Kind of makes the paranoid freaks who argue that a jet couldn't have hit the Pentagon because few plane parts were found look like, well ... paranoid freaks.
It proves nothing. An F4 is much smaller than a passenger jet, and is also carrying much less fuel. Also, the concrete block is not fixed to the ground, it gives a little, unlike the protective walls of a nuclear reactor.
;-)
Of course, you got to remember that the F-4 Phantom didn't fly into the concrete wall on its own. It was strapped into somekind of track, plus rockets were also strapped to the F-4 Phantom. Why did they do that? Well... Probably because no human can aim the jet so close to the ground at 500 mph at a concrete wall?
Wow, you people have no clue whatsoever. None about science or aviation. So, I suggest you guys keep your mouth shut until you learn something. That video DOES demonstrate what happened to the airliner.
The video has several problems.
1. The F-4 is bolted onto a rocket sled. The nose gear is not bolted down so it won't take off. It won't take off unless the controls are moved. Additionally, the landing gear and wheels could not survive travelling at 500K. That's another piece of evidence other than visual that the jet is on a rocket sled.
2. Concrete does NOT atomize metal. The cloud of dust you see is the wall disintegrating. We are led to believe that this jet disappeared into a concrete wall without penetrating the other side when a Boeing 757 penetrated three rings of reinforced concrete at the Pentagon. Do the math.
3. The F-4 has no fuel in it. The afterburner is coming from rocket engines on the sled. There is nothing coming out of the F-4's afterburner nozzles. Hence, there is no fireball, as there was at the Pentagon. The only thing that remotely makes the Pentagon's aircraft destruction plausible is 100,000 pounds of fuel on board. There is none on the F-4, so the clip slips one past the viewer.
4. The clip stops in mid sentence. Let it keep rolling and let the dust settle and let's see what is left of the wall and the F-4. I personally think that this film clip is doctored.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Kind of makes the paranoid freaks who argue that a jet couldn't have hit the Pentagon because few plane parts were found look like, well ... paranoid freaks.
I had the same thought exactly.
It proves nothing. An F4 is much smaller than a passenger jet, and is also carrying much less fuel. Also, the concrete block is not fixed to the ground, it gives a little, unlike the protective walls of a nuclear reactor.
;-)
http://www.sandia.gov/media/NRgallery00-03.htm
http://www.sandia.gov/media/NRgallery00-03.htm
Of course, you got to remember that the F-4 Phantom didn't fly into the concrete wall on its own. It was strapped into somekind of track, plus rockets were also strapped to the F-4 Phantom. Why did they do that? Well... Probably because no human can aim the jet so close to the ground at 500 mph at a concrete wall?
Wow, you people have no clue whatsoever. None about science or aviation. So, I suggest you guys keep your mouth shut until you learn something. That video DOES demonstrate what happened to the airliner.
The video has several problems.
1. The F-4 is bolted onto a rocket sled. The nose gear is not bolted down so it won't take off. It won't take off unless the controls are moved. Additionally, the landing gear and wheels could not survive travelling at 500K. That's another piece of evidence other than visual that the jet is on a rocket sled.
2. Concrete does NOT atomize metal. The cloud of dust you see is the wall disintegrating. We are led to believe that this jet disappeared into a concrete wall without penetrating the other side when a Boeing 757 penetrated three rings of reinforced concrete at the Pentagon. Do the math.
3. The F-4 has no fuel in it. The afterburner is coming from rocket engines on the sled. There is nothing coming out of the F-4's afterburner nozzles. Hence, there is no fireball, as there was at the Pentagon. The only thing that remotely makes the Pentagon's aircraft destruction plausible is 100,000 pounds of fuel on board. There is none on the F-4, so the clip slips one past the viewer.
4. The clip stops in mid sentence. Let it keep rolling and let the dust settle and let's see what is left of the wall and the F-4. I personally think that this film clip is doctored.