F4 Phantom vs. Wall

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - F4 Phantom vs. Wall

Posted: 12/1/2007 7:56:52 AM EDT

Probably a dupe but damn....

www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8&feature=related (NOT a Rick Roll)

Posted: 12/1/2007 8:00:13 AM EDT

[#1]

That video needs to be shown to all the conspiracy assholes who ask "where did the plane at the Pentagon go?" and claim it was a missle or something idiotic.

Posted: 12/1/2007 8:02:25 AM EDT

[#2]

Awesome.

Posted: 12/1/2007 8:04:09 AM EDT

[#3]

Kind of like a Hemi Challenger in Vanishing Point.

Posted: 12/1/2007 8:04:44 AM EDT

[#4]

Poor F-4!

Posted: 12/1/2007 8:10:29 AM EDT

[#5]

Couple of pics from that test.

Posted: 12/1/2007 8:12:37 AM EDT

[#6]

But it doesn't appear that there is any plane parts left over after the explosion.. It must not have been an airplane..a missile perhaps?

Posted: 12/1/2007 8:13:42 AM EDT

[#7]

Now thats gonna take a lot of buffing to get out

Posted: 12/1/2007 8:26:18 AM EDT

[#8]

That wall was designed to protect Nuclear reactors, its a cool test to see.

It also the reason why the 757 that hit the Pentagon was destroyed because the side that was hit had been recently renovated and had new amorered windows and structual reinforcement added.

Posted: 12/1/2007 8:33:10 AM EDT

[#9]

that's the kind of wall we need to protect us from LEO's and zombies!!!

Posted: 12/1/2007 8:34:15 AM EDT

[#10]

Damn that's cool.

Posted: 12/1/2007 8:48:42 AM EDT

[#11]

I've always wondered, "what would happen if I flew my F4 into a reinforced concreted wall?", and now I know.

Who said the Internet wasn't good for anything!

Posted: 12/1/2007 9:21:45 AM EDT

[#12]

That gets a "HELLA EXPENSIVE COOLNESS" award.

Posted: 12/1/2007 9:24:21 AM EDT

[#13]

In before Rodent.

Posted: 12/1/2007 9:28:09 AM EDT

[#14]

I witnessed an F-4 crash when I was an SP stationed at Osan, AB, ROK in late 1986. Pilot took off and had engine problems and was trying to fly around and land when he crashed and slid for about 200 yards before crashing into a reinforced plane hanger. Biggest pieces left were the engines!! That plane missed the Weapons Storage Area by yard as well as several HUGE fuel tanks!!!

Posted: 12/1/2007 9:31:50 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
I witnessed an F-4 crash when I was an SP stationed at Osan, AB, ROK in late 1986. Pilot took off and had engine problems and was trying to fly around and land when he crashed and slid for about 200 yards before crashing into a reinforced plane hanger. Biggest pieces left were the engines!! That plane missed the Weapons Storage Area by yard as well as several HUGE fuel tanks!!!

Yikes !

I bet the pucker factor was very high that day. I'm assuming the pilot didn't survive (or was completely unrecoverable).

Posted: 12/1/2007 9:35:19 AM EDT

[#16]

I want a job like that just breaking stuff all day

Posted: 12/1/2007 9:37:12 AM EDT

[#17]

A couple rolls of 100 MPH tape will patch that right up.

Posted: 12/1/2007 9:38:22 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
A couple rolls of 100 MPH tape will patch that right up.

I'm sure there's a -6 inspection for impacting a fixed object at 500 mph.

Posted: 12/1/2007 9:38:37 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
That video needs to be shown to all the conspiracy assholes who ask "where did the plane at the Pentagon go?" and claim it was a missle or something idiotic.

I have shown it to tinfoilers. Their argument was that since it was such a smaller aircraft it was conceivable it would do that as ooposed to a passenger liner. That was the most intelligible of the responses.

Posted: 12/1/2007 9:38:52 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
That video needs to be shown to all the conspiracy assholes who ask "where did the plane at the Pentagon go?" and claim it was a missle or something idiotic.

That's what they want you to think. Congratulations for falling for this poorly-staged "test" designed solely to hide the truth of 9/11.

Posted: 12/1/2007 9:41:06 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

It also the reason why the 757 that hit the Pentagon was destroyed because the side that was hit had been recently renovated and had new amorered windows and structual reinforcement added.

"Armored windows"? You're shitting us, right?

"Armored windows" would be for gunshots, maybe bomb shrapnel. There isn't a window on Earth that would resist a jetliner

Posted: 12/1/2007 10:01:14 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
I witnessed an F-4 crash when I was an SP stationed at Osan, AB, ROK in late 1986. Pilot took off and had engine problems and was trying to fly around and land when he crashed and slid for about 200 yards before crashing into a reinforced plane hanger. Biggest pieces left were the engines!! That plane missed the Weapons Storage Area by yard as well as several HUGE fuel tanks!!!

Baker diamond. One of the external fuel tanks didn't transfer on take off making him way out of balance. The rear seater actually ejected into the tail as it was folding over. What a mess.

Posted: 12/1/2007 10:04:51 AM EDT

[#23]

That may be the most awesome thing I see all day!

Posted: 12/1/2007 11:46:27 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I witnessed an F-4 crash when I was an SP stationed at Osan, AB, ROK in late 1986. Pilot took off and had engine problems and was trying to fly around and land when he crashed and slid for about 200 yards before crashing into a reinforced plane hanger. Biggest pieces left were the engines!! That plane missed the Weapons Storage Area by yard as well as several HUGE fuel tanks!!!

Yikes !

I bet the pucker factor was very high that day. I'm assuming the pilot didn't survive (or was completely unrecoverable).

I was there the same time, posted with a Stinger missile at the west end by the runway,
the F-4 had lost power in the left engine right at take off, the F-4 was banking left
with the right engine at full afterburner, well he didn't make it. This happened during our ORI "Operation Readiness Inspection" within a second the training exercise went
to the real thing.

Posted: 12/1/2007 11:54:16 AM EDT

[#25]

that was painful to watch

Posted: 12/1/2007 12:00:41 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
That wall was designed to protect Nuclear reactors, its a cool test to see.

It also the reason why the 757 that hit the Pentagon was destroyed because the side that was hit had been recently renovated and had new amorered windows and structual reinforcement added.

you know that place is solid concreat....

so they reinforced the fortress?

Posted: 12/1/2007 12:10:56 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I witnessed an F-4 crash when I was an SP stationed at Osan, AB, ROK in late 1986. Pilot took off and had engine problems and was trying to fly around and land when he crashed and slid for about 200 yards before crashing into a reinforced plane hanger. Biggest pieces left were the engines!! That plane missed the Weapons Storage Area by yard as well as several HUGE fuel tanks!!!

Yikes !

I bet the pucker factor was very high that day. I'm assuming the pilot didn't survive (or was completely unrecoverable).

Neither the pilot or back seater survived. We kept hoping to see them punch out but no dice. What was really hainty was having to stand guard over the crash site for 2 days with 870's to keep rats/dogs/cats/etc from carrying the body parts away until the accident investigation team mapped and photographed the crash site. The hanger that the plane crashed into only had some scorching on the concrete.

Posted: 12/1/2007 12:20:53 PM EDT

[#28]

In August of 1969 I saw an F4 follow the bombs he had just dropped all the way to the ground. Not much left. I had my camera to my eye and took a picture of it but all you can see is dust.

Posted: 12/1/2007 12:22:22 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
That video needs to be shown to all the conspiracy assholes who ask "where did the plane at the Pentagon go?" and claim it was a missle or something idiotic. [://

That's what they want you to think. Congratulations for falling for this poorly-staged "test" designed solely to hide the truth of 9/11.

Congratulations for falling for the 9/11 conspiracy bullshit.

The test was done in 1988. Of course you are going to say that the goverment started planning 9/11 before 1988.

Footage of 1988 rocket-sled test

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. To view and download footage or still photos, click on the links or the images below.

www.sandia.gov/news/resources/video-gallery/index.html

Posted: 12/1/2007 12:23:31 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:

It also the reason why the 757 that hit the Pentagon was destroyed because the side that was hit had been recently renovated and had new amorered windows and structual reinforcement added.

"Armored windows"? You're shitting us, right?

"Armored windows" would be for gunshots, maybe bomb shrapnel. There isn't a window on Earth that would resist a jetliner

Sometimes it is better to Google rather than post.
One
Two
Three