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: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 



So calling me a liar.....


Please show me where I stated you were lying!


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


NO! what you show is there is 100 times more energy in a 767 moving through the air than a B-25 that is it! You haven't figure anything for impacting force or energy transferred to the structures.

There relevant term is inertia.


That energy would be dumped into the building structure causing damage to said structure and setting the stage for collapse
Actually the first thing to absorb energy would be the crushing of the airframe of the impacting airliner. Like a car in a head on crash IT ABSORBS IMPACTING ENERGY BY CRUSHING!


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


Yes the fuel would ignite, taking all the relevant energy in fuel Inertia and dissipating it into a huge fireball. So again less impacting energy.


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


What like Flight 77 did?





posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 



The max speed of the 767 is 560 mph at altitude (typically referenced at 30,000 feet)

Near sea level it's much less because the air is much denser.

The aircraft is drag-limited to 400 miles per hour with max throttle at 700 feet altitude. This is a very unsafe condition, whereby the aircraft does not perform predictably, and the mechanical stresses are beyond spec.

The Vne, or velocity to never exceed at sea level is about 330 mph. Anything faster than this is looking for trouble.

There is just NO WAY they were going 500 to 600 miles per hour into those buildings. It is simply outside the aircraft's flight envelope.



[edit on 22-6-2010 by 30_seconds]



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



the ground floor lobbies also experienced a fireball


There was no such fire in the lobby.


One engine shot through the side opposite the impact and flew as far as the next block where it landed on the roof of a nearby building, starting a fire that destroyed a penthouse. The other engine and part of the landing gear plummeted down an elevator shaft. The resulting fire was extinguished in 40 minutes. Fourteen people were killed in the incident.[6][7] After rescuers decided to transport her on an elevator which they did not know had weakened cables, the already injured 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.[4] It is still the only fire at such a height that was ever successfully controlled.[5]


Source

Why do they have it listed as the highest controlled fire in history, if it was ground level?

Sometimes...



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by 30_seconds
 



The Vne, or velocity to never exceed at sea level is about 330 mph. Anything faster than this is looking for trouble.


Great point, in fact wind tunnel testing shows that exceeding this speed will cause the BREAK-UP of the AIRCRAFT, from stress induced oscillation.

In other words, you won't make a landing in one piece.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by 30_seconds
reply to post by thedman
 



This is a very unsafe condition... Anything faster than this is looking for trouble.



[edit on 22-6-2010 by 30_seconds]


And they wouldn't have wanted to cause an accident, or endanger anybody.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by 30_seconds
 





The max speed of the 767 is 560 mph at altitude (typically referenced at 30,000 feet)

Near sea level it's much less because the air is much denser.

The aircraft is drag-limited to 400 miles per hour with max throttle at 700 feet altitude. This is a very unsafe condition, whereby the aircraft does not perform predictably, and the mechanical stresses are beyond spec.

The Vne, or velocity to never exceed at sea level is about 330 mph. Anything faster than this is looking for trouble.

There is just NO WAY they were going 500 to 600 miles per hour into those buildings. It is simply outside the aircraft's flight envelope.



WRONG!

Max speed of 767 in level flight at altitude is Mach .86 568 mph

Operative words LEVEL FLIGHT

The max operating speed, known as VNE is determined by the manufacturer and FAA, with a considerable safety factor to provide
smooth operation and avoid undo stress to the airframe

It doesn't mean the jet can not exceed that speed

It means to avoid undo stress at that altitude and prevent breakage of
parts it is better not to exceed that speed

Airliners have been known to exceed MACH 1 (supersonic) and survive
in a dive - problem is it scares the #$%^ out of everyone and tears up the aircraft

With jet aircraft costing tens of millions of dollars airline companies wish
to obtain the maximum service life from them

Now back to WTC - the aircraft which struck WTC 2 (South tower) -

One it was not in level flight , but in a dive

I take it have heard of GRAVITY - in a dive the aircraft will accelerate and gain speed which was the whole point. Build up as much speed to
do maximum damage

The hijackers didn't give a #$%^ if everyone was enjoying the ride or
overstressing the airframe

Not when objective was to slam it in building.......

Dont believe me- then contact WEEDWHACKER, He is airline pilot type rated in 757/767....



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by theability
 





Why do they have it listed as the highest controlled fire in history, if it was ground level?


Talking about main fire at impact point of 79th floor which was also the
impact point in South Tower



At 9:49 a.m., 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.


Fire was caused by aviation fuel (gasoline at that time) - also consider
at that time fuel load in building was much less. No plastice or synthetic
materials to burn and feed fires.




Inside, workers for the War Relief Services of the National Catholic Welfare Conference had already started work when their offices were suddenly engulfed an an explosion of flaming, high-octane fuel. The burning gasoline traveled through hallways, stairwells, and elevator shafts, reaching as far as four floors below the point of impact as the building shook. A publicist working in the offices was propelled out of a window from the explosion, and ten others were caught in the inferno





The 4-alarm fire brought every available piece of fire-fighting apparatus to the scene. As the building was evacuated, firemen spent about an hour extinguishing the flames. The two women who had been in the free falling elevator were found alive, owing to the elevator’s hydraulic emergency braking system which had slowed the car down slightly, and to the cushion of broken, coiled cables which had piled up at the shaft’s bottom. Sadly, one of the women was fatally wounded, and died shortly after she was found. The surviving woman, Betty Lou Oliver, currently holds a world record for surviving the 75-story free fall.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


You are trying to say that a NON-HERMETICALLY SEALED four floor fire spreading, like seen in the Empire State Building B-25 crash is like:

A supposed fireball in a HERMETICALLY SEALED elevator shaft going down 70 some floors, IE 700 feet is the same thing??

Man you have no clue what you are talking about.

Seriously thedman, come back to earth!



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 



One it was not in level flight , but in a dive


SHOW ME A WTC AIRLINER THAT IMPACTED IN A DIVE!


I take it have heard of GRAVITY - in a dive the aircraft will accelerate and gain speed which was the whole point. Build up as much speed to
do maximum damage


Dude, do you have a clue what drag is? You just can't speed up to infinity because you point the nose to the ground.

And again, what WTC AIRLINER was diving at the WTC towers, I think its apparent that both were in level flight, compared to ACCENT or DECENT.



[edit on 22-6-2010 by theability]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


You know, it's a shame, because in the Apollo "hoax" threads you demonstrate a great ability to explain Apollo...but, you aren't understanding very well this event.

Here, a bunch of United 175 impact shots, from a variety of angles.

The VIEWPOINT of the camera makes a difference, as does the width of the angle of view...the ones that are perpendicular to the flight path don't show much of the descent, because the hijacker had leveled off just seconds before impact...for many thousands of feet, horizonatlly. He built up his speed by strating at a higher altitude, alowing it to build, and then shallowing it out slightly at the end.

In the video below, at the 3:40 point, is a view that is more in line with the route, and you can clearly see the descent profile:



Most video clips were zoomed in, so the airplane only appears in the frame briefly. OTHERS that had a much longer shot, from the side, lack the resolution sufficient to make out the airplane against the ground clutter. Plus, no one was expecting it, and no one aimed a camera AT it.

Your argument about DRAG is valid, but not in this case....it infers that the force of engine thrust WILL eventually meet its match by the induced and parasitic drag....BUT, it has been demonstrated in other cases that airplanes can well exceed VMO when going 'downhill', especially when thrust is added (as compared to being at idle thrust).

Further, we are not talking about a very extreme nose down pitch attitude, either. Not in jets of this type. We're talking about five degrees ND...maybe ten max. Even in normal operations, with passengers, TEN is about max because it becomes noticeably uncomfortable, since it's so unusual...and even at flight idle the speed builds up VERY rapidly.

In smooth air, to comply with crossing ATC restrictions, there is often a need to expedite the descent, and we can fly right up to the Barber Pole...as long as it's smooth. Speed Brakes help, but in modern jets, not as much as in older ones...they add some drag to assist in keeping from building excess speed, but really all they seem to do is increase the buffeting!
Speed Brakes work best in level flight, to help decelerate faster.

NOW, these hijackers weren't concerned about passenger comfort, nor arbitrary manufacturer certified and FAA-mandated speed restrictions.

THOSE numbers, BTW, are lnot some magic "line" that if you cross it, the airplane will instantly fall apart. There is a great deal of margin factored in.

FWIW...you can calculate the actual Mach number using the estimated airspeeds for United 175 (we can only guess at American 11, but one can assume a similar tactic).

I come up with no more than about M 0.86, even at those excessive airspeeds. Yes, the speed is well over VMO, but the MACH is what is most pertinent here...it isn't yet close to the speed of sound, nor is there likely any transonic airflow on any flight surfaces. THAT, the impending transonic flows, are what can cause damaged, if sustained for some time...via flutter effects.

There are a few other cases of excessive airspeeds with passenger airliners...TWA 741 in (1979)....not to be confused with the HIJACKING of another TWA 741 that occured in 1974!! "Hoot" Gibson and crew lived to tell fo their speed in the uncontrolled dive, exceeding Mach 1, the Flight recorder said.

Egypt Air 990 also get very close to Mach...but, of course, the suicidal First Officer was intent on crashing --- but HAD they tried it should have been recoverable.

Some non-structural damage is likely after that...maybe even some minor structural as well, that could result in a hull-loss write-off.

But, the TWA airplane was repaired and re-entered service.



[edit on 22 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



You know, it's a shame, because in the Apollo "hoax" threads you demonstrate a great ability to explain Apollo...but, you aren't understanding very well this event.


Well I have to admit I can't be good at everything. (alittle humor here)


Here, a bunch of United 175 impact shots, from a variety of angles.

Most video clips were zoomed in, so the airplane only appears in the frame briefly. OTHERS that had a much longer shot, from the side, lack the resolution sufficient to make out the airplane against the ground clutter. Plus, no one was expecting it, and no one aimed a camera AT it.


Yes I do admit, camera angle can play heck of tricks on people, as we have discussed many times in the Apollo area.


The VIEWPOINT of the camera makes a difference, as does the width of the angle of view...the ones that are perpendicular to the flight path don't show much of the descent, because the hijacker had leveled off just seconds before impact...for many thousands of feet, horizonatlly. He built up his speed by strating at a higher altitude, alowing it to build, and then shallowing it out slightly at the end.



Weedwacker, show me the "dive" of the aircraft seen here:



For the most part, the angle is LEVEL!


Your argument about DRAG is valid, but not in this case....it infers that the force of engine thrust WILL eventually meet its match by the induced and parasitic drag....BUT, it has been demonstrated in other cases that airplanes can well exceed VMO when going 'downhill', especially when thrust is added (as compared to being at idle thrust).


I do understand that the aircraft will accelerate beyond limits under power yes, indeed. But what I was getting at in all things mechanical, there are limits.


THOSE numbers, BTW, are lnot some magic "line" that if you cross it, the airplane will instantly fall apart. There is a great deal of margin factored in.


Yes, I can see that logically each airframe would be able to handle "its" own set of conditions seperately.


but the MACH is what is most pertinent here...it isn't yet close to the speed of sound, nor is there likely any transonic airflow on any flight surfaces. THAT, the impending transonic flows, are what can cause damaged, if sustained for some time...via flutter effects.


From what I understand, (and I have been wrong before) The reason why heavy aircraft fly at percent of mach, is because parts of the airframe fly faster than other parts, due to fluid dynamics. So because of the frictional component induced by this, and the added drag on one part and NOT another, this is the reason why to fly slower than mach to avoid catastrophic flutter effects, induced by frictional components.

Is this correct?

( By the way I cut parts of your quote because it was long. It wasn't for any other reasons.)







[edit on 22-6-2010 by theability]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Also, for theability, you may not have seen this video.

I don't know if any other manufacturer had a documentary crew film the same types of tests they performed in certification requirements, but here's the A-380 events:



SOME people point to this same video, without understanding that it was made with a bit of 'extra drama' for entertainment purposes.

THEY point to the initial problem with a minor failure...again, that was NOT a structural member, it was a fairing...looked it had to do with the gear doors.

(Oh...and pay no attention to the 'British' pronunciation of "Mach'!
WE, in the US, say 'Mach' --- rhymes with "sock").

SO...high-dive to build up speed of M 0.96 Again, they designed it to withstand those speeds, for short while. It is the problem with transonic flows, and where it occurs, that they are checking out. Only so much can be "predicted" in computer modelling tests....



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Wow, very interesting video to say the least.

The relief on the test pilots faces and voices when they are done, says alot!

So the area that broke the re-engineered for a new test, very cool.

Stressful though.

BTW thanks for the video



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by theability
 



Weedwacker, show me the "dive" of the aircraft seen here:



For the most part, the angle is LEVEL!


OK, using just that video to demonstrate, think about this ---

I watched it and just using the time reference from the video (not any high-tech analysis here) from when I first see UAL 175, left of frame, going behind that building far left, until impact is seven seconds.

Now, it's at an angle, and I don't know the distance travelled during those seven seconds, but it doesn't matter for what I'm describing.

(Firstly, from experience, to me it DID look as if it was in a descent...)

But, appearances can be deceiving, angles and all that.

So, approaching from a different perspective, to make better sense. To make the math simpler, I'll assume a rate of descent of 1,200 fpm. (I think you fly, right?) For others, 'fpm' is feet per minute, a very common reference value used by pilots.

(Again, the value of 1,200 fpm is only for math simplicity. It could have been 2,400 fpm...or even MORE, farther back, well before any cameras picked it up...gradually reducing the RoD, and even leveling off from that rate (2,400) of descent is easy, we do it all of the time. AND, it doesn't require a steep Nose Down attitude, and IF you add power, speed will accelerate rapidly).

OK...at 1,200 fpm, in seven seconds, how far will it descend? Yup, only 140 feet.

(Keep in mind, for reference -- the B-767-200 fuselage is 159 feet long overall).

Can anyone see how, when you draw a line of length based on speed to represent horizontal distance, then plot it against the vertical axis --- here we've taken a figure to use, purely for example, of 140 feet --- the perceived SLOPE of the line will vary, depending on the length of the horizontal component? By "SLOPE", of course, it could also refer to "ANGLE" relative to the horizon, or the true horizontal.

So, if you're still with me, and eyes haven't glazed over...the length of our horizontal line will vary by the velocity of our object, over the set time of (seven seconds) in this example.

IOW...an airplane flying at 100 knots will travel "X" amount of distance in seven seconds. IF it also descends 140 feet, we have an angle we can measure.

Take same airplane, and fly it at 500 knots, again for seven seconds. NOW the length of the horizontal line will be five times longer, yes?

BUT, the 140 feet is unchanged, so the ANGLE is smaller, the slope is shallower.

To an observer of the faster airplane it may APPEAR 'level', at a brief glimpse of only seven seconds.


In case that isn't convincing, watch airplanes landing at a major airport...airliners on final, from the last few miles out, are at about 800 to 850 fpm down. Airspeeds from between 130-160 (tops). Look at the shallowness of the angle, as you observe, and compare. Do the math, if you wish...it's simple geometry.





[edit on 22 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Yes I do fly, 172 and 182 Private License. I haven't had the money to do any instrument rating yet.

Now that you explain the 1200 FPM thing, the video I asked about, the camera is what, a few thousand feet away.

I see what you mean now, that the decent is valid, yet the camera isn't registering the decent due the the angle of the video, plus ther distance from the objects in the image.

Good way to explain.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 

I really hate to tell you this, but the B-25 was a prop plane. No jet fuel. Nowhere near the size of a jetliner. Research.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by astrogolf
 


Jet fuel, similar to kerosene or diesel fuel, is a high molecular weight hydrocarbon that doesn't burn as easily in the open atmosphere as the lower molecular weight, volatile gasoline we are all used to.

It's somewhat like lighter fluid.

If you ever got the bright idea to use the gasoline in the tank you fill your lawnmower with as starter fluid on the charcoal when you're having a barbecue, you probably got a surprise. It's highly volatile and almost explosive in the atmosphere, unlike the more thick, waxy, slower-burning stuff that is similar to jet fuel.

So arguments that jet fuel is more dangerous are wrong. It's LESS.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by 30_seconds
 


??



It's somewhat like lighter fluid.


!!!

Really? You think it's more like Butane?

Gasoline, and kerosene, are almost equally flammable, and burn with great intensity, once ignited. The MAJOR difference is, as I think you mentioned, the tendency of both to 'fume' in air...to produce ignitable vapors. Gasoline tends to do this more readily....BUT, either fuel, once atomized, will flash-over rapidly...else would be a vry good fule, now would it??



Tell me, what kind of fuel is used in a B-52? (Just basically, no need for specifics...gasoline? OR kerosene??):




posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


Here is account of the descent of United 175 toward WTC




About a half-dozen air traffic controllers at the FAA’s New York Center in Ronkonkoma, NY, watch Flight 175 on the radar screen in its final minutes, as it approaches Manhattan. [National Transportation Safety Board, 2/19/2002 ; Vanity Fair, 8/1/2006]

Flight 175 is marked on the screen with the letter “I” for “intruder.” Initially, those at the center think it might be heading for Newark Airport, maybe for an emergency landing there. But controller Jim Bohleber says, “No, he’s too fast and low, he’ll never make Newark.” [Newsday, 9/10/2002]

The controllers start speculating what Flight 175 is aiming for, with one of them guessing the Statue of Liberty. [Vanity Fair, 8/1/2006] They are astonished at the extraordinary rate at which it is descending (see (8:58 a.m.-9:03 a.m.) September 11, 2001). A controller counts down its altitude, “Eight, six, four” thousand feet, and then says, “My god, he’s in the ground in the next step.” But someone else at the center says, “No, that’s the Trade Center right there.”


In last 5 minutes United 175 lost over 7,000 ft of altitude

A descent rate of over 1400/minute

I'd say that constitutes a dive

Leave it to WEEDWHACKER to explain significance of 1400/minute
descent rate on aircraft spped



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
The above video of Flight 175 appears a bit shady, as do many videos from 9/11. At the 11 second mark, it appears that a small black dot (aircraft) just appears out of nowhere on the top left of the screen. It is situated to the immediate left of the tall building on the left hand (southern Manhattan) side of the screen.

Prior to this, how come we do not notice the aircraft flying across the open blue sky in the extreme left part of the screen. At over 500 miles per hour, it is hard to believe that this aircraft came from behind the building and then made a sharp left turn. Frame rate is not an issue either, because if you pause the video quickly, the aircraft does not move that much and should be noticeable at several locations when flying across the blue sky to the left of the southern most building.

Also, why does this aircraft appear to be black in color on a clear sunny day? Why wasn't the sun reflecting off of it. Even during twilight or cloudy days, commercial aircraft reflect light and do not appear black in color.

I guess it's a bit easier to CGI a black plane which does not reflect light and make it look a bit more realistic. Or, maybe this isn't CGI and the actual color of that flying object was black.







 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join