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.

 

What happens when a 500 mph plane hits solid? Slow-mo video

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:02 AM
link   
Update: F-4 Phantom > 500mph > Solid Concrete Slab
Submitted by EdWard-MD on Mon, 2008-02-11 17:09.
www.911researchers.com...

www.youtube.com...
F-4 Phantom > 500 mph > Solid Concrete Slab - Close Up Slow Motion.

Facts are referenced AND verifiable.

Like here, the wall was 12 ft thick, THE PLANE WAS NOT FILLED WITH WATER, but the tanks were to simulate fuel.

THIS IS A REFERENCED FACT FOR THOSE THAT DON'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THE
CONCEPT.

But there was a test similar to what is described above. In 1988, an
unmanned F-4 Phantom, ballasted with water and mounted on rails, was
"flown" into a concrete wall at 480 MPH. As reported, the plane crumpled,
and penetrated only about 2 inches of concrete. A very impressive test -
except it wasn't meant to be a test of nuclear reactor safety. The wall
the F-4 crashed into was not a simulation of a nuclear plant's wall. It
was a 12-foot-thick wall mounted on an air cushion. The test was designed
to study impact forces by measuring how far the impact would push the
wall. Breaking through the concrete was the last thing any of the
involved scientists wanted to achieve. Furthermore, the F-4 was ballasted
with water to give it the same weight as a plane fully loaded with fuel,
and its final weight was 42,000 pounds. Needless to say, crashing a 412,
000 pound 767 loaded with fuel into a fixed wall would have slightly
different results.

Big words, you say. Nice fearmongering, DM. But can you back it up with
any facts? Well, actually I can. Because according to a 1982 study by the
Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois - a study which was conducted by
request of the DOE and the NRC - the explosion from a 707 crashing into a
containment dome at 466 MPH would probably overwhelm the reactor's
shielding. Note - that's a 707, which weighs 336,000 pounds. In 1982
those were big jets. But we've "advanced" considerably since then. The
767s that were flown into the World Trade Center weighed 80,000 pounds
more than that and carried a lot more fuel.

Other studies, again conducted for the NRC at the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, found that a 125,000 pound jet had a 32 % chance of
piercing a containment building's six-foot base and an 84 % chance of
breaking through the dome.

Ramming a plane into the containment dome isn't the best way to attack a
nuclear plant, either. There are other possibilities with much greater
chances of success. I'm not going to discuss them, but the statement that
"terrorists would be wasting their time messing with nuclear plants" is a
gross misrepresentation. I'm not saying every nuclear reactor in the
world should immediately be dismantled to prevent such an occurrence, but
to claim that they are invulnerable is a disputed opinion, to say the
least.

everything2.com...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------

A key report, Sugano et al 1992, covers a rocket sled crash experiment
using an F-4D Phantom jet fighter impacting into a 10 foot thick
reinforced concrete block.

Sandia notes:

The purpose of the test was to determine the impact force, versus time,
due to the impact, of a complete F-4 Phantom -- including both engines --
onto a massive, essentially rigid reinforced concrete target (3.66 meters
thick). Previous tests used F-4 engines at similar speeds. The test was
not intended to demonstrate the performance (survivability) of any
particular type of concrete structure to aircraft impact. The impact
occurred at the nominal velocity of 215 meters per second (about 480 mph).
The mass of the jet fuel was simulated by water; the effects of fire
following such a collision was not a part of the test. The test
established that the major impact force was the engines.

Article continues at the above link.

DrEd




posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:28 AM
link   
It makes me wonder how the test results might have been if there where a depleted uranium tip mounted on the front of the jet.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by jaamaan
 


I love your avatar, jaamaan!

The mattang. Reading the patterns of the waves.

How appropriate. How befitting!



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:56 AM
link   
Wonder what would happen if the plane was only travelling at speed slow enough to allow it to travel 10 feet off the ground - apples and oranges.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 05:01 AM
link   
I'd like to see all the video before concurring that the entire aircraft "vaporised". I would be very surprised if there were no chunks of metal laying about. Particularly engine parts made of steel and titanium.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by djeminy
reply to post by jaamaan
 


I love your avatar, jaamaan!

The mattang. Reading the patterns of the waves.

How appropriate. How befitting!


Thanks

Do you have any more info on this "The mattang" subject.
I never actualy knew the exact meaning of this avatar eccept that it would mean something intresting to me.
You are the first telling me what it might mean.
U2U me pls.

Dont want to be of topic or derailing.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 06:05 AM
link   
this is what i like to call dis info.


The "plane" at the pentagon purportedly penetrated several walls. Some one already said it . . .

"Apples and Oranges"



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 06:13 AM
link   
A jet airliner loaded with fuel and passengers has far more mass and intertia than a F-4 mounted on a test sled and it also has more material..obviously..than an F-4.

And the Pentagon is not made of 12 foot thick cement walls either.

If this is to suggest that the jet airliner was supposed to just fold up and vaporize upon impact with the Pentagon, and only put a 2 inch ding in the wall of the Pentagon....that author of the article needs to go back to elementary school level science and physics class and pay attention this time.


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 12-2-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by jaamaan

Originally posted by djeminy
reply to post by jaamaan
 


I love your avatar, jaamaan!

The mattang. Reading the patterns of the waves.

How appropriate. How befitting!


Thanks

Do you have any more info on this "The mattang" subject.
I never actualy knew the exact meaning of this avatar eccept that it would mean something intresting to me.
You are the first telling me what it might mean.
U2U me pls.

Dont want to be of topic or derailing.


Hi jaamaan,

try this site:

www.halexandria-foundation.org...



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 07:04 AM
link   


The video of the jet plane hitting some concrete at 500mph proves exactly the point I was making that a Boeing shouldn't punch through 3 rings of the pentagon, or leave plane shaped 'road runner' like holes in the steel walls of the twin towers.



Aluminium vs steel ^


Yet on 9/11, we somehow get plane shaped holes in steel and concrete towers! The concrete in the floors runs horizontal don't forget, the resistance would of been enormous, just think the kind of resistance that would provide compared to that small block of concrete in the first video.






[edit on 12-2-2009 by Insolubrious]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
this is what i like to call dis info.


The "plane" at the pentagon purportedly penetrated several walls. Some one already said it . . .

"Apples and Oranges"


"Several" walls is correct, althgough not in the manner you probably would like. There were only two (2) walls the airfcraft had to penetrate - the limestone/brick/concrete-reinforced outer E-ring wall and the brick-reinforced A-E Drive wall. The rest of what stood in the path of the wreckage was nothing but sheetrock walls, doors, cubicles, the odd reinforced secure space and air.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by EdWardMD
 



Facts vs scammer BS of those that have not read/comprehended what is written.

The wall the F-4 crashed into WAS NOT a simulation of a nuclear plant's wall (NOR ANY FOUNDATION WALL). It was a 12-foot-thick wall MOUNTED ON AN AIR CUSHION - (if one bothers to look the MASSIVE concrete moved - and was designed to cushion the impact - at least one foot. The test was DESIGNED TO MEASURE IMPACT FORCE (not the depth of concrete that could be destroyed) BY MEASURING HOW FAR THE WALL MOVED. BREAKING THROUGH THE CONCRETE WAS THE LAST THING ANY OF THE INVOLVED SCIENTISTS WANTED TO ACHIEVE (since it would defeat what was to be measured).

So what was the mass of the concrete - rough estimate - One cubic meter of concrete weighs 2500 kg. 3.7 meters thick x length X height = approx without measuring or knowing the exact deminsions of the f4 which can easily be found (we see both far ends of the f4 wings sliced off where they no longer hit concrete so more precise estimates can be done just not needed). For this rough estimate figure very conservative 3 to 1 to 2.5 = length to width or 12 by 4 meters by 10 = 500 cubic meters. 500 (very low estimate) x 2500 kg = 1 and 1/4 million kg or 2.6 million pounds.

An f4 is basically 1/10 of a 767 - also noted in the article - pounds x distance x friction coefficient would give the approximate amount of force required - of course this does not include the energy consumed by the destruction of the plane and the concret. Also could use mass x velocity to check the above numbers. Knowing the friction coefficient and the exact distance moved would allow one to figure the amount of energy generated in the moving and subtracting that from the mass velocity would give the amount of energy consumed in the destruction of the plane and concrete. Then multiply x 10 to get rough estimates for the 767.

One can clearly see we are talking a massive amount of force. And yet as clearly shown in my article - BOTH TOWERS WERE DESIGNED TO TAKE AT LEAST ONE HIT WITH RESULTING FIRE AND MORE WITHOUT COLLAPSING


DrEd



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious MR1159
I'd like to see all the video before concurring that the entire aircraft "vaporised". I would be very surprised if there were no chunks of metal laying about.

Planes don't vaporize. There was no large jetliner crash at Shanksville and no large jetliner crash at the Pentagon. If there were a large jetliner crash at either, there would still be several hundred thousand pounds of aircraft debris. It takes massively hot temperatures, far greater than kerosene can reach, to vaporize steel or aluminum.

Especially in the case of the F-4 since it had water in the tanks instead of kerosene. All of the F-4's parts would be there. Maybe all crumpled and compacted, but the total weight of the F-4's parts would still be there.


Originally posted by Insolubrious
The video of the jet plane hitting some concrete at 500mph proves exactly the point I was making that a Boeing shouldn't punch through 3 rings of the pentagon

Because no 757 hit the Pentagon.


Originally posted by Insolubrious
Yet on 9/11, we somehow get plane shaped holes in steel and concrete towers!

Yet in 1945, we get a plane-shaped hole in the Empire State building from a B-25 bomber which is much slower, smaller and lighter:




posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   
I like your logic.

That concrete would be heavily reinforced, so you could use 3,000 Kg/CuM in your calculations. That gives 3.3 Millions pounds.

Either way, bloody heavy!



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   
man that was freakin' cool, regardless of any implications it may or may not have...just awesome to see it pretty much disintegrate like that!



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Yep, even without 911 implications, it was impressive. That was another reason I posted. Thanks for noting the ''kewl'', I thought so too. The concrete sliced through the wingtips like a hot knife through butter. I would have thought there would have been some deformity of the metal, but nope, cut like a surgeon. The same with the body of the plane, the back end barely deforms, pretty much nothing deforms until the split second it's up against the crete.

DrEd

[edit on 12-2-2009 by EdWardMD]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   
I took very conservative numbers deliberately - no need to incite any 'overestimate BS'. I'm pretty sure the semi exact dimensions can be estimate alot closer than my rough estimate. And you are right, the numbers are for 'reinforced concrete' NOT heavily reinforced concrete. Much more likely the weight is considerably higher than my posted likely minimum.

Thanks for the update.

Ed



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   


Planes don't vaporize. There was no large jetliner crash at Shanksville and no large jetliner crash at the Pentagon. If there were a large jetliner crash at either, there would still be several hundred thousand pounds of aircraft debris. It takes massively hot temperatures, far greater than kerosene can reach, to vaporize steel or aluminum.


Neither did the planes at Shanksville or the Pentagon

At Shanksville recovery teams collected over 60 tons (125,000 lb) of
aircraft debris - enought to fill 10 large bins




At a news conference, FBI agent Bill Crowley said that the field near Shanksville, Somerset County, has been turned over to the county coroner and that 95 percent of the plane found at the site has been turned over to United Airlines.




Crowley said the biggest piece of the plane that was recovered was a 6-by-7-foot piece of the fuselage skin, including about four windows. The heaviest piece, Crowley said, was part of an engine fan, weighing about 1,000 pounds.










At the same time, the high winds that buffeted the area over the last few days have dislodged additional airplane parts – seat cushions, wiring, carpet fragments and pieces of metal – from trees near the crash site. "It's all aircraft parts, no human remains," Miller said. "We've collected them in 10 recycling bin-sized containers and eventually we'll turn them all over to United." –Wallace Miller







posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Thanks dman. I didn't know those facts about Shanksville. That is a considerable amount of aircraft debris collected. I have read many threads about the lack of evidence, but not seen any debris photos before.

What about Pentagon debris - how much was collected there?



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by MR1159
That is a considerable amount of aircraft debris collected. I have read many threads about the lack of evidence, but not seen any debris photos before.
What about Pentagon debris - how much was collected there?

That's not a considerable amount. The pictures he showed were a fraction of a plane. Same at the Pentagon. Some pictures showing a few pieces of debris, but no where near enough to account for the whole plane. Just because there's a few aircraft parts, doesn't necessarily mean there's a plane.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join