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.


9/11 and the empire state building

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 11:59 PM
Something just doesnt add up
Remember when the empire state building got hit by a plane
it barely scratched it, and the plane was pretty much intact in the building
and yet look at the twin towers

(sorry if i dont have any evidence i saw it in a documentary)

This is just even more proof that it was by some other way

posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 12:12 AM
"The ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor."

Good question. I never even knew a plane hit the Empire State Building.

posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 12:22 AM
You're honestly comparing a 10 ton (20,000 pounds) WWII bomber to a modern 767, that weighs in EMPTY at 164, 800 pounds, and has a max take off weight of 315, 000 pounds. Not to mention that the Empire State Building is CONCRETE which is SIGNIFICANTLY more able to resist fire, whereas the WTC was all steel. Not to mention that the KINETIC impact was rediculously smaller. The CRUISING speed of a 767 is HIGHER than the TOP speed of a B-25. The B-25 topped out at 285 mph. The 767 CRUISES at around 450 mph.

Talk about apples and oranges.

posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 02:34 AM
It's not supposed to be an accurate relative comparison, but you may as well be trying to get useful unformation by comparing driving a car into a wooden shack with driving a lorry into a power station.

Comparing the old bomber with the airliner is like comparing an arctic with a 7.5 tonner and the buildings are completely different in size, materials, building methods, etc etc.

The comparison between the two incidents, which for some reason people seem to like bringing up frequently, have about as much in common as the examples above.

posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 03:51 AM
See the picture of the impact point at -- it's not exactly comparable to 9/11.

posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 04:50 AM
I guess you all are right. I ain't thinking straight.

posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 11:51 AM
after the release of J.K Shakespears book of modern impact forces it occurred to me that the morph impact factor of the 767 would be greatly reduced because of its high torc rate if you know what i mean therefore it is highly impossible that a B-25 of such an era could possibly cause destruction as great as the 767 i believe this topic is somewhat biologically deprived of any such knowledge.

posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 06:30 PM
The reason as to why the B-25 Lancaster? Bomber crashed into the Empire State Building was given. This was due to the pilot and the navigator being lost in the pea-soup like fog that had enveloped New York City that morning.

posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 04:05 AM
should have done more research

top topics


log in