The comparison would be difficult to make because of the difference in the type of aircraft involved.

However, notes of the "debris field" etc could maintain credence if explained properly.

Well aren't military jets supposed to be tougher than civilian transport planes?
They are designed to be able to withstand some punishment before losing flight integrity.

I'm sure there is probably some differences in thickness of the skin of the plane.

From the linked article

The jet went down only minutes after take off at around 12.05pm and witnesses said it was disgorging fuel in the moments before it crashed.

It sounds like they got rid of the fuel to keep damage to a minimum.

Originally posted by Human_Alien

But yeah, amazing ain't it?
The laws of physics seem to vary depending on the event.

Yeah, physicists have to get special degrees for 9/11.

psik

Why not rename this thread to:

Woman Bakes Delicious Apple Pie. (compare to Orange Juice)

Impact speeds and mass of the airplanes vastly different. The buildings they hit completely different in size and construction. Amount of jet fuel on board vastly different.

Yea... let's compare ipods to oranges and say it's the same.

There is something obviously not explained to the american public and the world about the events of 911. Whether or not there is evidence of a plane or missile or hologram is still a very intelligent rouse to distract people from the real evidence of who really did 911.

Albeit, investigation the real evidence of 911 like Ptech or the israeli involvement of the planning and execution of the 911 attacks is quite boring compared to staring at fuzzy youtube vids and limited images of pods, holograms, space weapons.

There are dozens of threads here on ats that tell you 98 percent of the reall 911 conspiracy but those threads get burried quick. Debunkers and skeptics dont reply on those threads to allow them to get no notice and burried. But the truth is here on ATS and it has nothing to do with what happened after the 1st plane hit the 1st tower.

In short. Investigate everything seconds before the 1st plane hit the 1st tower. Any focus on the after events is a tar pit of silliness.

ok for starters:

The F-18 Super Hornet crashed with a minimal fuel load.
The F-18 crashed after flying very low and slow.
The F-18 impacted an apartment building, which is mostly wood and light brickwork.

The plane did not impact at 400+mph.
The plane did not impact a massive limestone wall.

Also, to whomever said that on 9/11 a 747 crashed, please, go back and do some actual research so you do not look ignorant and foolish as most Truthers do.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Why not rename this thread to:

Woman Bakes Delicious Apple Pie. (compare to Orange Juice)

An airplane crash into a steel/concrete building is still a crash into a steel/concrete building.

If ANYTHING this super duper military jet should've penetrated and sliced into this measly building and come out the other side!
(The 9/11 Pentagon crash gave me that silly idea )

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Why not rename this thread to:

Woman Bakes Delicious Apple Pie. (compare to Orange Juice)

An airplane crash into a steel/concrete building is still a crash into a steel/concrete building.

If ANYTHING this super duper military jet should've penetrated and sliced into this measly building and come out the other side!
(The 9/11 Pentagon crash gave me that silly idea )

I work in aviation design and manufacturing. Have experience with military and civilian aircraft. You sound silly.

Originally posted by Human_Alien

An airplane crash into a steel/concrete building is still a crash into a steel/concrete building.

If ANYTHING this super duper military jet should've penetrated and sliced into this measly building and come out the other side!
(The 9/11 Pentagon crash gave me that silly idea )

Ah yes, and the trusty old Truther response:

PERSONAL INCREDULITY. When all else fails, always turn to it. Way to go!

Embrace ignorance my friend. You must enjoy it very much!

There's a big difference between a fighter hitting a wood frame building and a commercial airliner hitting a structural steel building the size of the pentagon.

Originally posted by GenRadek
ok for starters:

The F-18 Super Hornet crashed with a minimal fuel load.

Point taken
Weak argument

The F-18 crashed after flying very low and slow.

See: Flight 77 into Pentagon. And by the way, how slow is 'slow'? Like a handglider?

The F-18 impacted an apartment building, which is mostly wood and light brickwork.

Where are you getting all this information?

The plane did not impact at 400+mph.

.........and this was heard on your police scanner or something?

The plane did not impact a massive limestone wall.

It also didn't impact the Washington monument. Your point?

Also, to whomever said that on 9/11 a 747 crashed, please, go back and do some actual research so you do not look ignorant and foolish as most Truthers do.

Being a 'Truther' is a step up from being a Sheeple my friend.

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