Plane wreckage left over after F-18 crashes into building. (compare to 9/11)

Oh gosh....

To make a comparison of the two is laughable.

That is like comparing an egg gingerly tossed at a card house (F-18), vs a potato shot at a brick wall with a potato gun (9-11 aircraft).

The f-18 had just taken off and was said to be nose up when crashed (really slow), and the buildings are wood, drywall, and other light materials, the passenger jets were at full throttle and nose down (really fast) into cement, steel, and rebar.

One day, this will end

Originally posted by St Udio
the story in the article implies that the pilot dumped the fuel tank liquid and was sorta gliding towards the ocean & he ejected at the last possible moment...

perhaps the ejection seat power caused the craft to get a downward blast from the ejection rockets and caused the jet to crash before the intended destination offshore.


from the damage photo linked, it looks like the jet belly flopped into the courtyard & building
so it was not like a full throttle intentional impact event as were the 911 events

I agree. Tin foil hats should be removed here.

Speaking as an engineer: The F-18 fighter was

A) much lighter,
B) had dumped most fuel prior to impact,
C) was flying MUCH slower at time of impact (momentum is proportional to mass times velocity SQUARED,
D) hit a much "softer" target (not a steel and concrete skyscraper) belly first, not head-on, while trying to ditch in the ocean..
Also, the pilots were trying to minimize collateral damage and survive, not maximize damage and commit suicide.

I don't think you can compare the this to 911.

That what happens to the plane striking a concrete wall:
www.youtube.com...
So let's compare:
Pentagon reinforced concrete walls -Checked
Plane striking at the speed 500mph or above -Checked
No wonder there were few things left at the pentagon crash.

I don't see that the tails impacted anything. So why should they disintegrate?

Originally posted by Illustronic
I don't see that the tails impacted anything. So why should they disintegrate?

If you are talking about the F-18...nose up means, tail down. That would be the first part of the aircraft to strike the ground.

reply to post by cavscout11cav


And the tails are on top of the jet not the bottom. Was it flying upside down?

reply to post by freakyclown


Thought the SAME thing when I saw the photos,

reply to post by Human_Alien


Except it was not a steel and concrete building. It was a wood frame brick facade building. It was a low rent apartment building for seniors. It was not a millions of dollars sky scraper made of steel and concrete. Also these boys just left the base. They were going less than 200 mph. ( 170 if I am correct) They were still pretty low to the ground and they dumped fuel. (witnessed by people on the ground as either purposefully dumped or part of the mechinacal failure that brought the jet down in the first place.) Those two things change the outcome of the event drastically.
Interestingly enough there has been no jet traffice from Oceania or Langley since the accident yesterday afternoon. The skies are very very quiet here this morning.

Originally posted by cavscout11cav
Oh gosh....

To make a comparison of the two is laughable.

That is like comparing an egg gingerly tossed at a card house (F-18), vs a potato shot at a brick wall with a potato gun (9-11 aircraft).

The f-18 had just taken off and was said to be nose up when crashed (really slow), and the buildings are wood, drywall, and other light materials, the passenger jets were at full throttle and nose down (really fast) into cement, steel, and rebar.

One day, this will end

Yes it will end but not for a very very long time. Until all the folks who are so sure this was not a terrorist attack have gone on to meet their maker. Then only if they have not passed the contagion on to the next generation that is.

I don't think that al qaeda dumped the remaining fuel like the pilot of the F18 did, I'm almost as sure that the F18 pilot WASN'T trying to crash, but was trying to avoid being killed in a crash, differences.

Right thread.. I think.

170 mph Navy fighter jet that dumped fuel, hitting the ground vs. 500 mph passenger plane fully fueled, hitting the side of a building.

Yeah, you can compare the two, like you can compare apples and tire irons.

Oh for the love of God! These events could not be more different than 9/11.

-The Pentagon has concrete ringed walls that are 3 feet thick ea.!!

- The F/A 18 Hornet is much, much smaller than a jumbo jet.

- The F/A 18 Hornet also carries significantly less fuel, to feed the fires

- The Hornet was probably close to stall speed (120 kn) when the pilots ejected

- The planes on 9/11 were full sized planes with the throttles peeled back. (540kn)


I could list a 100 more but I'm afraid you don't really win anything when you're arguing with idiots.

The Taliban dont fly planes lol. Theres no #ing way they would have chose to do that attack, and inconceivble that they could pull it off with your "military defence" systems.

Honestly i dont know whats worse, having the taliban attack your country, or admiting your country failed so badly that this even happened. In reality, alteast a dozen air traffic controlers would have watched those planes crash from 30 minutes away...

reply to post by GenRadek


Nah, those old people were running a meth lab.

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Human_Alien

 

I was talking about the F-18 plane crash and eyewitness accounts of explosions in the apartment complex after the crash and fire. So am I to assume explosives were the cause of these explosions? Were they planted in the apartment complex?

Oh.
Sorry.
Didn't realize that.

As you have already surmised, I have no idea.

You have no idea , fine , but do you have a thought? Does it seem possible that explosives were in the apartment complex ?

Its also a stupid comparison because that part of the Pentagon that was impacted was the newly reinforced section, which also included inch thick transparent armor for windows. Used on newer MRAPs.

"It atomized on impact, turning to dust".

reply to post by DragonFire1024


The operative phrase in this scenario is, "as far as I know". The question is, how much do you really know about plane crashes and what kind of debris is usually left over ? That will determine the accuracy of the rest of your statement.

Christ..........come on truthers......

I see you guys LOVE trying to use science and math, unless it flies in the face of your own theories...

Then SOMEHOW it goes out the window, is not aplicable, or is in itself ANOTHER CONSPIRACY, meant to detract

from your own theory!


Mass x Velocity = Momentum

This equation ALONE puts this whole thread to rest........

You cant just use facts and data ONLY when it suits your theories.......

Deny them all you want, you cant change them........

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by cavscout11cav

 

And the tails are on top of the jet not the bottom. Was it flying upside down?

Oh you mean the verticle stabilizer, which is the wing that has the rudder on it. As I see in the picture the OP posted, I see both stabilizers with two engine nacels. Still there just badly damaged by the fire...or do you not see that either.

Tail is a reference to the back of the aircraft.

Whoops sorry Illustronic, I think we are on the same side of the arguement, I think I just miss read something earlier lol.

Hi,

I see the point that you are making but i don't think those two crashes can be compared as they are quite different.

In the case of the F-18 i don't think it was going as fast as the planes that hit the towers. It didn't carry nearly as much fuel as the airliners either, and from what i read the pilots dumped fuel before hitting the ground. They were just lifting off from the base so they must not of been going full speed either.

Also, there were way less physical barriers in those little homes than in the towers... No massive concrete structures or steel columns to go through.

Very different crashes.