we get on very well.

So clearing that up then and moving on, the wings imho wouldn’t have become separated from the plane on impact, but folded up upon striking the Pentagon walls and been dragged into the building along with the fuselage to be for want of a better word, vaporised in such a huge impact and subsequent fire.

Also why would the Pentagon lie about the strike anyway? Why is a plane hitting any worse than a missile? I don’t see the need to make a story up...

Nictrix wrote: ↑Tue May 22, 2018 9:11 pm So the picture of the Pentagon with foam over it is inside 20 minutes of the impact before any plane debris has been removed.
Where is the plane?
Surely not all of it entered the building completely out of sight.
If the Pentagon is one of the strongest buildings ever built would quite a large portion of the plane not make it inside the building?
When you see other pictures of passenger planes that have crashed and hit buildings there are still huge portions of the rear of the plane intact and outside the buildings. Why not here.

I dare say that in the other instances you mention, the pilot was trying to slow down rather than hit the building at 400+ mph...

The main hole in the Pentagon was ~75ft wide and, as close as I can find with a quick search, the diameter of a 757-200's fuselage is ~13ft. The amount of energy in the collision was enormous and the structural engineers that analysed the crash said that the main body of the aircraft flowed into the structure more like a liquid than a solid.

I've just looked up the mass of a 757-200 and done a quick back-of-a-fag-packet calculation and the kinetic energy of a 757-200 (mass of at least 58,000kg) travelling at 400mph (~180 m/s) comes in at ~940MJ. In comparison, a Z4 (mass ~1300kg), hitting a motorway bridge support at 80mph (~36m/s) only yields ~0.84MJ


NB 58,000kg is the mass of a completely empty 757-200, add in seats, fuel, passengers, luggage etc. and a more typical operating figure is in the region of 80,000kg - this would give a kinetic energy yield of ~1300MJ

So did anyone watch this video in the end?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Qt6a-vaNM

It really IS credible if you watch with an open mind.

Happy to state my position on this for what little it may be considered worth.

1) Anything is possible!
2) America NEEDS to do something about it's rapidly escalating debt sitting at 25 trillion and rising by the second. They need to be very inventive to resolve that.
3) See number 1.

TitanTim wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:16 pm Strange though that the likes of Grenfell tower was literally incinerated and most likely constructed to nowhere near the standards of the twin towers yet didn't collapse

Tim.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LUDXpMhkNk

One of the more back to facts videos out there. Added to the theory of concrete collapsing around the plane, causing a furnace and the molten aluminium coming into contact with the water from the sprinklers. And also he fact that the water main was down so the sprinklers wouldnt have been on in tower 7, it's all looking prety un-conspiracy-ish to me

I still think the US probably knew and failed to stop it (intentionally? neglect? who knows)

I wonder if we look at the thousands of trading transactions that happen in a random selection of time, how many would have looked suspicious if building x blew up or company b was subject to a terror attack. Would think it probaably happens day in day out unsuccessfully as nothing hapens

PerryGunn wrote: ↑Tue May 22, 2018 9:47 pm

Nictrix wrote: ↑Tue May 22, 2018 9:11 pm So the picture of the Pentagon with foam over it is inside 20 minutes of the impact before any plane debris has been removed.
Where is the plane?
Surely not all of it entered the building completely out of sight.
If the Pentagon is one of the strongest buildings ever built would quite a large portion of the plane not make it inside the building?
When you see other pictures of passenger planes that have crashed and hit buildings there are still huge portions of the rear of the plane intact and outside the buildings. Why not here.

I dare say that in the other instances you mention, the pilot was trying to slow down rather than hit the building at 400+ mph...

The main hole in the Pentagon was ~75ft wide and, as close as I can find with a quick search, the diameter of a 757-200's fuselage is ~13ft. The amount of energy in the collision was enormous and the structural engineers that analysed the crash said that the main body of the aircraft flowed into the structure more like a liquid than a solid.

I've just looked up the mass of a 757-200 and done a quick back-of-a-fag-packet calculation and the kinetic energy of a 757-200 (mass of at least 58,000kg) travelling at 400mph (~180 m/s) comes in at ~940MJ. In comparison, a Z4 (mass ~1300kg), hitting a motorway bridge support at 80mph (~36m/s) only yields ~0.84MJ


NB 58,000kg is the mass of a completely empty 757-200, add in seats, fuel, passengers, luggage etc. and a more typical operating figure is in the region of 80,000kg - this would give a kinetic energy yield of ~1300MJ

PerryGunn wrote: ↑Tue May 22, 2018 9:47 pm

Nictrix wrote: ↑Tue May 22, 2018 9:11 pm So the picture of the Pentagon with foam over it is inside 20 minutes of the impact before any plane debris has been removed.
Where is the plane?
Surely not all of it entered the building completely out of sight.
If the Pentagon is one of the strongest buildings ever built would quite a large portion of the plane not make it inside the building?
When you see other pictures of passenger planes that have crashed and hit buildings there are still huge portions of the rear of the plane intact and outside the buildings. Why not here.

I dare say that in the other instances you mention, the pilot was trying to slow down rather than hit the building at 400+ mph...

The main hole in the Pentagon was ~75ft wide and, as close as I can find with a quick search, the diameter of a 757-200's fuselage is ~13ft. The amount of energy in the collision was enormous and the structural engineers that analysed the crash said that the main body of the aircraft flowed into the structure more like a liquid than a solid.

I've just looked up the mass of a 757-200 and done a quick back-of-a-fag-packet calculation and the kinetic energy of a 757-200 (mass of at least 58,000kg) travelling at 400mph (~180 m/s) comes in at ~940MJ. In comparison, a Z4 (mass ~1300kg), hitting a motorway bridge support at 80mph (~36m/s) only yields ~0.84MJ


NB 58,000kg is the mass of a completely empty 757-200, add in seats, fuel, passengers, luggage etc. and a more typical operating figure is in the region of 80,000kg - this would give a kinetic energy yield of ~1300MJ

So what you’re saying, Perry, is that you’d need about 3400 fake plane crashes to send Marty McFly back to 1955?