F4 vs Concrete Wall

[Cowpox]

Like many on this forum, I have had doubts about the crash scenes in the pasture and at the Pentagon. However, after an old Marine friend of mine sent this video, along with his explanation that I was comparing apples to oranges, because images of crash scenes I was used to seeing, were the results of a pilot who was trying to save himself & passengers, with shallow trajectory, at near stalling speeds, and, the intentional crashes on 9/11 probably occurred at around 600 MPH.
   After watching this video of an old Phantom on a rocket sled hitting a wall at 500 MPH, I have had to admit that there is undoubtedly enough evidence remaining to identify the type of plane, but, it might be impossible to tell which actual flight it was, through painted numbers.  I can also see why bodies would probably become no more than the purple vapor we watch drifting in the breeze after hitting a prairie dog with a 22/250 ?

                             http://funlist.funpic.hu/?page=archive&message=14570did=13982 

[gypsyman]

Evidently you've never seen how straw can get embedded in tree's, wooden boards from the wind of a tornado.(which I don't belive is 600 or 500mph, more like 90 to 120mph) If your quick enough, I've seen people stick plastic straws into watermelons. Not nearly as hard as an airplane made out of structural aluminum. Shaped like a bullet. If a lead bullet,(soft) can penetrate steel,(hard) an airplane will certainly be able to penetrate a building at 500 or 600 mph.
As far as the beams being blown outward, what direction do you think they could have been blown to. Down the elevator shafts? Try this experiment. Take an empty tin can,put it on a concrete slab, light a firecracker and put it in the can, quickly, so you don't blow your fingers off, put a brick on top. I will guarantee you the side's will blow out, faster than blowing up the brick or concrete. An explosion will follow the path of least resistance. In the case of the buildings, that would be the side's, as the support beams going up and down and the windows, offer less resistance than the beams supporting the floors, and flooring do. JMO   gypsyman

[Lone Star]

But what is interesting is it didn't put a hole in the wall! This is whatt the 911 truthers are saying....i.e. the aluminum planes could have not cut a hole in the pentacon and not leave engine imprints and not disrupt the foundation of the building...

Since the "wall" in the video was actually a hardened structure designed to protect a nuclear reactor - it should be no surprise that the plane failed to penetrate it.  Tried against the external walls of an office building and you'd see a far different result - regardless of the impact velocity.


.

[rex6666]

OK i am not a demolition expert!
First the wall that the fighter hit looks to be 4-5 foot thick and i bet it is not you ave. concrete
the walls on the towers are maybe 8-10 inches thick.
second i will bet the beams are pushed out on the opposite side the plane went in, the plane did go in the building, and all most through.
third when the plane broke the back of the building and the heat weakend the steel more, their
was lots of building above that fell and that weight helped knock the lower portion down
Fourth this is the first time that i have heard that some of the fuel did not ignite with the other
How long was the gap a few seconds a few minutes WHAT.
fifth I GIVE UP WHO DID IT AND FOR WHAT REASON.

[Dixie Dude]

I visited the World Trade Center in 1992.  Windows were vertical from top to bottom.  It would be easy for a plane to go through the building.  Full of fuel and burning.  Easy to get the steel hot enough to give with the concrete floors pancaking down on each other.  In Pennsylvania, if the plane hit the ground at 600 mph, it would easily create a large hole and go into it, going straight down.  Don't know about the Pentagon, but do know it was built extremely strong to resist potential old fashioned bombs of the 1940's. 

[Lone Star]

Actually, the Pentagon was not built especially strong or bomb proof.  Due to material shortages in WWII, a minimum of steel was used in its construction, reducing the strength of the reinforced concrete.  In fact all critical war materials were minimized in its construction.  Enemy bombers were not considered to be a threat when the building was designed in mid-1941.

However, an author (Stephen F. Vogel) writing a history of the structure stated about the 9/11 attack that recent renovations mitigated the damage.....the aircraft struck the building at the area that, because of ongoing renovation, was least occupied and most reinforced to absorb an attack.





.

[rex6666]

What you don't understand is their was a gov. official on the ground with a BIG fishing pole
with a long line, he was reeling the plane in to make sure it hit the right spot.
is that easier to believe? than barrel roles, cart wheels, and don't forget the hoop the plane flew through.
I just love a good conspiracy, especially when most of it can be made up as we go along.