What happens when a jet hits concrete at 500mph? This one turned to dust.

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Long time since I've been on MetaBunk, but I saw this video and thought it belonged here. Sorry if re-post.

Here an F-4 Phantom slams into concrete at 500 mph and basically turns to dust. To me, it demystifies how the airliners that hit WTC on 9/11 could just disappear like they did.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8

This has been brought up several times before. It's practically the opposite of what happened to the jets, which almost entirely went inside the building and disintegrated there via a series of impacts.

These videos show this in detail:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54RCmfaQGKE

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0zLBxvi9NM
 

jackprune

New Member
Those are good animations. Thanks for sharing.

True, the impacts are different, but the speeds are comparable. The F-4 gives an appreciation for the tremendous energy a 500 mph aircraft brings to the table. The square of velocity is not intuitive. Most of us never experience large metal vehicles disintegrating-to-nothing either. The F-4 demonstration helps me get a "feel" for what 500 mph can do.
 

trevor

Active Member
It's an irrelevant video due to the fact that they are using an f-4 instead of a boeing 767...you know what the difference is? about 150,000 pounds, that's the difference.
 

jackprune

New Member
Lordy, I didn't say they were equivalent. The velocity is roughly same. And this is what happens to an aluminum aircraft when it undergoes elastic to near-elastic impact with relatively immovable to near-immovable concrete barrier or barriers at 500 mph. It shreds. It's a stunning effect. Irrelevant? I'd say they're not equivalent, sure. But, irrelevant? Hardly.
 

Bruno D.

Senior Member.
It's an irrelevant video due to the fact that they are using an f-4 instead of a boeing 767...you know what the difference is? about 150,000 pounds, that's the difference.
And this is not even the biggest difference here.

1 - An 767 airliner hitting WTC at ~550mph caused an almost "road-runner" effect, destroying the plane as it smashed through the whole building (external columns, concrete floors, internal columns, etc) , but obviously also damaging the building itself. It went though almost half of the 208 ft of the building, and the ignited fuel went through the rest, destroying part of the structure.

2 - In the same day, an 757 airliner hits Pentagon at ~530mph, with the wings causing much less damage to the facade and the main body opening a 75 ft hole to it, destroying the plane as it smashed through 3 rings of the building and also damaging the building itself. It went through 3 rings of the building, and a 12 ft hole was seen on the other side.

3 - In the video a F4 hits a concrete blocks at 500mph, disintegrating the plane and causing the concrete block to move some feet.

-> The speeds are equivalent in all 3 cases.

-> The planes sizes and weights are equivalent between 1 and 2 and completely different from 3.

-> The structure they hit are completely different in all 3 cases. A steel column "mesh" in case 1, reinforced concrete walls in case 2 and a 12ft reinforced concrete block in case 3.

In case 1, the planes penetrates the farthest. In case 2, the planes penetrates the building a fair amount. In case 3, it looks like it doesn't penetrates the block at all (we don't have the aftermath pictures to see the full extension of the damage).

Lordy, I didn't say they were equivalent. The velocity is roughly same. And this is what happens to an aluminum aircraft when it undergoes elastic to near-elastic impact with relatively immovable to near-immovable concrete barrier or barriers at 500 mph. It shreds. It's a stunning effect. Irrelevant? I'd say they're not equivalent, sure. But, irrelevant? Hardly.

It's a great video, but it's irrelevant to any 9/11 analysis/comparison. It's too different from what happened that day, other than it being a plane that hit something at 500mph. A comparison like that will not confirm the conspiracy and it will not debunk any claim.
 

jackprune

New Member
A comparison like that will not confirm the conspiracy and it will not debunk any claim.
I didn't posit that the video did those things. Too, this is the "general discussion" forum, not the "9/11" forum. I offered, perhaps not clearly, that the video gives a practical sense of the kinetic energy of an aircraft at 500 mph. For example, many folks say WTC and/or Pentagon don't look like crash sites. They say, "Where is the wreckage? Where is the tail-piece or a broken wing?" These are honest questions. One may argue the planes shredded quickly, but it's hard to convince someone that their common sense is wrong. And that's what I found useful about this video. It would seem better to say, "yep, there isn't much 9/11 wreckage, but check out this F-4 disintegrating. The 9/11 planes were traveling same speed and even faster, so who knows? Maybe we shouldn't expect much wreckage at those speeds slamming into buildings either?" I mean, debunking entails convincing and educating others. The video seems helpful toward that end.
 

Bruno D.

Senior Member.
... The 9/11 planes were traveling same speed and even faster, so who knows? Maybe we shouldn't expect much wreckage at those speeds slamming into buildings either?" I mean, debunking entails convincing and educating others. The video seems helpful toward that end.

I only mentioned the 9/11 comparison because you mentioned it in the OP.

I got your point, you want more arguments to debunk the 9/11 CTs, but I still think that the cases are so different that it cannot be used as a debunking argument. More wreckage is expected in 9/11 because the planes hit something softer than that concrete block in the F4 video, as was the case. Wreckage could be found in WTC (11 years later) and Pentagon. The wreckage that was ejected from WTC was found while the wreckage that probably was stuck inside the towers was destroyed when they fell.

Did you know that CTers use this exact same video as proof that no planes hit the towers? :-/

Finally, debunking is not about convincing others, it's about showing what's wrong in bunk by scientific analysis. :)
 

jackprune

New Member
it's about showing what's wrong in bunk by scientific analysis

Showing whom what's wrong with bunk by scientific method? I'm not trying to be argumentative. I said debunking /entails/ convincing and educating others. Even in peer-review it's true to a degree. I'm not really looking to explicitly "slam dunk" some 9/11 CT. Personally, I want wayward folks to see and understand. Hence, the F4 video piqued my interest as a fairly accessible and possibly educational example of the high-energy nature of a 500 mph impact. (That a plane, a car, a train, or anything traveling at 500 mph doesn't impart 5x the energy it does at 100 mph, but it imparts 25x the energy.) The F4 didn't crumple, it pretty much disintegrated and that's what makes it interesting. And since the WTC planes were traveling at similar speeds and thus relatively high-energy too, and despite differences in masses and elasticity of impacts, it shouldn't be a big surprise if they didn't find any wreckage at all. The F4 video is /suggestive/ that scant 9/11 wreckage is not unexpected. That's really all I've said, or at least tried to say.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
I didn't posit that the video did those things. Too, this is the "general discussion" forum, not the "9/11" forum. I offered, perhaps not clearly, that the video gives a practical sense of the kinetic energy of an aircraft at 500 mph. For example, many folks say WTC and/or Pentagon don't look like crash sites. They say, "Where is the wreckage? Where is the tail-piece or a broken wing?" These are honest questions. One may argue the planes shredded quickly, but it's hard to convince someone that their common sense is wrong. And that's what I found useful about this video. It would seem better to say, "yep, there isn't much 9/11 wreckage, but check out this F-4 disintegrating. The 9/11 planes were traveling same speed and even faster, so who knows? Maybe we shouldn't expect much wreckage at those speeds slamming into buildings either?" I mean, debunking entails convincing and educating others. The video seems helpful toward that end.
I get ya, Jack.

Though sometimes I wonder if "Truthers" really respond to anything that doesn't feel like confirmation of their beliefs.


Oh, and welcome back...hope you're rested... :p
 

jackprune

New Member
Thanks. I'm feeling welcome back already! I think folks will respond in their own time. They don't trust the news and they don't trust their institutions and their brains are wired to fill in the blanks and string together factoids just to get relief from it all. It's work for folks to pull themselves out of it.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
Thanks. I'm feeling welcome back already! I think folks will respond in their own time. They don't trust the news and they don't trust their institutions and their brains are wired to fill in the blanks and string together factoids just to get relief from it all. It's work for folks to pull themselves out of it.
And many feel that they know something that makes them special...and they don't really want to come "out of it."
 

Bruno D.

Senior Member.
Showing whom what's wrong with bunk by scientific method? I'm not trying to be argumentative. I said debunking /entails/ convincing and educating others. Even in peer-review it's true to a degree. I'm not really looking to explicitly "slam dunk" some 9/11 CT. Personally, I want wayward folks to see and understand. Hence, the F4 video piqued my interest as a fairly accessible and possibly educational example of the high-energy nature of a 500 mph impact. (That a plane, a car, a train, or anything traveling at 500 mph doesn't impart 5x the energy it does at 100 mph, but it imparts 25x the energy.) The F4 didn't crumple, it pretty much disintegrated and that's what makes it interesting. And since the WTC planes were traveling at similar speeds and thus relatively high-energy too, and despite differences in masses and elasticity of impacts, it shouldn't be a big surprise if they didn't find any wreckage at all. The F4 video is /suggestive/ that scant 9/11 wreckage is not unexpected. That's really all I've said, or at least tried to say.

:)

We are going to agree to disagree then. You think the video helps clarifying some of the CTers' arguments, I think the video doesn't help, and that's all that is to it.

Welcome to the party anyway, Jack, It was never my intention to make you not feel welcome, sorry if that's what happened.

Showing whom what's wrong with bunk by scientific method?

PS: showing whomever is presenting that particular bunk.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
It's unclear to me how I give this impression with what I've written.

I get what you were getting at- I do think it the video is useful- perhaps more toward the result of the crash of flight 93 where people are claiming no plane debris etc....
 

Bruno D.

Senior Member.
...
Here an F-4 Phantom slams into concrete at 500 mph and basically turns to dust. To me, it demystifies how the airliners that hit WTC on 9/11 could just disappear like they did.
...
You think the video helps clarifying some of the CTers' arguments...
It's unclear to me how I give this impression with what I've written. I'm trying to express the opposite. No big deal. And thanks for the welcome!

From the OP it looked like your argument was that the video helps demystifies one of 9/11 CTers bunk, as in it would help clarifying, clearing, some of the CTers' arguments. My mistake if I understood that incorrectly.

We are definitely debating perceptions now, aren't we? :)

I get what you were getting at- I do think it the video is useful- perhaps more toward the result of the crash of flight 93 where people are claiming no plane debris etc....

But you can't compare what happens when a plane hits a concrete block (it completely disintegrates) with what happens when it hits dirt ground (part of it penetrates the ground, part of it is thrown yards away) with what happens when it hits a "mesh" of steel columns and concrete floors (it is sliced and penetrates the building) ...

These comparisons, when analyzed the wrong way (not what you and Jack are doing btw), can and will lead to wrong conclusions. As you are comparing two different things, you can twist your conclusion to whatever your belief is more leaned to ... :-/

Anyway, it's completely off topic. I don't want this thread to go to Rambles or Open Discussion.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
But you can't compare what happens

I wasnt really- its obvious they are very different circumstances and I didnt think that needed to be pointed out...but it does show it is possible for a plane to crash and not leave large, identifying debris.
 

Related Articles

Top