@warner735 Aluminium* I couldn't imagine these Jets or any type of jet being expected to withstand a impact from missiles and or AA bullets, the bullets and missiles are designed to take the jet down... But I get the jist of what you're implying, in my eyes this is a sports car and a commercial airliner is a 12 tone 18 wheeler, I'd assume the impact would be different..whether greater or smaller I don't know.
but an terrorist hijacked plane can crash like to butter into a building that is bad of steel. Notice the plane is aluminum. Since when is aluminum harder than steel?
@j69d Commercial airliners are still made of aluminum and I would suspect them to be less reinforced as they are not expected to take any damage from bullets, missiles, etc.
Then tell us why the hell did tower 7 fall? it was never hit by a plane yet it collapsed? Govt just forgot for some reason and never put that little chestnut in the official initial report?
@3TREY87 The penthouse was struck by debris, due to its unusual design this caused untenable structural weakening. Combined with the fire, this made the fire marshal make the decision to pull all the firemen from building 7.
@override367 what unusual design? it was designed just like any other skyscraper really what kind of debris was able to take it down? If you truly believe the government can be trusted just ask a Native.
@3TREY87 Building seven had a disproportionate amount of weight on just a couple of load bearing trusses, combined with its odd shape that lead to a very uneven weight distribution and extra-tall penthouse. These trusses were damaged by debris and weakened with fire, you can see if you watch the video of it collapse the windows on lower floors collapse after the penthouse literally crashes downward into the floors underneath it.
@3TREY87 Building seven had a disproportionate amount of weight on just a couple of load bearing trusses, combined with its odd shape that lead to a very uneven weight distribution and extra-tall penthouse. These trusses were damaged by debris and weakened with fire, you can see if you watch the video of it collapse the windows on lower floors collapse after the penthouse literally crashes downward into the floors underneath it.
@lesemajeste - and answer this simple question.. Why, if it 'was' a missile would the Govt pretend it wasn't. Why not just say terrorists got hold of a missile and flew it into the Pentagon! Even more shocking and more reason to nuke them off the planet? Or is that too simple? Yes, instead let's get a missile, fly it over a load of witnesses (who have never said they saw a missile) and then get a plane, hijack it, hide/kill the passengers and pretend it is this. Fantasy.
@lesemajeste - its the fucking same you fuckwit.. jets are slightly stronger than commercial airliners, the pentagon wall was even stronger. Jesus.. do you guys ever take a simple fact in your face and give up this crap. At least two civilians saw the jet fly over and said that on film a few minutes afterwards. Oh, I suppose they were paid to say that and are now dead in mysterious circumstances.
There's no way an honest comparison can be made between a F4, which is a fraction of the size of the HUGE Boeing 757, hitting a 10 FOOT thick concrete wall, leaving little debris, proves the point that a Boeing hit the Pentagon on 9/11.
Look at the initial punch out holes in the Pentagon, see how close it's to the ground, how it's an almost perfect circle.
A Boeing 757 is 155 feet long, the cockpit is about 16 feet off the ground.
@123nickmann And why are you posting this here? Also there were 3 planes on 9/11.. and the " Second one " would ahve reached success because before 9/11 the US government had no knowledge that a plane would be used for a terrorist attack. So get your shit straight.
Similar to what would have happened to a REAL plane, if a REAL plane had ever crashed into the WTC......both towers would still be standing if REAL planes had crashed into them......
I hope people can see the educational value in this video......
Wake up America, to the TREASON of the US Government!!!!!
@apatriotofusa Instead of making insults, answer if the WTC towers were made of solid concrete. Plain and simple, yes or no. Were they? Just yes or no!
@skunkjobb I have a question for YOU.......how many tons of concrete were used in the contruction of the world trade center towers? Remember you MUST state your answer in the form of a question......
dum-dee-dee-dum-dum
dum-dee-dum...........
Sorry, your time has expired.
Although you can never win,
thanks for playing, and here's a nice parting gift......
My dad is a geologist, my degree is in mechanical engineering (not practicing or certified) do you have any idea how many grades of concrete are available? If there is enough tensile strength to the pre-tensioned reinforcing rods and it is distributed properly to the concrete then the overall strength of the concrete can be quite astonishing. Aircraft F4s or 767s are mostly empty space made of Aluminum-Magnesium alloys, very low density, necessary for flight, magnesium is strong but burns easily
New exciting features are hitched on to our youtube url grabber! Videos can now be downloaded from youtube, and you can even convert them into mp3! Downloading files has never been this easy. Go to youtubeurlgrabber.co.cc and see it for yourself!
This vid raises lots of questions. What happened after this shot? Let's see the dust settling, the impact on the concrete wall. Was a round hole punched through? If the plane disintegrated as stated, how did it go through 2 more walls and leave a hole in the C ring? and fling a piece onto the Pentagon lawn? What is the commentary reference to nuclear all about? Why did this plane explode into dust but the Pentagon plane exploded into a fireball as per the 5 frames? Yes, lots unanswered.
@Macthought Except this wall is specially designed for absorbing impact, and did you see how thick the wall was? Pentagon walls =/= nuclear reactor containment building walls. hell. This was just a wall of the outside facade of a containment building, theres a steel/titanium/etc containment vessel after the walls themselves.
Pentagon's walls are no where near as well designed and reinforced as the piece of wall that was shown in the vid.
@dhomme83, I am guessing that it was the AWACS FTS system self destructing before impact to hide the evidence for remote control aircraft technology on 9/11.
@secobi "wondering if... Bush was full of bullshit when he said... something along the lines of 'We never thought they'd use commercial airplanes as weapons, who would have?"
That 's from Condi Rice, his national security adviser at the time. They were both lying because: 1. Clinton's whitehouse was attacked with a small private plane a few years before; 2. the WTC was designed to withstand the impact of a 707; 3. when Bush previously stayed on a yacht in Italy due to a plane/weapon threat
@secobi "wondering if... Bush was full of bullshit when he said... something along the lines of 'We never thought they'd use commercial airplanes as weapons, who would have?"
That 's from Condi Rice, his national security adviser at the time. They were both lying because: 1. Clinton's whitehouse was attacked with a small private plane a few years before; 2. the WTC was designed to withstand the impact of a 707; 3. when Bush previously stayed on a yacht in Italy due to a plane/weapon threat
@secobi "wondering if... Bush was full of bullshit when he said... something along the lines of 'We never thought they'd use commercial airplanes as weapons, who would have?"
That 's from Condi Rice, his national security adviser at the time. They were both lying because: 1. Clinton's whitehouse was attacked with a small private plane a few years before; 2. the WTC was designed to withstand the impact of a 707; 3. when Bush previously stayed on a yacht in Italy due to a plane/weapon threat
I'm just wondering if this proves Bush was full of bullshit when he said/asked something along the lines of 'We never thought they'd use commercial airplanes as weapons, who would have?'
Reddit.com says hi Reddit.com says hi Reddit.com says hi Reddit.com says hi Reddit.com says hi Reddit.com says hi Reddit.com says hi Reddit.com says hi Reddit.com says hi Reddit.com says hi Reddit.com says hi Reddit.com says hi
@eXcommunicate1979 a 747 is empty space? so what. they're also about 20 times more massive than an F-4. Momentum = mass * velocity. a 747 moving at the same speed (they also go about 500mph) would have, in theory, about 20 times the momentum or force as an F-4, regardless of being slightly less dense.
@redandjonny You're kidding, right? The pentagon is a government office building, not a military base. They don't have the weapons to shoot down a plane.
@redandjonny so you can see that in the 3 frame video released? you must have super human vision because i can't see anything that even resembles a plane. Why not just release on of the other 100+ video feeds from the site?
They forget to tell u conveniently that the wall is reinforced with a steel net to spread the impact evenly all over the wall. This way, structural integrity is not compromised.
This anomaly would be very interesting to any scientist, and hopefully they will release the footage from the cameras mounted directly over the impact point for us to better understand how this could be. We have little hard data availible in terms of high speed aircraft impacts into buildings. But if we compare it to WTC, we can clearly see the engine shoot out the other side and from pictures it has kept most of its basic structure. This is on good accord with basic collision mechanics.
The discrepancy concerning the engines is what concerns me the most. The design of the engines would allow a much better penetration capability because it can maintain most of its structural composition even in high speed impacts, The same basic principles is used in missiles (tungsten, dep uranium, titanium) and steel casings to ensure penetration. I would compare the fuselage as a 50g shotgun blast at a steel plate vs the engine as a 10g armor piercing round. Shotgun=most damge, AP=penetration
It looks to me like more than just the tips of the wings are intact here, but they don't show you the site after the dust has settled so you just have to believe them
Must be too bad to be terroist, trying to do that trick "Look at me, i am causing a Nuclear accident" and then it all goes like "Ohhh Shit! The plane is turning into dust"
@amphibwarrior0321 Why? To undeniably rule out that an airplane hit the pentagon? Having a physics debate with you would ofcourse be futile,
but the lack of basic education amongs US citizens mesmerizes me.
Answer me this hypothetical question and maybe you will have
a hint of understanding. The pentagon building is traveling at 500mph and hits a stationary boeing 757. (hint, newtons 3 law) What do YOU think will happen?
@roxxphatcox The pentagon has significantly more mass than a Boeing 757. By the equation p = m*v, the pentagon traveling at 500 mph has more momentum than a 757 traveling at the same velocity. Newton's 3rd law has to do with force pairs. The pentagon exerts a force on the plane equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the force that the plane exerts on the pentagon. Also, F = d(p)/d(t) = derivative of momentum with respect to time. Maybe you should learn some physics first?
@MetalMilitia5488 And yet the aluminum fuselage managed to penetrate 6 reinforced concrete walls (1 blastproof) countless columns yet the wings/engines did not leave a noticable mark on the exterior.
Using a kindergarten physics formula to explain complex collision mechanics won`t suffice. Let me educate you: If a aluminum sheet with the same dimensions as the exterior walls of the pentagon and the same weight as a 767, the same force is exerted. Will the damage be identical? Good luck.....
@roxxphatcox It doesn't matter that the plane is made out of aluminum. A 757 on take off has an average mass of 108,000 kg. Traveling at a velocity of 500 mph, that's roughly 2.7*10^9 Joules of kinetic energy. That amount of energy is equivalent to about 490 M1 Abrams 120 mm tank rounds (4.9 kg projectile) at muzzle velocity (1500 m/s). That amount of energy is easily enough to demolish 6 reinforced concrete walls without even taking into account the chemical energy in the jet fuel.
@MetalMilitia5488 The configuration is important: IE a bullet, cone shaped , solid mass behind, built to penetrate like a missile. Airplane, hollow though massive in terms of KE / weight*velocity. Engine : lower on weight , scores high on density/configuration equals high penetration capability. To understand what a boeing 767 fuselage itself contra 8-10 metric ton engine would cause to a building is tough to call without experiment. If you can agree on that, we would have grounds for discussion
@roxxphatcox I agree the dynamics of the crash are hard to predict. To make an extremely accurate model of it you would need to solve multiple differential equations simultaneously with a computer more powerful than any high-end PC. But that's exactly why physicists and engineers resort to energy equations. The 1st Law of Thermodynamics holds. The total 1.441*10^12 J of energy at impact have to go somewhere. Do you really think any building could absorb that and remain standing?
@MetalMilitia5488 Most certainly, however it would most likely result in a local failure at the point of impact unless the building is designed to absorb the energy. If the energy was concentrated in a focal point like a missile, the damage at the pentagon would be within the spectrum we know to cause this effect (15ft hole in a straight line through 6 reinforced walls with a equal punch out hole) . Most scientists agree that the fuselage would disintegrate on impact so the damage is intriguing
@MetalMilitia5488 I m no scientist and only have at best a rudimetnary idea of the basic physics I took in high school, My question to you though, since you base your assumptions on the speed and velocity of the impact, how do you account for the 9 11 pilots for truth contention that at near sea level a 767 cannot attain anywhere near 500 mph without breaking up? Please respond.
@ssike0 The kinetic energy calculation was based on the possibly incorrect assumption that plane was traveling at 500 mph. I don't know exactly how fast it was going. Either way, the kinetic energy of the plane is still miniscule compared to the amount of chemical energy that is released during the explosion, so the plane could have been going a lot slower and still would have transferred close to a terajoule of energy to the building.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@ssike0 9/11 magic story. no jetliner at Pentagon. some type of missile or drone. 400 cameras and no plane? American people deserve this federal abuse since they do not stand up to it. it is a terrible time. no one representing people in Washington. Congress is paid off like a clock. They just collect checks from corporations. Weird part is US citizens keep electing them.
@Joeey Why, or more importantly. who would vote this down? True statements scare the people in the matrix. We Americans should quit trying to create a false reality. Good filtering of fact from fiction in the media would be to not believe anything you hear until you follow up with research and open mindedness. Make them prove what they tell you.
@roxxphatcox Normally I just roll my eyes and ignore the 9/11 conspiracy crackpots. What got my attention is your blatant misunderstanding of physics while accusing others as uneducated. You clearly don't even understand simple concepts such as momentum as I already pointed out. You also loosely throw around Newton's 3rd law when I seriously doubt you could correctly label the force pairs in a free-body diagram. By the way, I didn't know calculus is taught in kindergarten these days.
@MetalMilitia5488 I misjugded you apparently. You actually do have some understanding of physics, I just thougt u were one of the debunker crackpots claiming to have even the slightest idea of physics. Would you care to drop the namecalling and I will gladly treat you with the same respect. The point I was trying to get across to you was this: Different shapes/configurations + density/velocity has a paramount effect concerning the type of collison mechanics. All forces must be accounted.
@roxxphatcox Fair enough. Let's continue. Jet fuel is essentially kerosene and contains both branched and regular hydrocarbon chains ranging from 8 to 15 carbons. We can approximate jet fuel as C12H26. The heat of reaction for combustion of jet fuel is therefore -7,575 kJ/mol. A 757 has a fuel capacity of 43,490 L. Kerosene's density at 25 C and 1 atm is 0.75 g/mol. That translates to 1.45*10^12 J of energy that can be given off exothermically by combustion prior to takeoff.
@roxxphatcox At the moment of impact, the plane has 2.7*10^9 J of kinetic energy. Assuming an efficiency of 30%, the plane has lost 9*10^9 J of energy as heat so far. That leaves 1.4383*10^12 J of chemical energy in the remaining jet fuel at impact. With an average explosion efficiency of 8% that leaves 1.15*10^11 J to do work (i.e. create pressure to damage the building), the rest is converted to heat. This energy amounts to an additional 20,870 M1 Abrams 120 mm tank rounds described below.
This has been flagged as spam show
@warner735 Aluminium* I couldn't imagine these Jets or any type of jet being expected to withstand a impact from missiles and or AA bullets, the bullets and missiles are designed to take the jet down... But I get the jist of what you're implying, in my eyes this is a sports car and a commercial airliner is a 12 tone 18 wheeler, I'd assume the impact would be different..whether greater or smaller I don't know.
j69d 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
j69d 3 weeks ago
Безопасно.
OEM47i 4 weeks ago
240p. We meet again.
SpringSamurai 1 month ago
but an terrorist hijacked plane can crash like to butter into a building that is bad of steel. Notice the plane is aluminum. Since when is aluminum harder than steel?
DerFreieMensch 2 months ago
@DerFreieMensch Shotgun rounds are used to break dead bolts when breaching a room. since when has lead been harder than steel?
eaw5067 1 month ago
What if a plane made from the same material as the wall crashes into the wall? (Given that such a plane is possible to create). :P
FHomeBrew 2 months ago
what about a commercial air liner.. i'm sure the impact would be alot different?
j69d 3 months ago
@j69d Commercial airliners are still made of aluminum and I would suspect them to be less reinforced as they are not expected to take any damage from bullets, missiles, etc.
warner735 3 weeks ago
Then tell us why the hell did tower 7 fall? it was never hit by a plane yet it collapsed? Govt just forgot for some reason and never put that little chestnut in the official initial report?
3TREY87 4 months ago
@3TREY87 The penthouse was struck by debris, due to its unusual design this caused untenable structural weakening. Combined with the fire, this made the fire marshal make the decision to pull all the firemen from building 7.
It's not rocket science
override367 4 months ago
@override367 what unusual design? it was designed just like any other skyscraper really what kind of debris was able to take it down? If you truly believe the government can be trusted just ask a Native.
3TREY87 4 months ago
@3TREY87 Building seven had a disproportionate amount of weight on just a couple of load bearing trusses, combined with its odd shape that lead to a very uneven weight distribution and extra-tall penthouse. These trusses were damaged by debris and weakened with fire, you can see if you watch the video of it collapse the windows on lower floors collapse after the penthouse literally crashes downward into the floors underneath it.
override367 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@3TREY87 Building seven had a disproportionate amount of weight on just a couple of load bearing trusses, combined with its odd shape that lead to a very uneven weight distribution and extra-tall penthouse. These trusses were damaged by debris and weakened with fire, you can see if you watch the video of it collapse the windows on lower floors collapse after the penthouse literally crashes downward into the floors underneath it.
override367 4 months ago
@lesemajeste - and answer this simple question.. Why, if it 'was' a missile would the Govt pretend it wasn't. Why not just say terrorists got hold of a missile and flew it into the Pentagon! Even more shocking and more reason to nuke them off the planet? Or is that too simple? Yes, instead let's get a missile, fly it over a load of witnesses (who have never said they saw a missile) and then get a plane, hijack it, hide/kill the passengers and pretend it is this. Fantasy.
BigSeanP 4 months ago
@lesemajeste - its the fucking same you fuckwit.. jets are slightly stronger than commercial airliners, the pentagon wall was even stronger. Jesus.. do you guys ever take a simple fact in your face and give up this crap. At least two civilians saw the jet fly over and said that on film a few minutes afterwards. Oh, I suppose they were paid to say that and are now dead in mysterious circumstances.
BigSeanP 4 months ago
There's no way an honest comparison can be made between a F4, which is a fraction of the size of the HUGE Boeing 757, hitting a 10 FOOT thick concrete wall, leaving little debris, proves the point that a Boeing hit the Pentagon on 9/11.
Look at the initial punch out holes in the Pentagon, see how close it's to the ground, how it's an almost perfect circle.
A Boeing 757 is 155 feet long, the cockpit is about 16 feet off the ground.
The 757 is TOO TALL to fit into that opening.
LeseMajeste 5 months ago
@LeseMajeste This test was meant to determine what would happen if a jet hit a nuclear power plant.
warner735 3 weeks ago
Wall is made out of Chuckorium
rysnyper50002 5 months ago 4
911 Truthers=Holocaust Deniers.
MaxamillianArturo 5 months ago
@MaxamillianArturo Two different things, nice lie.
AtomicBl453 5 months ago
@AtomicBl453 Im sure you think Jewish bankers rule the world also, bet you think they are shape shifting reptilians
MaxamillianArturo 5 months ago
@MaxamillianArturo At first I was skeptical to call you retarded and honestly believe it but now you're making it just OH SO easy to do so, retard.
AtomicBl453 5 months ago
Whatever David Ike
MaxamillianArturo 5 months ago
@MaxamillianArturo You're very slow in the head, sir.
AtomicBl453 5 months ago
i want to stand behind the wall
RedResurrections 5 months ago
and after this we found out planes aren't meant for crashing into cement walls.... but better off flying in the sky...
MrBarnDog 6 months ago
Comment removed
123nickmann 6 months ago
@123nickmann And why are you posting this here? Also there were 3 planes on 9/11.. and the " Second one " would ahve reached success because before 9/11 the US government had no knowledge that a plane would be used for a terrorist attack. So get your shit straight.
Baked4lifeProduction 6 months ago
Similar to what would have happened to a REAL plane, if a REAL plane had ever crashed into the WTC......both towers would still be standing if REAL planes had crashed into them......
I hope people can see the educational value in this video......
Wake up America, to the TREASON of the US Government!!!!!
apatriotofusa 6 months ago
@apatriotofusa The WTC was not made of solid concrete. Viva la difference.
MrSporkster 5 months ago
@MrSporkster If you believe the Official Government Story of 9/11.....I'm afraid your head is made of solid concrete.
apatriotofusa 5 months ago
@apatriotofusa Instead of making insults, answer if the WTC towers were made of solid concrete. Plain and simple, yes or no. Were they? Just yes or no!
skunkjobb 5 months ago
@skunkjobb I have a question for YOU.......how many tons of concrete were used in the contruction of the world trade center towers? Remember you MUST state your answer in the form of a question......
dum-dee-dee-dum-dum
dum-dee-dum...........
Sorry, your time has expired.
Although you can never win,
thanks for playing, and here's a nice parting gift......
The latest edition of "World History".....
Read it- you will see 9/11 is the New Reichstag.
And the USA is New Nazi Germany
apatriotofusa 5 months ago
@apatriotofusa I asked first. You failed.
skunkjobb 5 months ago
before crash it,, give me it :(
gasefilms 6 months ago
Comment removed
gasefilms 6 months ago
My dad is a geologist, my degree is in mechanical engineering (not practicing or certified) do you have any idea how many grades of concrete are available? If there is enough tensile strength to the pre-tensioned reinforcing rods and it is distributed properly to the concrete then the overall strength of the concrete can be quite astonishing. Aircraft F4s or 767s are mostly empty space made of Aluminum-Magnesium alloys, very low density, necessary for flight, magnesium is strong but burns easily
cornskid 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
type in "ski crashes" in the youtube search and click the video with stars in the title to be shocked!
koepau62 8 months ago
LOL 0:33 wings have passed the test i think :)
agakingz 8 months ago
cool an F-4 phantom!
xPartlyCloudyx 9 months ago
No film on this flight then eh?
cmonconan 9 months ago
Oh christ, not 9/11 conspiracy theorists..
MaxXimumPain 10 months ago
And this is why I trust the US nuclear industry - if a wall can stand a plane crasing into it, how much damage can a tsunami do
We also have better placement of backup generators
MaxXimumPain 10 months ago
@MaxXimumPain
but there is still a problem...
A plane at 500mph chrashes into the wall with approx a few thousand tons of force
A tsunami chrashing into the same wall is like a few million tons of force
No one should ever underestimate the nature.
ATSoldier 9 months ago
Reminds me of an old joke. "What's the last thing a fly sees when he crashes into a windshield?" "His asshole."
oldfart387 10 months ago
if you where in seat 12h you probably not survived
mr0loki0jr 11 months ago
Comment removed
madrazel 11 months ago
what is being said? I am waiting for SPgutt to tell me.
SG55OVCam 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
New exciting features are hitched on to our youtube url grabber! Videos can now be downloaded from youtube, and you can even convert them into mp3! Downloading files has never been this easy. Go to youtubeurlgrabber.co.cc and see it for yourself!
agilefuseconsulting2 1 year ago
that's so cool.
kirdook 1 year ago
This vid raises lots of questions. What happened after this shot? Let's see the dust settling, the impact on the concrete wall. Was a round hole punched through? If the plane disintegrated as stated, how did it go through 2 more walls and leave a hole in the C ring? and fling a piece onto the Pentagon lawn? What is the commentary reference to nuclear all about? Why did this plane explode into dust but the Pentagon plane exploded into a fireball as per the 5 frames? Yes, lots unanswered.
Macthought 1 year ago
@Macthought Except this wall is specially designed for absorbing impact, and did you see how thick the wall was? Pentagon walls =/= nuclear reactor containment building walls. hell. This was just a wall of the outside facade of a containment building, theres a steel/titanium/etc containment vessel after the walls themselves.
Pentagon's walls are no where near as well designed and reinforced as the piece of wall that was shown in the vid.
HoOkEdOnBlEaCh 10 months ago
0:25 - that flash at the nose of the plane is strikingly similar to the flash captured on 9/11.
I'm guessing it was the explosives/missile attached to this jet firing off a split second before impact. ¬_¬
dhomme83 1 year ago
@dhomme83, I am guessing that it was the AWACS FTS system self destructing before impact to hide the evidence for remote control aircraft technology on 9/11.
WarCrime911 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
How many times has Loose Change been edited for errors and re-released?
If the US invaded Afghanistan to build an oil pipeline, please explain why there has been absolutely no construction on it in almost ten years?
How could Barry Jennings be murdered if he died of leukemia in a hospital?
ctcole77 1 year ago
@dhomme83 Wasn't explosives my friend, it's what happens when steel hits stone at high impact. It sparks.
kanelambert1 11 months ago
@kanelambert1 I knew that; I was being sarcastic.
dhomme83 11 months ago
@dhomme83 no that's the AWACS FTS system hitting a wall at 500miles per hour and maybe the ejection seats-''rockets'' WHERE EXPLODING
mr0loki0jr 11 months ago
@dhomme83 F-4's aren't as big as 767-200's
xPartlyCloudyx 9 months ago
@dennisnedry
child comments.
retributionspam 1 year ago
sup reddit
u mad?
flkatk 1 year ago
@flkatk "IT'S SHIT LIKE THIS, REDDIT"
i hate that shit ^
Modgraham 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@secobi "wondering if... Bush was full of bullshit when he said... something along the lines of 'We never thought they'd use commercial airplanes as weapons, who would have?"
That 's from Condi Rice, his national security adviser at the time. They were both lying because: 1. Clinton's whitehouse was attacked with a small private plane a few years before; 2. the WTC was designed to withstand the impact of a 707; 3. when Bush previously stayed on a yacht in Italy due to a plane/weapon threat
nonukesdave 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@secobi "wondering if... Bush was full of bullshit when he said... something along the lines of 'We never thought they'd use commercial airplanes as weapons, who would have?"
That 's from Condi Rice, his national security adviser at the time. They were both lying because: 1. Clinton's whitehouse was attacked with a small private plane a few years before; 2. the WTC was designed to withstand the impact of a 707; 3. when Bush previously stayed on a yacht in Italy due to a plane/weapon threat
nonukesdave 1 year ago
@secobi "wondering if... Bush was full of bullshit when he said... something along the lines of 'We never thought they'd use commercial airplanes as weapons, who would have?"
That 's from Condi Rice, his national security adviser at the time. They were both lying because: 1. Clinton's whitehouse was attacked with a small private plane a few years before; 2. the WTC was designed to withstand the impact of a 707; 3. when Bush previously stayed on a yacht in Italy due to a plane/weapon threat
nonukesdave 1 year ago
Can someone show us video of the concrete wall after the smoke settles?
bummers 1 year ago
was this video made before or after 9/11?
I'm just wondering if this proves Bush was full of bullshit when he said/asked something along the lines of 'We never thought they'd use commercial airplanes as weapons, who would have?'
secobi 1 year ago
@secobi But... that's not a commercial aircraft.
Apoc216x 1 year ago
reddit sent me here. i was expecting a nuclear meltdown and apocalyptic zombies :/
NibbleHusky 1 year ago 5
@dennisnedry Didnt even get off the ground
flawlessjess 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi Reddit.com ^_^
Imyourfriendbuddy 1 year ago
@Imyourfriendbuddy
Fuck you, stop doing shit like this.
lolitsfred 1 year ago 9
Instant teleportation.
disinterkin 1 year ago 4
This video is narrated by counsellor deanna troi?
Riddlelos 1 year ago
They should have probably made the twin towers out of this stuff.
Worley1987 1 year ago 3
@Worley1987 that would be cost effective
brw147 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This comment has received too many negative votes
rathat48 1 year ago
Old school mythbusters in action.
mikenorman4 1 year ago 2
reminds me of when they crashed that car on myth busters
TheBusDriver420 1 year ago 2
FAKE
rxrx1776 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey reddit.com ~~~~~~~~~
Imyourfriendbuddy 1 year ago
did he died?>
Vitomanz 1 year ago
that's a wall
lldsandsll 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Oh hey Reddit.com !!!!!!!!
Imyourfriendbuddy 1 year ago
I'm thinking rock should beat scissors AND paper.
firemeboy 1 year ago 5
Don't worry, the jet went through platform 9 3/4.
ROFLDONALD 1 year ago 52
That plane is licensed to ill.
stickmanofdoom 1 year ago
Guess that answers Unstoppable Object vs Immovable object.
AriesByTheStars 1 year ago
@AriesByTheStars
Thats’s unstoppable force vs immovable object.
virgule888 1 year ago
concrete rocks
TocsinB 1 year ago
concrete rocks
TocsinB 1 year ago
it went through a magic portal O_o
sonickid001 1 year ago
WTF
jam2220 1 year ago
that's how it looked when i used to hit on girls at the bar.
pimplywimp 1 year ago 27
This has been flagged as spam show
Now do it with a Boeing 747
Mutant86 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Reddit.com Reddit.com Reddit.com Reddit.com Reddit.com Reddit.com Reddit.com Reddit.com Reddit.com Reddit.com Reddit.com Reddit.com Reddit.com Reddit.com
Imyourfriendbuddy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Saw this on reddit.com
Imyourfriendbuddy 1 year ago
omg is the pilot okay?!
lolongo 1 year ago 5
Wow, that was pretty crazy. It was like that jet was made of dust or something.
xuimod 1 year ago
Now I know what I'll build my house out of.
stratman06 1 year ago
@stratman06 Fighter Jets?
matthewR77 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
dude fuck reddit
everyone in this video do not go there
NOTASOCCERSTAR09 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey everyone, the great folks at reddit linked this video for our enjoyment. You should head over to reddit.com if you enjoy videos like this!
purepremiumpulp 1 year ago
Science!
joshistheman3 1 year ago
This is awesome
TitsMcgee68ioweu1 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sup reddit
GodRMK 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this video was presented by reddit.com, a community of semi friendly athiest potheads who enjoy the occasional circlejerk and karmawhoring
flkatk 1 year ago
@flkatk Yeah and don't enjoy asshats mentioning it on youtube, ya jackwagon.
tmk2280 1 year ago
@flkatk stfu
systat 1 year ago
@systat
problem?
flkatk 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Reddit.com says hi Reddit.com says hi Reddit.com says hi Reddit.com says hi Reddit.com says hi Reddit.com says hi Reddit.com says hi Reddit.com says hi Reddit.com says hi Reddit.com says hi Reddit.com says hi Reddit.com says hi
Imyourfriendbuddy 1 year ago
now test a 747 because terrorists actually hijack those =(
DShadow911 1 year ago
@DShadow911
747s are mostly empty space.
eXcommunicate1979 1 year ago 4
@eXcommunicate1979 a 747 is empty space? so what. they're also about 20 times more massive than an F-4. Momentum = mass * velocity. a 747 moving at the same speed (they also go about 500mph) would have, in theory, about 20 times the momentum or force as an F-4, regardless of being slightly less dense.
wintermutex85 1 year ago
@eXcommunicate1979 Not if they're full of dead babies.
thatlittlepiggy 1 year ago
5 people were crash dummies relatives
hjdutch 1 year ago
5 people, uhh, hmm... I got nothin'...
Oh wait! 5 people worked for the contractor that lost the bid to the one that designed and manufactured the wall demonstrated in this video.
FunToTheHead 1 year ago 2
Now you are thinking with portals.
repatomonor21 1 year ago 10
wtf show the wall
jinzerd 1 year ago 5
now try that with a 747
abbeyroad1993 1 year ago
This video makes truthers' heads explode.
Roobitz 1 year ago 4
AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!
Sensadire 1 year ago
@Sensadire TAKING JET PLANES AND CRASHING THEM INTO WALLS YEAH!
icedcheese0 1 year ago
I would like to see a wall hitting a wall
Derpocracy 1 year ago 12
This has been flagged as spam show
aaaaaaaaaaand its gone!
melicusictus 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
aaaaaaaaaaand its gone!
melicusictus 1 year ago
aaaaaaand its gone.
melicusictus 1 year ago 6
fuck yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeah
Pheeze 1 year ago
What an ignoble end for the F4.
Next question: What happens if an A380 hits the same wall?
earthforce2 1 year ago
It didn't really crash. If you look closer...The pentagon shot it down.
redandjonny 1 year ago 430
@redandjonny You're kidding, right? The pentagon is a government office building, not a military base. They don't have the weapons to shoot down a plane.
jmp478 1 year ago
@jmp478
Pretty sure it was satire. (At least I hope)
Implosiony 1 year ago
@redandjonny A++++++ would lol again
davemw 1 year ago
@redandjonny so you can see that in the 3 frame video released? you must have super human vision because i can't see anything that even resembles a plane. Why not just release on of the other 100+ video feeds from the site?
lilcha85 1 year ago
@redandjonny This guy's got jokes! lol.... thumbs up
jtlister 1 year ago
@redandjonny
I raffed.
ussygussy 1 year ago
@redandjonny LET THE TRUTH BE KNOWN.
windowzombie 1 year ago
Is there an after pic or after video clip anywhere?
TomsGuns 1 year ago
Wow, most impressive!
floridaskater07 1 year ago
They forget to tell u conveniently that the wall is reinforced with a steel net to spread the impact evenly all over the wall. This way, structural integrity is not compromised.
PhotonicDoctor 1 year ago
ITS GOING ITS GOING AND ITS OUTA HERE!!!
MrWTFrandom 1 year ago
there goes lots of money
pyro123usarmy 1 year ago
This anomaly would be very interesting to any scientist, and hopefully they will release the footage from the cameras mounted directly over the impact point for us to better understand how this could be. We have little hard data availible in terms of high speed aircraft impacts into buildings. But if we compare it to WTC, we can clearly see the engine shoot out the other side and from pictures it has kept most of its basic structure. This is on good accord with basic collision mechanics.
roxxphatcox 1 year ago
The discrepancy concerning the engines is what concerns me the most. The design of the engines would allow a much better penetration capability because it can maintain most of its structural composition even in high speed impacts, The same basic principles is used in missiles (tungsten, dep uranium, titanium) and steel casings to ensure penetration. I would compare the fuselage as a 50g shotgun blast at a steel plate vs the engine as a 10g armor piercing round. Shotgun=most damge, AP=penetration
roxxphatcox 1 year ago
Why would they need to prevent takeoff, couldn't they have build a taller wall, let the plane take off slightly, and then go nose-down into the wall?
neoYTPism 1 year ago
Chuck norris would survive this!
brendanxd 1 year ago
It looks to me like more than just the tips of the wings are intact here, but they don't show you the site after the dust has settled so you just have to believe them
Moreofthesamez 1 year ago
TURN OFF THE DAMN CELL PHONES!
Ferrarimaster4 1 year ago
the plane wasnt destoyed. its safe in the year 1885, and is with their beloved Clara.
Grimlord17 1 year ago
there was alot left afterwards
mustang500e 1 year ago
at least the pilot would die instantly
XCriminal4LIFE 1 year ago
Must be too bad to be terroist, trying to do that trick "Look at me, i am causing a Nuclear accident" and then it all goes like "Ohhh Shit! The plane is turning into dust"
Menza9 2 years ago
i wish i could see it real speed lmao, would be like, "hey whered that plane go? bravo! good trick!"
tLlXenonFire 2 years ago
thats y you wear seat belts
yotubewatcherhalo 2 years ago
This should be shown to all idiot 9/11 truth douche bags...
amphibwarrior0321 2 years ago 2
@amphibwarrior0321 Why? To undeniably rule out that an airplane hit the pentagon? Having a physics debate with you would ofcourse be futile,
but the lack of basic education amongs US citizens mesmerizes me.
Answer me this hypothetical question and maybe you will have
a hint of understanding. The pentagon building is traveling at 500mph and hits a stationary boeing 757. (hint, newtons 3 law) What do YOU think will happen?
roxxphatcox 1 year ago
@roxxphatcox The pentagon has significantly more mass than a Boeing 757. By the equation p = m*v, the pentagon traveling at 500 mph has more momentum than a 757 traveling at the same velocity. Newton's 3rd law has to do with force pairs. The pentagon exerts a force on the plane equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the force that the plane exerts on the pentagon. Also, F = d(p)/d(t) = derivative of momentum with respect to time. Maybe you should learn some physics first?
MetalMilitia5488 1 year ago
@MetalMilitia5488 And yet the aluminum fuselage managed to penetrate 6 reinforced concrete walls (1 blastproof) countless columns yet the wings/engines did not leave a noticable mark on the exterior.
Using a kindergarten physics formula to explain complex collision mechanics won`t suffice. Let me educate you: If a aluminum sheet with the same dimensions as the exterior walls of the pentagon and the same weight as a 767, the same force is exerted. Will the damage be identical? Good luck.....
roxxphatcox 1 year ago
@roxxphatcox It doesn't matter that the plane is made out of aluminum. A 757 on take off has an average mass of 108,000 kg. Traveling at a velocity of 500 mph, that's roughly 2.7*10^9 Joules of kinetic energy. That amount of energy is equivalent to about 490 M1 Abrams 120 mm tank rounds (4.9 kg projectile) at muzzle velocity (1500 m/s). That amount of energy is easily enough to demolish 6 reinforced concrete walls without even taking into account the chemical energy in the jet fuel.
MetalMilitia5488 1 year ago
@MetalMilitia5488 The configuration is important: IE a bullet, cone shaped , solid mass behind, built to penetrate like a missile. Airplane, hollow though massive in terms of KE / weight*velocity. Engine : lower on weight , scores high on density/configuration equals high penetration capability. To understand what a boeing 767 fuselage itself contra 8-10 metric ton engine would cause to a building is tough to call without experiment. If you can agree on that, we would have grounds for discussion
roxxphatcox 1 year ago
@roxxphatcox I agree the dynamics of the crash are hard to predict. To make an extremely accurate model of it you would need to solve multiple differential equations simultaneously with a computer more powerful than any high-end PC. But that's exactly why physicists and engineers resort to energy equations. The 1st Law of Thermodynamics holds. The total 1.441*10^12 J of energy at impact have to go somewhere. Do you really think any building could absorb that and remain standing?
MetalMilitia5488 1 year ago
@MetalMilitia5488 Most certainly, however it would most likely result in a local failure at the point of impact unless the building is designed to absorb the energy. If the energy was concentrated in a focal point like a missile, the damage at the pentagon would be within the spectrum we know to cause this effect (15ft hole in a straight line through 6 reinforced walls with a equal punch out hole) . Most scientists agree that the fuselage would disintegrate on impact so the damage is intriguing
roxxphatcox 1 year ago
@MetalMilitia5488 I m no scientist and only have at best a rudimetnary idea of the basic physics I took in high school, My question to you though, since you base your assumptions on the speed and velocity of the impact, how do you account for the 9 11 pilots for truth contention that at near sea level a 767 cannot attain anywhere near 500 mph without breaking up? Please respond.
ssike0 1 year ago
@ssike0 The kinetic energy calculation was based on the possibly incorrect assumption that plane was traveling at 500 mph. I don't know exactly how fast it was going. Either way, the kinetic energy of the plane is still miniscule compared to the amount of chemical energy that is released during the explosion, so the plane could have been going a lot slower and still would have transferred close to a terajoule of energy to the building.
MetalMilitia5488 1 year ago
@MetalMilitia5488 your fuckin smart u should do my science homework
pyro123usarmy 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ssike0 9/11 magic story. no jetliner at Pentagon. some type of missile or drone. 400 cameras and no plane? American people deserve this federal abuse since they do not stand up to it. it is a terrible time. no one representing people in Washington. Congress is paid off like a clock. They just collect checks from corporations. Weird part is US citizens keep electing them.
Joeey 1 year ago
@Joeey Why, or more importantly. who would vote this down? True statements scare the people in the matrix. We Americans should quit trying to create a false reality. Good filtering of fact from fiction in the media would be to not believe anything you hear until you follow up with research and open mindedness. Make them prove what they tell you.
SawHappy 1 year ago
@SawHappy It's becasue the nwo/Alex Jones people are such freakin' idiots that they think this is computer generated.
Why? No reason, except they are fucking stupid.
hawanja 1 year ago
@roxxphatcox Normally I just roll my eyes and ignore the 9/11 conspiracy crackpots. What got my attention is your blatant misunderstanding of physics while accusing others as uneducated. You clearly don't even understand simple concepts such as momentum as I already pointed out. You also loosely throw around Newton's 3rd law when I seriously doubt you could correctly label the force pairs in a free-body diagram. By the way, I didn't know calculus is taught in kindergarten these days.
MetalMilitia5488 1 year ago
@MetalMilitia5488 I misjugded you apparently. You actually do have some understanding of physics, I just thougt u were one of the debunker crackpots claiming to have even the slightest idea of physics. Would you care to drop the namecalling and I will gladly treat you with the same respect. The point I was trying to get across to you was this: Different shapes/configurations + density/velocity has a paramount effect concerning the type of collison mechanics. All forces must be accounted.
roxxphatcox 1 year ago
@roxxphatcox Fair enough. Let's continue. Jet fuel is essentially kerosene and contains both branched and regular hydrocarbon chains ranging from 8 to 15 carbons. We can approximate jet fuel as C12H26. The heat of reaction for combustion of jet fuel is therefore -7,575 kJ/mol. A 757 has a fuel capacity of 43,490 L. Kerosene's density at 25 C and 1 atm is 0.75 g/mol. That translates to 1.45*10^12 J of energy that can be given off exothermically by combustion prior to takeoff.
MetalMilitia5488 1 year ago
@roxxphatcox At the moment of impact, the plane has 2.7*10^9 J of kinetic energy. Assuming an efficiency of 30%, the plane has lost 9*10^9 J of energy as heat so far. That leaves 1.4383*10^12 J of chemical energy in the remaining jet fuel at impact. With an average explosion efficiency of 8% that leaves 1.15*10^11 J to do work (i.e. create pressure to damage the building), the rest is converted to heat. This energy amounts to an additional 20,870 M1 Abrams 120 mm tank rounds described below.
MetalMilitia5488 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Cool I have airplane videos too please comment on them if you like them
bubblegum2034 2 years ago
i wish my bones were made of that
ruffo789 2 years ago
wow!
linkuei83 2 years ago