It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 12:41 PM
Commercial jet airliners are constructed largely from aluminum fuselages. Its a wonder the thruther 'thermite crowd' hasn't picked up on that the thermite reaction is largely aluminum oxide.


posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 01:03 PM
Can you compare the two? Airplanes stogged with fuel hitting skyscrapers, and an F-18 where the pilot tried to dump as much fuel as he could before crashing down into an apartment complex.

With that said, I do believe that 9/11 is a huge conspiracy, I just don't see how you can realistically compare these two events without running into several other factors between the two.
edit on 7/4/12 by murkraz because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 01:08 PM
reply to post by kman420

Our military defense was not meant to defend against our own commercial jetliners.

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 01:16 PM

Originally posted by Glargod

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

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

Because it wouldn't makes sense!

Good job! That was exactly my point.

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 01:18 PM
Comparing a fighter/attack jet aircraft (designed to absorb punishment) and a civilian airliner designed to "stay together" is like comparing a stick to a baseball bat.

There is no comparison to the size, terminal velocity and relative angle of impact. One pilot was trying to inflict punishment with 10,000 gallons of diesel and the other was trying to "crash land" (until the last moment).

If a fighter impacts the ground at relatively hi speed they call it a "smoking hole in the ground", because that is all thats left. Look at the crater left by the fourth plane in the field.

Different scenario when one plane is taking off and when one (a much bigger one) is pointed towards a target at hundreds of miles an hour.

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 01:26 PM
Here we go again, Another thread war that won't get us anywhere.

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 01:37 PM
reply to post by karen61057

The military defense were apparently too busy to respond that day..running drills, training for just such an air attack. Coincidence? Under orders to 'stand down'? Were there commercial planes at all? Whatever the case, the taxpayer funded trillion$ air defense system failed.

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 02:12 PM
Oh, one last thing 'on topic', military fighter jets are constructed with a bit of material difference than commercial airliners. just saying

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 02:19 PM

Originally posted by freakyclown tm_medium=twitter

Amazing amount left over of the craft crashed - feel free to draw your own conclusions to the Pentagon and Penns crash on 9/11.

(this thread for information only I am not trying to start another thread war)

The Physics alone should tell you trying to compare the two crashes is absurd. Factor the weight of the plane the velocity of the crash, and the construction material of the buildings that were hit by the plane. The F-18 following military protocol jettisoned the fuel tanks prior to the crash.

edit on 7-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 02:26 PM
reply to post by NOTurTypical

Since you are all so obsessed with fuel, just what caused the fires ??

Apparently they were NOT jettisoned, and the story of it trying to bail into the sea is not very accurate, missed that mark as well.

I would guess you also believe that jet fuel has magical capabilities of destroying massive steel structures ?

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 02:41 PM
Anytime I here the word truthers, said or typed. I automaticallty go into mental rage..... My immediate response is SHEEP! As far as the Jet wreackage being found, I say YES! just like the wreackage of the Soviet crash 2 weeks ago in Sibera ( tons of crap everywhere) -errrrrrrrrrrrrrrr not like the pathetic footage of SHANKSVILLE.... Or what about the skyscraper in Russia last week on fire, that never fell into its own footprint?????

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 02:48 PM
reply to post by GrinchNoMore

I would guess you also believe that jet fuel has magical capabilities of destroying massive steel structures ?

Uhh Yea!
Look at the I580 collapse and video.
The steel warped in only 17 minutes.

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 04:27 PM
reply to post by Human_Alien

plus this was an accident 9/11 was not,

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 04:44 PM
Pretty sure if that Hornet crashed into a building made up of steel beams, going at 400+ mph with a full tank of jet fuel nothing would be left of it either.

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 05:25 PM
reply to post by Ancient Champion

That's because some people don't trust the facts.

There's more than enough evidence about the crash at the pentagon.

Look here, for an example:

There is ZERO evidence for a conspiracy either at the pentagon or the WTC 1&2 and 7. Every time I see these claims they get smashed by facts. The truthers are no better than climate change deniers.

For a few years I wondered too. I didn't think the airplanes could collapse the buildings. I didn't support the Iraq mess in 2003. I kept my distance. For the past few years I've been exploring the whole thing and my conclusion is there's no conspiracy. There's a possibility that somebody somewhere knew that an attack was imminent and that maybe some groups were using this to their advantage, but I absolutely believe that these people, if any, were few and do not represent the majority of those who work in intelligence. There's also the possibility (likely) that there was negligence and bad choices in the chain of command. But before 9/11 happened we were wet behind the ears and this is almost understandable. But anytime a country goes to war, it's not something that should be taken lightly. If we make a mistake in our judgment and fight several years in a controversial war then somebody has to be held accountable.

The real conspiracy going on is in every country of the world. They're all fighting proxy wars. These proxy wars make matters worse. Ther's a lot of illegal activities and smuggling and payed hitmen. It's not acceptable, but it just goes on and on. So many things in life are like that. Have we no shame?
edit on 7-4-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 05:55 PM

Originally posted by freakyclown tm_medium=twitter

Amazing amount left over of the craft crashed - feel free to draw your own conclusions to the Pentagon and Penns crash on 9/11.

(this thread for information only I am not trying to start another thread war)

Look, 911 was a magical time where the laws of thermodynamics and other arbitrary sciency things got suspended. One might think that Allah chose sides that day -- but that would be an equally treasonous use of reason or something equivalent.

There are numerous factors that are different, and thus allow for people in nice suits to influence thought processes and allow people to ignore the important factors that are the same.

/ Public Service Announcement from the Dark Side.

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 06:01 PM
I agree that there is a suspicious lack of debris at 9/11 crash sites, but this is a completely different aircraft, type of building and impact speed.

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 06:02 PM

Originally posted by karen61057

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?

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 ?

Besides this thread, I have no idea about the story. I don't watch television. I don't read the newspaper and this wasn't interesting enough to me to read up on it on the net so, besides here, I have no idea what happened.
That's why I pulled out of the conversation.

But not knowing the story at all......and with you asking me if I think there were explosives in the building?...I have to ask you this then:
Do you mean on purpose (like they knew this plane would hit) and it was just an accelerant or you mean did they have like a meth lab in there?

On second thought; never mind. I'm seriously not interested in this story.

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 06:05 PM
reply to post by jonnywhite

Look, there is a LOT OF NONSENSE on both sides... once you have a conspiracy and a lack of facts -- it's a mess.

However I look at the group of engineers who lambasted the NIST report -- where they claim ONE COLUMN caused a spontaneous collapse of over 144 other columns. Ignored were reports by firefighters of molten steel running down the stair wells.

The MIT investigation also found the NIST explanation for WTC 1 & 2 lacking as well.

>> However -- once you see the WTC 7 falling at freefall speed -- without resistance, there just is no explanation for that from a secondary fire without explosives.

Don't look at the worst of the conspiracy theories -- look at the parts of the story there is NO EXPLANATION FOR. Two planes did NOT bring down three buildings at near freefall speed at the WTC and the physics of this will not change in other parts of the world and other times for kerosene vs. steel girders.

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 06:55 PM
Actually, there was more debris found after the Columbia burned up on entry and fell to earth than what they found at the Pentagon and Pennsylvania sites combined. They actually found some living worm larvae or something similar, (can't recall) in pitri dishes that were being taken up for experiments...weeks after the disaster.

Furthermore, they found numerous body parts; arms, legs, even a human heart, when they did large scale sweep.

But, I don't need all that evidence; the Pentagon is evidence enough. A tin can cannot neatly burrow through nine feet of steel reinforced concrete and leave a nice, round 14" hole on the other side, and yet NOT A SIGN of what left that hole. Also, since the wings of the planes that hit the twin towers cut through those steel columns like butter, why didn't they at least leave a nice, silhouette on the Pentagon? No, we are expected to believe they neatly folded back and entered through that same hole. My question is, if they folded back, ie. detached from the plane, what were they held on by while they smashed their way through the building? The spars that attach them to the body of the plane are near the center of the wing, not the trailing edge.

Also, the hole that the plane left would only be the size of the plane. The width of the wings at the body of the plane must be at least 12' wide, adding 24' to the width of the hole necessary to accommodate the wings. Then, they would have to be firmly attached to the plane in such a way that they too could crash through the 24" outer wall.

There are simply to many implausible, unanswered questions.

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in