Amazing. Shows no plane hit the pentagon as the plane should have been obliterated into dust and how they were able to identify most of the over 100 killed I don't think so
@RickAstley56 There is quite much difference between an airliner and a fighter. Also, Pentagon is not build in reinforced concrete like a nuclear power station. It is not necessary to have 1,5 meter thick walls.
@bravoaya actually the pentago WAS reinforced like that. in fact just months leading up to the attack they re-inforced only the wall where the building got hit. They knew it was going t happen.
Actaully, the Pentagon is hardened that much. Military command installations (unless temporary) tend to be built as tough as possible for the simple reason that someone might decide to try and blow them up.
this video was made before science was changed to fit into the "official story" Please ignore this video as it no longer applies to modern science. Planes vaporize buildings as we all saw in 2001
@Mixonpl I dont recall asking...But ya...Keep on thinking buildings, no matter what they are made of, eat planes then turn to powder in less than an hour....
The Thunderchief was the F-105. The F-104 was the starfighter or "the flying coffin" as it was called because of its safety record. The F-4 Phantom is my favourite all time plane and I hate to see one destroyed - LOL. Thanks for the reply.
@ToonandBBfan No problem and i agree the phantoms were good aircraft i just wish they done a project to make a new version of the phantom with modern technology but keep the original look of the aircraft because i think they look amazing
They should have never done this video. It proves how physically impossible it is for an aluminum craft to penetrate concrete. Just like they tried to say that a commercial airliner can punch through 3 walls of the pentagon. This video puts that idea to shit. 911 was most definitively an inside job.
@Daddyo930 Actually, it would seem to be demonstrating quite the opposite - that the jet that hit the Pentagon did so with sufficient force to largely wipe itself out. The Pentagon, however, probably didn't escape unscathed due to the small fact that its walls were not fifteen feet thick and designed to move, absorb energy and otherwise withstand the impact of... well, a plane crash.
Now maybe if the Pentagon had been a nuclear power station and not an interestingly-shaped set of offices...
@quietladybirman ACI 501-36 was based on working stress design. The allowable stress for the intermediate-grade billet steel used in the Pentagon was 20,000 psi. For the design concrete strength of
2,500 psi, the allowable unit shear stress for beams with properly designed web reinforcement was 150 psi.The unit bond stress for deformed bars was 125 psi for the same strength of concrete. How much energy is needed to bust through three walls of that. dont forget the kevlar in your calculation.
@Daddyo930 the pentagon was made of wood framing and concrete, and b4 the collapse of the upper parts had a hole that would accomodate the plane. But yes, it was an inside job...
@Axbent Sorry to disagree with you but I did some research into the pentagon's construction. Reinforced concrete walls with 5 inch limestone ablating. They added kevlar to the walls for ballistic shielding. Yes, 911 was an inside job but physics dictates that a hollow aluminum tube like a commercial airliner cannot penetrate three walls of the pentagon. There is not enough energy in the entire plane + fuel load to do that.
@Daddyo930 Thanks for the info, I will have to agree that a plane is not at all suitable as a projectile for penetration on even soft targets (some of it contents is better, like bodies and chairs). And punching through 3rings is unlikely, they were built in rows of three for protection, since 3 are harder to penetrate than one thick. But there was a big enuogh hole... the plane was prolly not a normal one tho!
@Axbent Sorry to disagree with you again. There was no plane. A 767 or 757 cannot do 434 knots at 500 feet. The engines were not designed for it and the aircraft would have shaken itself apart before it even got close to the pentagon. Check out Pilots for 911 Truth. If the government can't prove that aircraft hit the buildings then we should stop there and investigate until we have some answers.
@Axbent I have that site on my favorites. I use it all the time for reference. That's why I want to examine the speed of the alleged aircraft before we proceed any further. Thanks.
@Axbent The reason I use that site for reference is because all of the information there is dis-information. That's what the debunkers use. Using their own bullshit against them is the key.
@Axbent 9/11 Truth: Pentagon Eyewitness Bob Pugh Tells His Story/ That's on youtube. A freelance photographer was on the scene and took video of the pentagon. There is no discernable evidence of anything resembling a commercial airliner. No large tail section seats, luggage, bodies, nothing like that. There is only one truth. That should help you fight the debunkers bullshit with facts, not assertions. Good luck.
@Daddyo930 In that film we can see that there was parts out on the Hway, indicating perhaps that the plane was indeed coming apart, as would be expected at extreem speed. Also, the plane went into the Pentagon,s finding much debris outside is unlikely: tinyurlDOTcomSLASHyh8ahw3
@Axbent Physics dictate that if the plane were indeed coming apart like you suggest then it wouldn't stand a chance of impacting the pentagon and causing that much damage, the reason being that it's aerodynamic properties and velocity would have been compromised. Pilots for 911 Truth would explain the numbers in more detail. That website you reference is only good for pointing out errors in the government's explanation of what happened. It's a rather handy list.
@Axbent Physics dictate that if the plane were indeed coming apart like you suggest then it wouldn't stand a chance of impacting the pentagon and causing that much damage, the reason being that it's aerodynamic properties and velocity would have been compromised. Pilots for 911 Truth would explain the numbers in more detail. That website you reference is only good for pointing out errors in the government's explanation of what happened.
@Daddyo930 What we can know is that there was plane debris on the site, and that there was damage from its wings and landing gear to infrastructure that it passed over on its way into the Pentagon. What we can't know is what kind of aircraft it was, but we both agree it was not a normal one.
@Axbent Well said. I would throw in all the intelligence services of the world though. You see, what most people don't understand is that is the reality of the situation. The entire world has been infiltrated by a malevolent force that feeds on trauma, corruption and war. All the governments of the world are in their control. We are all slaves, rich, poor, it makes no difference. It's us the people against the entire world. Think we can win? I know we can.
@Daddyo930 Yes we can win, but we can also lose. Israel has its WMD pointed myway (EU). If cornerd she will try to bargain, an there will be losses on all sides.
Question: Is Turkey's recent actions a way to provoke Israel to an act of war agains a NATO member?
@Axbent There is no need to panic. Soon, you will see what you were not meant to see. The veil will be lifted and you will know who you are and where you come from. The galactic alignment is at hand. The second sun has returned. Time for the balance to be restored.
Should have thrown some Hijacker passports on there... they would have all survived destruction! What the fuck do they make terrorist passports out of these days?
Katayama et al (2004). used the RHT model to simulate the impact of a B747 into an RC wall. The quantitative accuracy of the simulation was not discussed in detail and the RHT model is heavily reliant upon empirical data (although it does accurately predict the results of the above experiment). In any case, the paper concludes that a B747 impacting at 300 km/h could cause “outstanding scabbing” and a possible “fracture” of a 2m-thick-RC wall, as well as complete penetration of thinner RC walls.
@Axbent Copy & paste the following citation into Google scholar (the pdf version of the paper I referred to should be the first result): M. Katayama, M. Itoh, R. Rainsberger, (2004), Numerical Simulation of Jumbo Jet Impacting on Thick Concrete Wall—Effects of Reinforcement and Wall Thickness, the 2nd Asian Conference on High Pressure Research, Nara, Japan, November 1-5.
@alexandervorn i think the more important thing to be discussing is impact spread the 747 or any airliners nose is significantly larger in space but not in mass therefore it dosent concentrate or its energy to a small point like an armor piercing round would.
@poznanski666 The ‘more important thing to be discussing’, in my opinion, is the weight and density of the b747’s engines in comparison to the F4’s engines. As far RC impact modelling is concerned, airliner fuselages are, typically, modelled as ‘soft’, deformable missiles (much for the reason you discussed). Engines, on the hand, are—due to their mass and density—modelled as ‘hard’ missiles. They’re the most important thing to account for in penetration modelling. Thanks for the reply! :)
@alexandervorn you are right in the case that only the engines should penetrate when kamikazes struck boats the only thing that penetrated was the engines but in the case of 9/11 even the lightweight hollow fuselage and wings penetrated thick steel which im my opinion after seeing the 1945 b-25 crash and the 2005 iran c130 crash where both planes did not enter the buildings
It's obvious to anyone with even a smattering of knowledge about how the new world order works that this was staged. The Illuminati have a long term plan which started long before 9-11. Therefore they planted this staged and faked footage under the guise of an actual military test. Then when the actual controlled demolitions occurred people wouldn't wonder where the planes (which were actually holographic projections) went. Now somebody do the Woody Woodpecker laugh because I can't.
Re United 93 Reinforced or not, hitting the ground i would say is a reasonable facsimile. Kind of think THE WORLD beats a reinforced wall no matter how you argue it.
Point is this jet is doing 500mph. United 93 hit at almost the same speed. Actually more i believe!!. If you cant extrapolate the speed and damage to a plane 4 X the weight of this one. Then you are a fool or an idiot.
I've had several 9/11 "truth" cult idiots try to tell me that it's impossible for a plane to vaporize on impact. LOL, looks like this old test had already debunked the "where's the plane" canard. What are some of the desperate explanations? The jet isn't big enough? hahahaha
@adkinsjr And they are that!! "truth idiots" They literally scream at you until you show them some HARD data like this video. Then suddenly... OH.. You find they don't bother you anymore. Funny how that is. Ignorance and stupidity are a REALLY bad combination. Something the Truth movement has in spades.
@LANewell2 You do realize an f4 jet is much more dense than a commercial airplane? True, a 747 with full passengers might have more weight in the end just due to sheer size, but not as much as you think. And its not like that wall looked like it as "almost down" or anything like that
@kirawillrise Your right about it being more dense. And actualy your right about my 3x the aircraft. Use a 747 instead. Here are the actual numbers; F-4 maximum weight 60,000+. 747 mamimum weight 735,000. A difference of 675,000 pounds. Of course my 3x was off it's more like 12x.
I Dont think it is CONCRETE Wall, because Pentagon was destroyed by slower plane and it made the whole all the through. Jet planes cut concrete like a butter as we saw with the case in Pentagon,
I'm a little curious what the result would have been if the jet had a full fuel tank. In this test the jet is being propelled by an external rocket. It's not moving under it's own power. It probably wouldn't make any difference to the wall if the jet had a full fuel tank, but the explosion would make a great YouTube video!
Sceptics need to remember a few things. Airplanes, incl the F-4, are built to go threw air. To do this they are made as light as possible. They can't take a crash at 500 mph.. period! Thus the ejection seat. All the components were destroyed down to pieces probably no bigger than a marble. Explosives. You still have issues especially with a crude kamakazi bomb. This is why the Israilies first hit the Iragi nuke plant with a bomb to create a hole then dropped laser guided bombs through the holes.
Where’s all the wreckage? What about the engines? There HAS to be something left other than the wing tips and fin cap! I SMELL A CONSPIRACY! THE F-4 CRASH WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!! THE F-4 CRASH WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!! THE F-4 CRASH WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!! THE F-4 CRASH WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!! THE F-4 CRASH WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!! THE F-4 CRASH WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!! THE F-4 CRASH WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!! THE F-4 CRASH WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!! THE F-4 CRASH WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!! THE F-4 CRASH WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!!
Even if the wall didn't break down, don't you all realize that the vibrations will cause compromises (hair line fractures) in the structure. Also no one is talking about the negative impact of the vibrations that would affect the inner contents of the plant. So, let's not be fooled by the publicity machine, nuclear is a dangerous energy form.
@ethositachi You are ignoring simple physics. Put an egg inside a steel container and shake the container. What happens to the egg. It is damaged. Your logic is illogical, although your grammar is appropriate. Re-read your logic books and post when you're smarter.
The elite see that oil and gas is losing support so they're trying to switch us from the SUN and WIND and WATER energy forms to NUCLEAR since they'll make a few hundred trillion off it over the next decades !!!!!
sorry planes dont just disappear into thin air all by themselves. If the wall absorbed any impact it would have clearly showed in that photo of the pentagon also news reporters saw no evidance of a plane crash. There are many videos of the theories on both sides so, I dont really need to get into it all. Like I said just dont dismiss your own common sense when learning about these issues.
well dealing with nuclear material means nuclear material to me. Plus they have a sign on the wall warning that nuclear material is presant. Planes dont atomize just by hitting regular walls. The explosion tells you its not just a regualar one, with all the nuclear exposion type reaction you see. believe what you want, but just dont believe everything your told without question, and finding the truth for yourself.
I love showing this clip to those frothing-mouthed 911 conspiracy fanatics. They always make smug assertions about what is, or is not, possible, without knowing what they're talking about. Of course, their fanatical devotion to the 911 conspiracy cult won't allow them to admit defeat.
the debunkers send you to this site that does not even compare to the twin towers, for one thing listen to what they are saying here. it was to see what would happen if it hit a nuclear power plant. and judjing from the spew of debrie I would say that they used some. so how does that compare to the twin towers? ??? ??
Wait a minute, you don't think planes crashed into the WTC? LMAO, you're a fucking moron. i send conpsiracy fanatics to this video to debunk the PENTAGON "where's the plane?" nonsense, and the nonsense about the size of the hole. The pentagon was also made out of reinforced concrete. Notice how the plane is completely destoyed, yet the wall isn't even knocked over.
@JohnEdwardIAF Never said a plane didnt crash into the twin towers.that is one of YOUR made up crazy claims you claim comes from them. Well pictures dont lie either.. do they? the size of the hole, the origanal hole.. is very small, look at the no parking sign. Notice how the plane is completely destroyed in this video? Maybe its because they used NUCLEAR ALONG WITH IT?? THATS WHAT IT SAYS ON THE VIDEO. so using nuclear to destroy a plane
What? They used nucear to destroy the plane? That doesn't make any sense. They were testing the reinforced concrete walls of a nuclear power plant. How would they have used nuclear to destroy the plane? The pentagon is also protected by reinforced concrete walls, that's why the plane shared the same fate as this F-4.
@JohnEdwardIAF Yes this video says its dealing with NUCLEAR material, and also the wall gives .. its at the end of the video. Nuclear materials clear as a bell. Well why didnt the lawn at the pentagon get messed up? And how did that plane fit in that small hole, before they collapsed the building onto the evidance. and you never ansered my question why didnt they bother to reconstruct the plane as they do for most plane crashes?
"When dealing with nuclear material, no test can ever be too drastic."
They're talking about protecting nuclear material using reinforced concrete. They conducted the test to make sure that the concrete could absorb an impact. That's what the concrete is for. It's designed to protect a nuclear power plant from impacts. They didn't actually use nuclear material in the test itself.
The hole wasn't as big as the plane because the concrete probably absorbed most of the impact. The pentagon is protected by reinforced concrete. As this test shows, reinforced concrete can absorb impacts pretty well.
@JohnEdwardIAF Also if you look closly.. since you mention the reinforcement of the concrete.. which way would it be bent if it was hit by a plane? IN or OUT? On the photos it is clearly bent out from the inside.
MUỐN BIẾT THỦ DÂM NHIỀU CÓ ẢNH HƯỞNG ĐẾN VIỆC SINH CON SAU NÀY HAY KHÔNG?, SOẠN, TG => THUDAM GỬI 6779, CÁCH KHẮC PHỤC XUẤT TINH SỚM HIỆU QUẢ, SOẠN, TG => KHACPHUC GỬI 6779, SOẠN, TG Mã Số GỬI 6779, ĐỂ NHẬN, 1 CÁCH TÁN GÁI HIỆU QUẢ, 2 CÁCH LÀM "CHUYỆN ẤY", 3 CÁCH KÉO DÀI CHUYỆN ẤY, 4 CÁCH LÀM TĂNG KÍCH CỠ CẬU NHỎ, 5 NGHỆ THUẬT THỦ DÂM AN TOÀN CHO NAM/NỮ, VD: TG 1 gửi 6779
@KartKing4ever that's easy to say when you're not the one who doesnt have enough resources to build a secure house. you need to shut the fuck up and die.
This was an important test. Before this test there was talk in congress of requiring a 10 mile flight restriction around nuclear power plants. This test showed that such restrictions are not necessary.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"I saw it on TV so it must be true"
Ever heard of CGI. They have the technology for live video manipulation.
And most of the so called witnesses said they saw anything from a small plane to a missile. Hardly anyone claimed to see a jetliner outside of the media execs.
And most of the victims have been proven to be fake especially the plane victims who most of which are not even listed in any record particularly the SSDI which has a very high accuracy rate.
Travmac, maybe u should find another word than just tool? uve used that in several other vids too.... wow, ur one of those tardfaces that just ticks me off!
Amazing. Shows no plane hit the pentagon as the plane should have been obliterated into dust and how they were able to identify most of the over 100 killed I don't think so
RickAstley56 2 months ago
@RickAstley56 There is quite much difference between an airliner and a fighter. Also, Pentagon is not build in reinforced concrete like a nuclear power station. It is not necessary to have 1,5 meter thick walls.
bravoaya 2 months ago
@bravoaya actually the pentago WAS reinforced like that. in fact just months leading up to the attack they re-inforced only the wall where the building got hit. They knew it was going t happen.
TheOriginalEntz 1 month ago
@bravoaya
Actaully, the Pentagon is hardened that much. Military command installations (unless temporary) tend to be built as tough as possible for the simple reason that someone might decide to try and blow them up.
Magni56 3 days ago
mmh ich hab was unanständiges entdeckt
CodiVernatp28 2 months ago
ey ich bin erregt
MonikaCathitl639 2 months ago
WOW!
dr689632 2 months ago
What I learned here today: The F-4 Phantom was not designed by The Kool-Aid Man.
reivenlocke 2 months ago
the wall always wins
DarkLuigi4321 3 months ago
this looks like harry potter going to platform 9 3/4
MrDoenerkebab 3 months ago 2
Stupid SFX being added
Sunburn2007 4 months ago
this video was made before science was changed to fit into the "official story" Please ignore this video as it no longer applies to modern science. Planes vaporize buildings as we all saw in 2001
hitman748 4 months ago
@hitman748 Did you just compare a fighter jet to a fucking 707 jet?
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
holysoks1 4 months ago 2
Comment removed
RobbieGillmanC 3 months ago
Comment removed
RobbieGillmanC 3 months ago
@RobbieGillmanC you tube truck vs wall....science at its simple form....aluminum planes vs twin towers...science fiction
hitman748 3 months ago
@hitman748 Touche.
Mixonpl 3 months ago
@hitman748 On the other hand I don't recall WTC being made exclusively out of concrete
Mixonpl 3 months ago
@Mixonpl I dont recall asking...But ya...Keep on thinking buildings, no matter what they are made of, eat planes then turn to powder in less than an hour....
hitman748 3 months ago
@hitman748 Ok, I never said that 9/11 is plausible, but the way you said it implied that this video is absolute evidence. No harsh feelings, man.
Mixonpl 3 months ago
@Mixonpl but you do know steel in denser than concrete making it stronger according to newtons laws of depth impact
poznanski666 3 weeks ago
@poznanski666 It had windows though.
Mixonpl 3 weeks ago
Waste of a bloody good airplane.
They should have used an F-104 instead
ToonandBBfan 5 months ago
@ToonandBBfan Would that be the Thunderchief if so i agree they had way to many flaws
94AggressiveInline 5 months ago
@94AggressiveInline
The Thunderchief was the F-105. The F-104 was the starfighter or "the flying coffin" as it was called because of its safety record. The F-4 Phantom is my favourite all time plane and I hate to see one destroyed - LOL. Thanks for the reply.
ToonandBBfan 5 months ago
@ToonandBBfan No problem and i agree the phantoms were good aircraft i just wish they done a project to make a new version of the phantom with modern technology but keep the original look of the aircraft because i think they look amazing
94AggressiveInline 5 months ago
*hits the wall*
Guys in jet: LUDICROUS SPEED
ProblemKappaKappa 6 months ago
Nice wall, but will it blend?
fafaijoppii 6 months ago 16
@fafaijoppii a jet just turned to dust. are you seriously asking if it will blend? wow ...
TheOriginalEntz 1 month ago
They should have never done this video. It proves how physically impossible it is for an aluminum craft to penetrate concrete. Just like they tried to say that a commercial airliner can punch through 3 walls of the pentagon. This video puts that idea to shit. 911 was most definitively an inside job.
Daddyo930 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 Actually, it would seem to be demonstrating quite the opposite - that the jet that hit the Pentagon did so with sufficient force to largely wipe itself out. The Pentagon, however, probably didn't escape unscathed due to the small fact that its walls were not fifteen feet thick and designed to move, absorb energy and otherwise withstand the impact of... well, a plane crash.
Now maybe if the Pentagon had been a nuclear power station and not an interestingly-shaped set of offices...
quietladybirman 6 months ago 2
@quietladybirman ACI 501-36 was based on working stress design. The allowable stress for the intermediate-grade billet steel used in the Pentagon was 20,000 psi. For the design concrete strength of
2,500 psi, the allowable unit shear stress for beams with properly designed web reinforcement was 150 psi.The unit bond stress for deformed bars was 125 psi for the same strength of concrete. How much energy is needed to bust through three walls of that. dont forget the kevlar in your calculation.
Daddyo930 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 the pentagon was made of wood framing and concrete, and b4 the collapse of the upper parts had a hole that would accomodate the plane. But yes, it was an inside job...
Axbent 4 months ago
@Axbent Sorry to disagree with you but I did some research into the pentagon's construction. Reinforced concrete walls with 5 inch limestone ablating. They added kevlar to the walls for ballistic shielding. Yes, 911 was an inside job but physics dictates that a hollow aluminum tube like a commercial airliner cannot penetrate three walls of the pentagon. There is not enough energy in the entire plane + fuel load to do that.
Daddyo930 4 months ago
@Daddyo930 Thanks for the info, I will have to agree that a plane is not at all suitable as a projectile for penetration on even soft targets (some of it contents is better, like bodies and chairs). And punching through 3rings is unlikely, they were built in rows of three for protection, since 3 are harder to penetrate than one thick. But there was a big enuogh hole... the plane was prolly not a normal one tho!
Axbent 4 months ago
@Axbent Sorry to disagree with you again. There was no plane. A 767 or 757 cannot do 434 knots at 500 feet. The engines were not designed for it and the aircraft would have shaken itself apart before it even got close to the pentagon. Check out Pilots for 911 Truth. If the government can't prove that aircraft hit the buildings then we should stop there and investigate until we have some answers.
Daddyo930 4 months ago
@Daddyo930 How about this? : tinyurlDOTcomSLASHgkzz4
Axbent 4 months ago
@Axbent I have that site on my favorites. I use it all the time for reference. That's why I want to examine the speed of the alleged aircraft before we proceed any further. Thanks.
Daddyo930 4 months ago
@Daddyo930 No worries, U and I dont have to solve this. We know there's enough info to know it's an inside job.
Axbent 4 months ago
@Axbent No. I am a retired vet. I have to do this. Too many of my people have lost their lives for lies.
Daddyo930 4 months ago
@Axbent The reason I use that site for reference is because all of the information there is dis-information. That's what the debunkers use. Using their own bullshit against them is the key.
Daddyo930 4 months ago
@Daddyo930 Can u give evidence to suggest or prove that there was no debris left of a plane hitting the Pentagon?
Axbent 4 months ago
@Axbent 9/11 Truth: Pentagon Eyewitness Bob Pugh Tells His Story/ That's on youtube. A freelance photographer was on the scene and took video of the pentagon. There is no discernable evidence of anything resembling a commercial airliner. No large tail section seats, luggage, bodies, nothing like that. There is only one truth. That should help you fight the debunkers bullshit with facts, not assertions. Good luck.
Daddyo930 4 months ago
@Daddyo930 In that film we can see that there was parts out on the Hway, indicating perhaps that the plane was indeed coming apart, as would be expected at extreem speed. Also, the plane went into the Pentagon,s finding much debris outside is unlikely: tinyurlDOTcomSLASHyh8ahw3
Axbent 4 months ago
@Axbent Physics dictate that if the plane were indeed coming apart like you suggest then it wouldn't stand a chance of impacting the pentagon and causing that much damage, the reason being that it's aerodynamic properties and velocity would have been compromised. Pilots for 911 Truth would explain the numbers in more detail. That website you reference is only good for pointing out errors in the government's explanation of what happened. It's a rather handy list.
Daddyo930 4 months ago
@Axbent Physics dictate that if the plane were indeed coming apart like you suggest then it wouldn't stand a chance of impacting the pentagon and causing that much damage, the reason being that it's aerodynamic properties and velocity would have been compromised. Pilots for 911 Truth would explain the numbers in more detail. That website you reference is only good for pointing out errors in the government's explanation of what happened.
Daddyo930 4 months ago
@Daddyo930 What we can know is that there was plane debris on the site, and that there was damage from its wings and landing gear to infrastructure that it passed over on its way into the Pentagon. What we can't know is what kind of aircraft it was, but we both agree it was not a normal one.
Axbent 4 months ago
@Axbent If your saying that it was not a commercial airliner then 911 was an inside job and the government is lying.
Daddyo930 4 months ago
@Daddyo930 Yes on all counts without any hesitation. Mossad did it wit help of CIA
Axbent 4 months ago
@Axbent Well said. I would throw in all the intelligence services of the world though. You see, what most people don't understand is that is the reality of the situation. The entire world has been infiltrated by a malevolent force that feeds on trauma, corruption and war. All the governments of the world are in their control. We are all slaves, rich, poor, it makes no difference. It's us the people against the entire world. Think we can win? I know we can.
Daddyo930 4 months ago
@Daddyo930 Yes we can win, but we can also lose. Israel has its WMD pointed myway (EU). If cornerd she will try to bargain, an there will be losses on all sides.
Question: Is Turkey's recent actions a way to provoke Israel to an act of war agains a NATO member?
Axbent 4 months ago
@Axbent There is no need to panic. Soon, you will see what you were not meant to see. The veil will be lifted and you will know who you are and where you come from. The galactic alignment is at hand. The second sun has returned. Time for the balance to be restored.
Daddyo930 4 months ago
5 hard-earned kills and this is what I get?!?!
thbs35 6 months ago
Should have thrown some Hijacker passports on there... they would have all survived destruction! What the fuck do they make terrorist passports out of these days?
Malbrojia 6 months ago
They should have done that again when they found Bin Ladin ... With his on the nose of the jet!!!
agentofzodiak 7 months ago
i have a f4 on my keyboard. but it deosnt fly,,,well only when im mad
popsnacks2 7 months ago 2
The wall won.
EaziD 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
type in "ski crashes" in the youtube search box and click the video with stars on it to see the wickedest crashes ever
gisellwong 8 months ago 251
Area man
BoilMyKettle 8 months ago
福島の原発は、・・・・
YUUTA4859 8 months ago
Probably went into another dimension..
NoobRacer93 8 months ago
Doc i dont think we hit 85 miles per hour in time...
TokiH66 8 months ago 3
WILL IT BLEND?
mrd88888 9 months ago
@mrd88888 "pweew....Phantom smoke, dont breath this..."
luuko656 7 months ago 2
Katayama et al (2004). used the RHT model to simulate the impact of a B747 into an RC wall. The quantitative accuracy of the simulation was not discussed in detail and the RHT model is heavily reliant upon empirical data (although it does accurately predict the results of the above experiment). In any case, the paper concludes that a B747 impacting at 300 km/h could cause “outstanding scabbing” and a possible “fracture” of a 2m-thick-RC wall, as well as complete penetration of thinner RC walls.
alexandervorn 9 months ago 4
@alexandervorn can u link to this?
Axbent 4 months ago
@Axbent Copy & paste the following citation into Google scholar (the pdf version of the paper I referred to should be the first result): M. Katayama, M. Itoh, R. Rainsberger, (2004), Numerical Simulation of Jumbo Jet Impacting on Thick Concrete Wall—Effects of Reinforcement and Wall Thickness, the 2nd Asian Conference on High Pressure Research, Nara, Japan, November 1-5.
alexandervorn 4 months ago
@alexandervorn thanks, works fine
Axbent 4 months ago
@Axbent No problem my friend. :)
Just out of interest, why are you interested?
alexandervorn 4 months ago
@alexandervorn i think the more important thing to be discussing is impact spread the 747 or any airliners nose is significantly larger in space but not in mass therefore it dosent concentrate or its energy to a small point like an armor piercing round would.
poznanski666 3 weeks ago
@poznanski666 The ‘more important thing to be discussing’, in my opinion, is the weight and density of the b747’s engines in comparison to the F4’s engines. As far RC impact modelling is concerned, airliner fuselages are, typically, modelled as ‘soft’, deformable missiles (much for the reason you discussed). Engines, on the hand, are—due to their mass and density—modelled as ‘hard’ missiles. They’re the most important thing to account for in penetration modelling. Thanks for the reply! :)
alexandervorn 3 weeks ago
@alexandervorn you are right in the case that only the engines should penetrate when kamikazes struck boats the only thing that penetrated was the engines but in the case of 9/11 even the lightweight hollow fuselage and wings penetrated thick steel which im my opinion after seeing the 1945 b-25 crash and the 2005 iran c130 crash where both planes did not enter the buildings
poznanski666 3 weeks ago
This reminds me of that Jim Gaffigan Joke . . .
"Hmm, Easter, the resurrection of Jesus. What should we do?"
"How 'bout eggs?!"
"Hmm, a nuclear power plant wall, what should we crash into it to test its durability?"
"How 'bout an F-4?!"
l3ackfire 9 months ago
It's obvious to anyone with even a smattering of knowledge about how the new world order works that this was staged. The Illuminati have a long term plan which started long before 9-11. Therefore they planted this staged and faked footage under the guise of an actual military test. Then when the actual controlled demolitions occurred people wouldn't wonder where the planes (which were actually holographic projections) went. Now somebody do the Woody Woodpecker laugh because I can't.
drmodestoesq 9 months ago
@drmodestoesq "Ehehehehehehehehehe"
rkslayer589 9 months ago
Plane - 0, Wall - 1
neneswsw 10 months ago
This is why you should wear a seatbelt...lol
dwlindbloom 10 months ago
すげー！！
sugitomachi2 11 months ago
Re United 93 Reinforced or not, hitting the ground i would say is a reasonable facsimile. Kind of think THE WORLD beats a reinforced wall no matter how you argue it.
Point is this jet is doing 500mph. United 93 hit at almost the same speed. Actually more i believe!!. If you cant extrapolate the speed and damage to a plane 4 X the weight of this one. Then you are a fool or an idiot.
roquefortfiles 1 year ago
Very Cool.
maryoassyrian2007 1 year ago
I've had several 9/11 "truth" cult idiots try to tell me that it's impossible for a plane to vaporize on impact. LOL, looks like this old test had already debunked the "where's the plane" canard. What are some of the desperate explanations? The jet isn't big enough? hahahaha
adkinsjr 1 year ago 4
@adkinsjr And they are that!! "truth idiots" They literally scream at you until you show them some HARD data like this video. Then suddenly... OH.. You find they don't bother you anymore. Funny how that is. Ignorance and stupidity are a REALLY bad combination. Something the Truth movement has in spades.
roquefortfiles 1 year ago 3
OMG is the wall ok ?
MrBenny325 1 year ago 10
put a jihadist in the cockpit and the plane would of made it through the wall..
MysticalGrooveWTC 1 year ago
Now use a commerical airliner 3x the weight full of people and fuel and see how the wall holds up. If it works then that will be a successful wall.
LANewell2 1 year ago
@LANewell2 You do realize an f4 jet is much more dense than a commercial airplane? True, a 747 with full passengers might have more weight in the end just due to sheer size, but not as much as you think. And its not like that wall looked like it as "almost down" or anything like that
kirawillrise 1 year ago
@kirawillrise Your right about it being more dense. And actualy your right about my 3x the aircraft. Use a 747 instead. Here are the actual numbers; F-4 maximum weight 60,000+. 747 mamimum weight 735,000. A difference of 675,000 pounds. Of course my 3x was off it's more like 12x.
LANewell2 1 year ago
I Dont think it is CONCRETE Wall, because Pentagon was destroyed by slower plane and it made the whole all the through. Jet planes cut concrete like a butter as we saw with the case in Pentagon,
AghaKhanIII 1 year ago
@AghaKhanIII It's a reinforced wall for a nuclear power plant, not a standard wall.
MrScienceTypeGuy 1 year ago
@AghaKhanIII The Pentagon was -NOT- destroyed. Major damage on one side only.
KD5XB 1 year ago
New York could use walls like this in their buildings
JaSheen89 1 year ago 3
best way to teleport -heaven is behind that wall!
MrEverybody6264 1 year ago
Proof 9/11 was real
that armored fighter didn't make a dent...
LgndryThndr 1 year ago 2
@LgndryThndr Yea thats because the pentagon had 8 feet thick reinforced concrete walls.
idontfkinknow1234 1 year ago
HOW DOES THIS WALL IS CALLED ?
sorry for bad english.
Nermix74 1 year ago
Theirs a few million of our tax dollars...
Zethioth 1 year ago
The video does not show the aftermath of the impact. Would have been interesting to see just what was left, if anything.
jaferguson49 1 year ago
@EnVeeTee Hah! "In the event of an emergency, don't assume the crash postion, assuming the ******** worst!" :-D
LashoutUK 1 year ago
I'm a little curious what the result would have been if the jet had a full fuel tank. In this test the jet is being propelled by an external rocket. It's not moving under it's own power. It probably wouldn't make any difference to the wall if the jet had a full fuel tank, but the explosion would make a great YouTube video!
MrStephenRGilman 1 year ago
God damn you!
My pretty Phantom!!
akagokiburi 1 year ago
INSIDE JOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
AimiriZ 1 year ago
@dryspud -- you don't understand SARCASM? You couldn't tell it was a joke meant to ridicule the so-called "911 truthers"?
KD5XB 1 year ago
LOL why would they use a vietnam era fighter if they used an f-15 loaded for combat the wall and surrounding area would be destroyed.
AHigherStandard 1 year ago
Sceptics need to remember a few things. Airplanes, incl the F-4, are built to go threw air. To do this they are made as light as possible. They can't take a crash at 500 mph.. period! Thus the ejection seat. All the components were destroyed down to pieces probably no bigger than a marble. Explosives. You still have issues especially with a crude kamakazi bomb. This is why the Israilies first hit the Iragi nuke plant with a bomb to create a hole then dropped laser guided bombs through the holes.
Dano1945 1 year ago
WHY?!!
ATBirdMan 1 year ago
the terorists would fill the whole aircraft with explosives before hitting the compound
ha ha ha ha ha ha
fareed801 1 year ago
I'CANT my neurophone mk ultra brain PLEASE STOP jews american stop
blackbbbbiochip 1 year ago
Where’s all the wreckage? What about the engines? There HAS to be something left other than the wing tips and fin cap! I SMELL A CONSPIRACY! THE F-4 CRASH WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!! THE F-4 CRASH WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!! THE F-4 CRASH WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!! THE F-4 CRASH WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!! THE F-4 CRASH WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!! THE F-4 CRASH WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!! THE F-4 CRASH WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!! THE F-4 CRASH WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!! THE F-4 CRASH WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!! THE F-4 CRASH WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!!
KD5XB 1 year ago
@KD5XB Dude, it's a plane going 500 MPH into a thick metal/concrete wall
dryspud 1 year ago
@KD5XB Only terrorist passports could survive to be conveniently found by the fbi.
Malbrojia 6 months ago
i dont think anything going 500mph into anything would be there afterward
xraidedlok 1 year ago 2
It's the end of the line for that old warbird.
Utubestolemylife 1 year ago
The F4 is not very crashworthy.
JohnRinNoHo 1 year ago
Now try that again with a fully armed bomber/777/....
Why would a terrorist not fire a warhead first!!!!
They are not dumb.
heavyweather 1 year ago
It would be awesome if it was the F-14.
TomcatSucks4ever2 1 year ago 2
oww i wounder if it was fake
drock8eight1 1 year ago
ファントムかっこいいのにもったいないなあ・・・
urakatakagyou 1 year ago
Actually the walls of nuclear reactors are about 3.5 foot thick concrete, not 1-2 feet like I said earlier.
toppinzr 1 year ago
Even if the wall didn't break down, don't you all realize that the vibrations will cause compromises (hair line fractures) in the structure. Also no one is talking about the negative impact of the vibrations that would affect the inner contents of the plant. So, let's not be fooled by the publicity machine, nuclear is a dangerous energy form.
gigagroove 1 year ago
@gigagroove
This is an example of "moving the goal posts". Do you have any evidence that the "vibrations will cause compromises"?
You've already got your conclusion, and now you're evaluating evidence in order to make it fit (your conclusion). This is bad logic.
ethositachi 1 year ago
@ethositachi You are ignoring simple physics. Put an egg inside a steel container and shake the container. What happens to the egg. It is damaged. Your logic is illogical, although your grammar is appropriate. Re-read your logic books and post when you're smarter.
gigagroove 1 year ago
The elite see that oil and gas is losing support so they're trying to switch us from the SUN and WIND and WATER energy forms to NUCLEAR since they'll make a few hundred trillion off it over the next decades !!!!!
gigagroove 1 year ago
if only the world trade center was made from this stuff...
aaronchungrulez 1 year ago
sorry planes dont just disappear into thin air all by themselves. If the wall absorbed any impact it would have clearly showed in that photo of the pentagon also news reporters saw no evidance of a plane crash. There are many videos of the theories on both sides so, I dont really need to get into it all. Like I said just dont dismiss your own common sense when learning about these issues.
katlovesall 1 year ago
well dealing with nuclear material means nuclear material to me. Plus they have a sign on the wall warning that nuclear material is presant. Planes dont atomize just by hitting regular walls. The explosion tells you its not just a regualar one, with all the nuclear exposion type reaction you see. believe what you want, but just dont believe everything your told without question, and finding the truth for yourself.
katlovesall 1 year ago
I love showing this clip to those frothing-mouthed 911 conspiracy fanatics. They always make smug assertions about what is, or is not, possible, without knowing what they're talking about. Of course, their fanatical devotion to the 911 conspiracy cult won't allow them to admit defeat.
adkinsjr 1 year ago 2
the debunkers send you to this site that does not even compare to the twin towers, for one thing listen to what they are saying here. it was to see what would happen if it hit a nuclear power plant. and judjing from the spew of debrie I would say that they used some. so how does that compare to the twin towers? ??? ??
katlovesall 1 year ago
@katlovesall
Wait a minute, you don't think planes crashed into the WTC? LMAO, you're a fucking moron. i send conpsiracy fanatics to this video to debunk the PENTAGON "where's the plane?" nonsense, and the nonsense about the size of the hole. The pentagon was also made out of reinforced concrete. Notice how the plane is completely destoyed, yet the wall isn't even knocked over.
JohnEdwardIAF 1 year ago
@JohnEdwardIAF Never said a plane didnt crash into the twin towers.that is one of YOUR made up crazy claims you claim comes from them. Well pictures dont lie either.. do they? the size of the hole, the origanal hole.. is very small, look at the no parking sign. Notice how the plane is completely destroyed in this video? Maybe its because they used NUCLEAR ALONG WITH IT?? THATS WHAT IT SAYS ON THE VIDEO. so using nuclear to destroy a plane
katlovesall 1 year ago
@katlovesall
What? They used nucear to destroy the plane? That doesn't make any sense. They were testing the reinforced concrete walls of a nuclear power plant. How would they have used nuclear to destroy the plane? The pentagon is also protected by reinforced concrete walls, that's why the plane shared the same fate as this F-4.
JohnEdwardIAF 1 year ago 2
@JohnEdwardIAF Yes this video says its dealing with NUCLEAR material, and also the wall gives .. its at the end of the video. Nuclear materials clear as a bell. Well why didnt the lawn at the pentagon get messed up? And how did that plane fit in that small hole, before they collapsed the building onto the evidance. and you never ansered my question why didnt they bother to reconstruct the plane as they do for most plane crashes?
katlovesall 1 year ago
@katlovesall
"When dealing with nuclear material, no test can ever be too drastic."
They're talking about protecting nuclear material using reinforced concrete. They conducted the test to make sure that the concrete could absorb an impact. That's what the concrete is for. It's designed to protect a nuclear power plant from impacts. They didn't actually use nuclear material in the test itself.
JohnEdwardIAF 1 year ago 2
@katlovesall
The hole wasn't as big as the plane because the concrete probably absorbed most of the impact. The pentagon is protected by reinforced concrete. As this test shows, reinforced concrete can absorb impacts pretty well.
JohnEdwardIAF 1 year ago
@JohnEdwardIAF Also if you look closly.. since you mention the reinforcement of the concrete.. which way would it be bent if it was hit by a plane? IN or OUT? On the photos it is clearly bent out from the inside.
katlovesall 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Zingzingzing1000 1 year ago
the 9/11 conspiracy nuts prolly never saw this footage.
snowboredsnj 1 year ago
We should have put up one of these walls around the tade towers.
ModelOrange 1 year ago
shit, i would have bought the engine before and get it on my truck
wullebulle123 1 year ago
Swedish subtitles ! :D
gt5004life 2 years ago
I bet the mythbusters were jealous that they couldn't do something like this.
Ingeld 2 years ago 67
@Ingeld
mythbusters kinds sucks.
CGJ7755 1 year ago
@Ingeld Mythbusters did this with a car at 700 mph.
same thing happened.. poof.
smoothsk8r44 1 year ago
@Ingeld they did, youtube rocket powered snowplow.
LSLencrypted 7 months ago
how big of a hole did it leave? ever notice the Pentagon's gaping 16-foot hole that went through 3 rings?
ninjapunk123 2 years ago
Comment removed
KartKing4ever 2 years ago
@KartKing4ever that's easy to say when you're not the one who doesnt have enough resources to build a secure house. you need to shut the fuck up and die.
bhp024 1 year ago
same thought, just a shudder of dust on the good side there but no damage like a warhead.
puggy1974 2 years ago
Oh for fucks sake.....
CAPTJACKAUBREY69 1 year ago
HOLY SHIT! That plane just disappeared into dust! That's incredible.
theroachksu 2 years ago
that's a waste of planes.
Benjimindle 2 years ago
The plane was going to be scrapped.
This was an important test. Before this test there was talk in congress of requiring a 10 mile flight restriction around nuclear power plants. This test showed that such restrictions are not necessary.
RobertGary1 2 years ago
DaMn. I can't believe they can even make a wall that can man-handle a jet like that!
marmar3291 2 years ago
wall 1 point, jet 0 point !
kuhmilch 2 years ago 2
nouvelle méthode de recyclage!
Mr19091981 2 years ago
fucking waste of an awesome plane...
yurihammo 2 years ago
They've all been taken out of service, and I'm sure that maintenance of retired aircraft isn't a priority. It probably wasn't even fit to fly.
theroachksu 2 years ago
O_O
Balthasar20 2 years ago
Bring on the Wall!
consigniaus 2 years ago 3
Don't worry, the pilot survived.
He adopted the brace position
EnVeeTee 2 years ago 73
@EnVeeTee he put his head between his legs.....and kissed his ass goodbye! lol
fordv8man 1 year ago
poor bird :(
DeliBasAli 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"I saw it on TV so it must be true"
Ever heard of CGI. They have the technology for live video manipulation.
And most of the so called witnesses said they saw anything from a small plane to a missile. Hardly anyone claimed to see a jetliner outside of the media execs.
And most of the victims have been proven to be fake especially the plane victims who most of which are not even listed in any record particularly the SSDI which has a very high accuracy rate.
BusBoyIsBack 2 years ago
Everything you just said there is entirely false. You are a liar, who can't back up anything you're saying.
Miko5000 2 years ago
People like you is why the YouTube comment section is a breeding ground for idiots. Well done boy.
elgranto7 2 years ago 2
BusBoylsBack is a troll... either that or a fuckin idiot... i'm willing to bet on the latter...
Krauser1226 2 years ago
... it completely atomises. Jumping jack rabbits, that's unbelievable!
sickanimations 2 years ago 3
Wall pwnage
heymisterderp 2 years ago
アメリカつえええ
dokabakibokan 2 years ago
haha clearly the wall wins
mtsupilot12 2 years ago
I'd like to stay behind this concrete wall :>
Dadianooo 2 years ago 5
Travmac, maybe u should find another word than just tool? uve used that in several other vids too.... wow, ur one of those tardfaces that just ticks me off!
Lontasmenn 2 years ago
NO F4 hit the towers nor was is a soild brick wall on the ground. Those planes did not being those towers down.
youratm 2 years ago
but they claim they never thought of 9-11
gregrutz 2 years ago
anyway who flys a plane into the wall during a war wat dickheads
TheTravmac 2 years ago
stranger things have happened in war.
markbart7 2 years ago
ive actually thought for 5 minutes if thats a joke or not, can u please tell?
MiniDaab 2 years ago
fuck you you fuckin noonga