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.
Originally posted by jfj123
It also makes me wonder how the outer wall of the Pentagon was constructed VS the Power Plant wall. Do we have a structural comparison between those 2 things?
Also, what was the mass and speed of each plane?
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 from the engines.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
How much of the re-inforced concrete was penetrated? I know the airframe, the F-4 virtually disintegrated....what speed was it travelling at impact?
Originally posted by weedwhacker
As to the Pentagon structure, could you provide research on it? I know it was concrete, built in the 1940s....you also realize there were windows between support columns?
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by weedwhacker
How much of the re-inforced concrete was penetrated? I know the airframe, the F-4 virtually disintegrated....what speed was it travelling at impact?
If you saw the video then you saw that the F-4 was almost completly destroyed (just outter parts of wings survived) Almost no penatration to the wall. IF you read my post you would see the speed was 480 mph.
But the wall was a specailly designed hardened wall to protect nuclear plants. The wall at the Pentagon was no were near as thick or as heavily reinforced.
If an F-4 would have hit the Pentagon it would have easliy penatrated alot farther then a 757.
[edit on 17-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]
Originally posted by jfj123
Could you be specific about the construction of the pentagon outer walls and the nuclear plant test wall? Thanks.
"If you were to slam a plane into (a nuclear reactor), ... most likely that plane would not penetrate the containment building," said Paul Gaukler, an attorney with Shaw Pittman, which represents nuclear industry clients.
Gaukler pointed to a test conducted in 1988 by the Sandia National Laboratories in California where scientists slammed an F-4 Phantom fighter jet into a stimulated nuclear containment facility at 481 miles per hour.
The jet shattered into pieces and only penetrated the containment wall by two or three inches, he said. Nuclear power reactors are typically enclosed in concrete walls up to 4.5 feet (1.35 meters) thick.
Originally posted by HLR53K
From your cross-section of the Pentagon wall, it's just concrete, brick, and limestone two feet thick?
The renovation program included the following improvements to the building:
Exterior walls reinforced with steel
Exterior walls backed with Kevlar
Blast-resistant windows installed
As a letter to the editor of the New York Times by NCI Scientific Director Edwin Lyman, points out, the crash test "proves nothing, since the wall was not attached to the ground and was displaced nearly six feet."
Lyman goes on to quote directly from the Sandia test report: "The major portion of the impact energy went into movement of the target and not in producing structural damage."
Originally posted by HLR53K
Of course. Obviously an actual layout of the as-is wall would be hard to find for security reasons.
Originally posted by jfj123
sorry I missed the pentagon diagram, could you either point it out or repost it?
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well there is enough information to know that it would have been almost impossible for a aluminum airframe to do the damage claimed by the official story.
Originally posted by Disclosed
That means you think there is a small chance it could have done the damage claimed in the official story.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Its just too bad you cannot post evidence to support the official story.
Originally posted by Disclosed
But this thread is talking about what evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy....not what evidence supports the official story.
That means you think there is a small chance it could have done the damage claimed in the official story. Wow!
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well then you should not have brought it up in the first place. Its getting do funny how you bring stuff up and when someone proves you worng you have to change your story or claim that is not dealing with the thread.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well there is enough information to know that it would have been almost impossible for a aluminum airframe to do the damage claimed by the official story.