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: 2
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Videos relevant to this discussion

www.youtube.com...

AND

www.youtube.com...




posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Wow, just wow.

You people are seriously comparing a Jet fighter that weighs 29,500 lbs empty with a commercial jet airliner that weighs 9 times that of the F4? (272,500 lbs)

We "somehow" get plane-shaped holes.... YES WE DO! because the plane that made that hole has FOUR engines that weigh MORE(36,000-42,000lbs EACH) than the puny F4 jet you're basing an assumption on. I don't know if it was an "inside job" but i'm leaning that way with all the evidence shown to me. Everyone that has tried to tell me that it was terrorists keep coming up with the same lackluster "proof" that shows it was orchestrated by a 6'5" muslim on dialysis that lives in a cave that apparently looks like the lair of Dr. Evil.

I'm not here to insult or offend anyone. Although, I have TONS of evidence that shows me it wasn't bin laden. I pride myself on listening to both sides. However, the "Official sheep" just keep throwing stones at "truthers" and putting this kind of absolute crap on my desk to read.

I showed this video to my 8 year old nephew and told him that it proves a plane can go into a building and "vaporize" His exact words as a response were....

"But uncle matt, that's a smaller plane. does it show the bigger one?"

If an 8 year-old can ask this question, why didn't you?



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sliick

I showed this video to my 8 year old nephew and told him that it proves a plane can go into a building and "vaporize" His exact words as a response were....

"But uncle matt, that's a smaller plane. does it show the bigger one?"

If an 8 year-old can ask this question, why didn't you?


LOL!!


Perhaps all the conspiracy theorists should start asking young kids what they think about all this over analzying of 9/11.

If I could give your nephew a star I would!! STARS FOR THE NEPHEW!!!!


Those videos of the fighters btw, were done at the Holloman AFB test track, circa mid 70's to test missile cilo bunker covers and walls. It was believed back then that if there were any attempt at knocking out one of our thousands of nuclear missile cilos, that an attacker would not use a typical missile or bomb, they would use an aircraft, loaded down, most likely a military aircraft since they can fly faster than a commercial plane or small jet. And they would have more mass upon impact.

I remember those tests vividly, as I was there helping my father film those tests. He was in charge of the photo/optical division at the test track from 1972 thru 1986. Was quite a display.

The test slab of cement btw is not any typical slab of cement wall. It is a heavily re-enforced piece of cement, and as indicated by another member, the Pentagon was not constructed of this same type of re-enforced cement. This test slab was specifically designed for the nuclear missile cilos, not intended to be used as walls for the Pentagon.

Improvements in re-enforcement to the Pentagon were based on these test slabs but no where near the impenetrable qualities of the test slabs.

Remember the Pentagon was a structure already built when it was decided to increase the protection around the nuclear missles scattered all over the country. To incorporate these types of re-enforced cement walls to the exsisting Pentagon structure, would have required the outer walls be completely stripped off and modifications done to the frame of the outer ring as well to be able to support the extreme weight of these types of super re-enforced slabs of cement.

No mystery here. Like the member's nephew said..."does it show the big one?".




Cheers!!!!

[edit on 13-2-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sliick
the plane that made that hole has FOUR engines that weigh MORE(36,000-42,000lbs EACH)

The jet engines on a 767-200 that hit the towers weigh about 6000 pounds each and the largest jet engines don't weigh much more than 10,000 pounds. And 757's and 767's only have 2 engines.


Originally posted by Sliick
I showed this video to my 8 year old nephew and told him that it proves a plane can go into a building and "vaporize"

Planes absolutely cannot vaporize. Unless a plane crashes into the sun, there will be 272,500 pounds of wreckage (or however heavy the plane was). It takes temperatures 2-3 times the maximum burning temperature of jet fuel (kerosene) to vaporize aluminum or steel.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   
seems your 8 yr old nephew has more basic common sense than anti truthers like CFx and his cronies.

fascinating.

the interesting thing is, i just realized maybe what the truth movement needs is the YOUTH and CHILDREN of 911 and the upcoming generation to get or force the MSM and PEOPLE of the USA to finally wake up or call attention to the 911 LIE.

Imagine thousands of the sons and daughters of america showing up on the capitol steps with signs and shirts that 911 was an inside job.

Lets see Geraldo, Hannity, Oreilly and the rest of the media try to ignore that and call the children a bunch of wack jobs with mental illnesses.



Originally posted by Sliick
Wow, just wow.

You people are seriously comparing a Jet fighter that weighs 29,500 lbs empty with a commercial jet airliner that weighs 9 times that of the F4? (272,500 lbs)

We "somehow" get plane-shaped holes.... YES WE DO! because the plane that made that hole has FOUR engines that weigh MORE(36,000-42,000lbs EACH) than the puny F4 jet you're basing an assumption on. I don't know if it was an "inside job" but i'm leaning that way with all the evidence shown to me. Everyone that has tried to tell me that it was terrorists keep coming up with the same lackluster "proof" that shows it was orchestrated by a 6'5" muslim on dialysis that lives in a cave that apparently looks like the lair of Dr. Evil.

I'm not here to insult or offend anyone. Although, I have TONS of evidence that shows me it wasn't bin laden. I pride myself on listening to both sides. However, the "Official sheep" just keep throwing stones at "truthers" and putting this kind of absolute crap on my desk to read.

I showed this video to my 8 year old nephew and told him that it proves a plane can go into a building and "vaporize" His exact words as a response were....

"But uncle matt, that's a smaller plane. does it show the bigger one?"

If an 8 year-old can ask this question, why didn't you?



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   
to illustrate my point...

anyone seen this yet?

www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by EdWardMD
 


You do have to understand that this was about a nuclear containment structure safety test. There is NO comparison directly of this and the planes hitting the WTCs or Pentagon. The nuclear reactor containment structure is designed to withstand the force of a 747 doing a nosedive right into it.

About the only comparison that would be decent would be a graphic illustration of what happened to the wings on impact with the Pentagon, ie getting obliterated on impact, and how the tail wouldnt just sheer off on impact, especially at those speeds.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by EdWardMD
 


You do have to understand that this was about a nuclear containment structure safety test. There is NO comparison directly of this and the planes hitting the WTCs or Pentagon. The nuclear reactor containment structure is designed to withstand the force of a 747 doing a nosedive right into it.


Really? I wondered why I wrote this ...

""""""""""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). """"""

Excellent reading comprehension and such a sharp mind.

DrEd



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   
How much does a 757 engine weigh?

"""""""""""""As can be clearly seen in the accompanying photos of just such an aircraft, the most prominent feature of the wings are the enormous engines hanging from each of them. Those engines weigh in at roughly 9,000 pounds each - nearly 12,000 pounds each if we factor in the steel struts that support them (according to www.pentagonresearch.com and the ASCE).""""""""""""""""""


www.sleepingindian.org...

I do not necessarily support the article - didn't read it. Just used it for referenced fact, vs make it up as you go BS.

Also, this is for the lighter 757 200 version -221k pounds. According to google for EACH heavier rolls royce engines add another 10,000 pounds to the gross weight of the heavier engines and added support - 241k pounds.

DrEd


[edit on 13-2-2009 by EdWardMD]



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
I'm not convinced that the F-4 vaporized.
They did not show pics of the scene after the dust settled.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone
I'm not convinced that the F-4 vaporized.
They did not show pics of the scene after the dust settled.


Try this link, I believe the quality of the video may be just a tad better, the AUDIO is much better - where the commentator states "atomized" not vaporized and "disappears". But perhaps you can see parts flying off? I sure don't see any. Metal at high speed impact tends to 'liquify', I would suspect at high enough speed it could sublimate. I also suspect there would be some fragments of engine, large steel components, but not much more.

www.metacafe.com...

DrEd



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...reply to post by _BoneZ_
 





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.


Thats because I only posted a few of the pictures of the scene!

Search crews at Flight 93 spent weeks going over the scene to recover
all the aircraft debris on the site. Most of the aircraft was smashed into
fragments often smaller than your hand - crews literally crawled on
hands and knees to recover debris.





Here is extensive listing of articles, interviews and pictures of Flight 93

I advise you to look it over (though rather doubt it)

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 




LOL The steel walls would cave in you saw it happen what do they need to do build a tower and crash a plane in it to prove it.
Re your concrete floors check out what they consisted off they were not large slabs of concrete but a thin layer on tin sheeting supported by light weight tubular girders. Not mass structural concrete that you THINK they were.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by EdWardMD
Just used it for referenced fact, vs make it up as you go BS.

Actually I was looking at the wrong type of engine and got wrong figures. But you don't care because you're a miserable person who needs to see a real doctor.

The GE-CF6 turbofan engine that powers the 767-200's that hit the towers weighs about 9400-9600 pounds. I stand corrected there. But only on that point. Let's move on, shall we?


Originally posted by OhZone
I'm not convinced that the F-4 vaporized.

As I've stated more than once, steel or aluminum will not vaporize unless you have at least 4000-5000 degree temperatures. The maximum temperature that kerosene (jet fuel) will burn is 1500 degrees. Airplane parts do not vaporize on contact with anything in any crash.


Originally posted by EdWardMD
Metal at high speed impact tends to 'liquify'

That's the funniest thing I've heard all day!
Anyone ever heard of bullets liquifying? No? Oh, it must be just airplane parts only. To use Dr. Evil's own favorite word..... BS!



[edit on 14-2-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_



Originally posted by EdWardMD
Metal at high speed impact tends to 'liquify'


That's the funniest thing I've heard all day!
Anyone ever heard of bullets turning to liquid after they're shot? No? Oh, it must be just airplane parts only. To use Dr. Evil's own favorite word..... BS!



Calm down BoneZ, take a breather!

Read again what ed is saying above, please. Deal with the 'impact' part!

I too, would also like to know a good honest answer.





[edit on 13-2-2009 by djeminy]



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by djeminy
Deal with the 'impact' part!
I too, would also like to know a good honest answer.

I edited my post, but it still doesn't matter. Bullets don't liquify on impact and neither does aluminum or steel. It takes temperatures of almost 3000 degrees to melt and liquify steel and about half that to melt and liquify aluminum.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by djeminy
Deal with the 'impact' part!
I too, would also like to know a good honest answer.

I edited my post, but it still doesn't matter. Bullets don't liquify on impact and neither does aluminum or steel. It takes temperatures of almost 3000 degrees to melt and liquify steel and about half that to melt and liquify aluminum.



I really know far too little about the subject, to want to participate in the discussion.

But I can mention though, that in my younger days I competed in 20 and 50 meter
small-bore riffle shooting, and saw plenty of malformed squashed-out lead bullets
then.
They certainly didn't keep their shape, (even those hitting a timber backing board) so
some sort of 'process of transmutation' into a plastic-like substance must have taken
place for the bullets to take the form of a flattened squashed-out shape!

So again, I don't pretend to know anything about this, and therefore would like to
hear what more knowledgeable people have to say about the matter.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 05:35 AM
link   
Sure, the engines might just be able to punch through.. But the wings? Steel is very strong, dense material. Aluminium is light weight and soft.

Newton's third law (www.glenbrook.k12.il.us...) says for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It matters not which object is in motion, the tower hit the plane, the plane hit the tower. The plane is softer than the tower, so it's like the bug hitting the windshield, not a bullet hitting a windshield (since a bullet is much tougher than a windshield, you could push it through slowly too). You couldn't push an aluminium plane through a few inches of steel.

Don't underestimate the strength of steel!


I would expect more resistance from a relative amount of steel than concrete against aluminium too, and considering the outer walls of the towers were inches thick it should of exploded against the outside of the tower. Look closely at any high resolution image of the south and north tower impact zones and you can see the wings have sliced right through the steel, you can clearly see the outline of the 'wings'.




The plane should of crashed and exploded up against the side of the tower, not punch right through, exploding out the other side!



Plane nosecone hit by a bird:



So what if a plane hit a 50 ton peice of steel instead of a bird, what would you expect to happen? The plane would slice through the steel no? HAHA..






[edit on 14-2-2009 by Insolubrious]



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 08:07 AM
link   

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, or leave plane shaped 'road runner' like holes in the steel walls of the twin towers.

Compare the re-enforced concrete, mass, and velocity to the pentagon incident and get back to us.


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.

So you're saying that a weaker object traveling at high speed cannot damage a tougher object?

Here are some examples that prove you're wrong.


notice the tiny hand made of flesh moving through the concrete? Now if the hand were to remain stationary and the concrete were to travel at the hand at the same speed, the hand would be crushed. So how does the tiny, fragile hand break layers of solid concrete? Same reason the 767's were able to damage the WTC's and pentagon.


Bird takes down plane.
If birds are stronger then planes, maybe we should make all planes out of turkey meat.

[edit on 14-2-2009 by jfj123]

[edit on 14-2-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious

considering the outer walls of the towers were inches thick it should of exploded against the outside of the tower. Look closely at any high resolution image of the south and north tower impact zones and you can see the wings have sliced right through the steel, you can clearly see the outline of the 'wings'.



Wrong. Like the core column steel, the ext column steel also got thinner as you got higher up the building, reflecting the lessening loads. The core columns were also larger in dimensions lower down, while the ext columns, since they were visible, had to maintain their dimensions for asthetic reasons.

The core steel was around 2-3" thick at the impact areas, depending on which building and how high up. They were also 36-42ksi grade steel. near the base only were they up to 5" thick.

But the ext columns at that level were made of thinner, reportedly 1/4" steel, but of higher grade, possibly up to 100 ksi, but more probably 70 ksi or so. And like the core columns, they were only 2-3" thick near the base, but made of lower grade steel.

Spandrel plates also tapered in thickness but maintained their dimensions like the ext columns. They were also about 1/4" at the impact levels.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join