Crash test of a F-4 Phantom

[Helirist]

I can see parts that are much larger than confetti. The wing tips. :-)

[kmz365]

nice work!

[Jehstfan]

Goodbye tax dollars lol

[Jehstfan]

This is why a Plane couldn't have crashed into the Pentagon on September 11th

[kwokshsee]

... it deliberately ends right after the crumbling, in order NOT to show you what happened to the wall after the impact.

The wall here remains standing and by and large intact in this case, in stark contrast with the punctured wall of the Pentagon, which can never had crumbled a plane.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@kwokshsee

"The wall here remains standing and by and large intact in this case, in stark contrast with the punctured wall of the Pentagon, which can never had crumbled a plane."

The plane liquefied once it hit the supporting structures within the building of the Pentagon. It's a real phenomenon. Get over it.

[kwokshsee]

@MomoTheBellyDancer Liquefied? Good, then I suppose u have seen the liquefied remnants of the plane left at the crime scene, haven't u?

U should have said "gasified" to save from the embarrassment  :D

U deserve the Mercury Plane Award!!! LOL

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@kwokshsee

"n I suppose u have seen the liquefied remnants of the plane l"

I wasn't at the scene, but there were photographs of remnants everywhere.

[kwokshsee]

@MomoTheBellyDancer Yes remnants, but not LIQUEFIED remnants, that is the point crocoduck!

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@kwokshsee

"Yes remnants, but not LIQUEFIED remnants"

You mean, aside from all the remnants scattered all over the place, clearly visible on lots of photographs?

[kwokshsee]

@MomoTheBellyDancer "The remnants scattered all over the place" shown in the media are large remnants, like part of a damaged small-sized plane engine, but nothing like powder-form or "LIQUEFIED" remnants in a quantity sizeable enough to make up an airliner --- u see crocoduck, matter conserves in a plane crash.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@kwokshsee

"shown in the media are large remnants"

Well, unrecognizable parts of shredded metal aren't quite as dramatic. They are scattered all over though.

[kwokshsee]

@MomoTheBellyDancer That means u have seen any liquefied remnants! You just believe they are all over, period

You dun have any proof that that plane liquefied. Get over it.

[kwokshsee]

@MomoTheBellyDancer

"what do you think that material is?"

What "material"? To establish liquefaction occurred, u've got to NOT ONLY have liquefied remnants present, BUT ALSO they have to be in quantity large enough to make up a whole airliner. Is this simple logic still too difficult for a crocoduck like u to understand?? :P

"Most would be inside the building"

Again, u're admitting u havent seen enough liquefied remnants to prove liquefaction, u juz think they're out there. U SUCK! :D

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@kwokshsee

"U SUCK!"

Yes, personal insults. That will convince everybody you're right.

watch?v=BNsrK6P9QvI

[kwokshsee]

@MomoTheBellyDancer

What truly insulted u is ur own stupid belief that Pentagon got hit by an invisible plane which liquefied upon impact.

Do ur parents a favour, educate urself on what real air crash is like, see Air Crash Investigation!!! Yes, a sizeable portion of a crashed plane can be reconstructed from its debris. Real planes dun get "liquefied", moron :D

[kwokshsee]

@MomoTheBellyDancer  All u witnessed and testified is ur patented stupidity, u self-deluding retard. LOL.....

[kwokshsee]

The WHOLE POINT of this is to show u Americans that after a plane crashed into a concrete wall, it is possible no remain is left becos the whole plane crumbled into pieces in the process, and thereby explains away why no remain of a plane can be found outside the Pentagon in 9/11.

BUT, notice one important thing: for the above to be possible, the concrete wall must be so hard that after the crash, it still stands by & large intact after a crash. Notice in the above footage, it deliberately....

[baef12]

i think an airliner full of towell-heads would be a more relevent test subject

[M1K3YM0]

@baef12 I'd prefer one filled with bigots myself.

[baef12]

ha ha, dumb-asses, you can clearly see the wall move, just as the nose starts to crumple!!!!!

[MrScotini]

Y the hecc would u crash test a plane!? It's not a flipping car

[Diraphe]

@MrScotini They were testing bomb proof walls for nuclear reactors, they were not testing the plane

[IhanNormal]

Any of the plane's parts, including those with the most kinetic energy, turbine shafts, dit not penetrate the test object. I Think that was the most important information from The test.

[blummedia]

Even if you had penetration of the containment facility you'd have to breech another barrier where the reactor vessel is located. I sleep well knowing this.

[LeroyJacksonJones]

Must have been a Russian pilot.

[Cezar112233]

At 3:50 the wings are go through this block oO like through the butter oO

[FatherOfSin]

it would be appropriate if the wall was much wider, this kinda experience is showing almostly nothing...

[FatherOfSin]

where is the picture of the wall after crash, who cares phantom tore to pieces...

rgrds 9 / 11

[wullebulle123]

whats the relevance of that?

chaos explosion theory? hahahaha

[GZUS96]

@wullebulle123 This was a Japanese engineering group studying the effects of such a crash on a 12ft thick concrete wall. It was done to help them know how to better reenforce structures from like impacts.

[Victord2000]

Irrelevant to 9-11.

[Craigers22763]

A Phantom is a terrible thing to waste.

[monkeytennis1972]

I was trying to be funny. Ironic, even. :-D

[monkeytennis1972]

OMFG I hope the pilot was okay!! :-(

[ewann3]

lmfao its a crash test. it was intended

[TheFluffyDuck]

This ladies and gentleman is why Greenpeace is full of shit with their fear mongering about plane attacks against nuclear reactors.

Concrete slab wins!

[badtripsrbad]

3:46 ..... aw man that plan must have shot a missile at the wall just before it hit

[rmtx25]

I wonder what all you 911 conspiracy theory experts think about this video?

[GZUS96]

@rmtx25 You know I am all for using tax payers money to rebuild exact replicas of the Twin Towers in the middle of the desert, and have even them filled with the exact same stuff. Then fly the same planes into them in the exact same manner and see what happens. Just to shut those conspiracy idiots up. However weather conditions would need to be duplicated also.

[CJAG13]

The wall simulate the building of a nuclear reactor. This crash is a security test of a nuclear plant.

[bigbad169]

this crash was caused by George Bush.

[ieatsgoats]

How did the pilot not see a FREAKING WALL?!?

[gorillazbmx]

Really, are you asking this? I hope this is a joke.

[gabe25591]

Really, you are asking if that was a joke? I hope THIS is a joke

[gorillazbmx]

You are not aware of Yahoo answers and other Youtube commenters, they really are that stupid, but there is no consistent way to detect sarcasm through text

[Nousides]

Of course there is.  Sarcasm is always blue.

[harrynicholas]

He was actually describing the oral sex he was having to a friend on a cell phone, momentarily distracted he made a left instead of pulling back on the stick. His remains had a half-eaten burger king in his pocket. It's a little-known fact that the japanese helped develop the F4 phantom, and it's made mainly from paper, the armoured sections were designed by the French and are papier mache. The British designed the wooden bits. I told him this would happen.

[devon520]

Did you just try to make a joke? I have to say, that was quite a poor attempt. Don't sweat it, you'll get 'em next time, Tiger.

[GZUS96]

@ieatsgoats There was no pilot dufus. This was a Japanese engineering group studying the effects of such a crash on a 12ft thick concrete wall. It was done to help them know how to better reenforce structures from like impacts.

[ieatsgoats]

@GZUS96

if theres no pilot then how does the plane know where to go? check and mate!!

[GZUS96]

@ieatsgoats Wow really are you that dumb? Just last week this video was shown on the Science channel on the show "Destroyed in Seconds" and you got the raw video there with sound. This was a test and the plane was attached to a sled that was on a track. The plane was not even going under it's own power. On the sled was a 2 stage rocket that propelled it into the wall. I just can't believe I actually had to explain this. The world is just filled with idiots.

[sendspam2007]

Do you really see wings cutting through concrete? NO YOU DON'T! All you can see is parts of wings missing concrete wall while plane hits it!

[Tairaa2]

"

The wing is attached to the plane....and won't just fall off and "keep going"."

The wing didn't fall of. Obviously.

Where you here for the part of the movie where the plane is moving at 480 MILES PER HOUR?

Yes there is dust! Obviously the concrete is not invulnerable! The bottom line is: If the wings, which weight 1/100 of the plane, were able to cut through the concrete the plane would have passed completely through the barrier. It didn't as we can all see. The wing tips sheared off.

[Tairaa2]

Something I noticed, that I hadn't noticed before, it you pay attention really closely, to the part you said (3:47) after the plane hits, the barrier moves ever so slightly backwards! Not that this proves either point, but just something that's minor that I thought others may have also over looked. Lots of force involved.. (Go and try to move a concrete barrier, like the ones on the highway. No, they actually aren't bolted down, just heavy as hell)

[thebrainsbehind]

For anyone relating this to the Pentagon attack:

1. There were no marks where the fuselage, wings and tail would have hit - this video is inconclusive at it doesn't show the after effects on the concrete, but at 4:27 you can see it crack and burst out dust.

2. Whilst the plane is pulverised into this solid wall, whatever hit the concrete at the Pentagon convincingly destroyed it, albeit in a very small, missile shaped area ;)

[hectiky]

"If the wings broke off, then they wouldn't glide through the air so perfectly aligned with the rest of the plane"

At the speed that phantom was moving, yes they would/do.

[BoltActions]

At that speed they wouldn't....

[hectiky]

Bolt: They would, but briefly. Remember, they sheared off at 500mph. The short distance they traveled after the wall face would be covered in small fractions of a second.

[Tairaa2]

Yes, quite. Bolt, if you're interested in this sort of thing, you should seriously read up on how aerodynamics work. The laws of aerodynamics probably won't help any with this particular scenario, but I always found that sort of thing interesting anyway. Actually, if you're interested in Aircraft you should buy the latest version of a book by the title of "From the Ground Up" It's a marvellously detailed text about everything that effects an aircraft.

[kroftkarl]

Suck on this video 911 truthers

[freeyourmind4202]

people this is old news,we know that now, its time to do something about it. spread the truth to your friends and neighbors.We must stand united against this rogue government. Peace

[dabigez357]

it shows that aluminium doesn't hold up to well vs. cement..? so how does a aluminium airplane go threw reinforced concrete and i beams in a building built ten times over normal strength? answer...it can't! [THINK]

[power2theq]

You can clearly see the wings slicing thru the concrete in the film. Yet, there was no marks from the wings at the Pentagon. Only a round hole approx. 20 ft. wide. If a jumbo jet crashed into a concrete wall, it's wings and engines would leave marks. That is obvious. How come there were no holes at the Pentagon where the engines would have pierced the wall? Why weren't there any marks from the wings? Look at the film above and then go look at the initial photos from the Pentagon before the fire.

[sorienor]

There WAS damage to the facade at the pentagon from the wings. Sorry, you have been duped by a truther lie.

The wall of the pentagon is reinforced concrete, not simple blocks like used in this video. The two are not comparable.

[HavocGunStar]

Incorrect. The walls of the pentagon are limestone slabs. The block in this video is a simulated containment wall from a reactor vessel, which IS reinforced.

[GZUS96]

@HavocGunStar Which limestone is a harder substance.

[keithyoung]

I know what you mean, but the wings are actually sheered off and are continuing forward with their momentum.

[Tairaa2]

correct

[StaceyHyman]

"You can clearly see the wings slicing thru the concrete in the film." No you can't. You can see the tips of the sheered off wings going around the concrete. You are mis-perceiving the event.

[power2theq]

Pause the video at 3:50 and you will see the wing tips digging into the concrete barrier. This is expected. Aluminum is much softer than concrete yet with enough energy behind it, there will be penetration. If the relatively soft aluminum wings damaged the concrete wall in the vid above, don't you think wing mounted engines, made with titanium and high strength steel, would have produced holes at the Pentagon? Yet, the only hole at the Pentagon was less than 20 ft. across. Think people.

[BoltActions]

If the wings broke off, then they wouldn't glide through the air so perfectly aligned with the rest of the plane.... The wings WERE still attached to the plane AND sliced through a couple feet of concrete...

[Tairaa2]

Read up on the laws of aero dynamics. ;) Yes, they actually would, and then they would generate lift for a moment before becoming disaligned with the airflow they are travelling through and they would shoot off randomly until they slowed down and came to a stop. Aircraft aluminum is considerably weaker then steel. In regards to velocity, everything is relative. If you moved the wall at a stopped plan at 480mph the effect would be quite similar. ;)

[BoltActions]

You really can't see what is happening in the video....

Believe whatever you want.

I can see with my eyes what was happening....

[Tairaa2]

Kind of a contradiction don't you think?

"You really can't see what is happening in the video...."

"I can see with my eyes what was happening.... "

The wings were definitely not attached to the aircraft. A mate I used to know, met up with his dad who was a pilot for the first time, and they were flying, they had problems and went into a nose dive, and pulled out almost in enough time to save themselves, but the wing tip clipped the top of a fir tree, and the force removed the wing. Cessna C-152

[BoltActions]

The TIP. It also fell off the plane while the rest of the plane kept flying.

Look at the video. The wings made FULL contact with the concrete wall. The wings were slicing through half of the barrier and were still attached to the plane while doing it.

Pay close attention to the slow mo.

[Tairaa2]

If the wing tips which weight 1/100th of the rest of the plane, were able to CUT through the concrete, then the entire plane (Which had 95% of its mass hit the barrier square on) would have passed through the barrier. The wingtips did NOT cut through ANY concrete. Simple logic. 10 pound wing tips cut through a barrier that a 2000+ pounds of the same material (mixed with heavier and stronger materials) was unable to? No. Check it out again, I don't care what you think you saw, it's not possible.

[Tairaa2]

Just watched it again. Know what I saw? I saw the wings take off randomly, like I said they would, after the part of the plane that hit the barrier was "reduced to confetti".

[BoltActions]

Start LOOKING at 3:47 and tell me that the wings didn't cut into the barrier (along with the rest of the plane.

It isn't what I "think" I saw but what actually did happen in the video.

It's not possible? Apparently you are wrong.

[Tairaa2]

Dude, I watched the whole thing. The barrier is smaller than the wingspan of the plane. What you are seeing, is the tips of the wings, not even HITTING the barrier, and hence being sheered off of the aircraft by the momentum of a multi-thousand pound jet moving at 480M/h

If you are in a car, travelling at 100km/h and you hit a tree, your body is going to try and keep going, along with anything loose in the car. If there is nothing to stop the wing from going, it will continue, just like it did

[BoltActions]

"If you are in a car, travelling at 100km/h and you hit a tree, your body is going to try and keep going, along with anything loose in the car. If there is nothing to stop the wing from going, it will continue, just like it did"

The wing is attached to the plane....and won't just fall off and "keep going".

You probably didn't notice the hug cloud of dust and chunks that came from the concrete wall....

[GZUS96]

@BoltActions There were no chunks of concrete, the wall was on a platform of air bearings which allowed it to move. The wall was moved 12 ft by the plane. And the plane except the wing tips and tail tip was completely pulverized into almost a dust what you think is the wall. This was just shown on the Science channels "Destroyed in Seconds". And you get to see the wall afterwards comepletly in tack with pretty much just a black mark on it in the silhouette of the plane.

[GZUS96]

@BoltActions This isn't the whole video. Search for it another one of this same one where they show the aftermath. It even describes in the description that the plane was pulverized into almost dust like pieces. Anyways in the FULL video you will see tiny pieces of the plane eveywhere and the intact wing and tail tips about 20 feet past the wall, and see that the wall is pretty much not damaged at all excedt a black mark in the silouhette of the plane.

[funkypost]

@StaceyHyman IS it even possible for someone to "mis-perceive" an event??!!

[flamesa31]

cool, where did you get that flim

[drvbrick]

they never show the aftermath. only the explosion.

[stranger590]

where did the plane go? lol

[wil6817]

um........ dont know if any body told them there was a wall in the way

[xxbrokenpuppetxx]

5:00 fail

[wharfstaff]

The test was on a representative portion of the concrete that forms the primary containment of a Pressurised Water Reactor. Designed to withstand a design basis accident where the contents of the reactor coolant system may be discharged into the containment building, increasing the pressure from atmospheric to over 3.5 bar absolute. Excellent video.

Wall is 1.3 metres thick and jet penetrated 280mm.

[DerSarkast]

Hei bhutchy 23,

thanks for your answer. A few new facts, were are very worthhful for me.

Of course, now i wanna have the "full program"(!). Means; can you tell me, where i can see the whole film? ;)

[bhutchy23]

As a nuclear engineering student I get to watch and analyze all these videos in detail in various classes. The university purchases them from the test facility, but I have no idea how civilians like us can get a personal copy. Occasionally you'll see these clips on tv, but rarely show more than what you see here.

[mermadeinheaven]

So if a small meteorite of about 30 feet across with the density of iron were to to hit it at 10 miles/second, then what happens? what's what worst case scenario?

[TS105698]

Big Boomies.

Doesn't matter what it hits, short of NORAD level roof/wall thickness......big boom.

And this site has a field day;)

[DerSarkast]

1. Betweeen 4.07 and 4.11 you can see, that the wall is complete cutted and the top of the wall moves in directon of the frame . . .

2. The F 4 is empty! Means;

no turbine = less stability = less weight

no petrol = less weight

Less weight = less impact energy ! ! !

3. The plane moves never with 500 miles = again, less impact energy

Nevertheless, the wings going trough the wall Epilog : Pure BS

[bhutchy23]

Actually the plane's wings and fuselage were filled with water (heavier than fuel) to add weight. The turbine assembly was left intact to see if they would penetrate. Most importantly, the wings slide past the wall, not through it. The water inside actually vaporizes under the pressure. In the full version of the video the wall is shown before and after, this is only 10% of the total footage shot that day. The wall does move, but remember this is only a section of wall.

[f4cphantom2]

Hello is there any public footage of the wall before & after ? I'd like to see 100% of the footage if possable... Watching this only makes me believe more that the Pentagon was hit by American Airlines 757 or 767 which ever.. The conspiracy people hate videos like this because it shoots down there BS theroy's !!

[sorienor]

The problem with that is the aftermath really isn't interesting when it comes to testing plane impacts. The mechanics of the impact is much more important and why there are multiple slow-motion angles.

[GZUS96]

@bhutchy23 The wall only move because that had it on a rig with air bearing, they intended it to move and it did about 12 ft back when you watch the full video all this is discussed in it.

[chrigel1234]

Have you noticed how the wings continue to fly after the jet hits the wall?

[Twostory]

Your tax dollars at work.

[GZUS96]

@Twostory This was done in Japan.

[oavunduk]

W is liar. He attacke dIraq not because to help people, but purely to get OIL, to increase control in Middle East, to scare Iran. He is a liar. He doesn't give anything to democracy or people lives. RWANDA! WHERE WAS HE!? He lied about WMD. HE is a war criminal like Mr. Hitler.

[kyle0792]

shut the F$#K up

[acvacaaa]

This test was propaganda for the nuclear lobby.. The plane forces the concrete block back, but they do not mention that. And a 747 is 162,400 kg, while a F4 is 13,757 kg. This test was a fix. The track takes some of the force.

So what about the pentagon, this is pro nuke stuff. A conn.

[GZUS96]

@acvacaaa They don't hide that wall moves, this is not the whole video. In the whole video they explain how all the rigs were set up. The wall is on a rigg that has air bearings they intended to and wanted the wall to move. And in the full video they tell you that the wall moved back about 12 ft. They also rigged it where the wall would not spring back forward at all so they would know how far the ompact would move it.

[ethositachi]

@GZUS96

Would you mind linking to the full video? Because I've watched this tape many times and the wall doesn't budge.

[GZUS96]

@ethositachi I can't figure out how to post links in here. But go to Hulu dot com and then search for the show "Destroyed in Seconds". When you do go to the shows section on Hulu, there should be 5 pages of clips, go to the third page and watch the clip titled "Jet Plane Obliterated".

[HeinzHandschuh]

The jet crumbled into dust,

but without leaving any hole.

The impact energy had to dissipate

all by the Phantom Jet.

@ the Pentagon where 5 walls affected,

so the energy would have to let some

plane wreckage all over the place!

Conservation of energy!!

Energieerhaltungssatz!!

Einstein would have kicked the offical US Statement to mars. Fuck BUSH!

[nextgenerationlibert]

i wish you guys would end this conspiracy crap. it was a terrorist attack. doesn't anyone think that the government would have found a better way to execute an attack without wiping out billions in infastructure? how about using that energy to get us out of iraq?

and about the video, it's awsome.

[bpwnes]

Do some research before you jump to conclusions like that next time.

[nosaeRfOecioV]

In actuality, Einstein's IQ wasn't extremely high compared to many experts in specific fields. Namely the fields involved in the specific studies you are dissing. Do you really think you have more intelligence than the men and women who studied the WTC and Pentagon attacks? Please point out a flaw in any of the Purdue University calculations. TKS!

[fieseswegblatt]

what does the wall look like after all the smoke has gone? if that piece of concrete was part of a larger scale construction, the momentum of the plane would have had other effects, wouldn't it?

[klabonk]

good point. There will be some reasons to not show the wall from behind or afterwards...

Anyway: impressive footage.

[93daniel]

wow thats long video to slow

[BabyBeastie1]

This is a test of a concrete wall.

[souclanbaby]

oh and my bad its going at 500M/ph so way faster and its a nuclea power plant concrete wall lol stong huh

[doublesvendor]

Do you think they crashed the plane with a full fuel load? Or a full compliment of missiles or bombs or whatever these things could carry? My brother had a model of one of these and the most amazing thing was the amount of armament it could carry

[JungleJim8710]

I have one as well, and they do carry a large payload. Considering this plane didn't explode on impact, I would assume they did not have a full load of fuel or any payload (hah, I wouldn't crash my $100,000 missle :P )

[souclanbaby]

its not a missle its a plane and F-4 and they crashed it into a nuclea plant wall or something to test to see if it was strong enough incase of a terrorist attack and it was going 500km/ph i know it doesnt look like it lol

[JungleJim8710]

I know it's not a missile, I think you misread my post. I meant that if I were crash testing a plane, I wouldn't crash test the $100,000 missile as well. According to the video description, the test is for the plane, not the wall. Though the description could be wrong, I doubt they would throw a good, solid US jet into the wall when they have MiG's and stuff they have captured.

[com85]

the crash has been made at 800km/h ... 500miles per hour

[PerryTatchett]

'Scuse me, but why is this under Howto & DIY? are you implying we should crash a plane our selfs?

Other than that, great footage!

[FlamerK6]

wow cool you could actually see the wing tips flying on^^

great stuff

[GuildfordGhost]

Completely awesome. Just how many F4s did they use and why did the second one explode when it was only going about 2mph? :o))

[Mieden]

Are you serious?

[ionwalker]

i think it's called slow motion

[GuildfordGhost]

No - I was joking, as denoted by the :o))

It was subtle. Maybe a bit too subtle. Never mind.

[Uikira]

@leftwing:

Well, lets see: the Pentagon was made of reinforced concrete and explosive proof 4in windows.

[nosaeRfOecioV]

It was not as reinforced as nuclear plant concrete (5000PSI), and it was also not nearly as thick.

[Qiola]

thx, for uploading!! Wonder where you guys digging this stuff....

[leftwingextremist]

Well this is the wall of a nuclear plant core, which is designed to resist aircraft colissions.

[tikiroomteach]

Wow, so buildings are made of stronger stuff than airplanes? No wonder buildings can't fly!

[AndyII639]

Now that's my definition of pwn3d