@ASIANPRIDE50 he was flying on one engine at the time and then when we was flying over the homes his other engine failed. there is no way for you to control a 36000 lbs f/a-18d with no power. yes it was a bad day. but every1 that lives near MCAS miramar know this can happen.
I saw the plane go down and the guy eject. It was so loud, like a garage track dumping stuff and a jet really close flying. Crazy shit, I live 30 seconds WALKING distance. 30 damn seconds.
this happen less than 5 mile from were i work..this the second time that happen but the other jet crash in the field..i hear them take off and they fly over are building and make cars alarm go off..and i was thinking that could happen and it did..its a bit scary now in a way..
Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to "vaporize" steel. Clearly jet fuel started the fires in those two houses, and what do you see amongst the wreckage? Well there's plenty of that jet left over, and it was just a fighter jet. Now I'd love to hear YOU explain why a small fighter jet left tons of wrecked steel at the scene, and an entire passenger airliner didn't. Please... I'm all ears.
Steel is used sparingly in aircraft. The main place it's used is in the engines, which is why you find large engine remains. Aluminum is the primary material in almost all jet aircraft and is eaten up very quickly in fire. Also, a Boeing 767 (for example) carries 23980 U.S. gal of fuel, whereas an F/A-18 carries around one tenth of that. That's a major difference in the possible damage. Fighters are also built more solidly (to deal with warfare) than airliners.
If steel is primarily used in the engines, and jet fuel cannot "vaporize" it, as stated in the official report of what happened at the Pentagon, then the engines of the airliner would still be amongst the wreckage, which they were not. But... it seems like you've got all the answers, so by all means, believe our wonderful government who's done such an amazing job at taking our homeland, one of the greatest countries in the world, and running it into the ground just like that fighter jet.
Whether or not I'm satisfied with my government has nothing to do with it. I believe what I SEE. There were engines found at the pentagon. I don't want to waste time explaining something in detail when someone else already has. As I can't post site addresses here, I'll have to show you another way if you're interested. Send me a private message if you would like to see a couple of sites explaining this.
I guess you both are entitled to your points of view but it is awfully hard to convince my friend who lost family in the plane that crashed into the pentagon that it was all a cover up. Maybe you can do that for her.
just compare the damaged on the ground of the pentagon and see the ground on here. Place a boieng beside a jet, the boeing is much bigger than the jet....
Fine, live in your own world if that is what you choose to do, as quite frankly, you have become rather boring, & it has become painfully obvious that you will not acept the truth as an answer so I will not waste any more time or effort with you.
why? because you said there should be a law against flying over residential areas. It's a statement so amazing in the scope of it's ignorance that it literally leaves me wanting for a response.
are there any other activities of infinitesimally small risk that you'd care to see a law against?
@dreadelite I am not familiar with Cali, but I would almost bet my bottom dollar that the airfield was there first. Just like VA, beach... The air field was there for years and all of a sudden you have a suburb pop up and people complaining. Why build there in the first place if you know the approach is there?
I wonder why these planes are allowed to fly over residential areas. If these pilots want to play with their toys they should at least do it over the ocean or unpopulated areas
what are they going to save me from. All those wmd that never existed. Thanks anyway but i dont feel under any threat, i live in the free world unlike you
Saddam killed the kurds with gas supplied by America and jets supplied by France. Then in 1991 Saddam was contained and disarmed. You will see Condi Rice and Colin Powell admit same in video on you tube. You must be one of thosepeople who believed Bush's lies, arent you gullible?
Its on the record that America supplied various wmd to Saddam but people like you live in denial and will never accept that. The war was about oil. Mr Bush and his thief friends secured Iraqs oil and used the resources of America to do this.
Bush is now a very weatlth man cos of the shares he has in the oil companys and Haliburton etc, but peoplle like you still believe that it was about freedom and democracy. It is you who is delusional or gullible- and you cannot be helped. I have dealt with your like B4
Look Sadam up on Wiki, tells you right there Iraq developed the nerve gas from chemicals supplied from West Germany, or do you like trying to re-invent history to suit your delusional state of mind.
Come, please do, tell me some more BS so I can prove you wrong again, lol
I have not backed off that claim and also Declassified U.S. government documents show that while Saddam Hussein was gassing Iraqi Kurds, the U.S. opposed punishing Iraq with a trade embargo because it was cultivating Iraq as an ally against Iran and as a market for U.S. farm exports.
Now answer my question. Has America ever backed a brutal dictator?
And it was never about oil dunce, as the US gets most of it's oil from Canada & S. America, lol, wrong again. Two Strikes so far. Wanna go for 3 ? LOL
Venezuala is largest supplier of oil to US. I told you you wouldnt accept the truth. You are one of these people who see America as doing no wrong and as a country that spreads freedom and democracy. ansswer this, Has America supported terrorism anywhere in the world?I will be curious to see what crap you come up with. America is THE biggest rogue state in the world, and you are unable to realise it cos of your conditioning from birth
Actually, Miramar Naval Airstation was founded before these homes were made, it's just that the land was needed and homes were built there. And the pilot did as much as he could to save the plane/homes, but there was nothing he could have done without power.
@evoraptor Actually, had the pilot done all he could to protect civilians he would have landed at North Island NAS, which would have avoided flying over any houses at all; North Island is right on the ocean.
Stop being so insensitive, 4 lives were lost in this tragic event. A grandmother (age 60), her daughter in-law (age 36), and her 2 grandaughters (ages 15 months and 2 months). The father of the children was at work at the time of the incident.
The "2 bangs" was probably the pilot ejecting. The eject system uses rockets and small explosives to discharge the parachute. I'm thinking it might have been loss of control because he would have flown it into the gully next to the houses (unless he ran out of time)
If you have worked in jet aircraft for over 23 years as you claim, then you should know multi-engined aircraft are twice as likely to crash as single-engined ones due to the fact that most pilots are unable to handle it when one engine fails, which makes controling the aircraft much more difficult.
For the most part, it is. The biggest problem in this case is that it is fairly easy to run on one engine at higher speed and altitude, where it is easier to control a crippled jet, but getting low and slow for landing compounds your problems. A lot of times, it is preferable to move to a safe place to eject rather than limping in to an airfield. Of course, there are still a lot of unanswered questions as to exactly how the accident actually occurred.
What are you talking about? Obviously you are not a pilot. I am and I am quite comfortable with my single engine skills. Both engines on this jet quit almost simultaneously.
It"s an amazing statement but absolutely correct. It's also possible to overreact and over compensate by applying to much throttle to the living Eng. thereby loosing rudder control. It will be interesting to see the cause of a total propulsion failure. The fire indicates enough fuel on board. It would be a first in Naval Aviation for an F-18 to loose both burners at the same time. Theoretically not possible. R.I.P.
Thank you, there must be more of us old men with thousands of hours out there. I flew a
Falcon 10 for many years, I also flew a Piper Cheyenne II, in my opinion the thrust vector champion of the T-prop world. AT R85% L50% one lost yaw control. King Air 350 much better.
our tax is going to retarded planes that crashes into ppls houses
51iohC 10 months ago
Ejecting instead of trying to regain control, that's just smart.
ASIANPRIDE50 1 year ago
@ASIANPRIDE50 he was flying on one engine at the time and then when we was flying over the homes his other engine failed. there is no way for you to control a 36000 lbs f/a-18d with no power. yes it was a bad day. but every1 that lives near MCAS miramar know this can happen.
idieasy 5 months ago
I saw the plane go down and the guy eject. It was so loud, like a garage track dumping stuff and a jet really close flying. Crazy shit, I live 30 seconds WALKING distance. 30 damn seconds.
CookehsRuleD00d 1 year ago
yes why?
mancoreta87 1 year ago
my whole middle school saw it it was scary just like a mile away and im just 12
lmm616 3 years ago
Some chemtrail less.... ; )))))
ssit72 3 years ago
this happen less than 5 mile from were i work..this the second time that happen but the other jet crash in the field..i hear them take off and they fly over are building and make cars alarm go off..and i was thinking that could happen and it did..its a bit scary now in a way..
thatonebeone 3 years ago
When you see this video, you can confirm that no plane crashed in the pentagon!
LeSchackal 3 years ago
No you can't, but I'd love to hear you explain why you think so.
admiralnomad 3 years ago
Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to "vaporize" steel. Clearly jet fuel started the fires in those two houses, and what do you see amongst the wreckage? Well there's plenty of that jet left over, and it was just a fighter jet. Now I'd love to hear YOU explain why a small fighter jet left tons of wrecked steel at the scene, and an entire passenger airliner didn't. Please... I'm all ears.
MotoX3style 3 years ago
Steel is used sparingly in aircraft. The main place it's used is in the engines, which is why you find large engine remains. Aluminum is the primary material in almost all jet aircraft and is eaten up very quickly in fire. Also, a Boeing 767 (for example) carries 23980 U.S. gal of fuel, whereas an F/A-18 carries around one tenth of that. That's a major difference in the possible damage. Fighters are also built more solidly (to deal with warfare) than airliners.
admiralnomad 3 years ago
Comparing medium-weight fighters to airliners is like comparing racing motorcycles to buses.
admiralnomad 3 years ago
If steel is primarily used in the engines, and jet fuel cannot "vaporize" it, as stated in the official report of what happened at the Pentagon, then the engines of the airliner would still be amongst the wreckage, which they were not. But... it seems like you've got all the answers, so by all means, believe our wonderful government who's done such an amazing job at taking our homeland, one of the greatest countries in the world, and running it into the ground just like that fighter jet.
MotoX3style 3 years ago
Whether or not I'm satisfied with my government has nothing to do with it. I believe what I SEE. There were engines found at the pentagon. I don't want to waste time explaining something in detail when someone else already has. As I can't post site addresses here, I'll have to show you another way if you're interested. Send me a private message if you would like to see a couple of sites explaining this.
admiralnomad 3 years ago
I guess you both are entitled to your points of view but it is awfully hard to convince my friend who lost family in the plane that crashed into the pentagon that it was all a cover up. Maybe you can do that for her.
chadders81 3 years ago
just compare the damaged on the ground of the pentagon and see the ground on here. Place a boieng beside a jet, the boeing is much bigger than the jet....
LeSchackal 3 years ago
Fine, live in your own world if that is what you choose to do, as quite frankly, you have become rather boring, & it has become painfully obvious that you will not acept the truth as an answer so I will not waste any more time or effort with you.
sphinxrising58 3 years ago
You just did by taking the time to declare you wouldn't. If you were really that disinterested, would you really need the last word that badly?
admiralnomad 3 years ago
I aways get the last word unless I get bored with the game, lol
sphinxrising58 3 years ago
hah. It's pretty fun sometimes, isn't it?
admiralnomad 3 years ago
Yeah, seeing who can get the last word in, but will admit, soetimes I carry it too far.
sphinxrising58 3 years ago
I would be happy if that would happen to all you So. Cal liberal culls.
TonysTele 3 years ago
Sharp one aren't you taxi!.
TonysTele 3 years ago
fix the volume and repost please
racevws 3 years ago
They shouldn't be allowed to fly over residential areas. There needs to be a law for that.
dreadelite 3 years ago 2
magnificently ignorant statement.
DannyZRC 3 years ago
Why?
dreadelite 3 years ago 2
why? because you said there should be a law against flying over residential areas. It's a statement so amazing in the scope of it's ignorance that it literally leaves me wanting for a response.
are there any other activities of infinitesimally small risk that you'd care to see a law against?
DannyZRC 3 years ago
@dreadelite I am not familiar with Cali, but I would almost bet my bottom dollar that the airfield was there first. Just like VA, beach... The air field was there for years and all of a sudden you have a suburb pop up and people complaining. Why build there in the first place if you know the approach is there?
lazzyJames 1 year ago
I wonder why these planes are allowed to fly over residential areas. If these pilots want to play with their toys they should at least do it over the ocean or unpopulated areas
TOYOTATAXI 3 years ago
A ). They are not playing.
B ). Them things you call toys may one day save your ass so show some respect to not only the aircraft, but the pilots also.
C ). 90 some percent of the west & east coast are redsidential areas, so what are they to do, teleport from one place to another ?
sphinxrising58 3 years ago
what are they going to save me from. All those wmd that never existed. Thanks anyway but i dont feel under any threat, i live in the free world unlike you
TOYOTATAXI 3 years ago
Yeah, I guess Sadam killed all them Kurds with thought power alone, huh bright boy ?
sphinxrising58 3 years ago
Saddam killed the kurds with gas supplied by America and jets supplied by France. Then in 1991 Saddam was contained and disarmed. You will see Condi Rice and Colin Powell admit same in video on you tube. You must be one of thosepeople who believed Bush's lies, arent you gullible?
TOYOTATAXI 3 years ago
Better to be gullible than delusional like many seem to be, claiming this war is about oil, lol
Oh, & BTW, we never supplied nerve gas to Saddam you self-rightious ass.
sphinxrising58 3 years ago
Its on the record that America supplied various wmd to Saddam but people like you live in denial and will never accept that. The war was about oil. Mr Bush and his thief friends secured Iraqs oil and used the resources of America to do this.
TOYOTATAXI 3 years ago
Bush is now a very weatlth man cos of the shares he has in the oil companys and Haliburton etc, but peoplle like you still believe that it was about freedom and democracy. It is you who is delusional or gullible- and you cannot be helped. I have dealt with your like B4
TOYOTATAXI 3 years ago
Look Sadam up on Wiki, tells you right there Iraq developed the nerve gas from chemicals supplied from West Germany, or do you like trying to re-invent history to suit your delusional state of mind.
Come, please do, tell me some more BS so I can prove you wrong again, lol
sphinxrising58 3 years ago
i suppose you think america never supplied as much as a hand gun. I bet you think Bush is a man of peace and a good person who never told a lie
TOYOTATAXI 3 years ago
Oh, I see you backed off your bogus claim on how America gave Iraq nerve gas, lol
So how does it feel to be out smarted & caught in a l;ie by an old man ? Bet it leaves a bitter taste, huh ? Good, lol
sphinxrising58 3 years ago
I have not backed off that claim and also Declassified U.S. government documents show that while Saddam Hussein was gassing Iraqi Kurds, the U.S. opposed punishing Iraq with a trade embargo because it was cultivating Iraq as an ally against Iran and as a market for U.S. farm exports.
Now answer my question. Has America ever backed a brutal dictator?
TOYOTATAXI 3 years ago
you have avoide to addres anything i said about Bush getting very wealthy and using US resources to do so
TOYOTATAXI 3 years ago
And it was never about oil dunce, as the US gets most of it's oil from Canada & S. America, lol, wrong again. Two Strikes so far. Wanna go for 3 ? LOL
sphinxrising58 3 years ago
Venezuala is largest supplier of oil to US. I told you you wouldnt accept the truth. You are one of these people who see America as doing no wrong and as a country that spreads freedom and democracy. ansswer this, Has America supported terrorism anywhere in the world?I will be curious to see what crap you come up with. America is THE biggest rogue state in the world, and you are unable to realise it cos of your conditioning from birth
TOYOTATAXI 3 years ago
you see a whole lot less problems with military planes than with civilian. when is the last time something like this happened?
eventually308 3 years ago
Actually, Miramar Naval Airstation was founded before these homes were made, it's just that the land was needed and homes were built there. And the pilot did as much as he could to save the plane/homes, but there was nothing he could have done without power.
evoraptor 3 years ago
@evoraptor Actually, had the pilot done all he could to protect civilians he would have landed at North Island NAS, which would have avoided flying over any houses at all; North Island is right on the ocean.
ApolloWasReal 1 month ago
30 July - A U.S. Air Force F-15D Eagle, crashed one pilot dead one injured
10 incidents in 2008 and 13 in 2007 and that is just US military there is a list on wikipedia
TOYOTATAXI 3 years ago
Stop being so insensitive, 4 lives were lost in this tragic event. A grandmother (age 60), her daughter in-law (age 36), and her 2 grandaughters (ages 15 months and 2 months). The father of the children was at work at the time of the incident.
tunenas 3 years ago 2
@tunenas and they were my friend's uncle's family
drexlerf 4 weeks ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
it was shot down by ufos!
kuntsavage 3 years ago
That Picture, ya, thats a E/A-18G, not a F/A-18D
Legendary588 3 years ago
possibly FOD?
xpsuperstock 3 years ago
wouldn't surprise me....or eletrical.
Loukious 3 years ago
both engines fail HMMM??
I have been work jet aircraft for over 23 years never seen two engines go bad on the same jet
mdmale1 3 years ago
The "2 bangs" was probably the pilot ejecting. The eject system uses rockets and small explosives to discharge the parachute. I'm thinking it might have been loss of control because he would have flown it into the gully next to the houses (unless he ran out of time)
avarlives 3 years ago
If you have worked in jet aircraft for over 23 years as you claim, then you should know multi-engined aircraft are twice as likely to crash as single-engined ones due to the fact that most pilots are unable to handle it when one engine fails, which makes controling the aircraft much more difficult.
sphinxrising58 3 years ago 2
Hey can you elaborate on that please. If you have at least one working engine isn't that better than no working engines?
MikaOwns 3 years ago
For the most part, it is. The biggest problem in this case is that it is fairly easy to run on one engine at higher speed and altitude, where it is easier to control a crippled jet, but getting low and slow for landing compounds your problems. A lot of times, it is preferable to move to a safe place to eject rather than limping in to an airfield. Of course, there are still a lot of unanswered questions as to exactly how the accident actually occurred.
admiralnomad 3 years ago
What are you talking about? Obviously you are not a pilot. I am and I am quite comfortable with my single engine skills. Both engines on this jet quit almost simultaneously.
wbeard52 3 years ago
Its like driving a car with only 2 wheels
CWFEntrances 3 years ago
The largest problem of a multi engine aircraft, is pilots when under pressure with an engine failure, shut down the good one, not the failure.
mountjoy23 3 years ago
It"s an amazing statement but absolutely correct. It's also possible to overreact and over compensate by applying to much throttle to the living Eng. thereby loosing rudder control. It will be interesting to see the cause of a total propulsion failure. The fire indicates enough fuel on board. It would be a first in Naval Aviation for an F-18 to loose both burners at the same time. Theoretically not possible. R.I.P.
wavefool 3 years ago
Exactly, glad to see at least one person in here knows something about multi-engined aircraft & things that can go wrong with them.
sphinxrising58 3 years ago
Thank you, there must be more of us old men with thousands of hours out there. I flew a
Falcon 10 for many years, I also flew a Piper Cheyenne II, in my opinion the thrust vector champion of the T-prop world. AT R85% L50% one lost yaw control. King Air 350 much better.
peace..
wavefool 3 years ago
I live in bay park
jacob789456 3 years ago
Dude that sucks I live in Poway
Mig4512 3 years ago