It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Plane atomizes at 500 knots into fortified concrete wall

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 10:43 PM
link   
I'm wanting to discuss this video and it's effects on the current Pentagon CT.

www.dumpalink.com...

This video shows an F4 Phantom flying into a fortified concrete wall. The entire plane excepting the tips of the wings was atomized.

This explains IMO, the lack of aircraft wreckage found at the Pentagon. Considering the
exterior wall of the Pentagon was most likely more heavily fortified than the one in the test. I haven't been bothered to reference it.

This raises another question for me though. In the video, the F4's gear and engine were
atomized as well - as far as I can tell from the video, so I wonder what punctured the interior walls of the Pentagon, and how it managed to do so.




posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Because the wall that the F-4 hit was about 10 times the thickness of the Pentagon wall. That's the wall they use around nuclear power plants.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   
I believe you. I'll have a look into the fortification of the Pentagon walls.

Judging by the video alone, the wall appears to be approximately 10-15' thick.
Do you know off the top of your head how thick the exterior wall of the Pentagon was
post renevation?



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   
It was only between 16 and 24 inches IIRC. The thickness wasn't increased much, they added blast resistant windows, and a kevlar lining to reinforce it.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by nextguyinline
I believe you. I'll have a look into the fortification of the Pentagon walls.

Judging by the video alone, the wall appears to be approximately 10-15' thick.
Do you know off the top of your head how thick the exterior wall of the Pentagon was
post renevation?


I think, that I read somewhere that Pentagon construction including the renovation (beef-up) was classified. So you will have to guess.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by nextguyinline
I believe you. I'll have a look into the fortification of the Pentagon walls.

Judging by the video alone, the wall appears to be approximately 10-15' thick.
Do you know off the top of your head how thick the exterior wall of the Pentagon was
post renevation?


That doesn't explain how the same size hole was found in another cooridoor almost a hundred yards away, through other walls and such, finally through another brick wall. If it atomizes, it doesn't do all of the above. Right? AAC



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 10:58 PM
link   
The renovation itself (wall thickness, etc) wasn't classified, it's the construction of the windows, and the way that the kevlar reinforces the wall that's classified.

Edited to add:

The F-4 didn't "atomize". It just broke apart into no recognizable large pieces. There were pieces left that you could tell were from a plane, but there were no LARGE pieces left.

[edit on 8/6/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Edited to add:

The F-4 didn't "atomize". It just broke apart into no recognizable large pieces. There were pieces left that you could tell were from a plane, but there were no LARGE pieces left.

[edit on 8/6/2006 by Zaphod58]


I was just repeating the word the narrator used.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Yeah, I know. I know that video. I've seen other pictures of it and read other reports about it. The narration of that video is misleading. There WERE parts that were left of the plane, like the engines, they were just so massively compressed or were so destroyed that they weren't easy to identify as plane parts.



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by nextguyinline
I believe you. I'll have a look into the fortification of the Pentagon walls.

Judging by the video alone, the wall appears to be approximately 10-15' thick.
Do you know off the top of your head how thick the exterior wall of the Pentagon was
post renevation?


Exterior pentagon walls - post renovation

www.pentagonresearch.com...









The renovation team had help from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers' Blast Center in Omaha, Neb., to incorporate lessons learned from bomb blasts that destroyed U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998. Six-inch steel beams were installed, vertically and horizontally, through all five floors. New blast-resistant windows, almost two inches thick, were mounted inside steel frames.

Between these one-ton window units, ballistic cloth had been stretched and bolted to the steel frames to reduce deadly shrapnel. This Kevlar cloth proved to be so strong that a crew removing debris after the attack found a single sheet of cloth holding up a 4,000-pound piece of limestone. "It absorbed fragmentation that might otherwise have come through these spaces between the windows and steel," Evey says. "Stuff just fell to the floor."

www.moaa.org...

[edit on 7-8-2006 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 01:56 AM
link   
Also a MAJOR difference b/t that jet and the WTC or Pentagon attacks, as far as I understand it, was that that jet didn't have nearly as much fuel in it as the passenger jets involved. Its not a 'point for point' match.


Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
If it atomizes, it doesn't do all of the above. Right?

?
Why would that make a difference? It would have no force merely because its not longer maintaining its original form? The mass is all still there. The 'force' is still there.



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Also a MAJOR difference b/t that jet and the WTC or Pentagon attacks, as far as I understand it, was that that jet didn't have nearly as much fuel in it as the passenger jets involved. Its not a 'point for point' match.


Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
If it atomizes, it doesn't do all of the above. Right?

?
Why would that make a difference? It would have no force merely because its not longer maintaining its original form? The mass is all still there. The 'force' is still there.




I don't believe it maintains original force when it loses original form, however close the difference may be, those holes don't belong to a 757. The nose of a 757 in soft metal, and the trajectory of force after impact would never be that clean, especially talking about such a distance. It would be the difference between a point range buck shot over a slug. *Soft metal 757 being the buckshot*



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 02:31 AM
link   
Who said the nose of the 757 made the exit hole? A wheel rim was among the debris found in the rubble outside the hole.



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 02:37 AM
link   
Clean hole? Same hole at entrance and upon exit? You must be joking! The initial impact hole is high enough to accomodate all of the hull of a 757 and wide enough to acdomodate both engines. Exit hole is much mush smaller even after it was enlarged by rescue workers.



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Who said the nose of the 757 made the exit hole? A wheel rim was among the debris found in the rubble outside the hole.


The hole three corradoors away that was exactly the same size as the entrance hole was made by the planes wheel rim?



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 03:01 AM
link   
if you concentrate on the frames during the 31st 32nd and 33rd seconds of the footage, you will clearly see the right wing "splitting" the block quite easily .(the same can be said about the left wing but it's clearer on the right one)

Not trying to prove or disprove anything , just pointing at a fact .



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hvitserk
if you concentrate on the frames during the 31st 32nd and 33rd seconds of the footage, you will clearly see the right wing "splitting" the block quite easily .(the same can be said about the left wing but it's clearer on the right one)

Not trying to prove or disprove anything , just pointing at a fact .


Interesting observation.

Frame 31 and 32 are pre-wing impact, although the scene and explanation do switch from the previous view. However, It is not actually until frame 33 that the wing actually impacts the wall.

www.dumpalink.com...

[edit on 7-8-2006 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
The hole three corradoors away that was exactly the same size as the entrance hole was made by the planes wheel rim?


Have you LOOKED at the holes you are discussing?
The ENTRANCE hole was wide at least 45ft , and high ca. 16-20ft.
The EXIT hole was much smaller, even though it was artifically expanded by rescue crews in order to grant access to the building.
And how much resistance to the plane parts was offered by drywalls inside the Pentagon? The only things strong enough to stop heavy parts or change their direction were concrete columns. Other than that, just drywalls between the impact hole and a soft masonry wall at the C ring wall...



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by In nothing we trust


Exterior pentagon walls - post renovation

www.pentagonresearch.com...









The renovation team had help from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers' Blast Center in Omaha, Neb., to incorporate lessons learned from bomb blasts that destroyed U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998. Six-inch steel beams were installed, vertically and horizontally, through all five floors. New blast-resistant windows, almost two inches thick, were mounted inside steel frames.

Between these one-ton window units, ballistic cloth had been stretched and bolted to the steel frames to reduce deadly shrapnel. This Kevlar cloth proved to be so strong that a crew removing debris after the attack found a single sheet of cloth holding up a 4,000-pound piece of limestone. "It absorbed fragmentation that might otherwise have come through these spaces between the windows and steel," Evey says. "Stuff just fell to the floor."

www.moaa.org...

[edit on 7-8-2006 by In nothing we trust]


Thank you INWT. Looked for a couple hours and could'nt find anything remotely close
to what you have posted here.



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Also a MAJOR difference b/t that jet and the WTC or Pentagon attacks, as far as I understand it, was that that jet didn't have nearly as much fuel in it as the passenger jets involved. Its not a 'point for point' match.


Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
If it atomizes, it doesn't do all of the above. Right?

?
Why would that make a difference? It would have no force merely because its not longer maintaining its original form? The mass is all still there. The 'force' is still there.




Of course there is still 'force'. Your intelligent, I've read alot of your posts in the couple
years I've been lurking. You should know that alot of that force is absorbed by the wall
upon impact being spread out maximally until structural failure. In the case of atomization; there is ALOT of the force absorbed.
I would love to see someone with the proper knowledge figure out the force created by a 757 at 500 knots, and the force
the reinforced wall at the Pentagon could handle. Howard Roark comes to mind. Howard?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join