Crash test of a F-4 Phantom

[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!

[gregrutz]

It was a wall test, dummy.

Do you really think they would learn anything about an old plane.

[JSF122386]

If you want, acept my video response it's another QPhantom Crash

[JSF122386]

what a?

[leftwingextremist]

You do realise this is a wall of a NUCLEAR CORE, which are designed to take aircraft.

[lOwnl]

wow if the top of the building collapses that means the rest of the building is going to fall with it. inertia would catch up with the rest of the falling building.o and by the way the fire was very vey hot its just like adding lighter fluid to a fire it gets hotter. and jet fuel engine is even more potent.

[Thrashaero]

sorry for the double post, meant to reply to lownl instead of posting a general comment.

[Thrashaero]

the fires were weak. they were reddish orange and weren't very emergent from the building, along with the massive plumes of black smoke, they weren't very hot at all. Anyways the building was designed to withstand a fully loaded 707, which is actually heavier than a 767 (and about the same size). Even if the top collapsed from only jet impacts, it wouldn't pulverize the building down to the ground.

[juuls26]

Metal get warm, thus not as strong to carry the load of the whole building. Ever heard of gravity! A 767-200 which was one of the planes used can carry over 160.000 pounds of fuel. Burning jet fuel creates exploding heat. Basically the terrorist turned the hijacked planes into self-propelled napalm bombs. Furthermore why would anyone blow up the buildings, even if the building hadn't collapsed the attacks with the planes had enough magnitude to trigger same political response...

[Thrashaero]

guess what, ever heard of a building totally obliterating itself in less than 15 seconds?

ever heard of the fact the building was designed to withstand FULLY LOADED 707's going FASTER than the 767's did? burning jet fuel is irrelevant. it burned off mostly in the first few minutes. the rest of the fire was other crap burning which wasn't burning very well i might add.

if they still stood, there would have been a LOT less death. a few hundred people dead instead of a few thousand.

[JohnEdwardIAF]

@Thrashaero

"ever heard of a building totally obliterating itself in less than 15 seconds?"

What's so hard to understand about a buidling crushing itself? It had a mass of 100,000's of TONS. Once the top portion of the structure began to move, there was no stopping it, or slowing it down.

"ever heard of the fact the building was designed to withstand FULLY LOADED 707's going FASTER than the 767's did? "

Yeah, and the titanic was 'unsinkable' LMAO. NONSENSE

[Thrashaero]

@JohnEdwardIAF

what's so hard to understand? the absolute fucking lack of physics!

you can put in caps tons and use big numbers all you want. the numbers of the building's engineering as a whole, for one doesn't allow it to commence collapse quite as suddenly, nor as quickly, regardless how they engineered it for the latter. there was indeed something to slow it down...building beneath. otherwise you're talking a free fall. the kinetic energy in the falling part was bleeding off. no piledriver

[mourantell]

@Thrashaero watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4 Do the math, they weren't collapsing at a free fall speed.

[Thrashaero]

@mourantell that's nice, because i didn't say they fell at free fall speed, i'm saying they would amount to free fall had the building beneath the collapse provide no resistance, which apparently it wasn't providing hardly much at all given the constant rate of collapse despite the 'piledriver' force people always refer to was spilling out the sides...there was not enough energy regardless of speed to have crushed the rest of the building without a piledriver force.

[Thrashaero]

however once building 7 had it's sudden onset of collapse, that's right around free fall. don't give me the bogus count from when a few things on the roof started to collapse. i'm talking when the whole roof started to collapse to the time it reached the ground was around 6.4 seconds if i recall correctly. do the math on that.

[lOwnl]

atticusgru you are an asshole. if you didnt notice the 767 which is one of the biggest planes out there, that smashed into the building and set of many fires. and finally learn to use spell check

[Thrashaero]

the fires were weak. they were reddish orange and weren't very emergent from the building, along with the massive plumes of black smoke, they weren't very hot at all. Anyways the building was designed to withstand a fully loaded 707, which is actually heavier than a 767 (and about the same size). Even if the top collapsed from only jet impacts, it wouldn't pulverize the building down to the ground.

[lOwnl]

atticusgru you are an asshole. if you didnt notice the 767 which is one of the biggest planes out there, that smashed into the building that set of many fires

[atticusgru]

your mom's an asshole...that i ripped up last night

[bobzombie211]

and im irish

[bobzombie211]

MABY THE BIG ASS PLANES COULD HAVE BEEN A FACTOR HUH? maby just a lil

[bobzombie211]

uhh whats ur point... do u think the firechief made the HUGE BUILDING collaps and commited suicide???

[atticusgru]

the point is there are 2 isolated small fire. now, how can 2 small fire melt down an entire building?

it can't, it was the result of explosive previously set. americans just doesn't have common sense these day.

[Wisestofall]

What's the point in all that, why would they have needed the planes to crash as a coverup when they could have said that terrorists blew up WTC (taking out 1 floor along with support structures would have been enough)

[tellthetruth]

http://www.link4u.com/candle.h­tm

http://www.whatreallyhappened.­com/wtc2_floor78.html

[mrshokiemon]

omg