Continuing aeronautical theme

[plaicemat]

For those of you who are interested in aircarft stuff, you will be impressed with this. It's only physics, energy has to go somewhere.

 

The passenger jets that hit the WTC towers and Pentagon were doing over 500 mph!!! Watch this video: An F-4 phantom jet VS. a solid, reinforced concrete wall, at 500 mph. When you view this video, you'll see what actually happens to an airplane when it hits a concrete wall.

 

 

Many of you may have seen the web site that asks the question; 'If it's true that a Boeing airliner hit the Pentagon, what happened to all the parts of it? Why'd we only find very few pieces of the aircraft? Where did all the mass of that entire 737 GO?

 

Watch this clip. It's an Air Force engineering test: A section of a concrete barrier that was to surround a nuclear reactor dome, to test if it would indeed survive an aerial attack. With the high speed cameras rolling, they attached an F- 4 Phantom to a sled on a tract, and then accelerated the jets speed up to 500 mph. What happens when a 'seemingly unstoppable force', meets a 'Stationary, Immovable Object?' Now, in slow motion, an F-4 collides with a wall.

.

Where do all the 'flying parts' go? The fact is, the entire plane is instantly atomized. The only parts that were even remotely recognizable were the very tips of the jet wings, that barely cleared the edge of the concrete structure.

 

 

That's why NO pieces larger than 3 centimeters were located at the Pentagon, or the World Trade Center Towers. And, because nothing in the planes

Edited August 31, 2008 by plaicemat

[alun j.]

link comes up.............but is blank!

[britboard]

try it this way

 

"click on image to run"

[djredrupp]

thats not a concrete wall! its a tardis!

[plaicemat]

So, what did I do wrong?

 

Terry.

[great white]

Not like in the movies is it?

 

where they fly through the buildings knocking walls down with the wing tips

 

Charlie

[britboard]

So, what did I do wrong?

Edited September 2, 2008 by britboard

[Paul D]

Simon,

 

Preferably not 1024 x 768 as that is too big a size to display in a forum post. This causes the postings and site to then not fit on a 1024 x 768 screen ( as can be seen in this very post ).