And I know that your going to say that the buildings were armored just like a tank. well answer me this, would you take a tank our to war that was 20 years old? No because its old and not as strong. the metal in the building were rusty, the concrete was brittle. And that all there is too it. speaking of which, if they built a wall like this and let it sit for 5 years and do the test, the plain might cause the wall to fail because concrete does get brittle due to temp changes and water damage.
@Zail110 rusty metal...brittle concrete.... Is THAT the best you got???? Do yourself a favor and slam your car full speed into a building to test it out.
@Zail110 You're in denial. You're being fed what you are told rather than realizing that metal was recycled and reused... why would they reuse material that is "rusty and old"? Too many anomalies in 9/11 from the government.
Concrete has changed so much over the past 10 years. the materials used, the mix, the density, the wetness. all of that changes the strength. Concrete has gotten so much stronger over the years it's not even funny. So has steel and all other materials. They have all gotten stronger. So with time for the building to lose strength, human error, and older materials used that aren't as strong as modern materials, you will see that a plain CAN cause a building to fail, even an armored one.
I am sure that none of you know a real thing about concrete, buildings, or the history of concrete and other building materials. Was our government really behind 9/11? No I don't think so. Why would the terrorists take the blame and go to war with us over something they didn't do? That makes no since. they wouldn't take the blame for our government's lie. So all in all, to all of you that think they know something. you really don't know a thing about buildings. Materials and construction change.
Also, have you factored in the human factor? Humans do make mistakes. They could build the same wall, and do the same test and the wall could fail. This could be due to an air pocked, the concrete was too wet during the pour, or the concrete could have been mixed wrong at the quarry. I'll bet that none of you took these factors into your calculations. That's why qualified people investigate disasters, not the general public. And I know concrete, I have worked with it many times in the past.
As well, all of the buildings were old. No material is as strong as it was the day it was made. All buildings will fail at one point. All materials lose it's strength and ability to withstand stresses. That's all there is too it. Concrete has gotten stronger over the years, and after time, concrete loses it's strength after it sets and hardens.
Okay. Now an average Joe is going to say something about the pentagon. I am a construction worker, and I know a lot about concrete. So listen for just a min. The pentagon was built a while ago, not sure of the exact date. But something you have to realize is that concrete has not been the same as it has been since it's creation. In fact I'll bet that the pentagon was built out of cement, not concrete. Cement was used more commonly back then. Not exactly sure though. Further more, concrete was n
@TheKmagz Like? The pentegon walls were thinner and the plane bigger. Thats why the plane fuselage was able to penetrate and cause all the damage. The wings on the other hand had much less mass and didn't stand a chance.
@KrazyKommieKiller that's my point...everything within the 2 scenarios is different....just saying using this to analyze the pentagon attack doesn't make much sense that's all
@TheKmagz My point is that concrete is able to totally disintegrate a plane. A huge part of the conspiracy theorists arguement is that the hole in the wall is too small, the wings just vanished, and there was not enough debris. This video more or less proves that when faced with concrete a plane CAN be reduced to dust, meaning the effects Flight 77 had on the pentagon are far more plausable than the theorists claim.
@KrazyKommieKiller fair enough...I just think these examples r so different it's slightly misleading to use in accordance with the pentagon...I know you're not making the direct link but just saying...ur point is taken and I agree.
@KrazyKommieKiller the engines are one of the strongest parts of the plane yet the building sustained no damage from them when the aircraft impacted. why would that be?
@XmadmanREBornX Look at a 757. The engines are not that far from the fuselage. Close enough that when they hit what damage they did cause simply combined with the damage the rear of the plane caused.
@worldwidebum So that means a plane didn't hit The Pentagon? I don't know who taught you logic, but you should get your money back. The plane in this video is WAY stronger (not bigger but stronger) than any of the hijacked planes on 911
@theBartone9119 - And the plane in the video is doing 500mph. A boeing CAN'T go that fast that low, the air is too dense and it acts as a break. You can put your money on that! Physics don't lie, but the gob'ment does!
@theBartone9119 - Fuck the speed? Yea fuck the facts and evidence all together too? No shit the plane in the video is stronger... hello. According to boeing, a passenger jet can not travel that fast that low. Facts be damned right?
@worldwidebum You act like the plane speed is the end all be all of what happened, it really is just one of many factors your are clearly over looking. That video you showed me was a joke anyway, the first dude worked for boeing at one time and doesn't represent them at all. Second? The girl (Leslie) couldn't even answer the dudes question, he threw a number out there and she was like "ya that's about right". The last woman (Lori) said his question was too general. The plane was going at 402mph
@worldwidebum Even at 250mph like the dude said (which was not the case, at all), the effect wouldn't be too far off from what you see in this video. What did you expect to happen at the Pentagon? The plane to bounce off the wall into 2 halves or something? This is real life not a cartoon lol
@RunFasterPussycat "basically you showed completely different aircraft with a different design made out of different materials, traveling at a different speed hit a completely different structure and a different angle and you say it proves what the government says is true."
So a different plane and different concrete would cause the plane to bounce off? Obviously at the Pentagon it wasn't AS bad as this video (larger parts found at pentagon), but to say it would be SO different, is stupid.
This was the reinforced concrete wall of a nuclear power-plant, the walls of the pentagon with thinner and of a different structural design the boeing aircraft was a more heavily reinforced slower moving object than whatever did hit the pentagon
basically you showed completely different aircraft with a different design made out of different materials, traveling at a different speed hit a completely different structure and a different angle and you say it proves what the government says is true.
The day flight AA77 hit the Pentagon all physical laws were off. The plane crashed through several concrete walls with no problems. The Pentagon must have been built with very poor materials. An Airliner like a 757 can never reach the speed of a fighter-jet like this one. Okay, a 757 has much more kinetic energy on impact, but is that enough to pierce a dozen of concrete walls?
BTW: I saw a picture in the web that shows a Global Hawk Cruise Missile with a American Airlines paintwork. Google it!
@ganimed1976 You seem to want to avoid discussing the re-enforced concrete itself and how it is way stronger than planes lol Please try to use your brain for discussing the relevant issues instead of ones that don't help your case at all. How do you explain the lack of wreckage at the scene if you disagree with what would happen in this video? You make no sense in your points at all. Try harder
@theBartone9119 your the one who brought up conspiracy theories. also the concretes strength depends on the amount and type of rebar used. I can only provide clues you figure out the rest.
@circusboy90210 Flight 77 was a REGULAR AIRLINER, pretty weak. It wasn't a DESIGNED TO TAKE DAMAGE (like the one in THIS video). That's why they picked a STRONG plane for this experiment, to get the most solid outcome to confirm. The regular airliner would have gotten fucked up WAY faster,.Awwww....you lose, grab a knife, slice slow.
yeah jason you were pratially correcgt but this was a fighter plane that are not built to be smashed into things like a commercial jet. also that wall is not unreinforced with rebar. as usual you get things wrong & swear it's not that often. you are a fairly intelligent person but when it comes to actual engineering you lack the knowledge base necessary. you don't study often enough or hard enough.
@circusboy90210 the pentagon was bomb proof. You cant go round patronising people, you clearly need to study more too. Commercial jets aren't built to be smashed into things. if anything a fighter jet would be far stronger, it has to handle far greater manoeuvring forces and such (not forgetting that fact that it gets shot at). Where is your logic at all?
@MrChoppington commercial airliners vs fighter planes.... different strengths different stresses. commercial airliners airliners are stronger beause they use heavier materials. fighter planes have different high strengths because they are smaller but also use far superior technologys like honeycomb materials. however materials shaped in different fashions can make different types of strengths for different occasions. it's called structural engineering. study some.
@circusboy90210 The Pentagon's concrete was most likely stronger than this concrete, the plane's strength does not matter, the same result would occur, every time. Deal with it.
@circusboy90210 Unless there is some super-human plane we've never heard off that can punch a cartoon like imprint on RE-ENFORCED concrete, your a liar, misinformed, or retarded. Take your pic. The best plane in the WORLD right now would still get consumed the same way at the concrete in this video. Every time. No exception. The best plane right now. Deal with it.
@circusboy90210 The plane in this video was designed to take a lot of damage, the passenger jets were just meant to land and take off. This is a very strong plane. If you honestly think that a different result would occur with a passenger jet, then you need to get your brain checked out, for real. Re-enforced concrete is stronger than planes, so you have to think about how strong the concrete is before the plane. In this case though, the planes strength truly is irrelevant.
@NWODisinfoAgent concrete has more mass just like ice can rip through the hull of a ship. ice is not stronger than steel, nor is concrete stronger than carbon fiber or aluminum.
@circusboy90210 well this video proves that a plane made out of stronger material than flight 77 will get destroyed by concrete, so it also proves that the same thing, if not worse would have happened at the Pentagon. you need to step into reality it seems you are looking for excuses to keep your fantasy conspiracy alive lol
@SkepticOfLies this does not prove anything, you don't know what this plane is mutch less what materials where used and what configuration. national standards and statistics , jet fuel burns 900 degrees steel begins to melt 2800 degrees.
They just broke the second law of thermo dynamics and proved that the jet could collide with a concrete wall painted with a dummy, by a dummy and still the jet would just dissapear into thin air...oh my...
just imagine an aluminum plane hitting a tank, with its steel twice as thick, in the video of the plane hitting the nose of the plane comes out the other side. So your logic is, an aluminum plane going threw not just 2 sets of 2.5 inch thick steel collums but going threw 1, 2, 3,4,5,6 beams... the plane just melting in and blowing up after its all molded in the building? Jet fuel explodes on impact..
@493175001 terrorists dont test it first. i meant who tests that shit? "warning, there may, i repeat MAY, be a tiny major nuclear explosion if this test goes tits up..."
An f4 shell no engin assisted by a rocket and no fuel payload hitting a concreet filled block wall compared to a 757 hitting a wall that is not designed to take a direct hit horizontaly but can deflect a blast wave virtically. Where is the comparison? There is none. The damage at the pentagon is diffrent than what happens when a shell of an f4 is accelerated bolted down on a rocket sled.
"americans only thinking about their ******* pentagon."
This was a test to see if a nuclear power station could withstand such a hit. France, for example, gets about 80% of their power from nuclear, whilst the US only about 20%.
yeah, you have to include the explosion's blast radius and strength plus the shrapnel from the jet, when you test this against a wall, for example, a bussiness tower.
Explosive material works through releasing gases, it wouldnt damage the wall because the gases can escape into the air, fuel only blows things up when the gases that are released have nowere to go!
Force doesn't depend solely on speed, it's also part of mass. Do you know how much mass this plane has? 500mph of force is nothing if it's a piece of straw.
Jumbo jet LMAO ok megafuck ! First of all the North Tower was hit with a fucking Global Hawk Drone Remote Jet loaded with thermite & hydrogen explosives. All three building were rigged to kill 3,000 Americans to justify an invasion so these fucks could steal Oil !
@theendofit Pentagon walls ARE that thick. The plane supposedly went through two of them? 9 years later bro. We have another 31 to wait before we will quietly know that it was bullshit, again.
to people comparing this to 9/11, you do know this is not regular concrete right? this was done on the material nuculear silos are made off, not ordinary concrete
Oh thats right they were made of glass and STEEL FUCKING BEAMS ! which were cut in half using Hydrogen micro nuclear devices ! Then all the evidence was carted off to China to build a fucking boat...oh ya I remember now !
@twohooves The twin towers had steel beams twice as thick as tank armor. 2.5 inches thick, aluminum plane and steel hollow, engines, it would of been like poking a hole in a window screen.
A small aircraft traveling at 500 MPH is not really worth the effort. The speed and size are both unrealistic for what would actually crash into that type of wall.
Try an Airbus 380 traveling 650MPH and see how the wall stands up then.
OK, SEABLUEMUSIC, since you're hellbent on this conspiracy theory bullshit, let's see some documentation. Shipping and construction leave paper trails. Man up and prove your made-up bullshit.
you just watched a video of a fully functional phantom turning to dust. in the full video, you are shown that the plane still has the engines, the pilots armor plated "tub" and the arg hook. by the way, the head on an arg hook is the strongest material used on any aircraft.
This does explain why they wanted us to think this happened at the pentagon. The problem is the pentagon did have several rings of this steel reinforced concrete. So my point is how is there a perfectly round hole on the other-side of the pentagon through so much concrete. Also I realize this is not the same as the towers but how did the fragile nose come out the other side the same as it went in when a bird in flight can damage a plane so bad? These are only questions. I want real answers.
did you look for real answers? or you simply ask a question.. then make up a answer like "its a missile" and felt satisfied? it took me 30 seconds on Google to find the answer.
if you want an answer to your question instead of making up a conclusion with no evidence.. read the mail I'll sent you that shows there really wasn't much in the way to stop the parts from exiting.
The point is that a nuclear power plant is protected by a wall at least this strong. A plane would not penetrate the containment structure of a nuclear power plant.
This does NOT simulate the walls of the WTC towers. The Towers' walls were made of steel and glass not even half as thick as this.
For the Pentagon: Note that the Pentagon had windows in it, unlike this concrete block. Add the significantly greater mass of a 757 over this F4 fighter jet for much more force. To top it off, the plane crash didn't even break the Pentagon wall; it caused severe structural damage that made the wall collapse less than an hour later.
The twin towers didn't have thickness and reinforcement anything like this wall. Also, I wander what would have happened if this F-4 had armament installed?
it would have been the same. i thought the video would be enough evidence for anyone, but i haven't got the time to explain the materials used, the inertial convex, or how an f-4's armor plating would be more dense than any part of a 757. by the way, i've built both. and the b-1b, c-130, and f-18.
Reminds me of 9/11 this and the Pentagon crash from flight 77,the plane that vapourised.
Did hijacker Hani Hanjour know that the part of the Pentagon he flew the Boeing 767/757 into had been recently blast proofed,possibly to the specifications of a nuclear power stations concrete wall?
Just on that side?
I mean..how unfortunate for him that his apparent successful attack on the Pentagon would leave no proof that he had ever flown a plane into it in the first place.
When you claim the plane vapourised, that is a deliberate lie used by twoofers to misstate the evidence and the event. It is an insult to the family members and it is a lie.
Why do truthers lie? Do you think we are as stupid as you?
"vaporized" is an exaggerated expression which is purposefully used to mock the extravagant nature of the "official story" which is it self a mockery of all the documented scientific studies, research, experiments, evidence, etc. that existed before 9/11, as well as all the real examples of plane crashes, burning steel framed buildings, pancake collapses, etc.
Foolish ppl accuse "truthers" of lying even though their research has caused the govt. to have to change its "official story" 5 or 6 x
They use Gitmo because they have no evidence of Osamas guilt. They cannot bring him back to the US even if they did happen to catch him because of the lack of evidence for 9/11. You can stop bringing up strawman arguments, although that is too typical for you wanna-be-debunkers of 9/11 truth.
***the crime happened in the US, the FBI is the highest investigative agency in the US, in the US you need something called proof. That is something your US government does not have. That is why Gitmo was opened****
Isn't it funny how Osama is indicted for terrorist attacks on the US abroad(August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya.) by the FBI yet he is not indicted for the hugest terrorist attack ever which happened in the US on 9/11?
He is not wanted by the FBI, however he is wanted by Rewards for Justice. The FBI does not have any evidence to get an Indictment(a formal accusation that a person has committed a criminal offense) for Osama, so really he is not wanted. You can be wanted without being guilty.
Osama may be wanted by 1/3 of the U.S. population but that does not mean he is guilty. So, yes he is wanted by a sub-gov-agency(Bureau of Diplomatic Security) but not the FBI(the guys who count).
But he is not wanted for 9/11 by the FBI bonehead!
Yes he is indicted on other charges, but not 9/11 bonehead!
In 2006 Rex Tomb, the FBI's Chief of Investigative Publicity, is reported to have said, "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."
The FBI aka USA government does not have enough evidence against Osama to indict him, therefore he is not really wanted at all. The FBI is the top investigative agency in the US and they do not want him because of a little thing called evidence(which the FBI does not have). They say that there is a reward for his capture(at the bottom), that's it. Not that he is wanted for 9/11. Stop this garbage you spew.
Thats how you get to platform 9 3/4's
trdless13 2 weeks ago
Why they haven't showed the leftovers?
zajec11 2 months ago
And I know that your going to say that the buildings were armored just like a tank. well answer me this, would you take a tank our to war that was 20 years old? No because its old and not as strong. the metal in the building were rusty, the concrete was brittle. And that all there is too it. speaking of which, if they built a wall like this and let it sit for 5 years and do the test, the plain might cause the wall to fail because concrete does get brittle due to temp changes and water damage.
Zail110 2 months ago
@Zail110 shut up stupid!
nicenonya3 2 months ago
@Zail110 rusty metal...brittle concrete.... Is THAT the best you got???? Do yourself a favor and slam your car full speed into a building to test it out.
shawnkempdunkz 1 month ago
@Zail110 You're in denial. You're being fed what you are told rather than realizing that metal was recycled and reused... why would they reuse material that is "rusty and old"? Too many anomalies in 9/11 from the government.
chris4lyfe23 1 month ago
Concrete has changed so much over the past 10 years. the materials used, the mix, the density, the wetness. all of that changes the strength. Concrete has gotten so much stronger over the years it's not even funny. So has steel and all other materials. They have all gotten stronger. So with time for the building to lose strength, human error, and older materials used that aren't as strong as modern materials, you will see that a plain CAN cause a building to fail, even an armored one.
Zail110 2 months ago
I am sure that none of you know a real thing about concrete, buildings, or the history of concrete and other building materials. Was our government really behind 9/11? No I don't think so. Why would the terrorists take the blame and go to war with us over something they didn't do? That makes no since. they wouldn't take the blame for our government's lie. So all in all, to all of you that think they know something. you really don't know a thing about buildings. Materials and construction change.
Zail110 2 months ago
Also, have you factored in the human factor? Humans do make mistakes. They could build the same wall, and do the same test and the wall could fail. This could be due to an air pocked, the concrete was too wet during the pour, or the concrete could have been mixed wrong at the quarry. I'll bet that none of you took these factors into your calculations. That's why qualified people investigate disasters, not the general public. And I know concrete, I have worked with it many times in the past.
Zail110 2 months ago
As well, all of the buildings were old. No material is as strong as it was the day it was made. All buildings will fail at one point. All materials lose it's strength and ability to withstand stresses. That's all there is too it. Concrete has gotten stronger over the years, and after time, concrete loses it's strength after it sets and hardens.
Zail110 2 months ago
Okay. Now an average Joe is going to say something about the pentagon. I am a construction worker, and I know a lot about concrete. So listen for just a min. The pentagon was built a while ago, not sure of the exact date. But something you have to realize is that concrete has not been the same as it has been since it's creation. In fact I'll bet that the pentagon was built out of cement, not concrete. Cement was used more commonly back then. Not exactly sure though. Further more, concrete was n
Zail110 2 months ago
this video cannot be likened to what happened at the pentagon. There are so many differences that it is not valid to compare at all.
TheKmagz 4 months ago 2
@TheKmagz Like? The pentegon walls were thinner and the plane bigger. Thats why the plane fuselage was able to penetrate and cause all the damage. The wings on the other hand had much less mass and didn't stand a chance.
KrazyKommieKiller 3 months ago
@KrazyKommieKiller that's my point...everything within the 2 scenarios is different....just saying using this to analyze the pentagon attack doesn't make much sense that's all
TheKmagz 3 months ago
@TheKmagz My point is that concrete is able to totally disintegrate a plane. A huge part of the conspiracy theorists arguement is that the hole in the wall is too small, the wings just vanished, and there was not enough debris. This video more or less proves that when faced with concrete a plane CAN be reduced to dust, meaning the effects Flight 77 had on the pentagon are far more plausable than the theorists claim.
KrazyKommieKiller 3 months ago
@KrazyKommieKiller fair enough...I just think these examples r so different it's slightly misleading to use in accordance with the pentagon...I know you're not making the direct link but just saying...ur point is taken and I agree.
TheKmagz 3 months ago
@KrazyKommieKiller the engines are one of the strongest parts of the plane yet the building sustained no damage from them when the aircraft impacted. why would that be?
XmadmanREBornX 2 months ago
@XmadmanREBornX Look at a 757. The engines are not that far from the fuselage. Close enough that when they hit what damage they did cause simply combined with the damage the rear of the plane caused.
KrazyKommieKiller 2 months ago
IT WAS A MILITARY PLANE !
or Nanothermite
or a Boeing 747
or a plane from Second Life
freufreui 4 months ago
I hope the pilot survived.
Reizzo1 5 months ago 2
Boeings can not fly at 500+ mph that low to the ground. Hell, listen to boeing tell you this: watch?v=SrCqlr026W0
worldwidebum 6 months ago
@worldwidebum So that means a plane didn't hit The Pentagon? I don't know who taught you logic, but you should get your money back. The plane in this video is WAY stronger (not bigger but stronger) than any of the hijacked planes on 911
theBartone9119 5 months ago
@theBartone9119 - And the plane in the video is doing 500mph. A boeing CAN'T go that fast that low, the air is too dense and it acts as a break. You can put your money on that! Physics don't lie, but the gob'ment does!
worldwidebum 5 months ago
@worldwidebum Fuck the speed, the plane in the video is way stronger than any boeing and it still got mangled. Nice try though lol
theBartone9119 5 months ago
@theBartone9119 - Fuck the speed? Yea fuck the facts and evidence all together too? No shit the plane in the video is stronger... hello. According to boeing, a passenger jet can not travel that fast that low. Facts be damned right?
worldwidebum 5 months ago
@worldwidebum You act like the plane speed is the end all be all of what happened, it really is just one of many factors your are clearly over looking. That video you showed me was a joke anyway, the first dude worked for boeing at one time and doesn't represent them at all. Second? The girl (Leslie) couldn't even answer the dudes question, he threw a number out there and she was like "ya that's about right". The last woman (Lori) said his question was too general. The plane was going at 402mph
theBartone9119 5 months ago
@worldwidebum Even at 250mph like the dude said (which was not the case, at all), the effect wouldn't be too far off from what you see in this video. What did you expect to happen at the Pentagon? The plane to bounce off the wall into 2 halves or something? This is real life not a cartoon lol
theBartone9119 5 months ago
@worldwidebum Cruise speed for a 757 is well over 500mph and the plane was rapidly losing altitude at the time.
As for that bullshit about altitude: watch?v=0nBaU0vwP-o&feature=related
KrazyKommieKiller 3 months ago
@worldwidebum Oh really? Observe an actual plane of similar specifications do more or less that.
watch?v=0nBaU0vwP-o#Scene_1
I wouldn't put too much faith in those static-filled phone calls with a person who has already subscribed to the conspiracy.
KrazyKommieKiller 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RunFasterPussycat "basically you showed completely different aircraft with a different design made out of different materials, traveling at a different speed hit a completely different structure and a different angle and you say it proves what the government says is true."
So a different plane and different concrete would cause the plane to bounce off? Obviously at the Pentagon it wasn't AS bad as this video (larger parts found at pentagon), but to say it would be SO different, is stupid.
NWODisinfoAgent 6 months ago
This was the reinforced concrete wall of a nuclear power-plant, the walls of the pentagon with thinner and of a different structural design the boeing aircraft was a more heavily reinforced slower moving object than whatever did hit the pentagon
basically you showed completely different aircraft with a different design made out of different materials, traveling at a different speed hit a completely different structure and a different angle and you say it proves what the government says is true.
RunFasterPussycat 6 months ago
Comment removed
NWODisinfoAgent 6 months ago
@RunFasterPussycat What does anything you say have to do with the truth?
Plane going 500mph + re-enforced concrete wall = Not typical wreckage you would expect in a normal plane crash.
This formula will never change, no matter how hard you want it too.
theBartone9119 6 months ago
The day flight AA77 hit the Pentagon all physical laws were off. The plane crashed through several concrete walls with no problems. The Pentagon must have been built with very poor materials. An Airliner like a 757 can never reach the speed of a fighter-jet like this one. Okay, a 757 has much more kinetic energy on impact, but is that enough to pierce a dozen of concrete walls?
BTW: I saw a picture in the web that shows a Global Hawk Cruise Missile with a American Airlines paintwork. Google it!
ganimed1976 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ganimed1976 You seem to want to avoid discussing the re-enforced concrete itself and how it is way stronger than planes lol Please try to use your brain for discussing the relevant issues instead of ones that don't help your case at all. How do you explain the lack of wreckage at the scene if you disagree with what would happen in this video? You make no sense in your points at all. Try harder
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@ganimed1976 All physical laws were off that day? Really?
BPKesq 6 months ago
@BPKesq it seems so
ganimed1976 6 months ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@theBartone9119 your the one who brought up conspiracy theories. also the concretes strength depends on the amount and type of rebar used. I can only provide clues you figure out the rest.
circusboy90210 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusboy90210 Flight 77 was a REGULAR AIRLINER, pretty weak. It wasn't a DESIGNED TO TAKE DAMAGE (like the one in THIS video). That's why they picked a STRONG plane for this experiment, to get the most solid outcome to confirm. The regular airliner would have gotten fucked up WAY faster,.Awwww....you lose, grab a knife, slice slow.
theBartone9119 7 months ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 7 months ago
Own3d
presidentbrian1 7 months ago
yeah jason you were pratially correcgt but this was a fighter plane that are not built to be smashed into things like a commercial jet. also that wall is not unreinforced with rebar. as usual you get things wrong & swear it's not that often. you are a fairly intelligent person but when it comes to actual engineering you lack the knowledge base necessary. you don't study often enough or hard enough.
circusboy90210 11 months ago
@circusboy90210 the pentagon was bomb proof. You cant go round patronising people, you clearly need to study more too. Commercial jets aren't built to be smashed into things. if anything a fighter jet would be far stronger, it has to handle far greater manoeuvring forces and such (not forgetting that fact that it gets shot at). Where is your logic at all?
MrChoppington 9 months ago
@MrChoppington commercial airliners vs fighter planes.... different strengths different stresses. commercial airliners airliners are stronger beause they use heavier materials. fighter planes have different high strengths because they are smaller but also use far superior technologys like honeycomb materials. however materials shaped in different fashions can make different types of strengths for different occasions. it's called structural engineering. study some.
circusboy90210 9 months ago
Comment removed
MrChoppington 9 months ago
@circusboy90210 The Pentagon's concrete was most likely stronger than this concrete, the plane's strength does not matter, the same result would occur, every time. Deal with it.
theBartone9119 7 months ago
@theBartone9119 in any equation all variables matter so the planes strength does matter.
circusboy90210 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusboy90210 Unless there is some super-human plane we've never heard off that can punch a cartoon like imprint on RE-ENFORCED concrete, your a liar, misinformed, or retarded. Take your pic. The best plane in the WORLD right now would still get consumed the same way at the concrete in this video. Every time. No exception. The best plane right now. Deal with it.
theBartone9119 7 months ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 7 months ago
@circusboy90210 The plane in this video was designed to take a lot of damage, the passenger jets were just meant to land and take off. This is a very strong plane. If you honestly think that a different result would occur with a passenger jet, then you need to get your brain checked out, for real. Re-enforced concrete is stronger than planes, so you have to think about how strong the concrete is before the plane. In this case though, the planes strength truly is irrelevant.
NWODisinfoAgent 6 months ago
@NWODisinfoAgent concrete has more mass just like ice can rip through the hull of a ship. ice is not stronger than steel, nor is concrete stronger than carbon fiber or aluminum.
circusboy90210 6 months ago
@circusboy90210 well this video proves that a plane made out of stronger material than flight 77 will get destroyed by concrete, so it also proves that the same thing, if not worse would have happened at the Pentagon. you need to step into reality it seems you are looking for excuses to keep your fantasy conspiracy alive lol
SkepticOfLies 6 months ago
@SkepticOfLies this does not prove anything, you don't know what this plane is mutch less what materials where used and what configuration. national standards and statistics , jet fuel burns 900 degrees steel begins to melt 2800 degrees.
circusboy90210 6 months ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 6 months ago
THIS is why you need to wear seatbelts while flying folks. Buckle up and stay safe.
bradkrit 11 months ago
But the Pentagon was an inside job...
89Sunbird 11 months ago
But, will it blend?
SpEsHaLLLL 11 months ago
fake
fermos11111 1 year ago
@shonaliriano94 Delete your fake acc pls ur so annoiyng!
D3TOSS 1 year ago
There actually still is a chance of survival ..
LoveTheCity123 1 year ago
aahha omg that is awesome :P i want them walls on my house :D
ProProductionsPS3 1 year ago
wow..... just raped
MrMegaWolfeman 1 year ago
Youtube: September Clues
PARK YOUR OPINION AT THE GATE
seekYEthetruth 1 year ago
They just broke the second law of thermo dynamics and proved that the jet could collide with a concrete wall painted with a dummy, by a dummy and still the jet would just dissapear into thin air...oh my...
EdevoK 1 year ago
IN YOUR FUCKING FACE 9/11 CONSPIRACISTS!!!!!!
TheMamaluigi2 1 year ago
Nice, any aftermath video of this test?
Saiblade 1 year ago
just imagine an aluminum plane hitting a tank, with its steel twice as thick, in the video of the plane hitting the nose of the plane comes out the other side. So your logic is, an aluminum plane going threw not just 2 sets of 2.5 inch thick steel collums but going threw 1, 2, 3,4,5,6 beams... the plane just melting in and blowing up after its all molded in the building? Jet fuel explodes on impact..
black95gsx 1 year ago
@black95gsx i know ..it's fucking redicculous common sense
seems to be a rare thing these days
truthfilter 11 months ago
Oh also the floors were made of concrete.. Concrete is concrete my friend.
black95gsx 1 year ago
END OF CONSPIRACY. SIDE 2: RON JEREMY SINGS FOR YOU!
RedDaVincy 1 year ago
Plane not designed to penetrate concrete at 3-6foot thick. Bunker Busters are!!
netwerkthis 1 year ago
@loopdeloop: actually, if it is straw, depending on the variety, it will have an effect at 500mph.
amazingraisin 1 year ago
This was one of the prerequisite tests before the government allowed construction of nuclear power plants.
I used to work at one and they showed us this type of video during training.
bthibaudeau 1 year ago
0:08 im sorry? WHAT!? Crash into the concrete walls of a nuclear power station? who thinks this shit up?
Grimlord17 1 year ago
@Grimlord17
terrorists would, obviously
493175001 1 year ago
@493175001 terrorists dont test it first. i meant who tests that shit? "warning, there may, i repeat MAY, be a tiny major nuclear explosion if this test goes tits up..."
Grimlord17 1 year ago
@Grimlord17 Epic comment. :D
55vadamee 1 year ago
the material just gets so fucked!!!
valkyrie1960s 1 year ago
don't got explain it
deathbringer12345123 1 year ago
An f4 shell no engin assisted by a rocket and no fuel payload hitting a concreet filled block wall compared to a 757 hitting a wall that is not designed to take a direct hit horizontaly but can deflect a blast wave virtically. Where is the comparison? There is none. The damage at the pentagon is diffrent than what happens when a shell of an f4 is accelerated bolted down on a rocket sled.
CarnivoreEschelon 1 year ago
Nice cloud of dust, but I bet there was a lot of metal debris left, and a black box had the plane had one..
gringobr13 1 year ago
Fucking americans only thinking about their fucking pentagon. fucking brainles cunts
sanddune1981 1 year ago
@sanddune1981
"americans only thinking about their ******* pentagon."
This was a test to see if a nuclear power station could withstand such a hit. France, for example, gets about 80% of their power from nuclear, whilst the US only about 20%.
itreeye 10 months ago
Beton!
PurpleVolvagia 1 year ago
YouTube easily has the most retarded community on the whole internet.
xyzzykhk 1 year ago 59
bet if it had engines and fuel it would have blown that wall to pieces
Mojocvh 1 year ago
yeah, you have to include the explosion's blast radius and strength plus the shrapnel from the jet, when you test this against a wall, for example, a bussiness tower.
icecru2 1 year ago
yeam good luck with that
3312cdfp5674 1 year ago
@Mojocvh
Explosive material works through releasing gases, it wouldnt damage the wall because the gases can escape into the air, fuel only blows things up when the gases that are released have nowere to go!
Really.... think about it for 2 seconds.
AwsomeAthiest 1 year ago
wow that must of hit with some force
ivanskye 2 years ago
uummmmm yea????........about 500 mph worth of force
meagain499 2 years ago
Force doesn't depend solely on speed, it's also part of mass. Do you know how much mass this plane has? 500mph of force is nothing if it's a piece of straw.
loopdeloop17 1 year ago
true
meagain499 1 year ago
yea and there is a fuckin diffrence from a jumbo jet and a F4
megadeth3151 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jumbo jet LMAO ok megafuck ! First of all the North Tower was hit with a fucking Global Hawk Drone Remote Jet loaded with thermite & hydrogen explosives. All three building were rigged to kill 3,000 Americans to justify an invasion so these fucks could steal Oil !
SEABLUEMUSIC 2 years ago
Only for truthers and holocaust deniers do witnesses become irrelevant
all the same
Denierbud11 2 years ago
ok the bulding did not have this thick of walls and the plan was bigger so this video proves nothing
theendofit 1 year ago
@theendofit Pentagon walls ARE that thick. The plane supposedly went through two of them? 9 years later bro. We have another 31 to wait before we will quietly know that it was bullshit, again.
mosswalker2 1 year ago
to people comparing this to 9/11, you do know this is not regular concrete right? this was done on the material nuculear silos are made off, not ordinary concrete
seahawks2043 2 years ago 2
Thank you. The plane would fly through glass and steel, but not this material.
TheCubenerd314159 2 years ago 18
Think about what you just said tool. Think long and hard before opening your fucking trap !
SEABLUEMUSIC 2 years ago
No commercial airliners were involved on 9/11 ! The footage is all fake !
Notice here that the nose does not go through and come out the other side like the fake WTC2 footage.
9/11 WAS A ZIONIST JOB !
SEABLUEMUSIC 2 years ago
@SEABLUEMUSIC You retard. The Twin Towers weren't made of concrete like this.
twohooves 2 years ago 3
Oh thats right they were made of glass and STEEL FUCKING BEAMS ! which were cut in half using Hydrogen micro nuclear devices ! Then all the evidence was carted off to China to build a fucking boat...oh ya I remember now !
SEABLUEMUSIC 2 years ago
@twohooves The twin towers had steel beams twice as thick as tank armor. 2.5 inches thick, aluminum plane and steel hollow, engines, it would of been like poking a hole in a window screen.
black95gsx 1 year ago
Yeah, and what does your doctor say?
DrittAdrAtta 2 years ago
My Dr. says your a brainwashed slave to the mainstream media !
SEABLUEMUSIC 2 years ago
Well, you do know he is not a REAL doctor, right? As a matter of fact, he is NOT real at all. Sameone had to tell you...
DrittAdrAtta 2 years ago
A small aircraft traveling at 500 MPH is not really worth the effort. The speed and size are both unrealistic for what would actually crash into that type of wall.
Try an Airbus 380 traveling 650MPH and see how the wall stands up then.
leeham991 2 years ago
3 buildings collapsed
OK2BCK 2 years ago
Comment removed
MickMasterFlex 2 years ago
i will never believe that a metal structure will turn into dust upon impact until i see it with my own eyes.
metal bends and breaks.
ion compounds would turn into dust.
this is SOLID METAL !
it would rather turn into a flat pancake.
kinderschubser 2 years ago
" I will never believe that a metal structure will turn into dust upon impact until i see it with my own eyes."
Exactly when do you think a metal structure did turn to dust? Because it did not happen on 9/11
Denierbud11 2 years ago
This is concrete.
LooperNor 2 years ago
Steel Reinforced concrete to be exact.
ConspiracyForTruth 2 years ago
Thank you
SEABLUEMUSIC 2 years ago
@SEABLUEMUSIC
OK, SEABLUEMUSIC, since you're hellbent on this conspiracy theory bullshit, let's see some documentation. Shipping and construction leave paper trails. Man up and prove your made-up bullshit.
twohooves 2 years ago
you just watched a video of a fully functional phantom turning to dust. in the full video, you are shown that the plane still has the engines, the pilots armor plated "tub" and the arg hook. by the way, the head on an arg hook is the strongest material used on any aircraft.
onthetubebaby 2 years ago
why did they not show what was left of the area of impact ?
kinderschubser 2 years ago 2
It left a 2 inch deep gouge.
Stefnir94 2 years ago
This does explain why they wanted us to think this happened at the pentagon. The problem is the pentagon did have several rings of this steel reinforced concrete. So my point is how is there a perfectly round hole on the other-side of the pentagon through so much concrete. Also I realize this is not the same as the towers but how did the fragile nose come out the other side the same as it went in when a bird in flight can damage a plane so bad? These are only questions. I want real answers.
ExamineEvaluate 2 years ago
did you look for real answers? or you simply ask a question.. then make up a answer like "its a missile" and felt satisfied? it took me 30 seconds on Google to find the answer.
if you want an answer to your question instead of making up a conclusion with no evidence.. read the mail I'll sent you that shows there really wasn't much in the way to stop the parts from exiting.
ccaptorchen 2 years ago
im pretty sure a concrete and steel reinforced wall wont stand up to an aircraft. but thats just my opinion
-souce: concrete carpenter.
snowboardloser 2 years ago
The point is that a nuclear power plant is protected by a wall at least this strong. A plane would not penetrate the containment structure of a nuclear power plant.
Overview
overview1111 2 years ago
The Pentagon is not a nuclear power plant
An F-4 is not a Boeing commercial jet
Any questions?
Denierbud11 2 years ago
*applauds* Love you comment lol.
WoodyIsRHCP 2 years ago
the pentagon is constructed of reinforced concrete. a phantom is a much more substantial aircraft than an airliner.
onthetubebaby 2 years ago
OK 9/11 truthers, listen up:
This does NOT simulate the walls of the WTC towers. The Towers' walls were made of steel and glass not even half as thick as this.
For the Pentagon: Note that the Pentagon had windows in it, unlike this concrete block. Add the significantly greater mass of a 757 over this F4 fighter jet for much more force. To top it off, the plane crash didn't even break the Pentagon wall; it caused severe structural damage that made the wall collapse less than an hour later.
DarksporkLeader 2 years ago
Commercial jets do not penetrate buildings, except in September 11, 2001.
asperin 2 years ago 3
The twin towers didn't have thickness and reinforcement anything like this wall. Also, I wander what would have happened if this F-4 had armament installed?
oilhammer04 2 years ago
it would have been the same. i thought the video would be enough evidence for anyone, but i haven't got the time to explain the materials used, the inertial convex, or how an f-4's armor plating would be more dense than any part of a 757. by the way, i've built both. and the b-1b, c-130, and f-18.
onthetubebaby 2 years ago
They do absolutely penetrate buildings -- only stupid no planers think otherwise
Guess you never saw what kamikazes did in WWII
Denierbud11 2 years ago
Hmm..interesting video.
Reminds me of 9/11 this and the Pentagon crash from flight 77,the plane that vapourised.
Did hijacker Hani Hanjour know that the part of the Pentagon he flew the Boeing 767/757 into had been recently blast proofed,possibly to the specifications of a nuclear power stations concrete wall?
Just on that side?
I mean..how unfortunate for him that his apparent successful attack on the Pentagon would leave no proof that he had ever flown a plane into it in the first place.
nikamota 2 years ago
"the Pentagon crash from flight 77,the plane that vapourised."
Why do you lie? Do you think the average youtube user can't see you for the fucking liar you are?
Denierbud11 2 years ago
The Pentagon was blast proofed on the side that was impacted.Work had not long been completed when the 9/11 attacks happened.
Hani Hanjour just happend,we are told,to crash the plane into the recently reinforced and blast proofed side.A coincidence.
Am i still a "fucking liar" ?
nikamota 2 years ago
"Am i still a "fucking liar" ? "
When you claim the plane vapourised, that is a deliberate lie used by twoofers to misstate the evidence and the event. It is an insult to the family members and it is a lie.
Why do truthers lie? Do you think we are as stupid as you?
Denierbud11 2 years ago
"the plane that vapourised."
Fucking liar - the plane did not vapourize and no one has every made this claim other than twoofers
why do you lie?
Denierbud11 2 years ago
"vaporized" is an exaggerated expression which is purposefully used to mock the extravagant nature of the "official story" which is it self a mockery of all the documented scientific studies, research, experiments, evidence, etc. that existed before 9/11, as well as all the real examples of plane crashes, burning steel framed buildings, pancake collapses, etc.
Foolish ppl accuse "truthers" of lying even though their research has caused the govt. to have to change its "official story" 5 or 6 x
undajun2 2 years ago 2
"vaporized" is an exaggerated expression "
Its a purposeful lie - why do truthers lie?
"govt. to have to change its "official story" 5 or 6 x "
Please tell us the five or six versions - or is this another exaggeration?
Denierbud11 2 years ago
They fly a plane into a concrete block.
What are they testing for again?
I need to watch this again,sorry ill comment again once ive watched this again..hang on
nikamota 2 years ago
it's just sad about the f4 :(
andybea999 2 years ago
Anyways, I'm done wasting my time with "dogfucker" aka denierbud11, I have much better things to do than argue with someone endlessly on here.
Denierbud11, you will see the wrath of your ignorance very soon. Peace to you anyways. :)
Smile you government loves you :(
manwello15 2 years ago
manwello
May your ass always hang low ;)
Denierbud11 2 years ago
You cannot get out of this fact that the FBI has no evidence to indict Osama. That means NOT GUILTY in the US!
manwello15 2 years ago
They use Gitmo because they have no evidence of Osamas guilt. They cannot bring him back to the US even if they did happen to catch him because of the lack of evidence for 9/11. You can stop bringing up strawman arguments, although that is too typical for you wanna-be-debunkers of 9/11 truth.
manwello15 2 years ago
"They cannot bring him back to the US even if they did happen to catch him because of the lack of evidence for 9/11."
He is indicted for other acts, they could bring him in
You are getting worse at this as you go along, did you forget we discussed this point already?
Fuck - do try to keep up
Denierbud11 2 years ago
***the crime happened in the US, the FBI is the highest investigative agency in the US, in the US you need something called proof. That is something your US government does not have. That is why Gitmo was opened****
FOOL!
manwello15 2 years ago
They have no proof of Osamas guilt so they are trying to torture confessions out of people but still have nothing on him for 9/11.
manwello15 2 years ago
you can phrase how ever you like, the simple truth is that the FBI is not leading the investigation because this is not headed to a US criminal court
he will NOT be aforded the protection of the US criminal courts -- this is Nuremberg, right or wrong
Denierbud11 2 years ago
....becasue they have NO fucking PROOF!
That is why they will not bring him back you reject!
Too easy, use your brain.
manwello15 2 years ago
Isn't it funny how Osama is indicted for terrorist attacks on the US abroad(August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya.) by the FBI yet he is not indicted for the hugest terrorist attack ever which happened in the US on 9/11?
manwello15 2 years ago
What do you think happened after 9/11?
(Gitmo, military tribunals, torture, waterboarding, etc.)
Denierbud11 2 years ago
"NOT GUILTY in the US!"
No it does not, the FBI is not the lead in the investigation
Denierbud11 2 years ago
Yes, but the twin tower was not a HUGE 10x10 block of concrete, there were gaps and the plane was much larger and structually engineered.
BBmyQ 2 years ago
When a person is indicted for a crime, the convene a grand jury and present the evidence to the grand jury
The evidence is not puplic knowledge and there is no requirement that it be made public knowledge
Since Bin Laden is wanted, but not indicted, it has not even been presented
Speculate all you want concerning the evidence, but the point is, Bin Laden is indeed wanted for 9/11
YOU WERE WRONG
It must happen a lot
Denierbud11 2 years ago
When you start wars off of his name you're fucking right you need to show what you have.
manwello15 2 years ago
No, you don't === and you really wanting it does not change things
Denierbud11 2 years ago
He is not wanted by the FBI, however he is wanted by Rewards for Justice. The FBI does not have any evidence to get an Indictment(a formal accusation that a person has committed a criminal offense) for Osama, so really he is not wanted. You can be wanted without being guilty.
Osama may be wanted by 1/3 of the U.S. population but that does not mean he is guilty. So, yes he is wanted by a sub-gov-agency(Bureau of Diplomatic Security) but not the FBI(the guys who count).
Just to clear that up.
manwello15 2 years ago
"He is not wanted by the FBI"
He is indicted for the embassy bombing numb nuts
Denierbud11 2 years ago
Comment removed
manwello15 2 years ago
Exactly, he is not wanted for the crimes of 9/11 fuckhead!
manwello15 2 years ago
Osama Bin Ladin is not wanted by the FBI in connection with 9/11! Period.
manwello15 2 years ago
But he is wanted and he is indicted on other charges
He is wanted by the US Government for 9/11, but he is not indicted (read Gitmo)
Denierbud11 2 years ago
But he is not wanted for 9/11 by the FBI bonehead!
Yes he is indicted on other charges, but not 9/11 bonehead!
In 2006 Rex Tomb, the FBI's Chief of Investigative Publicity, is reported to have said, "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."
Not wanted by the FBI for 9/11, Period!
manwello15 2 years ago
Since the FBI is not tasked with his capture for 911, its realy not relevant.
Denierbud11 2 years ago
Sure it is, they collect evidence you punk.
"its really not relevant."
Really????? You need to sit down and look into this a bit more chump.
Not relevant????? Poor.
OK, who is tasked with his capture then, the military? Are they suppose to do their own investigation????
manwello15 2 years ago
Comment removed
Denierbud11 2 years ago
Who has run Gitmo for the past 8 years?
Hint - its not the FBI
Denierbud11 2 years ago
Gitmo has nothing to do with this. Strawman hunter!
You cannot get out of this fact that the FBI has no evidence to indict Osama. That means NOT GUILTY!
manwello15 2 years ago
"Strawman hunter"
LOL
Steeper33 2 years ago
Guess you never heard of Gitmo huh Steeper - gee, what a surprise
Denierbud11 2 years ago
Ya that's where the Bush administration Approved Torture. Or is that Enhanced Interrogation to you.
Steeper33 2 years ago
The FBI is not the lead agency
In fact it does not touch GITMO
The Bush administration did not want Osama and his kind in a criminal court, they are seeking them through the military
that is why the FBI does not and is not making a case against Osama for 911
The US military wants him in front of a military tribunal - so he does not get the rights afforded by a criminal trial
Denierbud11 2 years ago
LOL no evidence.
manwello15 2 years ago
The FBI aka USA government does not have enough evidence against Osama to indict him, therefore he is not really wanted at all. The FBI is the top investigative agency in the US and they do not want him because of a little thing called evidence(which the FBI does not have). They say that there is a reward for his capture(at the bottom), that's it. Not that he is wanted for 9/11. Stop this garbage you spew.
manwello15 2 years ago
"The FBI aka USA government "
Now this is false -- the FBI does not speak for the entire federal government
why do you lie?
Denierbud11 2 years ago