1945 a B-25 bomber crashed into the empire state building

Okay so let me get this straight. A boeing 757 could take out both WTC buildings plus building 7, but a B-25 bomber couldn't bring down the empire state building?

history1900s.about.com...

I now just remembered this article and surprised nobody mentioned this event. I love history so I do somewhat remember this from history class and also the history channel.

History also tends to repeat itself and figure 9/11 was the repeating history event.



[edit on 14-6-2010 by dragnet53]

reply to post by dragnet53


Actually a quick search for b25 shows that this subject has been brought up MANY times here already. You might find the information on one of those threads...

Originally posted by gavron
reply to post by dragnet53

 

Actually a quick search for b25 shows that this subject has been brought up MANY times here already. You might find the information on one of those threads...

searched b25 bomber on ats and found one thread containing it.

Ummm...really?

What about this post
www.abovetopsecret.com...

or this post
www.abovetopsecret.com...

or this post
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Apparently the subject has been brought up on multiple threads...you just need to do a little research.

According to a couple of sources, the maximum flying weights of these respective aircraft are:

B-25...35,500 lbs
Boeing 757...250,000 to 270,000 lbs.

Plus, I imagine modern jet fuel is more flammable/explosive that the fuel used on WWII piston engine planes (but I stand to be corrected).

books.google.ca... i=fQUWTLj4DcrXcYPQ6K0M&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=b-25%20bomber%20weight&f=false

www.boeing.com...

So, I would have to guess that on the surface of it the 757 would pack a much bigger punch than a B-25...

Apart fom the B 25 bomber being dwarfed by Boeing 767s it was lost in fog and impacted at an estimated 200 mph; less than half the speed of either jet hitting the WTC towers.

Plus, the Empire State Building is of a completely different consruction. You couldn't get more apples and oranges if you tried.

reply to post by mobiusmale


The B25 in question had been converted to a personnel transport

Accodring to my WW II aircraft guide - B25 has max fuel capacity of 2000
gallons, max speed 270 mph

767 max fuel capacity 23,990 gallons, max speed .86 Mach (568 mph)

The plane that struck Empire State Building was travelling at low speed, lost in fog at low altitude

767 targeting WTC was travelling at 470 and 530 mph in deliberate attck

The WTC aircraft hit with force of 100 Times that of Empire State Building

As other poster said do so research FIRST

Yes, this and other such incidents have been mentioned before. Jet fuel would have burned up before it had a chance to melt those fire-resistant metal beams, etc. Still, when the experts say one thing then change their minds, there's not much hope of the truth coming out. Perhaps a real inquiry would help, but not much hope of that either.

Originally posted by ShadowArcher
Yes, this and other such incidents have been mentioned before. Jet fuel would have burned up before it had a chance to melt those fire-resistant metal beams, etc. Still, when the experts say one thing then change their minds, there's not much hope of the truth coming out. Perhaps a real inquiry would help, but not much hope of that either.

but those darn office supplies must of been flame retardant as well. lol

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Empire State was built with a heavy gauge steel grid and an immense amount of stone masonry work.

WTC was the first building of its kind to omit all masonry from its structure. Not a single piece of stone. Plus the WTC were essentially hollow structures built around the central elevator shaft. The main support came from the exterior skeleton of the building and floor trusses thus allowing for large open spaces within the building. Collapse was unavoidable given the construction method and the type of impact that literally severed the buildings support structure.

[edit on 14-6-2010 by jibeho]

reply to post by thedman

The plane that struck Empire State Building was travelling at low speed, lost in fog at low altitude 767 targeting WTC was travelling at 470 and 530 mph in deliberate attck the WTC aircraft hit with force of 100 Times that of Empire State Building As other poster said do so research FIRST

Now how do you get 100 times the force from: 6 times the weight and 2.3 times the speed?

SERIOUSLY HOW DO YOU GET TO THAT ASSUMPTION?

Speaking of doing research, I'd request a copy of your formulations and computations used to state that aircraft hit with a 100 times more force than the Empire State building??

Let me give you a hint, the WTC impact was about 10 times more force. That is it.

You need to use basic physics to figure this out and you cannot even do this right.

Great, so much again for the debunkers using the truth on their side!

Another totally bogus claim of physics by a debunker in the 911 forum!

FORCE = MASS x ACCELERATION Right?

Now input your claims in there thedman and tell me you get 100 times the force, again, great mistakes!

pathetic.



ohh yeah Great researching yourself!

reply to post by dragnet53


I gave one of those stars, and I am not another account of that poster. The topic is an interesting one, but it really has been talked about many times.

reply to post by theability


Easy

Estimated weight of 767 on 9/11 was over 300,000 lbs

The B25 in this case had been converted to personnel transport - the
max weights quoted are for FULL COMBAT LOADS which includes bombs,
guns, ammo and max fuel loads. This B25 was travelling light, empty weight of a/c is 21,000 lbs. This one was probably not much over empty weight

Weigh ratio of 767 vs B25 is about 15:1

Speed is most important factor - B25 was on ferry flight to Newark NJ
when got lost in fog. Even if account for spped of 180mph (which seems
excessive given conditions) still have speed ratio of 2.5:1 for north tower
and almost 3:1 for south

Do the math

Energy goes up with SQUARE of velocity, at 2:5 SQ is 6.25 times energy
at 3:1 is 9 times. Then multiply the difference in mass

6.25 x 15 gives over 90 times the energy release

9 x 15 gives 135 times the energy

reply to post by thedman



what planet do you get your physics from?

Square of force??? and something other bizzaro saying???

Where do you ever use the square of something in regard to force besides figuring acceleration?

Wow I cannot believe what you just quoted to me.

Man you need to go back to school.

Δ(mv) = FΔt

That is the Formulation for impacting force equation.

Note that there is NO SQUARE ROOT OF ANYTHING!

Complete is this:


Δ(mv) = ∫F(t)dt

[edit on 19-6-2010 by theability]

reply to post by theability


Earth to planet truther....

Kinetic energy formula is 1/2 Mass x Velocity SQUARED

KE = 1/2M*(V*V)

www.csgnetwork.com...

Suggest you go back to school - and pay attention this time....

reply to post by thedman


Look above you!


The right equation is above you last post.

"Plus the WTC were essentially hollow structures built around the central elevator shaft. The main support came from the exterior skeleton of the building and floor trusses thus allowing for large open spaces within the building."

Essentially hollow? Why are you ignoring the strong well built core, which probably offered more support for the buildings than the exterior steel and floor trusses?

"Collapse was unavoidable given the construction method and the type of impact that literally severed the buildings support structure."

If the impact had severed the buildings' support structure, as you claim, the buildings would have collapsed immediately after impact. Collapse was unavoidable given that explosives were used.

reply to post by thedman


Man you have no idea what you are talking about!!

First you talk about force IE NEWTONS!!!

Then you talk about inertia!

www.csgnetwork.com...

The link you supply is for Kinetic energy NOT IMPACTING FORCES!

Man you have no idea what your discussing and it shows.

Enough said..
Good day.



[edit on 19-6-2010 by theability]