Just curious if there is any other test that had a large metal object crash into a stronger object and essential turn into powder. Also, are there any versions of this video that shows what the cement wall looks like after the crash?



Video of the Sandia F4 crash test in multiple angles:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB4IEa7jTJw


Homepage:

Did you visit the crash-site to test how hard the
ground is where the plane crashed?

Shanksville? No, why?

Come on, don't tell me this Sandia test is the ONLY evidence of a large metal object turning into powder after it hits a harder object at a high rate of speed!

Would a Nascar turn into powder if it hit a track wall 2.4x the speed they somtimes do?

Well those aren't made of aluminum... And they don't travel at 500 mph.

Because it´s important to know and to understand
what could have happen if something crashes into it.

How fast was the plane when it hits?
How fast are Nascar-cars at it´s maximum speed?

Was there once a crash when a nascar-car crashed
frontal into a wall? And are Nascar-Cars constructed
to restrain as much damage as possible?

Sorry for all the questions - i´m not very familiar
with nascar at all.

you think an F4 is entirely made of aluminum?

UA 93 was said to have hit at 580mph and crashed at "nearly 90 deg" which is impossible when you factor this alleged plane was flying just a couple of hundreds of feet over witnesses heads. Also, 155ft hollow mostly aluminum objects don't burrow underground in dirt no matter how "soft" it is.

It´s not possible if the plane flew upside up - but what
if it flew upside down? In this case such a maneuver is
possible in a low altitude.

What do you think was it if not the plane? I mean the
impact hole had the form of a large plane. Or do you
think the hole was digged earlier?

What happened to the inverstigation photos?

No, but if the ground is hard enough, could most of it, in lack of a better word, vaporize?

Well that's what I'm trying to find out. seems like all we really have is this Sandia video for direct evidence (ie actually seeing it as it happens).

There has got to be another demonstration to verify this Sandia (gov't) video.

I doesn't matter, as long as it wasn't what our gov't told us, everything else is irrelevant.

Well, the investigation photos would easily proof what
have crashed there. What happend to them - is the
investigation still open?

There all here:

http://killtown.911review.org/flight93.html

Besides a video, why don't you try to contact some metallurgists and get their opinions?

I don't want opinions, I want evidence.

Thank you for the link. I never saw the close-ups before
and i have to admit that it looks really strange. The ground
looks pretty hard to me. What about the engine part wich
is visible on one of the photos? Is it authentic to the planes
engine-types?

There must be dozens more photos if there was a standard
planecrash investigation...

Be sure to check out my 93 image gallery:

http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/gallery.html


The engine part dug a few feet underground? The nose of the plane supposedly was found 30ft underground. Just look at the engine/crater pic and ask where is the rest of the plane?




Weird they have a backhoe digging out a 100ton plane, huh?

And odd this large fuselage piece was find in the cover of the forest when the rest of the plane supposedly burrowed underground:

I saw your photoside and i don´t know where the
rest of the plane is.

My problem is that there are some serious questions
that contradict with a conspiracy concerning Shanksville.

Why not using a real plane if it wasn´t a plane?
Why crashing it at all?
Why not making it look like a real crash if it was no plane.
What happend to the passengers in this case?
Why faking a photo to left room for CT´s?
Where is the debris now?
How does a 90 degree crash looks like?

The phantom sample shows that it could have happend
this way. How fast was the phanton on this video before
impact?

I try to get further info about it but for tonight i will
go to sleep soon. :\">

1) Since no 757 crashed there, your questions are moot.

2) I don't know if comparing a crash into a hardened wall vs. "soft spongy" dirt is a valid comparison, but the purpose of this thread is to find another expample that shows the same result of the Sandia gov't sled test.

Mhmm, but how can you be that sure that there
was no plane. I have to admit it looks strange but
this alone doesn´t make it a lie. Sometimes things
are hard to explain. BTW: What´s JDX opinion about
Shanksville. Does he believe it was an impossible
maneuver?

But if there was no plane. Why didn´t they crash a
real plane if it was MIHOP. Why faking Photos?

I don´t know what you think, but personally i would
make it as authentic as possible. No fakings at all.

Maybe we can find another video like the above
one but i guess there is none out there which shows
an airliner hitting the same type of ground in the
same way.

But i will tell you if i find such a video, promised.

- Oliver

OK we've all seen hundreds of pictures of the crash site. The nice little "cartoon cut-out" in the ground. Here's a list of a few problems I have.........

- First and foremost, the grass around the imapct isn't burnt. It would seem no fire touched it at all.

- You have the body of the plane and the wings in the "cartoon cut-out" but no tail section mark.

- Also where is the "cartoon cut-out" for the engines that should be about midway from body to wing tip along the wings.

- The official story tells us that due to the force of imapct with the gorund at almost 500 miles an hour most of the debris and remains are buried 50 ft or better into the ground. At first I thought, "OK I can buy that" but then one small problem. As they're moving earth to dig up debris and remains one of the first things they recover is an engine. What?? The engines are the heaviest thing on these planes and by official story logic should have been buried deeper into the earth than anything upon impact.

Anyway I know I'm not the only one to think of these things. They definitely make you go "Hmmmmmmm" and I can't believe that anyone who buys the official story doesn't ask these same questions. I just figured I would share incase anyone here missed one of these details.

I agree with you. It is hard to explain with all the
puzzle-pieces that are missing.

My problem is not what the pictures show - i have
a problem to create a logical scenario to crash no
plane into a field just to say there was a plane.

This would be stupid for someone who is engaged
to hide all evidence for an inside job. If i wanted
to crash a plane there, i would have crashed a
real plane there.

Actually it does, a real faint one, and that makes it even more absurd that a 757 crashed there. a 155ft fuselage was able to burrow down fast and hard enough that it's Vert tail left and imprint on the ground, but left no trace of it!


See upper left of photo for faint tail imprint:

With all due respect, you just admitted your own "biasness" for a lack of a better word. You say you don't have a problem with the photos (ie foresic evidence) in which I think you are essentially admitting by the photos you don't think a 757 crashed there, but then you are using your own logic to distract you from what you just essentially admitted, that the photos show no 757 crashed there.

So to clear the confusion, if the foresics at the crash scene prove no 757 caused the damage, nothing else matters. NO 757 CAUSED THE DAMAGE. Everything else is a MOOT point, even the logic in trying to understand why they would do such a terrible job in faking the crash. IT DOESN'T MATTER because NO 757 CRASHED THERE.

Hope you don't take offense in the manner I wrote this, just trying to help you understand my point.

This may be a misunderstanding.

I meant that i don´t know exactly what a crash would
look like under this conditions so i can not clearly say
it looks like what the gov claims or what the theories
say.

In this case i take it a step further to proof the theory
and ask myself why should someone say it was a plane
if there was no plane. And at this point it makes no
sense to me.

But let me ask:

What do you think could be the reason to lie about
shanksville? I´m not trying to be offensive - i simply
don´t understand it.

I'm going to create a thread in Flight 93 section so we can continue this discussion, but just to let you know how I think, if officials tell us someting happened (ie 757 crashed in Shanksville) and foresics says it didn't, nothing else matters to me. We proved their story wrong and they should be under investigation to find out everything else.

Okay, i keep an eye on the 93 section until the thread is up.
Sorry that the thread in here went off-topic.

You will recieve 8 lashes by whip for you aggregious infraction!

*lol* This is fair. :D

So any other instance of a large metal object turning to powder after stricking a harder object?

If not, then why? Unless this Sandia sled test was Psyops.

Killtown this plane was a fighter jet hitting a nuclear reactor wall. It bears absolutely no relation to the plane crashes on 911.

No it wasnt a psyops, it was a test of nuclear reactor walls to see if they would survive suicide attacks in the event of war.

Gawd

Great, now find me another experiment to confirm this one.

Maybe they only did one experiment? Its quite expensive destroying jet fighters

What is your point?

I asked to show me any other example that a large metal object turned to powder after striking a harder object. Sure this Sandia experiment isn't the only example if it's legit.

You wouldn't understand.

Since I'm no stranger to controversy, I'm going to say that this Sandia F4 Rocket-sled Test is psyops meant to help explain why the four planes on 9/11 vanished to the sheep out there. I doubt this test was made in 1988. Did anybody see this test before 9/11? I sure didn't.

If the Sandia test is legit, please show me another instance where a large metal objects turns to powder after stricking a harder object.

And no, I don't think there was any CGI involved in this hoax test, but I don't think that F4 was a real F4. As far as I'm concerned it was a shell of an F4 made out of some material that would turn to powder after it struck the wall, perhaps some kind of cellulose combination.

And btw, why did they not show what the wall looked like afterward and why didn't they use jet fuel in the engines to simulate a real explosion? Because there WAS NO GAS TANKS because it was only a shell made to look like an F4.

Notice when argueing no planes, skeptics and even "truthers" use the Sandia test arguement. Suckers.

I saw it in 1993 on uk tv. It was in a program presented by carol vorderman and its her voice on the voice over in other copies of it.

It isnt a psyop. People who build nuclear power stations need to know how well the walls stand up to things. They are testing the wall not the plane

1) Sure you did.

2) Wow, well that's a relief then.

3) So why didn't they use a plane filled with jet fuel?

4) And why didn't they show what the wall looked like afterward?

Indeed I did. Ill bet youll find it if you google hard enough. Your tactics dont work with me killtown.

They didnt need fuel in the planes. It was testing impact damage, the fire is irrelevant to a tenfoot thick concrete wall.

Your just a pratt. I say something you dont like and im a liar.

You still think im jdx mr paranoid?

Funny that someone who has Alex Jones as their avatar, one of the most paranoid CT's I've known, calls me "Mr. Paranoid"!

The reason they didn't use jet fuel was because there was no place to put it -- ie it was not a real F4.