Sandia Labs plane crash test faked

[1337m4n]

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/139886/1/#new

Mind you that test was performed in 1988.

[Unsecured Coins]

we-post!!

i think... don't quote me on that

[SpitfireIX]

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/139886/1/#new

Mind you that test was performed in 1988.


:faint: :faint: :faint: :faint: :faint:

[Arus808]

Its "no-plane-im-going-to-harass-people" Killtown. What makes you think he's sane?

[beachnut]

Proves, the total ignorance of Killtown on high speed aircraft impacts is not fake. His post is exposing his fellow lcf members are oblivious to reality and many share the same lack of knowledge displayed by Killtown.

It appears, Killtown has no idea what velocity squared means to kinetic energy. If you wondered what happened to the kids who failed 8th grade math; Killtown could be an example.

[SpitfireIX]

KT tried to post this on Mythbusters, but the thread was removed (the show's policy is not to deal with September 11 theories). Here's a link to Google's cache (http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:gLm_Wh6CIPcJ:community.discovery.co m/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9741919888/m/8811943859+sandia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us) of his post.

[1337m4n]

It's funny, they're always saying like "show me ONE plane crash where there are recognizable parts left". So we show them the Sandia Labs test, and how do they respond?

Quite predictably, I must say. I eagerly await Sandia's alleged motive.

[SpitfireIX]

From KT's web page (http://killtown.blogspot.com/2008/03/is-sandia-labs-f-4-phantom-rocket-sled.html) on the Sandia test:

What really struck me about this crash test (other than it seemed to re-write the laws of physics as I knew them) is that I found it extremely odd that I had never seen, or heard about this test with such remarkable (and unbelievable) results before 9/11 even though it was supposedly conducted 13 years prior. From the best that I could tell, SNL didn't even put this amazing crash test up on its website until mid-March 2005. I can find only one instance on the net which had reported this test before 9/11 and that was back in 1995.


I mean doesn't it seem a little too convenient that this crash test, which is one of the few experiments SNL features on their video gallery page, came out of no where and has been used by planehuggers to help try to debunk the claims that no plane hit the Pentagon, or the Twin Towers? [emphasis original] [hyperlinks omitted]


From EBSCO Host:

Fisher, A. "Propelled Jet." Popular Science, Dec. 1989: 14

Abstract:

Looks at a unique test done by researchers at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in which an F-4 Phantom aircraft was slammed into a instrumented concrete block to learn about the crash-resistance of critical structures.


Port, Otis. "WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF A JET HIT A NUCLEAR REACTOR? NOT MUCH." Business Week, Sept. 11, 1989: 123

Abstract:

Reports that Sandia National Laboratories decided to conduct a real-life test of a jet plane crash into a nuclear power plant. Verification of computer simulations; Surplus F-4 Phantom fighter mounted on a rocket sled.

Note the date of the Business Week article; OMG!! Inside Job!!! 9eleventy1!!!! :rolleyes:

Anyone who's currently posting over at LCF please feel free to pass this along to KT; I'm sure he'll want to retract his claim and take down the article from his web page ASAP. :rolleyes:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1706047af269cbe164.jpg

[~enigma~]

There is a reason he is banned and ANYTHING posted by him should also be banned from the forum.

[SpitfireIX]

There is a reason he is banned and ANYTHING posted by him should also be banned from the forum.


I posted a two-paragraph excerpt from KT's much longer rant, for the express purpose of refuting a specific claim made in that excerpt. I believe this falls under the "fair use" guidelines of the forum.

[Quad4_72]

Yes he has been spewing this nonsense for some time now. A couple years ago I posted on the LC forum about the test and he said the same thing. He has yet to produce any evidence supporting his claims on the matter.

[Unsecured Coins]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1706047af269cbe164.jpg


I like this one better
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/dhampir666/Dhampirs%20Random%20Pics/fail-1.jpg

[SpitfireIX]

I like this one better
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/dhampir666/Dhampirs%20Random%20Pics/fail-1.jpg


You've got to admit, though, that the 2007 Patriots are going to go down as one of the most epic failures of all time. :p

[Obviousman]

Has Killclown ever said anything that is correct? I bet he even mispronounces his own name.

[OldTigerCub]

Has Killclown ever said anything that is correct? I bet he even mispronounces his own name.

He gets the date of 9-11 right. Aside from that, not really.

[~enigma~]

I posted a two-paragraph excerpt from KT's much longer rant, for the express purpose of refuting a specific claim made in that excerpt. I believe this falls under the "fair use" guidelines of the forum.
Not what I meant Spitfire. The thread shouldn't have even been started that mentions that nazi attention whore.

[Blender Head]

Paradalis' signature, quoting Horatius, should put this thread to rest:

"The twoofer mindset in a nutshell: If there's no video, it never happened; if there is video, it was faked."

[Unsecured Coins]

You've got to admit, though, that the 2007 Patriots are going to go down as one of the most epic failures of all time. :p

Oh, yessir indeed

[pomeroo]

Paradalis' signature, quoting Horatius, should put this thread to rest:

"The twoofer mindset in a nutshell: If there's no video, it never happened; if there is video, it was faked."


I keep wondering what you find interesting about the remark of mine that you quote in your signature. Isn't it fairly obvious that as soon as we failed to find the WMD that all intelligence agencies concluded were still in Iraq, the Bush-bashers turned on a dime and began braying that everyone knew they weren't there? Shouldn't a few more people have asked what happened to the weapons?

[OldTigerCub]

Paradalis' signature, quoting Horatius, should put this thread to rest:

"The twoofer mindset in a nutshell: If there's no video, it never happened; if there is video, it was faked."

Re-phrased: YouTube is our friend...errr...our enemy...errr....Bush did it!!111!!!
(close enough?):p

[Beerina]

Proves, the total ignorance of Killtown on high speed aircraft impacts is not fake. His post is exposing his fellow lcf members are oblivious to reality and many share the same lack of knowledge displayed by Killtown.

It appears, Killtown has no idea what velocity squared means to kinetic energy. If you wondered what happened to the kids who failed 8th grade math; Killtown could be an example.

What does he expect to happen when a jet hits a 15 foot wide gigantic block of cement?

Incidently, the military does have "bunker buster" bombs that can penetrate up to 30 feet of steel-reinforced concrete before exploding. The first ones were made during Gulf War I from cannon barrels. Indeed, one of the biggest tragedies of that point was exactly such a device penetrating, then blowing up such a bunker that was loaded with civilians hiding.

But it ain't a jet, which is as tinfoil to that much concrete.

[SpitfireIX]

Not what I meant Spitfire. The thread shouldn't have even been started that mentions that nazi attention whore.


Oh, okay, gotcha. I have to respectfully disagree, however. Much as we might wish differently, we well know that there are people out there gullible enough to buy into KT's bull[expletive deleted]. Therefore, I feel that we need to deal with it as it rears its extremely ugly head.

[DRBUZZ0]

There are no shortage of documented aircraft crashed which resulted in nearly all of the main structure being completely destroyed and reduced into small pieces. You might remember the ValuJet crash in the everglades in the 1990's there was just a bare spot and some shredded metal visible. The ended up digging twisted pieces of metal out of the muck and I don't think anything larger than a few feet of the main structure was ever found.

Also, there was an American Eagle crash in 1994 that had similar complete destruction of the structure: http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/eagle4184/photo.shtml

[cludgie]

There was an Air Crash Investigation on UK Discovery Channel the other night that included the crash of a Turkish Airlines DC-10 in 1974. It slammed into a forest in northern France at about 300kts. Funnily enough they showed a news report clip where the guy reporting from the scene said there was virtually no sign of the plane.

There are no shortage of documented aircraft crashed which resulted in nearly all of the main structure being completely destroyed and reduced into small pieces. You might remember the ValuJet crash in the everglades in the 1990's there was just a bare spot and some shredded metal visible. The ended up digging twisted pieces of metal out of the muck and I don't think anything larger than a few feet of the main structure was ever found.

Also, there was an American Eagle crash in 1994 that had similar complete destruction of the structure: http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/eagle4184/photo.shtml

[cloudshipsrule]

There was an Air Crash Investigation on UK Discovery Channel the other night that included the crash of a Turkish Airlines DC-10 in 1974. It slammed into a forest in northern France at about 300kts. Funnily enough they showed a news report clip where the guy reporting from the scene said there was virtually no sign of the plane.

This crash was deliberate in an attempt to make 9-11 look more believable. 9-11 pre-planning took decades!

[Blender Head]

I keep wondering what you find interesting about the remark of mine that you quote in your signature. Isn't it fairly obvious that as soon as we failed to find the WMD that all intelligence agencies concluded were still in Iraq, the Bush-bashers turned on a dime and began braying that everyone knew they weren't there? Shouldn't a few more people have asked what happened to the weapons?

So you ask me here instead of a PM?

Don't derail the thread.

Not that anyone else here would dare tell you that.

[njslim]

There are no shortage of documented aircraft crashed which resulted in nearly all of the main structure being completely destroyed and reduced into small pieces. You might remember the ValuJet crash in the everglades in the 1990's there was just a bare spot and some shredded metal visible. The ended up digging twisted pieces of metal out of the muck and I don't think anything larger than a few feet of the main structure was ever found.

Also, there was an American Eagle crash in 1994 that had similar complete destruction of the structure: http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/eagle4184/photo.shtml

Yes I have seen a crash like this close up - 20 years in my town Lear 35 slammed into
hiillside, just down street from me. As member of FD was on scene walking crash scene
marking body parts for later recovery. Largest piece left from 3 x 2 section of tail fin,
landing gear light struck parked car above 75 yards away. Crashed at estimated 350 mph
yet when descibe what happens to plane on impact the loons refuse to believe it

[Vincent Vega]

KT tried to post this on Mythbusters, but the thread was removed (the show's policy is not to deal with September 11 theories). Here's a link to Google's cache (http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:gLm_Wh6CIPcJ:community.discovery.co m/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9741919888/m/8811943859+sandia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us) of his post.

The response to his suggestion is classic, and gets killtown's number perfectly:

Sovietspyguy
Senior Member

Registered: 03-11-08
Posts: 51 Posted 03-12-08 04:41 PM The test is real, your suspicions are unfounded.

Most people's experience with colliding objects comes from small-time stuff. Getting hit with a baseball, dropping a vase, car accidents, etc...

The F-4 test is in an entirely different league. The plane did not "atomize," and I don't think they claimed that it did. What it DID do is disintegrate almost entirely. That is usually the result when planes hit things at such high speeds. The structure of an aircraft is not made of solid steel beams. By necessity they are relatively light and not particularly resistant to collision damage. A plane hitting a solid concrete wall at several hundred miles per hour will do exactly what is depicted in the video.

I'm not sure if the mythbusters have the capability to construct something that can launch a toaster at those speeds. Even if they did, you are still talking about vastly different energy levels. You would probably not see quite the same effect.

[From reading your blog you strike me as one of those people who claim the government is constantly out to get us and will reject any and all evidence that doesn't substantiate this. If you refuse to be convinced then I can't convince you, but this test is very real.

I should also remind you that such tests are not done for the amusement of the general public. They have a purpose, and I would fully expect such tests and the results of such tests to be confidential until long after they have ceased being useful to whoever performed them.
Ignored post by Sovietspyguy posted 03-12-08 04:41 PM Show Post

roofingguy
Senior Member

Registered: 10-28-07
Posts: 1971 Posted 03-12-08 04:49 PM And since a toaster oven is not a monococque construction, comparing its structural

[Swing Dangler]

From KT's web page (http://killtown.blogspot.com/2008/03/is-sandia-labs-f-4-phantom-rocket-sled.html) on the Sandia test:
From EBSCO Host:
Fisher, A. "Propelled Jet." Popular Science, Dec. 1989: 14
Abstract:
Looks at a unique test done by researchers at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in which an F-4 Phantom aircraft was slammed into a instrumented concrete block to learn about the crash-resistance of critical structures.
Port, Otis. "WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF A JET HIT A NUCLEAR REACTOR? NOT MUCH." Business Week, Sept. 11, 1989: 123

Abstract:

Reports that Sandia National Laboratories decided to conduct a real-life test of a jet plane crash into a nuclear power plant. Verification of computer simulations; Surplus F-4 Phantom fighter mounted on a rocket sled.



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1706047af269cbe164.jpg

Even popular mechanics gets it wrong. It was not an experiment designed to test the structure but the impact forces of a military jet.

At Sandia, a spokesman, John German, said the point of the test was to move the wall, as a way to measure the impact forces. The test was sponsored by the Muto Institute of Structural Mechanics Inc., of Tokyo, as a preliminary step in building a computer model of such impacts, but the Japanese decided not to sponsor the next step, Mr. German said.

Asked if it showed that a plane could not penetrate a dome, he said, "We've been trying like heck to shoot down this rumor."

Mr. German said: "That test was designed to measure the impact force of a fighter jet. But the wall was not being tested. No structure was being tested." Source: Here (http://www.ohiocitizen.org/campaigns/electric/pre2003/survive_crash.htm)

I'm surprised anyone uses Popular Mechanics for debunking after their last fiasco.

[Vincent Vega]

Even popular mechanics gets it wrong. It was not an experiment designed to test the structure but the impact forces of a military jet.

I'm surprised anyone uses Popular Mechanics for debunking after their last fiasco.

Force is measurable and can be applied to any structure. Hence the application to the concrete shell of power plants.

[1337m4n]

I'm surprised anyone uses Popular Mechanics for debunking after their last fiasco.

No doubt you are referring to how the Truth Movement hallucinated that Ben Chertoff was Mike Chertoff's cousin and managed to convince a surprising number of people that it was true?

[SpitfireIX]

Even popular mechanics gets it wrong. It was not an experiment designed to test the structure but the impact forces of a military jet.



I'm surprised anyone uses Popular Mechanics for debunking after their last fiasco.


Erm, the first article appeared in Popular Science, not Popular Mechanics. :footinmou

Further, the abstract says, ". . . an F-4 Phantom aircraft was slammed into a instrumented concrete block to learn about the crash-resistance of critical structures." It says "learn about," not "test." As VV noted, accurately estimating the impact force of an aircraft would be an important prerequisite to "learn[ing] about" the ability of a structure to resist damage from an aircraft crash.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/17060474efd47d7e6b.jpg

[uk_dave]

I'm surprised anyone uses Popular Mechanics for debunking after their last fiasco.

I have to ask: Are you genetically predisposed to being wrong all the time, or is it something you have acquired through practice?

[funk de fino]

He he, another epic Swingie fail

The man has no shame