What is Digg?Sponsored by wix.com
The Ultimate Flash Website Design Tool view!
wix.com - Design a stunning website in 10 easy steps.
105 Comments
- Reziarfg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+45I am going to use the word atomized in every conversation I encounter today.
- tooslickvan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+42It reminds me of a song:
I fought the wall and the wall won
I fought the wall and the wall won - pauleku, on 10/12/2007, -3/+30wow. The plane totally atomized to dust. Thats impressive.
- subxero37, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18Hmm, it actually reminds me of that Mitch Hedberg joke... "No matter how good at tennis I become, I will never be as good as a wall."
- badken, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20Green Day? GREEN DAY?!?!
You lose at music.
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=29123800&s=143441&i=29123995 - NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16And people wonder why there didn't seem to be much debris around the pentagon on 9/11. After all, the outer wall of the pentagon is a concrete fortress.
- elroy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15...yes this video is many years old, and yet we had idiots expecting to see fully intact plane wreckage at the pentagon on 9/11. I guess the conspiracy freaks never saw this.
- jjb123, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Plus the World Trade Centers and Pentagon weren't purposely designed to be hit by a plane moving that fast, let alone a large plane.
Also, thank you for stating your ideas well and in an unbiased way, unlike the normal CAPS LOCKED rants I see on Digg's comments. - slickriven, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10One huge difference is the amount of fuel on board a passenger jet... 747s and the like carry more fuel than the entire mass of that small F4 Phantom, Fuel that burns at incredibly high temperatures. If the impact didn't destroy the planes, the burning fuel and the 60+ story collapse did the rest.
- Yez70, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9It would be cool to see the Airbus test - especially their new Megasized model.
- Chairboy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Much higher speed? It hit at roughly the same speed as the planes on 9/11. 500mph.
A small plane hitting a small wall vs. a big plane hitting a big wall....
Ok, what differences are you talking about? - brishchik, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15OK guys, let's have a constructive discussion. This video is often talked about when explaining why there is no debris at all for 9/11 attacks in the Twin Towers and Pentagon. Is it realistic? A much smaller fighter/bomber plane at a very high speed crashing into concrete walls of a nuke facility vs much bigger commercial planes with probably lower speed crashing into buildings. Too many differences for me.
Although I'm not that big of a conspiracy theorist, I still like to have open mind and try to understand things. So I'd appreciate if comments are kept constructive. - terrya64, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Depending how much the pentagon plane reduced speed when descending, they do cruise at 500-550 mph. A little faster than the speed this plane was going, not to mention the increased mass of a much bigger plane.
- parker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8samadam
though i'm not an ford safety engineer, i would guess that ford does crash at least one hundred cars in different production phases in order to get them certified. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8>Imagine is ford had to crash a hundred cars just to get them certified.
They do. Car companies do destructive testing during development, production and for 3rd parties. That, and a minefield of regulation and red tape is why it is so expensive and difficult to bring a product to market and explains why it is plain vanillia once it gets there. - TheCommodore6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6wow.
that was amazing.
that's one freaking sturdy concrete wall. - NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@gabacho - A 747 did not strike the pentagon. Why does everyone think this? It was a 757, which is smaller than a 747, despite the later model number. A 757 is a passenger jet typically with three seats on either side of one aisle, and it is one story within the passenger cabin. A 747 is a passenger jet with typically three seats on the outer edges of the plane, four in the middle, and two aisles, and has a small section at the front of the jet with two stories inside the passenger cabin.
@crgnetworks -
Were you there to smell the cordite yourself? Has there been more than one unsubstantiated report of a cordite smell?
Pieces of the engines were found, as were other small parts of the fuselage. The fiberglass nose (which is actually composite material, not fiberglass) of the jet disintegrated as expected. The large hole punched into the pentagon was caused by the landing gear, the heaviest and sturdiest part of a jet. If you don't believe me, watch this, and see what part of the plane breaks first:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2957001636351320760&q=hard+landing+test
And THAT was an old jet, at least 20 years ago.
Now stop spewing thoughtless conspiracy theories and get educated. - Justin6512, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5AWESOME!
Dugg partly because of the title! - blapierre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Innaccurate. They WERE NOT testing the concrete in this test. From Sandia National Laboratories(the organization that performed this test) website:
"The purpose of the test was to determine the impact force, versus time, due to the impact, of a complete F-4 Phantom — including both engines — onto a massive, essentially rigid reinforced concrete target (3.66 meters thick). Previous tests used F-4 engines at similar speeds. The test was not intended to demonstrate the performance (survivability) of any particular type of concrete structure to aircraft impact. The impact occurred at the nominal velocity of 215 meters per second (about 480 mph). The mass of the jet fuel was simulated by water; the effects of fire following such a collision was not a part of the test. The test established that the major impact force was from the engines. The test was performed by Sandia National Laboratories under terms of a contract with the Muto Institute of Structural Mechanics, Inc., of Tokyo."
http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/video-gallery/index.html - ronin2040, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5except, heres the thing:
flash video > wmv
actually, now that i think about it,
explosive diarrhea > WMV - mfratt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"I wonder if a B-52 bomber (or Airbus A380) would have atomized like that or eaten the wall for breakfast..."
If you increased the size and density of the wall proportinately, im sure that the wall would indeed win. - BlackCow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Fighter Plane vs. A Wall.....Wall Wins"
Thanks for ruining it for me! - cgc2020, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Pretty kickass. I wish we did practical tests these days.
- jjb123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5They did, just the tips though, as stated in the video because the wall wasn't wide enough.
- idonthack, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Breakin' planes in the hot sun
It fought the wall and the wall won
It fought the wall and the wall won
I needed specs cause I had none
It fought the wall and the wall won
It fought the wall and the wall won
I crashed the jet and it didn't move
I guess my tests are done
That's the coolest thing that I'll ever do
It fought the wall and the wall won
It fought the wall and the wall won - egbert, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5We still do practical tests. Computers are only a numerical approximation of reality. In a computer we must discretize all the values and there are also numerical accuracy problems. You try to chose numerical methods that converge and minimize error but computers are still not like doing a real test. We do a lot less practical test because the computer simulations a good enough in the early stages but in the end we still must crash things to get real results.
- Leviss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4NSMike > crgnetworks
PW0ND just didnt seem to be enough... - SlvrEagle23, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Wait a second...weren't half of you just posting comments over in the Nintendo Wii article? And now you think you can explain 9/11? With this video?!
I thought we came here to stop thinking and read/see pretty things for a while, until the real world came back over near the cubicle and bugged us. Where have we gone so wrong that we have political debates over some badass plane crash test video? - RickyBennett, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5is it just me or did the wings make it thro and past the wall ??
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4its actually the other way around..
- dbug, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12There's some pretty sweet high res pics of your mom out there too!
- Drehmini, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3ugh I hate spoilers.
way to ruin the vid for me. - Warnke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The "plane" that hit the Pentagon hit the ground before the wall. It also hit the only wall to be reinforced for that. It also left a 16 foot hole that went straight through the building...
- ronin2040, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4NSMike, thank you for pointing that out...
next time some retard comes @ me with some stupid 9/11 conspiracy, instead of just ignoring him, i can show him the video and laugh.
Awesome :D - Clemenceau, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That's pretty comforting. Glad to know that the engineers got that one right. *does a dance* go nerds, go nerds, go nerds...
- p0und, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3they say in the video that the plane is traveling at 500mph. i believe the planes that crashed on 9/11 were going about that speed.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Well, clearly the F-4 fired a missile at the brick wall before it crashed. "
I lol'd. - Joe091, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They still do tests like this. They even shot at some f-22's to determine how well they can handle punishment. Then they took whatever parts were salvageable and used them to make other f-22's.
- SourWorm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I want a car built like that ...
- DragonAura, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You want a car built like the wall or the jet?
- DragonAura, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's like magic or something.
- camino262, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Kinetic energy = 1/2 m * v^2
Increasing velocity has much more of an impact on kinetic energy than increasing mass does. If we know the mass of the plane and the velocity, one can easily extrapolate the energy released by a different plane at the same velocity. The wall won this one so if the KE is less than this experiment we should expect any combination of mass and velocity to not go through the wall (when the object is made of the same materials and shape of a plane). - suicycle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@crgnetworks:
'Tell me where the wings, tail section, and engines are then.'
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/index.html - AceTracer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Where are all the conspiracy theorists asking where the remains of the plane are?
- scottylist, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I wonder if a B-52 bomber (or Airbus A380) would have atomized like that or eaten the wall for breakfast...
- Chesterfield, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No, absolutely no wall penetration whatsoever!! The wall was pushed back.
I'll try to find the correct link, but it did less than an inch of damage to the concrete!
Meanwhile, I'll post this again, for a better look.
http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/video-gallery/index.html - nexah3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Glad to see my tax dollars coming back to entertain me.
- ronin2040, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@0101010
*tries to reverse sentence, "The more you do it the more you think it is the real thing."....*
*head asplodes* - apache2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'll bet that wall is hot:)
- Chesterfield, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1
Flaky site, but lots of links and compelling science from this dude... -
Show 51 - 100 of 106 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is