Total Destruction Redux: F4 Phantom vs. Concrete Wall - Additional Camera Angles
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- For those of you who missed the first installment or are otherwise curious to know what's going on (beyond the obvious), the other video is here: • Total Destruction: F4 ...
This footage is of a test conducted on April 19, 1988, at a rocket sled facility at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in which an actual F-4 Phantom aircraft was impacted at a nominal velocity of 500 miles per hour into a rigid block of concrete. This was accomplished by supporting the F-4 on four struts that were attached to the sled track by carriage shoes to direct the path of the aircraft. Propulsion was accomplished by two stages of rockets. The concrete target was 'floated' on a set of air bearings. Results: An atomized plane. Cool.
I hope the pilot was wearing a seatbelt.
He's a daring man if he wasnt
What plane?? All I see are parts
There was no pilot
@@X-JAKA7 Well it’s no wonder it crashed then. Pretty irresponsible if you ask me.
@@xxkq0 dumbfuck, you can’t see it’s obviously locked on a track
Needed a camera angle of the guys witnessing it, jumping up and down, high five'n each other and screaming: "What an awesome job we have".
Some dancing Israelis?
I've been watching this poor Phantom chasing into the wall for years now. The camera seems to shut off immediately after the impact, I want to know what the wall looked like AFTER the crash. How did the wall hold up?
This video's description contains a link to another video from the same test. That's where you'll find the aftermath footage you are looking for. Enjoy :)
Sir is that all you want cause I'm on the phone with Biden and he said he'll get right on it....
And people say 911 planes are real..
TLDW: the wall holds up pretty well!
literally my exact thought process where tf is the whole video at!!!????
they are testing the pilots helmet
they were probably testing the cameras
Lmaooo
... or concrete wall. ))
They where testing the air
No they are testing the concrete if it is suitable for building and if a f4 phantom crashes into it XD
Props to the concrete wall for amazingly surviving this crash. Insane how far the concrete wall safety has come!
This video has more views than pixels.
Welcome to 1988.
What You Haven't Seen Really impressive quality for a 30 years old high speed camera. Some videos made by phone today are worse than this.
Werner Kvalem Vesterås . sir genius calculation. I admit l'm wrong. Thank you.
Countdown TV has more cameras than pixels.
What an asshole!!!
This is part of the new stress training for the pilots. The ones that survive get their wings.
The ones who don't, also get wings!😮
dont forget the purple heart for mr. poststamp
Perhaps they could use this technique on aircraft carriers to rapidly reduce a plane's speed after landing.
Arresting gear does that already. Jets are on full ab when they trap. From going full ab to an abrupt stop within seconds is pretty fucking crazy
Looks like a 100% pilot casualty rate tho... Looks pretty dangerous to me lol
There’s no way a ship can withstand that force. The force isn’t just going to the concrete, it’s also going to the ground.
@@Lucifurian66x it was a joke
And people say 911 planes are real..
So an F-4 can't fly through a concrete wall. Good safety tip.
Yet a Boeing 777 can go through a concrete and steel building like it was made of butter :) Makes you wonder don't you think?
This was a test of the nation's nuclear reactor construction to ensure that they would withstand such an impact.
If you say so.
MegAndJas
Are you comparing a relatively light and maneuverable plane, the F-4 Phantom, made to go over Mach 2 and do evasive maneuvers, to a large and heavy plane made to carry things?
it didnt really come out, it just exploded into dust and little chunks of airplane bits
I love how the wing tips keep going
As a phantom lover, this hurts.😮
Wow I don’t understand why it didn’t just cut through it like butter. Like Wiley coyote running through the side of a mountain!!??
It’s just concrete? Not like it 2“ x 2“ x 2“ x 2“ box steel columns or 47 - 6” thick interior structural columns.
That did much less damage than a non military flying hollow aluminum tube that I know of that made perfectly round 16’ holes through 3 outer walls, 3 inner walls and damaging the 4th outer wall of an impenetrable 5 ring Pentagon shaped building!!
Didn't we do this one already? That you don't understand how your "comparison" failed isn't anything other than a failure on your part.
@@mooneyes2k478 No refresh my memory how a flying aluminum tube cuts through 2" x 2" x 2" x 2" structural steel box columns like a hot knife going into butter?
At any given angle it would be cutting through 4 " of structural steel. That is thicker than the armor on a World War II tank. And the only thing that could penetrate that armor was a shaped charge explosive.
Not a flying aluminum tube that when they hit birds the birds literally imbed them selves into the fuselage or wing of the plane.
That is because the birds flesh is stronger than the aluminum.
Yeah you live in a fantasy world where you think aluminum can cut through structural steel.
Maybe pull up some videos of plane junkyards where the planes are being pulled apart like paper with backhoes.
Maybe you should pull up some pictures of planes that have crashed where they fall apart like papier-mâché, telephone poles destroy their wings in crash test, there's even a picture out there of a plane that hit a giraffes neck with its wing on landing.
Just about took the wing off of the plane and the giraffes neck was still intact.
But then again you believe aluminum and cut through 4 inches of structural steel AND make a PERFECTLY round 16' hole through 3 outer and inner inner rings of an impenetrable building!!!
Yep the engines made out of titanium and weighing multiple tons each did not even make a mark on the pentagons walls just the hollow fuselage!!
🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑
@@JLDJR "No refresh my memory how a flying aluminum tube cuts through 2" x 2" x 2" x 2" structural steel box columns like a hot knife going into butter?"
Which then missed on "aluminium tube", clearly an attempt to make an airplane be far less than it is, on the "2 inch" et cetera nonsense since the columns didn't have those measures in any way...and I particularly like the 4 dimensions. Very impressive....
And of course the "hot knife through butter", showing you have no understanding of what happened.
"At any given angle it would be cutting through 4 " of structural steel. "
At no angle would it cut through 4 inches of anything.
It is however interesting that you use armor thickness as an argument. The M1A1 Abrams tank has an armor thickness of 600mm of composite armor backed by a 100mm steel plate liner. That's 23 + 4 inches, more or less. And if you think that an Abrams will withstand the impact of 250 thousand pounds moving at 500 mph, you're delusional.
"Not a flying aluminum tube that when they hit birds the birds literally imbed them selves into the fuselage or wing of the plane."
And then, when they land, the maintenance crew push the dent out, wash the plane off, and that's it. The "oh, look at what birds do" claim is utter nonsense, made by people that either don't have the brains to understand the situation, or who're making intentional false claims.
"Yeah you live in a fantasy world where you think aluminum can cut through structural steel."
No, I don't "think". I KNOW. See, I have actually bothered to find the facts out. Amazing, that.
"Maybe pull up some videos[...]"
"Maybe you should pull up some pictures[...]"
So, your "arguments" are something completely irrelevant? Cool, you do you.
"Just about took the wing off of the plane and the giraffes neck was still intact."
You think a giraffes neck is able to withstand, much less take the wing off of, an airliner?
Yeah, what was that you were saying about a fantasy world?! For your own sake, get off those drugs.
"But then again you believe aluminum and cut through 4 inches of structural steel AND make a PERFECTLY round 16' hole through 3 outer and inner inner rings of an impenetrable building!!!"
No, I don't. Then again, that never happened so it's entirely irrelevant that I don't. That you think this nonsense is REAL, much less an argument? Says pretty much everything there is to know about you.
"Yep the engines made out of titanium and weighing multiple tons each did not even make a mark on the pentagons walls just the hollow fuselage!!"
REPEATING things that have no connection to reality? Doesn't make them real. All it does is make you even more obviously a joke.
And there's no need for you to admit you're a sheep, this was already known. ALL "truthers" are sheep, completely unable to think for themselves and just bleating along with the loudest voice in your herd.
@@JLDJR No? Nothing? Oh, WHAT a shock!
@@mooneyes2k478
yer just stoopud
A few moments later, somewhere in the concrete, the pilot's Nokia 3310 is heard buzzing away to an incoming call...
But on 9/11 the plane came through the other side.
Amazing eh.
1988 SloMo Guys
artemkras before it was cool
Adam Rycroft ))))
Wish it was 1988 again.
1960*
That test was performed in the 60s
welcome to the hydraulic press channel!
M8y The Phentom ees ekstreemely dangerous, ant ve must deal vid eet
::inhale:: ACTUALLY ITS THE HYU DRAULIC PRESS CHA NELL...
its "gvelcumm to deh hydroolic pless channelle" as he says it.
It’s been said that behind that wall there is a magic train station that will take you to Hogwarts.
xD
Considering the make-believe put out by the average "truther", not entirely unlikely.
9/11 just got a lil less conspiracy theorish
Did the wall crash to the ground?
We're they testing the airplane or the wall ?
Phillip Lopez the wall simulates nuke plant construction.
Phillip Lopez wall
Phillip Lopez wall test for nuke power plant.
the concrete block was made to the spec for the containment building surrounding a nuclear reactor.
Were*
I didnt know they do airbag tests on the phantom 😂😂😂😂
Wonderful example of physics in action
Not enough camera angles.
D-Frame
Right! I wanted 2 or 3 of people witnessing it, jumping up and down, high five'n each other and screaming: "What an awesome job we have".
D-Frame exactly what i thought of. The number of filming angels were awful for this type of test.
Talk, talk, talk. Who said that this is all the footage/material taken in that test? Leave it to the experts, armchair engineer.
@@houstonhelicoptertours1006 lol humour is not your what u were made for I guess?
@@Mrcl5902
Learn to spell, simpleton.
Some 'after' footage would have been nice...
I've seen it. There is no plane. Its gone. The deepest marks on the wall were 2.4 inches.
Planes are made of aluminum. Contrary to popular belief, aluminum planes don't break concrete and steel buildings.
@@rastapatchmail2357 yeah and people still think a plane wrecked the pentagon
@@user-pr9qb6yi9w your stupid hahaha literally so many eye witnesses
@@jackpeters4930 first of all its "you're stupid" and second many " eye witnesses " were paid actors or were told to say the same script every other person did
@@kaznjenik111 "Paid actors" lmao dumbass
Who else is here because they don't think an aluminium plane could ghost through the WTC?
Me!
is the wtc a solid block of concrete? NO The towers were designed and built in the mid-1960s through the early 1970s. They represented a new approach to skyscrapers in that they were to be very lightweight and involved modular construction methods in order to accelerate the schedule and to reduce the costs. To a structural engineer, a skyscraper is modeled as a large cantilever vertical column. Each tower was 64 m square, standing 411 m above street level and 21 m below grade. This produces a height-to-width ratio of 6.8. The total weight of the structure was roughly 500,000 t, but wind load, rather than the gravity load, dominated the design. The building is a huge sail that must resist a 225 km/h hurricane. It was designed to resist a wind load of 2 kPa-a total of lateral load of 5,000 t. In order to make each tower capable of withstanding this wind load, the architects selected a lightweight “perimeter tube” design consisting of 244 exterior columns of 36 cm square steel box section on 100 cm centers (see Figure 3). This permitted windows more than one-half meter wide. Inside this outer tube there was a 27 m × 40 m core, which was designed to support the weight of the tower. It also housed the elevators, the stairwells, and the mechanical risers and utilities. Web joists 80 cm tall connected the core to the perimeter at each story. Concrete slabs were poured over these joists to form the floors. In essence, the building is an egg-crate construction that is about 95 percent air, explaining why the rubble after the collapse was only a few stories high. Flames and debris exploded from the World Trade Center south tower immediately after the airplane’s impact. The black smoke indicates a fuel-rich fire (Getty Images). As the heat of the fire intensified, the joints on the most severely burned floors gave way, causing the perimeter wall columns to bow outward and the floors above them to fall. The buildings collapsed within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km/h The egg-crate construction made a redundant structure (i.e., if one or two columns were lost, the loads would shift into adjacent columns and the building would remain standing). Prior to the World Trade Center with its lightweight perimeter tube design, most tall buildings contained huge columns on 5 m centers and contained massive amounts of masonry carrying some of the structural load. The WTC was primarily a lightweight steel structure; however, its 244 perimeter columns made it “one of the most redundant and one of the most resilient” skyscrapers. The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable. The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage. While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure. Of equal or even greater significance during this initial impact was the explosion when 90,000 L gallons of jet fuel, comprising nearly 1/3 of the aircraft’s weight, ignited. The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse (FigurThe fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true. Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel. In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame. A jet burner generally involves mixing the fuel and the oxidant in nearly stoichiometric proportions and igniting the mixture in a constant-volume chamber. Since the combustion products cannot expand in the constant-volume chamber, they exit the chamber as a very high velocity, fully combusted, jet. This is what occurs in a jet engine, and this is the flame type that generates the most intense heat.
In a pre-mixed flame, the same nearly stoichiometric mixture is ignited as it exits a nozzle, under constant pressure conditions. It does not attain the flame velocities of a jet burner. An oxyacetylene torch or a Bunsen burner is a pre-mixed flame. In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace flame is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types. If the fuel and the oxidant start at ambient temperature, a maximum flame temperature can be defined. For carbon burning in pure oxygen, the maximum is 3,200°C; for hydrogen it is 2,750°C. Thus, for virtually any hydrocarbons, the maximum flame temperature, starting at ambient temperature and using pure oxygen, is approximately 3,000°C.
This maximum flame temperature is reduced by two-thirds if air is used rather than pure oxygen. The reason is that every molecule of oxygen releases the heat of formation of a molecule of carbon monoxide and a molecule of water. If pure oxygen is used, this heat only needs to heat two molecules (carbon monoxide and water), while with air, these two molecules must be heated plus four molecules of nitrogen. Thus, burning hydrocarbons in air produces only one-third the temperature increase as burning in pure oxygen because three times as many molecules must be heated when air is used. The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C-hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C. But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.2,3 It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich-hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750-800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best. Some reports suggest that the aluminum from the aircraft ignited, creating very high temperatures. While it is possible to ignite aluminum under special conditions, such conditions are not commonly attained in a hydrocarbon-based diffuse flame. In addition, the flame would be white hot, like a giant sparkler. There was no evidence of such aluminum ignition, which would have been visible even through the dense soot. It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire. The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform.
@@HaiderAli-ot2gg you're out of your damn mind if you think I'm reading that 🤡
Who the hell would even attempt to read your copy and paste crap. And secondly, no plane will go through aluminium, you absolute weapon.
@@oasis4185 well you did read it because you tried to answer it. And failed horribly 🤣 what are you going on about? Who said anything about a plane going through aluminium? 🤣🤣 nutter
People are always surprised by how very little debris there is left after an event like that; most of that cloud at impact is pulverized bits of aluminum. An aircraft like that is a big, heavy, complex machine, but its individual bits and pieces are pretty fragile.
Im more wondering, how did the nose of the plane exit while intact, the other side of the twin tower.
@@Joshua40because physics took a day off
Anything that is made from fine dust or liquid, can be returned to this form [with enough pressure or heat].
NIST would say otherwise
Except on 9/11 right?
So after watching this does anyone think a commercial jet really did what it did to the pentagon???
Well, considering that it wasent designed like the containment vessel of a nuclear reactor, snd that a fighter is a bit smaller then a passenger jet... yeah
@@HazraPanda Wow, really ?
@@deusvolt2146 Yes, really; which part of his comment is confusing you?
Well, it did, and there are many dead people to prove it, so there’s that. Smh
An aluminum jet made a 16ft hole through several 4ft thick concrete walls without leaving a piece of landing gear not one piece of titanium out of those engines. Not to mention the wings are 150ft wide. Listen the 911 commission raised more questions than they answered. Never even mentioned wtc7 in it. I'm questioning this still because I will never forget and I do it in honor of all the lives lost. Thank you
This test was conducted on Tuesday, April 19, 1988
At least the wing tip survived...
"So how did grandpa die in the war, mom?"
"It's complicated..."
I want to launch planes into walls for a living 😧
theres a job for that, its called terrorism, buts its not a very sought after job
@@noodlepotreal Retirement benefits suck.
Join the government
@@marianconstantindumitriu6062 however there is talk of numerous virgins
They’ve done it before.
This was not a fully functioning F-4 but was a fully fitted F-4, engines and all. Jet fuel was simulated with water. A rocket sled provided the speed.
When I think of all the work that went into the design and construction of even an F-4, this utter destruction is so sad.
I think its an old one that doesnt work anymore and they just strapped some rocket to it.
Since there is a prevalence of people failing basic physics and math, here, why don't we take a look at this from a "WTC" point of view, as it were.
By pausing the video at about 1 second in, it is possible to get a shot where the full length of the F4 and the concrete block are both in view. Doing this allow a simple measurement of the block, and the plane. Using my own screen set at 1920x1080 resolution, the block is approximately 42 millimeters wide, using a standard ruler, while the F4 is approximately 165 millimeters long. This means that, with a bit of division, we find that the block width is about 25 percent of the plane length. Since the length of the F4 Phantom is easy to find, 63 feet, we can then easily find out that the block is 16 and some fractions feet thick.
And if anyone think that a concrete wall 16 feet thick has any bearing on any reasonably normal building in the world, they're smoking things.
But, let's not stop there. Let us continue the observations. It is, despite what is noted in the video description, the case that the block is "floated" on a set of air bearings, and thus is not actually fastened
to the ground, allowing the block to give way in order to reduce the impact. This, too, is not something that is really common in ordinary walls, it would rather defeat the purpose of the concept of "wall".
And then, of course, we come to the last part of the equation, as it were, the plane itself. The building for which this would be even remotely relevant would be the Pentagon, it being the one building of the three struck by airplanes, that weren't built in a "tube in a tube" high-rise construction manner. This is relevant as it allows us to specify what kind of a plane struck it, to wit a Boeing 757.
Now, the speed is approximately the same, near as not to 500 mph, but impact energy is not only dependent on speed but also on mass. The MTOW, or Maximum Take-Off Weight of an F4 Phantom is 61,795 pounds. There is no way you can get the aircraft off the ground under its own power if there is more weight loaded than that. The Boeing 757-200, on the other hand, has an OEW, or Operating Empty Weight, of 128,840 pounds. That is the MINIMUM weight that the aircraft will have and be considered functional. There is NO extra fuel in the tanks, no crew, no passengers, no cargo or service load, nothing other than the aircraft with the required liquids. That means that, no matter how much you cut and slice it, the F4 cannot and do not weigh more than approximately half the weight of a 757. And the 757 was not empty. It had crew, passengers, cargo and enough fuel to be able to do a planned flight from Dulles Virginia to Los Angeles.
All of which, of course, leads to the conclusion that this video, while a cool video, has absolutely NO bearings what-so-ever on the attack on the Pentagon, much less the Twin Towers.
Planes can't fly 500mph at sea level , they would break up way before.
@@deusvolt2146 Which is nonsense.
Specific speeds are irrelevant. What matters is the Mach number. And for the B757, that's 0.82. At less than 1500 feet, at 15 degrees C, that equates to 653 mph. The plane had significant margins of speed even BEFORE the safety margins.
The only reason you would not is because it'd upset the passengers and annoy the maintenance crews. You think the terrorist cared about either?
you forgot about the Core columns , stoopud
1. Show the collision at full speed, not slow motion. 2. Show the wall after the dust has cleared.
Gosh, I hope the pilot was okay.
They need to do a steel beam next 😂
Or maybe a giant rubberband.
0:02 Lucky wingtip
9/11
Never forget.
my dad was part of this operation. apparently the wall was barely even phased and was proven it could withstand a nuclear blast of whatever proportion they calculated.
Heh, then your Dad knows my Dad.
@@ericdahlgren8482 cool bro. when I was in the 4th grade my mother recognized a picture of the event in my history book. I didn't believe her then my father showed me a picture of him sitting on the launcher.
@@ericdahlgren8482if i ever have the chance ill ask him if he recalls your last name
fazed
I want to see what that solid block of concrete looks like after the collision.
2-inch divot in the center.
I watched something similar to this at Sandia Labs. All the people were at the origin point and no one was at the end point. You had to look all the way down before the shot or you would not see anything except a bunch of smoke.
Yeah, the rocket sled was crazy fast. Remember watching them shoot it off at family day and the thing would be over before you even heard the engine start. Crazy fast.
I think the first time I saw this was on an episode of "Wings" on the Discovery Channel back in the early 1990s. Used to watch that program nearly every day after work.
See... I told you phantoms just disappear
This was from a test to see if the concrete walls of a nuclear powerstation met the requirments of not breaking down if someone flew a jet in to them.
ya made it onto Daily Dose of Internet with this one, congrats man!
Fasxinating how the nose of the plane seems to be completely absorbed by the concrete block and then the wings cut the block in half before the tail section blows everything that is left to bits.
And they told me matter can be neither created or destroyed.
ReydelaFrita laws haha right, laws are made to be broken!
How does this compare in scale to the concrete and steel used to build the twin towers?
the twin towers must've been made out of paper because the nose of the 2nd plane came out the other side of the building still intact
Not a Phantom???? :'-(
Oh man....
Can't they do that with an F-35? #evilgrin
Amazon
Hot sweaty knickers
W
Jon Doe, a zero content zero history troll doing what Putin pays hi,/her/it to do -- bad mouth the F-35. Interestingly, if Russian actually thought the F-35 was/is a turkey they would be praising it in the hopes that the US and its alias buy more of them wasting there money. But, that's not what the Russian backed trolls are doing is it. No, they are going after it big time. Me thinks there afraid of it.
Raptorman0909 or maybe they want you to think they're afraid or even crazier they actually think its shit or even more crazier they don't care
Seriously, internet trolls getting paid? What? Plus why didnt your govt choose the f 15 stealth version rather than the f 35, its even more cost effective yet still capable
I guess the "PULL UP, PULL UP!" warning voice was broken.
Last thing to go through the pilots mind would be the rudder! Not be much left after an impact like this.
No the last thing would be his butt.
Crazy the camera men who were recording below the jet. I hope they didn’t get burned from the flames
I saw something similar to this in New York, but it was the building that got destroyed.
Yep the building had aluminum cladding vs 6ft of reinforced concrete.
@@miguellopez3392
as a safety precaution I now ride my motorcycle as fast as possible everywhere I go, so that in the event of a crash I will pass through the collision object, instead of splatting upon its surface.
@beefquiche yep crashing into a net vs a solid wall is a better choice.
@@miguellopez3392 yep, better to hit a skyscraper than a wall of the pent@gon
So, basically, you managed nothing even remotely coherent or relevant? Good work!
Atleast the passports of the pilots still survived
I would like to see the aftermath pictures, they might be classified?
They're out there, it mostly looks like a black outline of an F4 imprinted onto the wall. Try googling "F4 Phantom Concrete Wall Test" and looking through images.
They tested the wall, just to see how strong it can be. Nothing worthy to be classified, because it’s just hard ass concrete.
There's a link in the description of the aftermath
Its cool watching concrete being compressed
what are you talking about?? All i see is it being sprayed out the sides?
Rest in peace F-4.
my grandpa david bickel did this test at sandia labs in new mexico the exact one
🎻
It is a great shame that at no point do they show whatever is left. Lots of concrete dust and then the footage stops. My guess is there is a substantial blob of metal in the trench below the concrete slab. Never seen an aircraft vaporise yet, no matter the speed. And this footage never comes close to showing an example, sadly. But if they omit the last bit of footage, it sure looks convincing to most I guess.
Ehh... you must have missed the other video I linked in the description. There's the footage you're looking for.
Hope u don’t mind had to reverse vid to watch it get reassembled 😊
It’s too traumatic leaving it in bits and pieces😢
The F4 is my favourite ❤
What did they expect to happen ? It bounce off and roll a few times ?
Haha. No, if they watch how a building responds to a 767… it goes right through leaving a cartoonish aircraft shaped hole and then explodes from the inside.
@@wolf7bb brilliant 😂
@@wolf7bbbingo!
They were testing the wall :)
Almost as if an aircraft would do very little damage to a reinforced concrete structure such as say a wall,or tower.....
Except on 9-11 when an aluminum aircraft could slice through steel and melt the beams.
@@yuanyuanzeng6442 Almost as if you didn't have any understanding at all. Impressive.
@@yuanyuanzeng6442 how does a soft lead bullet go through much harder steel plate in your universe?
@@slooob23 it doesn't. What the hell are you talking about?
@@yuanyuanzeng6442 good grief 🙄
That’s 12 feet of reinforced concrete which the F-4 hit at 480 mph.
12 feet of, pretty much, FLYING concrete, no less.
The wtc buildings and the pentagon weren't concrete structures designed to stop planes during test crashes? How about that. This comes as a surprise to you?
No, they weren't. WTC was built with a light exoskeleton that was used to suspend floors. No building g on earth has 4 foot of concrete at that height. Other than a bunker or vault, no building anywhere does.
How to quickly and efficiently pulverize your unused stuff so it takes less space in your trash bin.
Test unsuccesful as the plane didn’t pierce the concrete wall. I expect minimum 20 meter penetration so you can build Kamikaze bomb wings.
And the Sheeple 🐑🐑believe 2 planes brought down 3 buildings in 911..😂😂🤷♂️🤷♂️
Skyscrapers are made out of glass and Steel not concrete that was designed to withstand nuclear blasts
loqOpoi building was reinforced by stew and concrete floors. Zero identifiable plane parts with serial codes to match the airliners were ever found or revealed. Yet somehow a perfectly unscathed terrorist passport was found on the streets of NYC.
@@threezus912 Not saying the passport thing is real what i was saying is that planes can pierce skyscrapers with ease
THREEZUS have you ever watched the 9:11 documentary about the french naudet Brothers?
One of them litterally walked a couple of blocks down from the first crash, where he stumbled accross one off the main engines that flew directly trough the building, and landen on a busy street.
Stop spreading your bullshit.
sooo...where the checking if the concrete wall would stand?
What exactly does this test verify?
That the air bags will deploy
The ability of nuclear reactor containment walls to withstand an impact from an airplane.
Now I know why the Phantoms have been withdrawn from active service: they actually failed the safety tests…
This looks like a normal episode of MythBusters
This video is often referenced for what happened to the plane that struck the Pentagon. People decried that a plane hit the pentagon because there was little to no evidence afterward, but as you can see here, the plane is completely atomized.
Maybe they were testing walls. All they had was the F-4 laying around to use.
They were doing exactly that. And while they likely had other things to test with, the F4 was no longer in service, and the air-frame is fairly aerodynamic.
@@mooneyes2k478
“There’s a hole in your left wing”
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
for those who dont understand, in the game of War Thunder while playing the Aircraft gamemode, you will often hear this phrase when your plane is hit by enemy fire. Even if your whole plane is crashing the radio in the game will say
"There is a whole in your left wing" even though you could be missing your whole cabin. That is why it is funny.
@@tofu3789 imagine explaining this
Pugz Grinny I think hes being ironic he has to be
And yet there are 911 expert skeptics wondering why there is no tail section of the jet airliner that crashed into the Pentagon.
You can’t see the difference between this impact, and the impact into the towers? Check your eyes
I certainly hope this is border-wall testing! :-)
They'd have to make it pretty tall to keep jets out though.
What was the mph for this here obstruction. Amazing to see a spectacular creation dedicated thinkers can discover to learn. I’d like to share more information. From there pass on credit.
Hope the pilot was ok ;)
Sandia National Labs high speed test rail. Solid rocket fuel used for propulsion.
I used to work at a lab on Kirtland Air Force Base about three or four miles from where these tests were done. Rocket motors, particularly a brace of them are Extremely Loud.
Install a Airbag and the Pilot is save 👍
Guess they had it trimmed just right as to not try to go anywhere except perfectly straight... Or maybe a very small (relatively speaking) amount of downward force. Cool film.
And that is how you scrap an f4
Ron Johnson
Liquefy?
Pulverize?
Atomize?
Scrap seems to be a different scale.
Making chaff out of an aluminum airplane. How about a titanium Blackbird SR71?
Is the pilot allowed to keep small fragments as a souvenir?
They are testing passports surviving an impact at 500mph
Hello, clueless.
lol, people know, their out their, just quiet. good point, passports of terrorist were found amongs 911 plane crash.
@@originsdecoded3508 Among dozens of other things from ordinary passengers. Which never get mentioned. Why IS that, exactly? Might it be because it disprove the "truther" nonsense.
@@mooneyes2k478 yeah you know the whole truth. be proud, keep quiet, and let others think.
@@originsdecoded3508 If you can't think when someone provide factual rebuttals to your claims? That's entirely on you, and nothing else. You might want to consider why, exactly, that is....
Passport survived the test and was recovered.
lol
Would have been interesting to see at speed once.
See here for aftermath and actual-speed footage: ruclips.net/video/U4wDqSnBJ-k/видео.html
Oh shit they made a teleporter
They should have put a couple of pig carcasses dressed in flight suits in the cockpit to show the effects of a high speed damage to pilots for medical and forensic evaluation
steve lewis well, judging by the state of the plane after impact, the carcasses would no longer exist
C Man I would say there would be biological stains left, but because the outer layer of the concrete was vaporized, the stains would be wiped away.
Great idea, it would be quicker than the electric chair or lethal injection, and prove invaluable to research into crash forensics
Peter Laing - next time 6" armor plate on the concrete?
I'll burn some bacon for you - it'll be close enough.
30 angles of a plane hitting a test wall but no camera angles of rockets coming from space landing on sea ships.
That concrete wall is far more thick-skinned than all the users on Twitter combined
Bro you got me dying 😐😐😐😐
Why, did you expect anything else would happen ?
And people still believe a plane went through a building and came out the other end 😂😂
Literally nobody thinks it came out the other side
@@exavicampos5457 footage shows the plane coming out the other side. It's doctored footage but that's what he's talking about. And only 🐑🐑🐑 believe it's possible.
This walls were designed to resist this kind of impact, that's why they are being tested in this way.
Normal buildings are not built like this because constructing something like a skyscraper that can whitstand one of these hits would be really expensive, difficult and wouldn't make sense since planes don't go crashing into buildings that often.
It annoys me to no end that the aftermath of the crash isn't shown
When you have to show conspiracy theorist that planes can in fact be vaporized hitting hard enough walls and buildings.
Ignoring that "vaporized" means "was made out of water", this was already known. There's no connection to any conspiracy theory, though.
@@mooneyes2k478 Back in the day there was a popular 9/11 conspiracy theory, which claimed that the Pentagon could not have been hit by a plane, because there wasn't enough debris and not enough damage to the building.
Didn’t make a dent in that concrete wall but you believe one could go thru two layers of reinforced concrete at the pentagon.
....but still go completely through the thick steel beams at the trade center ? Now who's the conspiracy theorist ? Fragile aluminum wingtips cutting steel is impossible.
@@deusvolt2146 Don't forget plastic noses of 767's can go all the way through buildings without damage yet hit seagulls and dent them! 🤣🤣
one of my favourite video on Internet
concrete wall : *NO*
This video is very incomplete. We can see the collison from many angles, but ONLY from the side of the collision.
We can not see from the other side. Can the phantom break throgh the concrete wall? Can we see any part of the airplane (it has strong parts also, not only thin aluminium plates) apearing on the other side?
So, from these angles the gigantic smoke covers all important details in the end of the collision, we can see the start of collision only (because of the smoke cold), but the finish would be much more interesting.
there's another video . it did not go through the wall
Ok.........now we know.........aluminium planes don't penetrate concrete buildings...............where have we seen this before???
Nowhere. Imagine that.
@@mooneyes2k478 you're right the WTCs were taken down with controled explosions and DEWs
@@conradlamoureux4557 And magic. Don't forget the magic. Oh, and the aliens of course.
@@conradlamoureux4557 Nope, they weren't.
And the twin towers weren't made of such a thick concrete wall either.
@@conradlamoureux4557 Plane Vs concrete building?
Look at the El Al crash on Amsterdam.
According to you, the plane could not have penetrated the concrete appartement complex.
Wow, where can i purchase that kind of concrete.
Planes are made of aluminum. Contrary to popular belief, aluminum planes don't break concrete and steel buildings.
So, basically, you have no actual understanding of even the most basic of physics?
@@mooneyes2k478
Oh, please do enlighten me.
@@rastapatchmail2357 Don't mind if I do,
So, why don't we take a look at this from a "WTC" point of view, as it were.
By pausing the video at about 1 second in, it is possible to get a shot where the full length of the F4 and the concrete block are both in view. Doing this allow a simple measurement of the block, and the plane. Using my own screen set at 1920x1080 resolution, the block is approximately 42 millimeters wide, using a standard ruler, while the F4 is approximately 165 millimeters long. This means that, with a bit of division, we find that the block width is about 25 percent of the plane length. Since the length of the F4 Phantom is easy to find, 63 feet, we can then easily find out that the block is about 16 feet thick.
And if you think that a concrete wall 16 feet thick has any bearing on any reasonably normal building in the world, you're smoking things.
But, let's not stop there. Let us continue the observations. It is, despite what is noted in the video description, the case that the block is "floated" on a set of air bearings, and thus is not actually fastened to the ground, allowing the block to give way in order to reduce the impact. This, too, is not something that is really common in ordinary walls, it would rather defeat the purpose of the concept of "wall".
And then, of course, we come to the last part of the equation, as it were, the plane itself. The building for which this would be even remotely relevant would be the Pentagon, it being the one building of the three struck by airplanes, that weren't built in a "tube in a tube" high-rise construction manner. This is relevant as it allows us to specify what kind of a plane struck it, to wit a Boeing 757.
Now, the speed is approximately the same, near as not to 500 mph, but impact energy is not only dependent on speed but also on mass. The MTOW, or Maximum Take-Off Weight of an F4 Phantom is 61,795 pounds. There is no way you can get the aircraft off the ground under its own power if there is more weight loaded than that. The Boeing 757-200, on the other hand, has an OEW, or Operating Empty Weight, of 128,840 pounds. That is the MINIMUM weight that the aircraft will have and be considered functional. There is NO extra fuel in the tanks, no crew, no passengers, no cargo or service load, nothing other than the aircraft with the required liquids. That means that, no matter how much you cut and slice it, the F4 cannot and do not weigh more than approximately half the weight of a 757. And the 757 was not empty. It had crew, passengers, cargo and enough fuel to be able to do a planned flight from Dulles Virginia to Los Angeles.
All of which, of course, leads to the conclusion that this video, while a cool video, has absolutely NO bearings what-so-ever on the attack on the Pentagon, much less the Twin Towers.
Add then to this that the tensile strength of the various "aircraft" grades of aluminium are approximately the same, and in several cases greater than, the strength of A36 industrial steel, as was used in the towers, as well as the basic physics formula of KE=½m*v^2...and we see that your claim is nonsense.
Would you like to try again?
@@mooneyes2k478
There's no need for me to try again. Your technical jargon doesn't change the point. It's a bigger aluminum can vs a bigger concrete structure.
@@rastapatchmail2357 Which, what do you know, wasn't a concrete structure, and wasn't an aluminium can.
But, don't worry. No-one realizes that "your technical jargon" means that you're a moron unable to comprehend basic physics, and you don't hafta SO THERE!
Except anyone who reads your reply, of course.
In case you just joined us you are watching " roller coasters" gone bad