It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

B-25 Empire State Building Collision

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   
If this topic has already been covered then mods by all means close or delete. i just want to get a reaction from those who still believe the official story that those planes from jet fuel brought down those building. Take in mind the the trade centers were newer:

Link to Story




posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaTruth
If this topic has already been covered then mods by all means close or delete. i just want to get a reaction from those who still believe the official story that those planes from jet fuel brought down those building. Take in mind the the trade centers were newer:

Link to Story


You're comparing apples and elephants!

Completly different types of buildings, completly different types of aircrafts with different weights, type of fuel and speed.

[edit on 24-10-2008 by Freaky_Animal]



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 09:56 PM
link   
It was a b52 bomber though. They are strapped with weapons that could add to the destruction.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaTruth
It was a b52 bomber though. They are strapped with weapons that could add to the destruction.

was that the case then? can that be verified? did the weapons detonate?
its as simple as understanding the different construction types that were used in the trade centers vs that which was used to build the Pentagon..
apples and oranges~



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by DaTruth
 


The article you linked to in your original post points out that the B-25 was not carrying a bomb load:



The death toll might also have been much higher had the B-25 been carrying a bomb load and more fuel since a heavier plane would have done considerably more structural damage. As it was, the bomber was about to land and near its minimum weight.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 10:19 PM
link   
ok let's compare the apple and elephant... i'll get us started.

"With a gross weight of 220,000kg, the B-52 is still one of the heaviest offensive military aircraft operated by any nation in the world.
... approximately 83,250kgs empty"

www.guardian.co.uk...

now let's look at the weight of...
American Airlines Flight 11 was a Boeing 767-223ER (North Tower)

United Airlines Flight 175 was a Boeing 767-200 (South Tower)
- max. zero-fuel weight: 113.398 Kg.
www.zap16.com...

has anyone been able to find the max speed of each plane?

[edit on 25-10-2008 by The All Seeing I]



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaTruth
It was a b52 bomber though. They are strapped with weapons that could add to the destruction.


It was a twin-engine, piston engine B-25, not an eight-engined B-52. Huge difference. You can't compare an almost empty B-25 at cruise speed to a B757 at high speed.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
ok let's compare the apple and elephant... i'll get us started.

"With a gross weight of 220,000kg, the B-52 is still one of the heaviest offensive military aircraft operated by any nation in the world."

www.guardian.co.uk...


you might want to get the facts straight here.. it was not a B-52
a B-25 is a relatively small plane.. remember Doolittle's raid in 1942 he used B-25 bombers to take off from an aircraft carrier on a raid against Tokyo..



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 10:38 PM
link   
I stand corrected ...my bad ...
i blame my dyslexia and lack of sleep...

i'm now looking into the specs on the B-25D

according to (only reference to B-25 in the post-911 lit)...
Hamburger, Ronald, et al. "World Trade Center Building Performance Study." Federal Emergency Management Agency.Retrieved: 27 July 2006.

www.fema.gov... (pdf)

The WTC towers were the first structures outside of the military and the nuclear industries whose design considered the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed in the 1960s design analysis for the WTC towers that an aircraft, lost in fog and seeking to land at a nearby airport, like the B-25 Mitchels bomber that struck the Empire State Building on July 28, 1945, might strike a WTC tower while low on fuel and at landing speeds. However, in the September 11 events, the Boeing 767-200ER aircraft that hit both towers were considerably larger with significantly higher weight, or mass, and traveling at substantially higher speeds. The Boeing 707 that was considered in the design of the towers was estimated to have a gross weight of 263,00 pounds and a flight speed of 180 mph as it approached an airport; the Boeing 767-200ER aircraft that were used to attack the towers had an estimated gross weight of 274,00 pounds and flight speeds of 470 to 590 mph upon impact.

[edit on 26-10-2008 by The All Seeing I]



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 10:48 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 10:52 PM
link   
B-25 Specifications:


Powerplant:

Two Wright R-2600-13 Double Cyclone fourteen-cylinder air-cooled radials, rated at 1700 hp each for takeoff and 1500 hp at 2400 rpm. Equipped with Holley 1685HA carburetors or Bendix Stromberg carburetors.

Performance:

Maximum speed 275 mph at 15,000 feet. 230 mph cruising speed. Initial climb rate 1110 feet per minute. An altitude of 15,000 feet could be reached in 19 minutes. Service ceiling 24,000 feet. Range 1275 miles with 3200 pounds of bombs. Ferry range 2700 miles.

Dimensions:

Wingspan 67 feet 6.7 inches, length 53 feet 5.75 inches (bomber version), height 16 feet 4.2 inches, wing area 610 square feet.

Weights:

21,100 pounds empty, 33,000 pounds normal loaded, 35,000 pounds gross, 41,800 pounds maximum overload. The fuel capacity consisted of four tanks in the inner wing panels, with a total capacity of 670 US gallons. In addition, 304 US gallons of fuel could be carried in auxiliary tanks in the outboard wing panels, for a normal total fuel load of 974 US gallons. A 515-gallon tank could be installed in the bomb bay for ferrying purposes, 125 gallons of fuel could be carried in side waist positions, a 215-gallon self-sealing fuel tank could be installed in the top of the bomb bay, and provisions could be made for a droppable 335-gallon metal bomb-bay fuel tank. Fuel System

www.b25.net...

B-767 specifications:

Homepage: www.boeing.com...
No. Of Engines: 2
Aircraft Type: Jet
Passenger Capacity (Max): 290
Passenger Capacity (Min): 211
Range (in Miles): 7660
Cruising Speed (MPH): 550
Payload Capacity (in Lbs): 69,000
Wingspan: 156
Length: 159
Height: 52
Takeoff Weight (in Lbs): 312,000
Body Type: widebody
Cabin Type: pressurized

flyaow.com...

Please tell me how you can even BEGIN to compare the B-25 crash at LOW SPEED while looking for the field to land, to the HIGH SPEED crash of the MUCH bigger 767s.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Well... for starters the architects of WTC factored the Empire State Building hit into their design. They are even on record, stating that the WTC was designed to withstand multiple hits from the biggest planes of their generation... which are very close in specs to the planes that did hit the WTC, 30 years later.

If we use the Empire State Building as a gauge in respect to ratio in comparison it would reveal some insights on the toll a building can bare.

For instance, based on the specs/data shared thus far, it looks based on rough estimates that the ESB-hit is over all 1/4 that of the WTC-hit(s)... in terms of weight, speed, fuel and density/structure of building.

some interesting trivia:
"The Empire State Building stood as the world's tallest building for more than forty years, from its completion in 1931 until construction of the World Trade Center's North Tower was completed in 1972. Following the destruction of the World Trade Center in 2001, the Empire State Building again became the tallest building in New York City and New York State."
...ESB elevator operator Betty Lou Oliver survived a plunge of 75 stories inside an elevator, which still stands as the Guinness World Record for the longest survived elevator fall recorded. Despite the damage and loss of life, the building was open for business on many floors on the following Monday. The crash helped spur the passage of the long-pending Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946, as well as the insertion of retroactivity provisions in the law, allowing people to sue the government for the accident.

[edit on 25-10-2008 by The All Seeing I]



posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   


It was a b52 bomber though. They are strapped with weapons that could add to the destruction


It was a B25 - the B52 did not come for another 10 years. Just some
clowns transposing number without doing any other research

One thing ESB crash proved was the superiority of the older construction
methods versus the "modern" - older construction used "infill"
construction. The outer walls were made of stone (in ESB case quarried
limestone) or concrete, interior used grid of steel columns which were
fireproofed with concrete or masonary several inches thick. The
modern used glass exterior "curtain wall" the structural columns were
tubes (WTC had skin of steel lattices proving 40% of structural support
inside was core of steel columns). It was fireproofed with thin layer of
mineral fiber/cement sprayed on - which was easily dislodged.

The older construction proved its worth on Sept 11 - several older building
90 West, 130 Cedar, Verizon (140 West) were struck by debris from
WTC collapses - while heavily damaged survived to be rehabilated.
WTC 7 also struck by debris suffered severe damage and resulting fires
caused its collapse. 90 West burned for 2 days yet suffered little fire
damage and survived.



posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 08:20 PM
link   


For instance, based on the specs/data shared thus far, it looks based on rough estimates that the ESB-hit is over all 1/4 that of the WTC-hit(s)... in terms of weight, speed, fuel and density/structure of building.


Difference in energy transfer of the ESB vs WTC was on order 1 to 100
ESB impact was only about 1% of WTC.

Consider weights of impacting aircraft

B25 - just over 20,000 lbs, 767 over 300,000 lbs - factor of 15

Speed - ESB about 180 mph, WTC estimates 470 (North), 530 mph (South)
factor of almost 3

Since impact energy goes up by SQUARE of velocity can see than
difference in energy is by factor of 7 ( North) and 9 (South)

Multiply this by weight differnce (15) and can see energy is some
105 times (North) and 135 times (South) that of ESB

Add in fuel load - B25 several hundred gallons (light fuel load since only
on short hop) versus over 9,000 gallons . In ESB post impact fire was
out by time FDNY reached impact floor - in WTC fuel load splashed
through multiple floors and triggered massive fires on several floors at
once.



posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   
no clowning involved, the flipping of B25 to B52 was an error on my part, as i stated earlier... due to my dyslexia with numbers and lack of sleep.

As for rehashing the "official" domino explanation for the collateral damage, i see no point. Your take on the differences in construction, are accurate to a point. What you seem to be suggesting is that the WTC is an inferior structure in comparison to that of ESB. If we look at the inner core of the towers what we see is a similar structure in strength and resilience.

If we look closer to the south tower hit, we see the plane enter off center at an angle... missing the inner core... yet the tower goes down just like the north tower (direct hit).

Now they claim tower 7 went down due to structural damage and fire... yet no plane hit the building... but in the case of ESB, there is also structural damage and fire but due to a direct hit by a plane and yet the fires were put out 40minutes later and the unaffected floors of the building were open for business, a day later. Also worth noting, we have come a long way in 55 years; today's higher standards and more advanced fire prevention building codes and fire fighting equipment compared to 1945... for tower 7 to fall like a tower of cards is unbelievable at best.

I like the work on the numbers, when you consider the collective degree of concentrated force involved in those hits/crashes, what we should have seen was something similar to a tree collapse... versus looking like a controlled demolition.

Then when you compare ESB to tower 7... if we discard controlled demolition as an explanation it looks more like a magic trick.

[edit on 26-10-2008 by The All Seeing I]



posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by The All Seeing I
 


Interesting how the only thing anyone seems to acknowledge you posting is the B52 statement. All this very interesting and relevant information on how the buildings should have withstood this impact is apparently too scary to touch.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join