DC7 Crash Test

[MrPixarGuy]

this was the same movie that the passengers watched in "AIRPLANE!"

[69BRS]

On 9/11 Pentagon, 5 or 6 light poles were down by the airplane wings (each pole weight 300+ lbs steel). Where were broken wings on the ground before the plane hit the Pentagon? None. It is time for USA accounting.

[sil3nst]

that sure was a tough camera for them to recover the film. they should have indestructible cameras on the nose, rear, and wings recording whole flights.

[robertgorgon]

1:05 Telegraph poles

[plasticspastic201]

wow. that airbus constellation is shit

[jimmayl1]

Cool cockpits don't look at explosions.

[JoeKevlar1]

chilling view from inside the aircraft of the right wing disintegration.  Easily imaginable final sight picture from a pax perspective. Thanks for posting. Please post more, very informative.

[dranoel1963]

strange how they do the same thing today :P

[ritualentertainment]

Hey dude, can you upload the full video?

[RealisticCoke]

that just goes to show planes were actually alot safer back then

[wsee]

anyone who is researching 9/11 should note what a

REAL PLANE looks like when it's crashing!!!!

a plane can NOT seamlessly penetrate a bulding without shedding any parts, exploding, or slowing down,

UNLESS,

IT IS AN A N I M A T I O N

of a fucking plane...

and that is exactly what they showed us on TV...

[naltrexone23X]

@wsee hey I know conspiracy theories are fun, but I saw it happen with my own eyes, and I wish it was all fake. But you weren't there to see it, I saw things they didn't show on TV. The plane came apart, it was a mess, there was wreckage on rooftops, took them years to clean it up. But what do I know, I was only there. You saw it on TV, I should just keep my mouth shut.

[999LightBeam666]

@wsee i watched this video coz of 9/11 ... agree with u man

[StargateMunky]

@wsee oh shut the fuck up your stupid 9/11 retard.

[MrScienceTypeGuy]

@wsee do you realy think the TURBOFAN-ENGINED airliners built in the 1980s to 1990s used on 9/11 that CRASHED INTO A BUILDING with NEAR FULL TANKS OF FUEL would crash in the same way as TURBOPROP-ENGINED airliners built 20-30 YEARS BEFORE with NOT EVEN CLOSE TO FULL FUEL hitting A HILL AND POLES. LOOK AT ALL THOSE UNIMPORTANT DETAILS.

[wsee]

@MrScienceTypeGuy kill yourself...

then ask isaac newton a few key questions, sonny boy...

MrFauxScienceTypeGuy!

you're pathetic!

[MrScienceTypeGuy]

@wsee Cool story bro.

[JBofBrisbane]

@wsee - and what would those key questions be, Mister Physics Whiz?

[MrScienceTypeGuy]

Ah, just a correction. The DC-7 uses piston engines, my mistake.

[xbfalcon351coupe]

@MrScienceTypeGuy your caps lock button keeps getting stuck...

[joefacc]

What does this test prove??? That crashing a plane into a bunch of objects distroys it??? What a waste of money and a cool plane.

[jmcphail2]

@joefacc

According to Aviation Safety Engineering and Research, "The purpose of the test presented in this report was to obtain crash environmental data to study fuel containment and to collect data on the behavior of various components and equipment aboard the aircraft using a DC-7 as the test vehicle..." Tests like this improved seat strength, fire-retardant materials, fuel fire suppressant additives, etc. No waste of money here.

[sarkizmutafyan]

@joefacc

No,actually,the industry was searching for a less igniting fuel,which would prevent planes from burning so much in a crash and would increase the number of survivors.

[x2501x]

@joefacc

The whole thing was to study how a plane breaks apart and how fuel is dispersed in a crash, and to test methods of keeping fuel from catching fire in a crash. Even today a crash this severe would probably still result in fire, but because of this research a lot of crashes which would once have turned into fireballs within seconds have become survivable (at least from the fire aspect).

[Nesiroo]

Wow, ANOTHER 9/11 argument. People can't shut up about it.

[miloesalazar]

we cant shut up n let the government just win again. someone needs to prove the government wrong.

[IExposeMormonism]

Compare this to the WTC/911: There, plane wing tips and edges penetrated to the central core, load bearing structure leading to complete building failure! It even crumbled to the ground. But here a wing is sheared by one telephone pole. Perhaps wing options were available. Or perhaps the WTC event was something else.

[SOAS007]

"plane wing tips and edges penetrated to the central core,"

Did they? I only saw them go through the glass frontage, they were heavier and moving faster too. So makes sense

[IExposeMormonism]

Our best experts insist the tips and edges of wings ripped to and though the central core. Watch the Purdue video. It's sooooo"professional". These wing tips and edges also had to rip through some 10 floors of steel reinforced concrete flooring to tear up the central core. The front ot the WTC was STEEL not Glass!Each of those "forks" were over 20000 lbs. The planewings tips took out all the outer load bearing walls, the floors and the inner core and it all fell down...(not )

[SOAS007]

"Our best experts". I don't accept arguements from authority, only peered reviews that has no agenda.. besides there is plenty of footage of the incident, and the plane didn't do as per this footage. Remember the heat 10 -15 floors higher was hot enough to cause folk to jump. That obviously weakend the structure enough.

What would Adam Smith ( the fraud) have to say were he still alive :-))

[IExposeMormonism]

Yes, peer review: like AE911Truth or DavidSChandler. It is true it was very hot and prople were compelled to jump. But what created all the heat? Not jet fuel. It burned off. You see people standing in the holes left by the event. a 12 inch telephone pole sheared a wing yet a 911 wings sheared thru outer and inner load bearing walls and 10 floors of steel reinforced concrete flooring. all of it. Wings did that.

[SOAS007]

"AE911Truth" has an agenda. so not realy peer review/

"But what created all the heat?" fire i reckon,. But the planes did not exploded on impact.!

[IExposeMormonism]

AE911Truth has an agenda? It's engineers. But Excellent point:: The Planes did NOT explode on impact. Many have commented on this. Never in history has a plane crashed INTO a building and THEN exploded. Some 200 feet into the event. Ask yourself why the ENTIRE plane went inside and went inside Intact. THEN it exploded and continued forward until the Nose exited the WTC. There are 4 angels of this nose-out event Which I have seen. Planes always explode on impact. but not that day.

[SOAS007]

"AE911Truth has an agenda?" they are conspiracy theorist with many agendas including self promotion , book sales , anti bushites etc. , maybe even sincere belief in the "truth" propergander".

they donot believe that islamic terrorists were involved in 911, but have failed to come up with any tangeable alternative scenario let alone present evidence .

Both airlines must have been fitted their planes with a special non-existant material, under a cover up black ops job.? naaaaaaaa.

[IExposeMormonism]

Yes, you must be right. naaaaaa

[SOAS007]

I would just like to hear one alternative tangeable explanation?

INstead of saying planes couldn't have done this.? They did and someone flew em?

Tis much easier to expose mormonism as a lie. HOw is that going?

[IExposeMormonism]

If you find ae911truth is not objective, that the math of DavidSChandler is faulty then I don't know.... But When I see Real Video of Telephone poles ripping wings off and then I see the WTC and wings, right down to the tail, enter the WTC, intact and Then explode, entirely inside the WTC, I just conclude the plane is not flt175.

[SOAS007]

"I just conclude the plane is not flt175. "

the say what it was.! With tangeable evidence would be a first. THen explain how someone would dream up this plan involvina and airline, groundstaff, air traffic control.

[IExposeMormonism]

The way to discover what happened is to study the issue. It cant be done here. But what hit the WTC was not flt 175. Did you know there was a simultaneous "Terrorist attack on the WTC" Military exercise at the exact same time? Just a coincidence?

[SOAS007]

"Did you know there was a simultaneous "Terrorist attack on the WTC" Military exercise at the exact same time? Just a coincidence?"

complete fabrication. What evidence do you have to support this claim?

so flt 175 never exixted?

[IExposeMormonism]

SOS, things I have typed are easily researched. Confirm them on your own. This is sound, easy to find stuff. If you think an airplane can completely enter a building intact and then explode, fine. But the WTC event was not what the TV set said. The military exercise, etc you research. Its all over the place. Many interviews on TV. Look at "WTC Construction techniques" and "How to build a 747", etc. "FLT 175 Impossible speed". . compare that to this plane being ripped apart by a phone pole!

[SOAS007]

"compare that to this plane being ripped apart by a phone pole! "

this was below rotate speed, and was an old dc7,

Flt 175 was neither of these things. ( much bigger and much faster).

Do you have EVIDENCE for you rmilitary allegations, are you saying that was planned, and flt 175 never existed?

[zfreak90]

wow so crazy! lol

[ZEPPELINALF]

WICKED FOOTAGE

[schnellbomber87]

Maybe someone could post the entire video

[ronniboe]

"The fire which is so impressive,... in reality only lasting 5 seconds....actually there is no fire damage to any part of the aircraft..."

[quaheedus]

What fire only lasted 5 seconds?

[irish89055]

sever crash impact to that camera too..lol.. is that remote controlled crash of that 707 on the tube?

[DA90027]

I'd rather drive!

[gifeca]

x2501x

Is there any chance you could post the full 15 minute video?

Thanks.

[x2501x]

I plan to try to do just that at some point soon, yes.

[mjh0040]

Can u tell me when u do, Im interested in this video!

[devo100]

That's not a DC9 but probably a DC6, the 9 was a two engine jet with the engines at the back

[x2501x]

I checked into it more, and it was actually a DC7. My mistake, sorry.

[JPDworkin]

This is a Lockheed Super-Constellation also called the L-1049 not a Douglas plane at all

[kaysandesses]

This is most certaintly NOT a Super-Constellation.

[x2501x]

This is a similar test to another video posted which shows a Constellation, but this is not the same test, or the same plane.

[x2501x]

this plane's fuel tanks were mostly filled with colored water, so they could trace the scatter patterns as the plane broke apart. the fuel onboard was just enough to run the engines for the few seconds it took to get the plane down the runway.

[NoceboX]

Fwa, and to think that the 'aeroplane' that hit the pentagon took out 5 steel telephone poles... Im sure it did...

[x2501x]

There are two telephone poles in this test--asmaller one which does manage to shear off the outer wing tip, and another which, though larger, is itself broken by the thicker part of the wing.

FWIW, I was sitting in traffic about 200 yards awa on 9/11 when the plane hit the Pentagon...

[krbosak]

so maybe you can say it loud it was not a cruise missile? after all that mess on the internet people are more likely to vote it was a toaster than an airplane.

[quaheedus]

Exactly a 13 inch pole not even designed to brake away and a much smaller wing and the wing held up!

[krbosak]

one more misunderstood everything perfectly...

build it yourself - test it - you will see. TIP: if it would a pole made or real steel around 1920, it would survive.

[quaheedus]

What? Your comment makes no sense! What steel poles today are not made of steel?

[krbosak]

American steel poles are not exactly steel poles, not in the parking lots, not even around Pentagon.

The pole that breaks wing in this movie is DESIGNED to break the wing, plus the plane has much smaller speed and inertia.

So nothing is comparable here.

[quaheedus]

What you said makes it even more plausible that the pentagon story is true! The poles at the pentagon and on most city streets are designed to break away at the base for protection of auto passengers.The poles in this video are not steel poles, they are wooden poles and are not designed to break away.

[krbosak]

Well the Pentagon story IS true. A passenger plane driven by poorly educated terrorists hit it, pulverising the aircraft.

[quaheedus]

Yep! that is exactly what happened.Conspiracy theorist make it sound as if Hani Hanjour could not even fly a plane, when the facts is he received his pilots license in 1997,He had an instrument rating and received his commercial license from the FAA in 1999.He completed his initial simulator training for a Boeing 737 in 2001.His commercial log book had over 600 hours of flight time..these are facts that "Loose Change" will never tell you!

[uyesu]

How many thousand hours are required to become a pilot of a multi-engine passenger jet?

[quaheedus]

Most commercial airlines Require 1000 hours Twin engine time. Hani hanjour had over 600 hours of flight time. Hanjour was not a commercial airline pilot even though he had a commercial license from the FAA, but he did not need to be.He did not have to be proficient in all aspects of flying a commercial airliner such as preflight check, plotting flight plan.He did not need to know how to take off or land safely or in all weather conditions or at night etc.

[krbosak]

Most importantly: he never had to be really good at the most difficult part: the landing.

[quaheedus]

The 757 is fully capable of doing maneuvers that the majority of the public think it is not capable of doing such as tight turns and high speed flight at low altitudes.Check out this 757 doing a high speed pass at about 60 feet then going into a n almost vertical climb.Thare are a few of these on YT in some the 757 starts to go ito a roll at the end of the climb. Do a search for "757 Fly by then vertical" or copy and paste the link.

watch?v=_vJliayH6co

[uyesu]

There were no bodies. Find just one believable source that includes images of the propagandized wreck. Why, if you believe the garbage, did four engines go in and only one, much smaller engine than the commercial aircraft used, come out? There is, at least, shots of THAT engine being salvaged. One other thing. No one seems to question why that exact place and ONLY that place was "reinforced" just prior to the "crash". It was to keep the cruise missile from penetrating too far into the rings.

[quaheedus]

You show your ignorance on the subject with one comment!The plane that hit the pentagon was a Boeing 757 which does not have FOUR engines it has TWO! There were some bodies from the pentagon crash, you did not see them on TV or the papers because they were too grotesque!...they were charred and mutilated bodies!To think that there would be a bunch of complete bodies from a 500 mph plane crash just shows your ignorance!The engine wreckage was a Rolls Royce RB211 engine, found on Boeing 757's!

[uyesu]

Ok, two, my bad. Still, they weren't there. And where did I say how burnt and shredded bodies should or should not look, or anything about television at all? Stay with me.

Also, the FAA's flight path data does not match the trail of physical damage left by what REALLY hit the building. If they can be that stupidly far off when simulating a flight path then question anything else you hear.

[krbosak]

uyesu : Not 'your bad'. Not 'nice try'. Not even 'close enough'. You are posting full scale BS heard somewhere, that's all. All qestions have been answered, in more detail than in any other crashes, the public reports are available. Just try to read more than you write.

[uyesu]

Public. Forensic. They're always both the same, aren't they? ..Well?

Sometimes you have to listen to something that can't possibly lie to get on to the truth. For instance, big planes leave big pieces in, as will as scattered around, any cratering end. Even if they go straight into the ground nose first. Well, unless it craters in a swamp--which has happened. But no matter where it happens they leave a very big scar..except at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania. Believe whatever you like.

[quaheedus]

How can you say what a Commercial airliner will do when it hits a concrete building at 500+ mph since it has never happened before,The closest thing we have to it is that F4 Phantom video hitting a concrete wall and that plane vaporizes into almost nothing!

[ronniboe]

I believe uyesu is referring to flight 93!

[quaheedus]

Ok..I watched the video and now know what you were saying about the fire.

[quaheedus]

The truth is Radar could not pick up a plane once it was at an altitude low enough to knock down the light poles at the Pentagon! In 1988, the FAA took steps to enhance the radar data transmitted from airborne aircraft by issuing a ruling which required that aircraft shall be equipped with transponders. An airplane equipped with such radar-enhancing beacon equipment may not be displayed on the ATC controller's screen, even though that aircraft is within ARSR coverage.The transponder was off!

[uyesu]

Then why did the fools simulate the flight path in the first place all the way to the ground. The computer sim that was later released to demonstrate the aircraft's supposed flight path was wholly inconsistent with respect to the path of physical damage leading to the impact. I saw the sim that was released to the public, and it does not match. Well, unless it's wingspan was about 350 feet, but that's just not arguable. And if you say they can't draw a path at low altitude, what is that saying?

[quaheedus]

Its called a presumed path! Hundreds of witnesses all saw the plane hit the Pentagon they all said it was a commercial airliner!USA Today reporter Mike Walter witnessed the crash. He recounted to CNN, "...looked out my window. I saw this plane, the jet, American Airlines jet coming. And I thought, this doesn't add up. It's really low. And I saw it. It just went — I mean, it was like a cruise missile with wings, it went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon.

[quaheedus]

You did not say what condition the bodies were in, you implied there were no bodies or body parts at all!

[quaheedus]

Myth Busters had an episode to see if a passenger could land a commercial airliner if the pilots became ill. Both Jaime and Adam tried to land in a Boeing 767 simulator.They failed the first time but landed it safely the second time, with Radio help from an instructor talking them down.The instructor could not see their instruments or the planes path etc. in order to make it as realistic as possible.They both landed a 767 on their second attempt with no training or flying experience.

[italianobro]

the problem is... if your fail the first one... your not gonna be here for the second one ... :P

[quaheedus]

Hats true but I would assume if it ever happened in real life you would have someone to talk you down as they did on the second attempt. My point was if they can land a commercial plane on a second try with zero flying experience, then it would be very easy for a trained pilot with 600 hours of flying time, large airliner simulator time, a commercial rating and instrument rating to hit the Pentagon.