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

page: 5
24
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomtangentsrme
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.


One media report stated that the problem was the fuel leaking, probably forgot to put the cap back on.




posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by FOXMULDER147
 


The conpiracy loons are always on prowl for plane crashes for "proof" of their theories

See the neat crater left by XYZ Airlines crash

Why didn't United 93 leave such a crater....?

Or see all the debris from ABC airlines crash

Why dont (American 11, United 175, American 77) see all that debris lying around

Give you hint: Probably because most of the debris ended up INSIDE the building.......


Given the topic at hand, an event which has changed the world as we know it, led to the deaths of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the middle east, cost us many of our most valued individual liberties, and has caused most of the world to live in fear of another such event, using the word 'PROBABLY' in your argument is not only less than reassuring, it's downright pathetic



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Very bizaar. Although i wouldnt compare it to 911 (even though the residents of that area might have thought that at the time). Mistakes do happen, fortunately this mistake didnt end any lives.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by pshea38
 


Most certainly. It's a very old and tiring topic for me. I was being facetious..thought you picked up on it.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   
The pictures I seen had a very eerie similarity to them compared
To 9/11 ground debris. Didn't an accident happen like this to a New
Jersey school a few years back no a couple years back.

Bad accident, bad omen or both?



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
I know it's been posted, but speed and mass are some of the biggest factors here in the amount of energy translated back into the plane during the crash. Energy goes up exponentially as speed increases, and on 9/11, the plane at the Pentagon was going upwards of 400mp/h. Maybe I'm missing something, but I highly doubt that the pilots of the F-18 were going full-throttle, and I'm reading from some of the responses here that they dumped a lot of the fuel before ejecting and letting the plane crash.

There really is no comparison. Besides, there was a lot of debris found at the Pentagon, regardless of the people who think it was all planted.


It is mystifying that this fuel issue keeps coming up, as we all see the fuel get burnt up immediately on impact... so who cares ??

I have yet to see kerosene do any damage to my lamps and heaters that are made of lesser metals, amazing how the heat does nothing to it !!!

Energy does not magically store for even seconds after the original impact, so this is a non-issue as well.

You have apparently watched so many movies about the bad guys from outside you forgot about the ones near you.

There was NOT a lot of debris found at the Pentagon, and certainly NONE that matched any of the damage or impact areas, its amazing that you think this crap fits the story.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   


Link I saw posted on ATS long ago about the 9/11 stuff. An acft will atomize if it strikes a hard surface fast enough and not just fall to the ground like in a crash.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   
It was probably show down by an alien craft


second line



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Demigodly
reply to post by pshea38
 


Most certainly. It's a very old and tiring topic for me. I was being facetious..thought you picked up on it.


Kind of, but it is better to be safe.
ATS is so very chock full of deniers and outright liars.

Good to see some sense arriving here.

All 9/11 fakery threads are dumped into the deliberate hoax bin.
Just so you know what sense and integrity are up against here.

BienVenue Demigodly.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Why are there 3 threads about this. No one died, The pilot ejected , dumped most of the fuel out and then apolgized to the people that lived there.

What i don't understand is why 3 of pretty much the same thing is so popular and why haven't the mods fixed this?



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 01:06 AM
link   
Here is another plane crash:

media.spokesman.com...


This really confuses me. I want the world I live in to be easy and simple. Therefore, all wreckage of crashed planes must look similar. If they don't look the same, my personal laws of physics are broken, and therefore, the government did it.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Epirus
 



757 weighs around 70,000lbs


Boeing 757 weighs in at 200,000 lbs

The larger model 767 comes in at 300,000 lbs

Difference is in speed - F 18 had just taken off wheras the hijacker airliners were traveling at 500mph or
more



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 04:13 AM
link   
9/11 was likely an inside job, but these pilots dumped fuel[u/] before he crashed. Had they not, who knows what it would have looked like.

It's, in fact, why no-one died.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


Yes, you would think so Grey, but military fighter jets are relatively flimsy considering the loads they can come under in a combat situation; but fighters are built primarily for speed, with 'maneuverability' a secondary priority in the modern, high-tech theater of air combat. The reason being air-to-air or air-to-ground weapons are designed nowadays to mostly be used/fired from great distances if enemy surface-to-air defenses or aircraft haven't already been neutralized beforehand and the requirement of the fighter is one of 'preferably' super-sonic seeds allowing them to flee harms way in relative safety.

This means they must be as light as possible, but also allow for maneuverability of all speeds... which translates to an ability to withstand loads up to somewhere in the region of +/- 12g (or slightly higher perhaps), but only where its necessary i.e. the wing roots, engine mounts, fin roots etc... not right across the airframe and skin of the aircraft. This is very different than with commercial airliners.

Commercial airliners have to withstand huge stresses and loads and built to handle some very extreme events compared to fighter jets. It's a very rare thing to loose a commercial airliner through a catastrophic structural failure... more often than not it's due to massive system failures such as a complete hydrologic failure, jammed control surfaces, electrical malfunctions or fire. Commercial airliners just don't suddenly disintegrate or fall apart in mid-air... they're too damn strong and built like fortresses... hence when they do crash, they certainly don't just 'disintegrate' into dust. Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise doesn't haven't a clue about commercial airliners, let alone what they're talking about.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   
not sure how an errant tag managed to affect the following posts, but did something about it.

The OP is talking two completely different types of aircraft, and two building with (assumption) two completely different types of construction, there are way too many variables to even pretend to draw parallels at this stage.

Might I also remind the OP, of the force equation:

force = mass x acceleration ( F = ma ).

Since acceleration is just how velocity changes over time, we can write this as

F = m (x) v/t

The F-18 is lighter, and in this case, was probably much slower (so velocity change at impact much less) than the aircraft that impacted the WTC and Pentagon. The construction of both the Pentagon and WTC are without a doubt much more robust and able to withstand much greater forces than the building the F-18 hit.
edit on 4/7/2012 by RyanFromCan because: drop a tag in at start of post to remove hanging tag causing my post to be underlined from previous post.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 07:17 AM
link   
The government always has its sneaky little ways of getting things past us. They do things that we would not even believe or consider and that's how they get away with it. Take for instance the SOPA, PIPA bills, now they have a new one called CISPA in place and it looks like people dont even know about it and it will be passed. If people don't know about it to protest it then why should anyone in congress disagree with it and so, it will be passed.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   
My word, still so many defenders of the official conspiracy here.

Deny Ignorance, not Deny Logic.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   
I suspect the pentagon was built to different specs than a condo complex

lol



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by freakyclown
 


stand by... the Revolution will begin shortly.





new topics
top topics
 
24
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join