Watch a plan crash on UK Channel 4 tonight!

[Oystein]

Found this:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-plane-crash/episode-guide/series-1/episode-1

The Plane Crash

This dramatic new documentary follows an international team of scientists, experts and elite pilots as they deliberately crash land a 170-seat Boeing 727 passenger jet to provide a once-in-a-generation chance to study the mechanics of a plane crash in real time.

The documentary recreates a common type of crash - a serious, but survivable 'forced landing' - in order to study the crashworthiness of the aircraft's airframe and cabin, examine the impact of crashes on the human body, and look for possible means of increasing passenger survivability.

Will air tonight, october 11, at 9 pm local time on UK's Channel 4.
I can't watcht the trailer from my location (outside UK) And am afraid others outside the UK won't be able to watch the full episode after today, when and if they make it available online.


The reason I am posting this here rathet than in Science is that I found this on a 9/11 Truther petition. #1168 says:

Name: G Edwards on Oct 11, 2012
Comments: Hope this reaches some of you ok. On UK TV Channel 4 a program called The Plane Crash will be aired tonight (October 11 2012). In which a team of experts will crash a Boeing 727 passenger jet. So obviously a prime opportunity to demonstrate how much wreckage is left behind after a passenger jet air crash, and to show how the Pentagon and Flight 93 wreckage lack in comparison. http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-plane-crash/episode-guide/series-1/episode-1 Should be available to view online on after its aired: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/4od

True to the average Truther's understanding of all things techie and sciencey, this guy thinks there is no serious difference between an uncontrolled landing (this 727 will crash-land at 140 mph, the normal landing speed for this type of aircraft, and a modest descent rate of 1500 feet per minute, or 44 mph vertical speed, in regular plane orientation, gear touching ground first) and a head-on crash at or above full crusing speed (4 times as fast = 16 times the kinetic energy) as experienced by flights 77 and 93. Also, apparently, it doesn't matter if the surface that a plane crashes onto is rocky desert, a refilled strip mine (soft soil) or a building.

 

[thedopefishlives]

I saw the first 3/4 or so of the documentary (it aired this past weekend here in the US). Pretty much all of the science-y bits, if there are any, come after that point; pretty much everything I watched was purely information on the setup of this crash, why they wanted to do it, background on the team members, and documenting the practice runs and the main event.

On your other topic, I love how Truthers think all plane crashes are created equal. It's like all planes must move at the same speed, with the same mass, and impact at the exact same angle on the exact same type of surface, no matter what our lyin' eyes tell us about the truth of the crash.

 

[BadBoy]

Im working for Channel4 at the moment. They have the door and front wheels from the plane in the front reception.

 

[WildCat]

I love it when a plan comes together. I hate it when the plan crashes.

 

[Straw Man]

I watched the documentary last night, and I can't understand how controlled descent into terrain can have any bearing at all for truthers. They were very careful to make sure that this plane crash was within parameters where the scientific equipment wouldn't be lost and that there was minimal chance of any sort of fire. Nothing like any of the planes on 9/11.

 

[BCR]

No need to watch a plan crash tonight on TV. My best laid plan crashed this morning

 

[thedopefishlives]

I watched the documentary last night, and I can't understand how controlled descent into terrain can have any bearing at all for truthers. They were very careful to make sure that this plane crash was within parameters where the scientific equipment wouldn't be lost and that there was minimal chance of any sort of fire. Nothing like any of the planes on 9/11.

Because as I mentioned, to a Truther, a plane crash is a plane crash. They don't understand (although they like to pretend) concepts like kinetic energy or angle of impact.

 

[jaydeehess]

Who was doing the test, and will there be a paper produced, and will we be able to read it?

I know that unless a Youtube version with little to no techy-sciencey bits is produced, that truthers won't ever know about such a paper,,,, and I know it would have little relevance to the crashes of any of the four 9/11 hijacked a/c, but it would be interesting nonetheless.

 

[Jim_MDP]

"Once in a generation"?

Other than as a project for public distribution, what makes this significantly different from the dozens of time airframe manufacturers have remote crashed aircraft for research and testing?

Maybe having more exciting video (might be at that) from things like a dummy pilot helmet cam?

The plane will then be flown remotely until impact from a chase plane by former US Navy pilot Leland 'Chip' Shanle - making it the world's biggest remote controlled aircraft.

Is it really?


ETA: And I agree... this has zero to do with 9/11. And it's not intended to.

 

[Quad4_72]

I love it when a plan comes together. I hate it when the plan crashes.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Found this:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-plane-crash/episode-guide/series-1/episode-1



Will air tonight, october 11, at 9 pm local time on UK's Channel 4.
I can't watcht the trailer from my location (outside UK) And am afraid others outside the UK won't be able to watch the full episode after today, when and if they make it available online.


The reason I am posting this here rathet than in Science is that I found this on a 9/11 Truther petition. #1168 says:

True to the average Truther's understanding of all things techie and sciencey, this guy thinks there is no serious difference between an uncontrolled landing (this 727 will crash-land at 140 mph, the normal landing speed for this type of aircraft, and a modest descent rate of 1500 feet per minute, or 44 mph vertical speed, in regular plane orientation, gear touching ground first) and a head-on crash at or above full crusing speed (4 times as fast = 16 times the kinetic energy) as experienced by flights 77 and 93. Also, apparently, it doesn't matter if the surface that a plane crashes onto is rocky desert, a refilled strip mine (soft soil) or a building.

Ah, yes. The truthers will see the plane debris from this crash, but when you show them debris from 9/11, "it was planted" .

 

[000063]

Im working for Channel4 at the moment. They have the door and front wheels from the plane in the front reception.

Most people put chairs in their reception.

 

[Jim_MDP]

Im working for Channel4 at the moment. They have the door and front wheels from the plane in the front reception.

Most people put chairs in their reception.

Thanks 000063 for reminding me to respond to this...


BadBay, that is very cool. How prominent is the display and what's the reaction been?

While working research sims at NASA/Ames I would take time to wander the stored retired equipment, including an old dusty "rooster booster". Would have loved to see that sucker resurected. sad it was all on Navy property and closed to the public.

 

[thedopefishlives]

"Once in a generation"?

Other than as a project for public distribution, what makes this significantly different from the dozens of time airframe manufacturers have remote crashed aircraft for research and testing?

Maybe having more exciting video (might be at that) from things like a dummy pilot helmet cam?



Is it really?


ETA: And I agree... this has zero to do with 9/11. And it's not intended to.

Actually, I don't believe they have. There has been, to my knowledge, only one other remote control air crash, and that one didn't go so well - the plane exploded in a spectacular fireball upon impact and all of the data was lost. It was judged too hazardous of an experiment to repeat.

 

[bonzombiekitty]

"Once in a generation"?

Other than as a project for public distribution, what makes this significantly different from the dozens of time airframe manufacturers have remote crashed aircraft for research and testing?

According to the documentary, this sort of test had only been attempted once before with this sort of aircraft. The experiment was mostly a failure as they were unable to crash the plane as intended, resulting in the plane exploding in a fireball, which meant most of the useful data was lost. After that attempt, doing this sort of test was deemed too expensive and too high of a chance of failure to obtain really useful data, so they never tried it again.

ETA: Thedopefishlives got to it before me.

 

[X]

I watched it.
I wish they had spend more time analyzing the crash, and less on the reunup.

But notice all the work they had to do to rewire that aircraft for remote control. And some CTists believe the planes used on 9/11 were remote-wired, without the pilots or ground crew noticing.

 

[rwguinn]

According to the documentary, this sort of test had only been attempted once before with this sort of aircraft. The experiment was mostly a failure as they were unable to crash the plane as intended, resulting in the plane exploding in a fireball, which meant most of the useful data was lost. After that attempt, doing this sort of test was deemed too expensive and too high of a chance of failure to obtain really useful data, so they never tried it again.

ETA: Thedopefishlives got to it before me.

The original test was with a Boeing 707 (Same era as the 727, all pretty much retired now), and the test was specifically to test for fuel misting characteristics. They even had wing "rippers" set up to open the fuel tanks. Unfortunately, Fitz landed too soon, and the rippers destroyed a lot of stuff that they didn't intend.
That test was exclusively intended to observ fire characteristics--and it landed gear up.

 

[DGM]

I watched it.
I wish they had spend more time analyzing the crash, and less on the reunup.

But notice all the work they had to do to rewire that aircraft for remote control. And some CTists believe the planes used on 9/11 were remote-wired, without the pilots or ground crew noticing.

That was just the MSM's attempt to throw everyone off track. EVERYONE knows all it take is a small black box with a switch and a flashing light, it even has magnets so it's simple to stick under the dash.

 

[Jim_MDP]

I stand corrected. All I find is a 1984 NASA test which is probably the fuel experiment. I actually was remembering that one in particular with the wing rippers. I had the belief that other such tests had been done.

 

[jaydeehess]

That was just the MSM's attempt to throw everyone off track. EVERYONE knows all it take is a small black box with a switch and a flashing light, it even has magnets so it's simple to stick under the dash.

don't forget the soft beeping sound the bad guys always install the beeper
I'd like some of those aluminum attracting magnets myself too.