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.

 

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

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   
I remember reading this story in an old Aviation Weekly or Air Combat.
Apparently the thing was flying low and slow in a weather bank which involved very little visibility as she haplessly hit the ESB.
As stated in many above posts : smaller craft,less weight,slower speeds and differing building constructions.
Interesting none the less.




posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 

BTW you calculate ENERGY IN JOULES. Like Watts is Joules Per Second

Yet you talk about FORCE????


You said specifically that there was 100 times more force!

NOW WHERE IS THERE EQUATION THAT STATES THE NEWTONS!

Force is figured as NEWTONS.




[edit on 19-6-2010 by theability]

[edit on 19-6-2010 by theability]



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


So thedman initially misspoke when he used the term 'force' instead of 'kinetic energy'....and?

Figuring the force of the respective impacts is impractical because different parts of the aircraft experienced different momentum changes during the impacts. You cant say the entire mass of the 767 decelerated in two-tenths of a second as if it were one solid piece. The collision event itself is chaotic one, far from being perfectly inelastic or elastic(which would make the calculation easier). A more practical approach to comparing the collisions is with Kinetic Energy, or the ability to impart work, or damage on an object it collides with. I haven't done the calculation, but 100x seems about right between the B-25 and 767 impacts.

Explosives are rated by energy release(joules) and thrust is rated by force(newtons). I'm not sure why you object to using energy release(more relevant, easier to figure out) to compare the two events. It's only logical.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 01:28 AM
link   
The Secifications for a North American B-25 Mitchell :

(Courtesy Of Wikipedia):
Data from Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II- Bridgman Publishing 1946.
General characteristics

* Crew: six (two pilots, navigator/bombardier, turret gunner/engineer, radio operator/waist gunner, tail gunner
* Length: 52 ft 11 in (16.1 m)
* Wingspan: 67 ft 6 in (20.6 m)
* Height: 17 ft 7 in (4.8 m)
* Wing area: 610 sq ft (57 m²)
* Empty weight: 21,120 lb (9,580 kg)
* Loaded weight: 33,510 lb (15,200 kg)
* Max takeoff weight: 41,800 lb (19,000 kg)
* Powerplant: 2× Wright R-2600 "Cyclone" radials, 1,850 hp (1,380 kW) each

Performance

* Maximum speed: 275 mph (239 kn, 442 km/h)
* Cruise speed: 230 mph (200 kn, 370 km/h)
* Combat radius: 1,350 mi (1,170 nmi, 2,170 km)
* Ferry range: 2,700 mi (2,300 nmi, 4,300 km)
* Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,600 m)
* Rate of climb: 790 ft/min (4 m/s)
* Wing loading: 55 lb/ft² (270 kg/m²)
* Power/mass: 0.110 hp/lb (182 W/kg)

Armament

* Guns: 12-18 × .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns
* Hardpoints: 2,000 lb (900 kg) ventral shackles to hold one external Mark 13 torpedo[15]
* Rockets: 3,000 lb (1,360 kg) bombs + eight 5 in (130 mm) high velocity aircraft rockets (HVAR)
* Bombs: 6,000 lb (2,700 kg)

Boeing 757-222 specifications :

(Courtesy Of Boeing Aeronautical Corp. , Inc.)
www.boeing.com...

The Mitchell is a considerably lighter, smaller and much slower craft then a Boeing. You could detatch the side wings of the Mitchell and place like 4 of them inside of a gutted out 757 and it was traveling at considerably slower speed (estimates place it between 75 - 125 mph of the vessels max speed of 275) It got caught in blinding fog and the lights on top however were on but it was not enough and at like 1130pm on July 28, 1945 killing 14 and destroying a then $1 Million (USD) ($20 - $25 Million 2010) in damages.

(Courtesy Of Wikipedia) :
en.wikipedia.org...

On the following link is the FAQ page for The Empire State Building NYC search up "1945 crash" when prompted
(Courtesy Of The Empire State Building NYC Official Website) :
www.esbnyc.com...

As to The WTC vs ESB NYC debate you could've driven a car through the front window of the ground floor of the WTC and not stop until you hit the elevator shaft. The ESB if you drive a car through the side gates you ain't getting past the first inner wall nonetheless the elevator shaft. The wall directly behind the main desk you car would stop cold. There is only 2 open paths through Fl 1 of The ESB that is about as wide as a 2 car garage that people can walk from one side of the tower to the other but the ESB has no West side entrance as that property belongs to 20 West 34th Street which is an independent and seperate structure etnirely.

[edit on 20-6-2010 by TheImmaculateD1]

[edit on 20-6-2010 by TheImmaculateD1]



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 04:58 AM
link   
DOn't understand why now I am getting this so called 9/11 madness on this old thread.

Interesting indeed....



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by 767doctor
 



So thedman initially misspoke when he used the term 'force' instead of 'kinetic energy'....and?


It seems the protectors of the OS misspeak about things constantly! Not only is it a trend but a trend of lies. Continually telling lies to meet their goals.

Now I know you and I have not spoke often in the forum, yet certain people on the 911 forum, make mistakes like this ALL THE TIME!

Enough is enough.

Telling lies is telling lies.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by 767doctor
 



As you are aware there are about 10 different formulas to figure out impacting force/energy equations.


Using just KINETIC ENERGY formula is nothing close to the right answer and you know it!

That would be like throwing out Stefan Problems for fluid dynamics.

I am sure that the flying community would also call that absurd too!



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


And if he did misspeak...or even tell a little white lie, the truth remains, comparing the B-25 hitting the ESB, to what happened to the Towers that day, is a non-starter. Call it apples and oranges if you like, but the two events just are not even close to being accurate comparisions.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 



And if he did misspeak...or even tell a little white lie, the truth remains, comparing the B-25 hitting the ESB, to what happened to the Towers that day, is a non-starter. Call it apples and oranges if you like, but the two events just are not even close to being accurate comparisions.


Well no matter what anyone says, he didn't misspeak.

But your right, the comparison isn't much for analogy.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53
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?

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


Comparing the B-25 hitting the ESB to what happened on 9/11 is too superficial to be relevant.

A B-25 weighed 12 TONS.

The fuel alone of a plane that went into a WTC tower was 34 TONS.

I am not trying to say that means the airliners could take down the towers but that 1945 incident does not demonstrate anything relevant to 9/11.

psik



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by dragnet53
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?

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


Comparing the B-25 hitting the ESB to what happened on 9/11 is too superficial to be relevant.

A B-25 weighed 12 TONS.

The fuel alone of a plane that went into a WTC tower was 34 TONS.

I am not trying to say that means the airliners could take down the towers but that 1945 incident does not demonstrate anything relevant to 9/11.

psik


If you read my comment, then you would of known. The main story behind 9/11 was that the office supplies and fire that caused the heat. This was from NIST and the 9/11 commission report.

LOL



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53

The main story behind 9/11 was that the office supplies and fire that caused the heat. This was from NIST and the 9/11 commission report.



Actually, there are a couple of comparisons to be made.

1- one of the B-25's engines went out the far side of the building.

2- the ground floor lobbies also experienced a fireball



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by theability
 





It seems the protectors of the OS misspeak about things constantly! Not only is it a trend but a trend of lies. Continually telling lies to meet their goals.

Now I know you and I have not spoke often in the forum, yet certain people on the 911 forum, make mistakes like this ALL THE TIME!

Enough is enough.

Telling lies is telling lies.



So calling me a liar.....

When I point out that the Kinetic energy (KE) of the WTC impact was
more than 100 x that of ESB

That energy would be dumped into the building structure causing damage
to said structure and setting the stage for collapse

in addition the fuel load would ignite fires in the area impacted

Or did you think that all the energy would simply evaporate?



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 





If you read my comment, then you would of known. The main story behind 9/11 was that the office supplies and fire that caused the heat. This was from NIST and the 9/11 commission report.


And your point is.......what exactly? Every item in an office that is burnable, becomes fuel in a fire. And from first hand experience...all the plastics, furniture, paper etc that you find in an office fire, become quite HOT. Hot enough to melt some metals.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by thedman
 

BTW you calculate ENERGY IN JOULES. Like Watts is Joules Per Second

Yet you talk about FORCE????


You said specifically that there was 100 times more force!

NOW WHERE IS THERE EQUATION THAT STATES THE NEWTONS!

Force is figured as NEWTONS.




Force = Mass * acceleration

Just for the sake of making the math easier I'm going to assume that the airplanes went from the colliding speed to 0 in one second when they hit the buildings.

www.aerospace-technology.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

The boeing 767 had a maximum take off weight of 204,120 kg and an empty weight of 79,560kg.

The b-25 had a maximum take off weight of 19,000 kg and an empty weight of 9,580 kg

www.esbnyc.com...
www.gordonengland.co.uk...

The b-25 hit the ESB at 200 miles per hour which is 89.41 m/s.


web.mit.edu...

The WTC planes were going 429 and 503 MPH

191.78 m/s and 224.86 m/s









F=M*A
F(full b25)= 1,698,790
F(full slower WTC plane)=39,146,133.6
F(full faster WTC plane)=45,898,423.2

F(empty b25)=856,547.8
F(empty slower WTC plane)= 15,255,630
F(empty faster WTC plane)= 17,889,861.6


This is the dummy version. The forces behind the WTC planes actually would have been greater that what I have written because they had a greater change in velocity.


The WTC were 63 meters wide. Assuming the steel support beams that stopped the plane were halfway through the plan was largely stopped 32 meters into the building. Going at 224.86 m/s would have only taken .14 seconds for the airplane to slam into the central core and stop. Meaning that it's acceleration would have been more like 1606 m/s because it went from 224.86 m/s to 0 m/s in .14 seconds. But now we are getting into stuff that is way too complicated. We would have to determine how much of the force was absorbed by the bodies of each of the airplanes and how the materials the airplanes were made from would interact with the specific parts of the building they hit and how much force would be lost.

I have no way to estimate how long it took the b-25 bomber to stop in the building so it's quite possible that the planes that hit the WTC towers hit with 100 times the amount of force that the b-25 hit with. Without more information about what part of the building that did most of the stopping of the b-25 I'm unable to do a decent estimation.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Correct. Think of the differences in impact as a bicyle hitting a freight train vs. a 72 Eldo convertible doing 75 hitting a minivan.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by dragnet53

The main story behind 9/11 was that the office supplies and fire that caused the heat. This was from NIST and the 9/11 commission report.



Actually, there are a couple of comparisons to be made.

1- one of the B-25's engines went out the far side of the building.

2- the ground floor lobbies also experienced a fireball


forgot about that as well.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by dragnet53
 





If you read my comment, then you would of known. The main story behind 9/11 was that the office supplies and fire that caused the heat. This was from NIST and the 9/11 commission report.


And your point is.......what exactly? Every item in an office that is burnable, becomes fuel in a fire. And from first hand experience...all the plastics, furniture, paper etc that you find in an office fire, become quite HOT. Hot enough to melt some metals.


Those planes use the same jet fuel.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 


Which planes? The two airliners? Well of course they did. If you are saying the B-25 had the same fuel, you are quite wrong.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by dragnet53
 


Which planes? The two airliners? Well of course they did. If you are saying the B-25 had the same fuel, you are quite wrong.


so the b25 bomber had 89 octane and the Jet liner had 93 octane?




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join