Mar 9 2010What Kind Of Damage Would An Underwear Bomb Actually Do To A Flying 747 Jetliner?
Remember the jackass that tried exploding his little terrorist genitals onboard Northwest Flight 253 over Christmas? Well the BBC set out to investigate exactly what kind of damage a crotchful of PETN could actually do to a flying jetliner.
The BBC did a test on an old decomissioned 747, putting a dummy with the same type and amount of explosives found on the underwear bomber. As you can see in the above video, the flexibility of the outside of the frame allowed it to absorb the blast. If the bomb had gone off, the plane would have still been able to fly and land.
Of course, the damage inside the plane still would have been horrific. But it's nice to know that the trusty 747 can stand up to such abuse.
Oh man, had I been on that plane I would have put the hurt on that guy. I'm talking "make you wish pterodactyls had never invented flight in the first place" kind of hurt. I'm talking Prehistoric Hurt Locker. Oscar-winning tie-in FTW! Goldguy me, bitches.
Boeing 747 Survives a Simulated Underwear Bomb Blast [gizmodo] (with more info on why the test was legit despite the cabin not being pressurized)
Thanks to Suzanne and Archibold, for having two normal names for once. Except Archibold.
Reader Comments
1. Sam - March 9, 2010 8:00 PM
First! also frickin sweet
2. monster - March 9, 2010 8:05 PM
Wait wut? Hurray because the pilot and First / Business class passengers would be able to escape unscathed?
GODDAMN YOU FAT CATS
meow
3. Jaja - March 9, 2010 8:07 PM
Before the rest of you...
4. J-man the Cobra - March 9, 2010 8:10 PM
Hmmm... Why can't we put comments on the last post?
5. jimmydogballz - March 9, 2010 8:13 PM
what the BBC forgot to mention is that the plane while in flight would have been pressurised and that would have drastically changed the results of said explosion.
6. monster - March 9, 2010 8:20 PM
@4
cause the article is actually over at iwatchstuff
7. Boost - March 9, 2010 8:24 PM
@5 That's what I was thinking, there are actually tons of variables to this.
Seems this was a short clip of a 30-minute long program or something, anyone know where to watch the full thing?
8. jimmydogballz - March 9, 2010 8:26 PM
that guy is DA BOMB... there I've said it.
does anyone remember the Underpants gnomes from Southpark. Maybe he was just trying to suprise the little bastards.
9. swan - March 9, 2010 9:01 PM
Someone is advertising for an online interracial dating site "B l a c k W h i t e C u p i d. c o m " I have just read the news on the white / Black women seeking soul mate club BlackWhiteCupid.com advertisers you need to stop! BlackWhiteCupid.com is a controvercial site for high quality singles!!
10. clothing - March 9, 2010 9:54 PM
Maybe he was just trying to suprise the little bastards.
11. Naked Chicks Rule - March 9, 2010 10:01 PM
Ooooh, he blew up real good...
NOT!!!
12. BBC - March 9, 2010 10:11 PM
do they not have DRVs in england? the damage on the inside would still be significant so idk why they didnt show it
13. Marcus - March 9, 2010 10:20 PM
The plane crashed anyway when someone opened the door to get rid of the stink of burning gonads.
14. Marcus - March 9, 2010 10:21 PM
The plane crashed anyway when someone opened the door to get rid of the stink of burning gonads.
15. Nicholas Chee - March 9, 2010 11:11 PM
"Prehistoric Hurt Locker. Oscar-winning tie-in FTW!"
FTW indeed!
16. austin - March 9, 2010 11:26 PM
Really isn't all that accurate. The pressure in the cabin would be different during flight. Also, all of the windows attached to the plane opened when it blew up. If that happened for just an instant on an airplane, BLAMO, you've got yourself a big ass problem.
17. ian - March 9, 2010 11:26 PM
maybe if he had humped the wall first...
you know.. stuck his business right up against it
18. lane - March 10, 2010 12:17 AM
Wouldn't the pressure on the outside of the plane make a TON of difference to this experiment?......
thanks bbc... you've been very informative on how to waste money and time...
19. Nick - March 10, 2010 1:31 AM
@16 and @18
You are completely right. I found myself shaking my head during this whole video. The pressurized cabin would have been subject to the effects of explosive decompression. If you notice in the video the windows actually shake loose, that would have broken the seal. Think of it like shaking up a soda can, you've changed the interior pressure, and when you expose that to normal air pressure, the results are explosive.
This video is going to do 2 things. First, it will make ignorant people comfortable, thinking that these whack jobs can't harm a 747 and second, the whack jobs are going to up the ante, thinking that they can't hurt a 747.
Source: I'm a pilot.
20. Cornelious - March 10, 2010 1:56 AM
@19 Second,
Also up in the high freezing ass altitudes the aluminum would be WAYY less flexible as compared to sitting on the ground on a sunny day dramatically increasing the chances of a crack. What show is this anyway? Bunch of retards...
21. Blaaa - March 10, 2010 2:44 AM
mmm I don't trust this much ... there was some test before and adding the outside and inside pressure of the plane at high altitudes ... the damages could be catastrophic ... a lot more than shown in this test :(
22. Donk Donkeson - March 10, 2010 6:59 AM
If that bomb went off in such a pressurized area it would have probably killed everybody on board anyway.
@20 he tried to do it when the plane was landing, not when it was at altitude.
23. Marcie - March 10, 2010 11:41 AM
This is an example of how we are all secretly wanting another successful terrorist attack to continuously fuel the hate. With out that reminder, maybe some people will start learning about the middle east, Muslim and Islamic culture and find that they are also being threaten by terrorists. Thats why good ol' new sources such as FOx are booming since they constantly encourage the misunderstands of ignorant people.
24. Josephine - March 10, 2010 12:00 PM
As mentioned, the pressure difference would make a big difference.
Worse, just that the doors weren't sealed also makes a difference as there's no place for the increased blast pressure to dissipate to.
So, scientifically, the test is almost certainly invalid. Would not make it past the first round of peer review, much less be published.
25. Tragik1 - March 10, 2010 12:03 PM
5, 16,18, 19, 20, 21 For the win!
24 You are also correct.
So they could land the plane with a lower altitude detonation, but at cruising altitude it would be a whole different story, maybe total structural failure, besides the fact that everyone in the blasts kill zone would be gibblets at a lower altitude anyway.
Isn't the big picture to save lives? Land or not, this video only proves this act would definitely terrorize. lol
Still, you are more likely to be hit by lightning at 1 in 500,000, whereas, being a terrorism victim in flight is 1 in 10,408,947.
26. al queda sucks mohammod - March 10, 2010 12:09 PM
The next time this happens on a plane (shoe bomber, underwear bomber or whatever) people should just line up like in the movie Airplane and take turns cracking the scumbag in the face. Actually someone should break every one of his/her fingers and maybe remove an eye. They won't need their fingers when they are tortured, er, I mean questioned...
27. Dumbass White Guy - March 10, 2010 2:09 PM
#24?
Marcie, of course, it's all our fault and the fault of FOX news. It has nothing to do with the almost daily murderous attacks on Muslims and khuffir (you and me) perpetrated by Islamists. Seems to me the fueling of hate is by those who actually hate. Check out the writings and videos of Islamists. We love Pepsi, they love death.
Tool.
DaWG
A resident of America's Hat.©
28. BoomShakka - March 10, 2010 4:41 PM
Arabs (and Muslims!) are not smart enough to blow up planes any more any way! Those silly gaywads sent their six best men to do the attacks on 9/11. The rest of them are trying to figure out how to stack camel shit higher than two stories back home. They try to blow up decent American people because they have been around forever and we have been around for a couple hundred years and they spent their time fighting each other because of a storybook, and we actually got something done (Like letting women have some rights). Wake up Arabs! (and Muslims!) Maybe giving women rights wasn't the smartest thing we ever did, but you're being so Lindsay about this. Get back to driving us around in taxis and get over it.
Totally.
29. Donk Donkerson - March 10, 2010 5:04 PM
@ 29 - People like you are the reason they want to kill us.
30. AMarine - March 10, 2010 5:31 PM
If anyone recalls Mythbusters did a test like this with the aircraft pressurised, blew a nice bid hole in the side. Also take into account the overpressure from the blast likely would have had an effect on the pilots depending on their distance from the blast even with the cockpit door closed. Which worst case scenario could have caused the aircraft to come down as well even without the fuselage ruptured. Just a thought....
31. Jaded Icon - March 10, 2010 8:23 PM
@ 30
I seriously doubt that. Human history has proven you don't really need a good reason to hate someone.
BTW: There has got to be more to this test. It's hard to take investigative jounalism seriously if they're not going to test the other variables or at least add them in thier calculations.
32. DreamFolder - March 10, 2010 11:36 PM
On the supportive side, many a C-130 flew back to Marietta Georgia for repairs riddled with holes, some as big as bowling balls.
Remember, too, the 737 in Hawaii (Aloha airlines) that became a convertible when an entire section of the mid fuselage blew off (the effect of fatigue and aforementioned explosive decompession) taking a flight attendant with it, but not disabling the plane's ability to remain airborne.
So there's correctness on both sides and more variables involved. As I said, the plane likely would have been able to fly to land, but the people inside would have been somewhat inconvenieced. As others have suggested, the bomber's location at the time of detonation could prove crucial. If he were proximal to a mainframe, wing root, control cable or control wire harness (Boeing wasn't so good at separating their redundant systems spatialy.), fuel line, empenage structure or pilot cabin the results could meet the intentions.
Kids, don't try this at home... or on my flight.
33. whattheshit - March 10, 2010 11:36 PM
#27, I agree with your idea.
But why the hell is the BBC showing this stuff? I mean it's cool to watch, but seriously, why give terrorists any more information about how to succeed?
34. Tennis Racquet - March 11, 2010 1:35 AM
Tennis Racquet
35. Tye shin - March 13, 2010 3:20 AM
So... the "terrorist" would just end up blouing his genitals and hurting a few people around him. That sucks because his a total failure even for doing something bad.
36. Robothinkyoukindance - March 15, 2010 10:05 PM
input this URL, I am more likely to shop at an asshat spammers blast with my Paypal account, than give this "study" one iota of credibility.
Put that in your Jihaad and smoke it.
37. Ladd - March 16, 2010 1:16 PM
Dreamfolders comments are worthy of consideration. I think that setting an explosive devise on a grounded 20 foot wide 747, with opened access, and an A-330 which is about 17 feet wide travelling at 200 mph is too much of an apple and oranges comparison. Why would the BBC come to this conclution?
Maybe to defuse the severity of the failures of their ball dropping individuals from facing diciplinary action! These ball droppers can sleep like a baby at night, just like they sleep during the day thinking that this failure on their part would not have caused a catastrophy?!
Regards, Ladd