What happens when an aircraft hits something that is not inclined to move?

[furrod]

I don't know if this video has been discussed before, but I figure it is relevant to anyone wondering why there weren't more recognizable aircraft pieces on 9/11.


http://www.bofunk.com/video/1027/rocket_disintegrates.html

 

[defaultdotxbe]

several in the truth movement have already declared the video fake and/or disinfo

 

[pomeroo]

several in the truth movement have already declared the video fake and/or disinfo

The video has to be fake because Malcolm Kirkman has explained that the plane would bounce off the wall.

 

[leftysergeant]

That is the best quality posting of that test that I have seen. It very well shows that the aft parts of the fuselage do not crumple before they make contact with the wall. One of the more obstinate twoofers at The Randi Rhodes Show Messag Board said that the fact that the fuselage remains straight in the Fairbanks and Hezarkhani videos shows that it is fakery.

ROFL!

 

[Gravy]

It's a useful video in two ways. First because it shows that aircraft aren't indestructable. Second because truthers sometimes ask why these wily terrorists didn't hit a target like a nuclear power plant, which might cause more casualties. That Sandia Labs test with the F-4 was meant to test the concrete wall more than the plane (although not a specific type of structure, according to Sandia). Nuclear plants have thick reinforced concrete around their reactor sections that are meant, in part, to resist impact from a large jet aircraft.

"The industry is very confident that the containment building would safely protect the reactor in the unlikely possibility that a commercial airliner is used as a weapon against nuclear power plants. Preliminary results of an industry study indicate that a commercial aircraft like that used in the Sept. 11 attacks would not likely penetrate the robust containment buildings where the reactor is located. Neither the mass of the aircraft nor the engines would likely penetrate the containment building.
http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/NEI_NewsWire_2002-06-18.htm

April, 2007: "U.S. government approves proposal to help protect new nuclear reactors from airline threat"

Sandia test video and photo gallery.

Correction to my statement above: according to the April article, resistance to aircraft impact wasn't a design requirement for containment buildings.

 

[sivazh]

The video has to be fake because Malcolm Kirkman has explained that the plane would bounce off the wall.

I find the best way to deal with CTers is to start small. Perhaps with the example that a straw has been known to pierce into telephone poles during a tornado, and then working up from there.

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/tornadosafety.html

Baby steps.

 

[pomeroo]

I find the best way to deal with CTers is to start small. Perhaps with the example that straw has been known to pierce into telephone poles during a hurricane, and then working up from there.

Baby steps.

Ah, but a baby has an enormous advantage in sheer reasoning power! Kirkman denies that lighter materials can penetrate heavier materials under any circumstances. I think the term we have all been searching for is Peak Dumbth.

 

[bjb]

That test occurred in 1988, about 13 years before the 9/11 attacks. How could the film be 'disinfo' when it was made so long ago?

By the way, I posted a link to that video some time ago. A CT'ist was here complaining about the lack of airplane parts and I put up a link to some stills from this test. He then complained that the photos were fake, so I found a video link and posted it. After that, he was not so sure it was fake. It's interesting to see the CT'ists have all decided the film is retroactive piece disinformation, created over a decade before it was even needed!

 

[steve s]

That test occurred in 1988, about 13 years before the 9/11 attacks. How could the film be 'disinfo' when it was made so long ago?

[troofer mode]
Because the illuminati had this all planned out 40 years ago before the towers were ever built. How else could they have managed to mix explosives in with the concrete and pack the insides of the box beams with thermite?
[/troofer mode]

Steve S.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I don't know if this video has been discussed before, but I figure it is relevant to anyone wondering why there weren't more recognizable aircraft pieces on 9/11.


http://www.bofunk.com/video/1027/rocket_disintegrates.html

Kind of off-topic, but the description on the page kind of bothers me...

This is bad ass... supposedly this is a nuclear proof wall...

First, it seems obvious to me that story creep has set in here. By the time the story got to this person, it had gone from "containment wall for a nuclear reactor " to "nuclear-proof wall". Second, the implication that they're testing a "nuclear-proof wall" by merely throwing a small fighter jet at it.

 

[Bell]

I allways like to point out the flash at the nose the moment it crashes into the concrete wall. I assume it's caused by the release of energy (I'm no engineer or what have you), unlike - ofcourse - the flashes with AA11 and UA175. Those must have been missiles/particle weapons/laser beams/thermal bombs*

*Or make up your own NWO sekrit weapon

 

[Apollo20]

F4 Phantom Tests

Sandia labs carried out full-scale impact tests on a F-4 Phantom jet "flying" into a rigid reinforced concrete target at its 600 m rocket sled facility in New Mexico in the early 1990s.

In the context of 9/11, the most interesting feature of these tests is that the aircraft was not powered by its own engines but by a "pusher" sled housing 36 super Zuni rockets. There was also a second acceleration stage provided by five Nike rockets attached directly to the F-4.

The aircraft only weighed 19 tonnes, including 4.8 tonnes of WATER, which was added to the aircraft fuel tanks to simulate the fuel's mass distribution.

Thus there was no possibility of a fuel-air explosion in these tests, as WAS the case in the aircraft impacts on the Twin Towers.

 

[CHF]

Thus there was no possibility of a fuel-air explosion in these tests, as WAS the case in the aircraft impacts on the Twin Towers.

I don't know how well the F-4 test would represent what happened to the WTC towers.

Seems better suited for the Pentagon impact despite some obvious differences.

 

[Dave Rogers]

It's quite clear from this video that there are explosive charges placed in the concrete, because the level of dustification is far greater than would be expected in any such collision; I don't know exactly how much dustification would be expected, but obviously it would be less than is seen in the video. Further proof of explosives is shown by the pyroclastic flow that is just initiating on the right of the picture in the first impact sequence before the video stream is deliberately terminated in order to prevent us seeing the emergence of the aircraft nose to the right of the concrete from being seen. It's also clear that dust is coming backwards and sideways from the point of impact; how can a jet plane, which flies forwards, produce debris going sideways and backwards? This simply violates the laws of physics. In any case, this is not a standard civilian F-4, it's clearly a militarised model with increased structural strength, less powerful engines to allow it to fly faster, and underwing hardpoint attachments for missiles, one of which can clearly be seen exploding just before the nose of the airplane appears to hit the concrete. All in all, an obvious piece of planehugger disinfo.

Sorry, I thought this was the Loose Change forum for a minute.

Dave

 

[Bell]

Seems better suited for the Pentagon impact despite some obvious differences.

Nooo, that was a cruise missile, not a jet fighter. Allthough some troofers do believe the latter *giggles*

 

[pomeroo]

It's quite clear from this video that there are explosive charges placed in the concrete, because the level of dustification is far greater than would be expected in any such collision; I don't know exactly how much dustification would be expected, but obviously it would be less than is seen in the video. Further proof of explosives is shown by the pyroclastic flow that is just initiating on the right of the picture in the first impact sequence before the video stream is deliberately terminated in order to prevent us seeing the emergence of the aircraft nose to the right of the concrete from being seen. It's also clear that dust is coming backwards and sideways from the point of impact; how can a jet plane, which flies forwards, produce debris going sideways and backwards? This simply violates the laws of physics. In any case, this is not a standard civilian F-4, it's clearly a militarised model with increased structural strength, less powerful engines to allow it to fly faster, and underwing hardpoint attachments for missiles, one of which can clearly be seen exploding just before the nose of the airplane appears to hit the concrete. All in all, an obvious piece of planehugger disinfo.

Sorry, I thought this was the Loose Change forum for a minute.

Dave

That's close to perfection, Dave.

 

[gmanontario]

Back in the days working for Ontario Hydro (1999-2000 for me), I asked a building structural engineer for the Darlington Nuclear Station what would happen if a large plane crashed into a containment building.

He told me they would simply get the power washer out and rinse off the black mark and then pick up any pieces that could be found. The only place real damage would be done was at the power transfer station. Doesn't matter if you have all the reactors working, if you can't send the power anywhere the whole place is useless.

The wall is 3-4 feet reinforced concrete and steel rated at up to 60,000 psi. It would take a bunker-buster to penetrate that.

 

[Apollo20]

gmanontario:

Oh yes!

What if the aircraft flew into the control room (which is essentially OUTSIDE containment)?

How are Darlington's fast shutdown systems under those conditions?

 

[gmanontario]

gmanontario:

Oh yes!

What if the aircraft flew into the control room (which is essentially OUTSIDE containment)?

How are Darlington's fast shutdown systems under those conditions?

Well I was a computer networking tech so I really have no idea about anything nuclear related there. I was busy making sure no meltdowns happen because of the millenium bug. I did a hell of a job, the place is still there.

I do know that there are essentially a couple of control rooms, one is the big one outside containment (and fortified since 9/11) and a smaller emergency one in each containment building for each individual reactor.

Of course I haven't been there in 7 years so everything has probably changed.

I sure hope they can shut them things off in a hurry.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

That test occurred in 1988, about 13 years before the 9/11 attacks. How could the film be 'disinfo' when it was made so long ago?

ask killtown, lol, he called it "long term psy ops"