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.


For you youngsters: Plane Hits Empire State Building (Video)

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 11:34 AM
July 28 1945 -
A US Army B-25 bomber crashes into the Empire State Building between the 78th and 79th floors. An engine plunges down an elevator shaft, sparking a fire in the basement. Eleven people in the building are killed, in addition to the three man bomber crew. Elevator operator Betty Lou Oliver survived a plunge of 75 stories inside an elevator, which still stands as the Guinness World Re More..cord for the longest survived elevator fall recorded. Less..

their was never any answers as to why this happend ,but it is an interesting video , enjoy


posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 12:11 PM

Originally posted by Nephi1337
their was never any answers as to why this happend

Sure there was. Right at the beginning of the video and all over Google. The pilot couldn't see the building in the thick fog.

But, cool old video.

edit on 25-9-2010 by _BoneZ_ because: because: because: because: because: because: because: because;

+11 more 
posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 12:55 PM
Not sure what the point was by posting this but certainly the moral to the story is: Buildings don't collapsed to the ground when hit by planes! (please, save all your 'yeah but, it was a small plane with less petrol...... argument)

Reinforced steel and concrete buildings (i.e. Empire State Building. WTC Towers. Sears Tower etc) do NOT collapse and turn to dust due to fires.

+1 more 
posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Human_Alien
Not sure what the point was by posting this but certainly the moral to the story is: Buildings don't collapsed to the ground when hit by planes! (please, save all your 'yeah but, it was a small plane with less petrol...... argument)

Reinforced steel and concrete buildings (i.e. Empire State Building. WTC Towers. Sears Tower etc) do NOT collapse and turn to dust due to fires.

The point, I hope, was to illustrate that buildings don't fall to the ground when hit with an aeroplane. Better yet, the Empire State wasn't specifically built to withstand impacts from aircraft, unlike the WTC towers, which were built to withstand MULTIPLE impacts.... go figure.

posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 01:19 PM
reply to post by dampnickers

Terribly wrong, and not even a close comparison.

VERY different structure (Empire State), VERY different speeds, VERY different impact forces.

There is NO correlation, here. To the WTC Towers, that is. Totally, totally different circumstances and results.

HOWEVER....note the story about the engine, from the B-25??? Down the elevator shaft?? Ring any bells?

Summary: Please STOP trying to use that tragedy (the Empire State Building impact) to comport to the tragedy of 9/11. It is a fallacy, and NOT a valid comparison. For many reasons, as outlined. Those who don't understand why likely never will, though.....pity.

posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 01:20 PM
reply to post by dampnickers

I too am hoping that was the point but it might've just been posted as a refresher-course for the young whipper-snappers seeing OP didn't allude any: "buildings don't crumble" post-script.

posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 01:25 PM
Come on, we have seen multiple images of buildings that had worst fires, and yet they stood! (Spain for e.g.) And don't tell me they didn't have an "impact" so that is the reason. There is way more evidence to prove a demolition, than a destruction. Good for Mahmoud "I'm a dinner jacket" to speak his mind. This guy is no idiot. I only wish he could support his mouth with some sort of evidence.

Maybe he has such evidence, and that is why Israel wants to take them out. Anyone think about that? And why is Israel and the US standing by, blurting whoo hooos, and doing nothing? Maybe Iran is holding them with blackmail?? Anyone thought of that??

posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 01:26 PM
I expected people to make comparisons to 9/11, bomber was an ant compared to what hit the WTC.

edit on 25-9-2010 by Segador because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 01:31 PM
I don't think that there was a lot of mystery as to why this occurred. It did state that the Pilot flew off course after having lost "the beam" and due to the heavy fog flew into the EmpireStateBldg.

There used to be an Army AirForce Base near Staten Island....they were probably on approach to that airport/airbase.

A common approach starting altitude is 1500' feet before even lining up with the runway, the Empire State Building is around 1250. including the top mast.

The Beam Or aka "LORAN" is a radio beam used at airport runways allowing planes to align with runways during instrument landings. Apparently In his effort to try and reacquire the Beam, which is done by making turns, with the intent of recrossing the beam, he being unfamiliar with the local geography was unaware of the height of some of the buildings in NYC.

Bad weather and poor visibility are the pilots biggest and most dangerous enemy.

In fact, from what I recall from my aviation days, you have to get special clearance by the Air Traffic Controllers to fly any where near or around Manhattan. these days. If you are granted flight access, it is usually along the Hudson or East Rivers which are safer to fly than amongst the high rise buildings.

The Plane itself is a medium bomber, not large but also not small. About the length of a City Bus.

This being a propeller aircraft had very volatile fuel aboard. Propeller planes use 100 Octane Gasoline which is considerably more explosive than the Kerosene used by modern Jet Aircraft . Kerosene, which actually is more of a lightweight oil, essentially the same as charcoal lighter fluid. Which burns but doesn't explode as gasoline does.
Also as to why you don't use gasoline on your grill.

Here's a picture of a B-25.

posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 01:38 PM
reply to post by TortoiseKweek

Although I totally agree withcha I don't think this was the threads' intent. We'll have to wait to hear from OP to see why s/he posted this.
But rest assured, there's gonna be people chimin' in saying "Ah, not even close to the events of 9-11" so, get ready to rumble
Just kiddin'

Buildings along with its contents don't disintegrate and smolder for MONTHS unless explosive were used. Case closed. Not even gonna argue with anyone about this cause they're simply not worth it.

posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 01:42 PM
reply to post by Human_Alien

Buildings don't collapse when hit by planes ?

Sure they do , take a look :

Steel and concrete-reinforced buildings won't collapse due to fires ?

Sure they will , here , take a look :

edit on 25-9-2010 by okbmd because: (no reason given)


Upon further examination , I must conclude that the youtube video in my first post is obviously a fake .

edit on Sun Sep 26 2010 by DontTreadOnMe because: per member request

posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 01:44 PM
reply to post by nh_ee

I truly don't wish to rain on your parade, nh_ee, but your account (of LORAN) and the navigation for instrument approaches (it is a "localizer", nowadays. Not sure when that was invented, will research).

Anyway, the guy flying the bomber was doing the (unthinkable, to most of us) and just dropping down and HOPING to see the ground, and find his way to the airport. (It is now named "La Guardia", or course...back then it was just the "Queens Airport", because that's where it's located).

The plane was only minutes from LaGuardia but lost in a dense fog that limited visibility. Flight rules of the time required aircraft to maintain an altitude of at least 2,000 ft (610 m) over the city, but Smith dropped to less than half that height hoping to regain sight of the ground. That he surely did, but the pilot had misjudged his location and soon found his plane bounding through the concrete canyons of the city's skyscrapers. The bomber soon attracted attention from alarmed citizens as its roaring engines echoed off the facades of buildings below. Those working in the upper stories of office buildings raced to windows to watch in amazement as a plane flew beneath them, turning and banking rapidly as its wingtips barely missed some structures. One observer was Army Air Force Lt. Frank Covey who spotted the doomed B-25 from his room in the Biltmore Hotel. Covey watched in disbelief as the plane barely missed the New York Central Office Building and was no higher than its 22nd floor.


Further research on the history of the localizer. (It is a component, usually, of the full ILS**)

(**)ILS = Instrument Landing System, which includes, as mentioned, the Localizer -- along with a Glide Slope transmitter, marker beacons (^^) along the final approach portion and, in modern era, the Approach Light System (ALS). However, the Localizer alone can be used as a navigatigonal aid in certain Insturment Approach Procedures.

(^^)Marker beacons a bit superfluous, nowadays. They are still there, but really are unnecessary in reality. Especially in a "precision approach" procedure (when there's a glideslope) we know our lateral location, along the final approach course, by our altitude. WHEN "on glideslope", of course. Also, modern era, there's usually DME associated as well. DME = Distance Measuring Equipment. All of this info is on the proper Approach Plate (or chart) that is referenced for the procedure. Example links below.......

I found that in 1945 (no specific month given, will keep digging) there were only NINE facilites in the U.S. that had ILS installed. And, the source I just found did not specify the locations. Except, one was mentioned...Pittsburgh. Mentioned as the FIRST place a full ILS approach was conducted with a passenger flight, in 1938. In a snowstorm.

Also, in that era (1938-1945) different forms of technology and systems were being tested, until finally they settled on what is still in use today. Of course, on-board equipment is far superior to that of the earlier era, as well as how it's represented to the pilots. Ground equipment no doubt, too.

Approach Plate examples:

Washington National Airport ILS Runway 01

(You can read, near the bottom, that if the G/S ----glideslope---- is INOP, then it becomes a non-precision Localizer only procedure....that is in the box labeled "S-LOC 1". It merely shows the different weather "minima" requirements. Also, arranged by aircraft 'category'. Basically, 'category' in this sense refers to the minimum/normal speeds able for an airplane, on approach. Go faster, less time to react, so 'higher' minimums).

So, the Localizer can stand alone (in some cases, when there is no glideslope transmitter installed) or, in the case when G/S transmitter is broken, the procedure is "downgraded" and used appropriately.

Also, there exist (becoming increasingly obsolete, though) the LDA, or "Localizer Directional Aid" approach procedure, still in use at National Airport:

Washington National Airport Runway 19 LDA

The "LDA" is a localizer sgnal that is offset, or not aligned, with the runway. It is a more precise form of guidance than, say, a VOR or NDB (##)....and it helps for unique situations like DCA. (Where, because of the Prohibited Areas over the city, a straight-in to Runway 19 cannot be conducted).

(##)NDB approaches are all but obsolete for sure, nowadays. With the increasing use of GPS, they are designated "RNAV" approaches now....when relying on GPS for lateral navigation in approach scenarios. "NDB" is aka "ADF", for those old-timers out there.

edit on 25 September 2010 by weedwhacker because: Text and links.

posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 01:46 PM
reply to post by Human_Alien

Buddy, I'm with you. There is no way it happened to the official story!

You got any theories?

posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 01:53 PM
Just BTW - why wont this page load??

I just posted, did I do something - a conspiracy in itself!

posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 02:03 PM
reply to post by TortoiseKweek

People forget that Ahmadinejad was part of the Iranian revolutionaries which lead to the overthrow of the Shah of Iran.

The Shah of Iran was on the payroll of big oil, and was their equivalent to Afghanistan's Hamid Kharzai today.

Ahmadinejad is an original conspiracy theorist. He saw what was happening to his country long ago with the Shah living like a King, while the
US and British, Elite were skimming all of the wealth out of his nation as their own people were living in squalor.

According to Perkins book "Confessions of an Economic Hitman", the US and British (BP) were skimming 60% of the oil profits revenue from Iran's Crude Oil shipments during the rein of the Shah of Iran.

Why do you think we'd hired Osama Bin Laden to fight the Russians leading to their eventual exodus from Afghanistan anyway ?

This is why Ahmadinejad speaks out as he does and the US and British certainly don't want to hear it because he speaks the truth about the history of the middle east and the US and British quest for control of the oil resources.

We are very dependent upon our oil and BIG BUSINESS knows it. The more oil resources the have control of the longer the profits roll in.

Remember that WAR IS A RACKET.

posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 02:03 PM

Originally posted by dampnickers
unlike the WTC towers, which were built to withstand MULTIPLE impacts....

The WTC towers were NOT built to withstand multiple impacts, care to show where the designers claimed that?

posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 02:13 PM
reply to post by nh_ee

You don't think I know that?!

But thanks for the refresher, maybe some new members could digest the truth.

edit on 25-9-2010 by TortoiseKweek because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 02:14 PM
well ,lets see first thought was wow this is cool old footage ,9/11 never crossed my mind ,but i see connections being made ,i wish to not see this thread turn into a 9/11 proof thread ,but also every one has the right to express any thought they have in reguards to this video , so if it does head that way lets keep it civil ,many thanks


posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 02:18 PM
Some of you are trying to equate the WTC collisions and the Empire State building collision. The two WTC collisions couldn't be more different from the Empire State Building in regards to the size of the airplane, obviously two jet airliners that can fly transcontinental distances are much larger in every aspect to a 1940's era medium bomber.

The forces involved in the collisions are orders of magnitude different as well.

Even I, who is less then knowledgeable in this field, can recognize this. Little, if any, valid comparison can be made.

posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 02:19 PM
How does a building have a total collapse into it's own footprint? You may say "structure failure" but how exactly does that happen to the lower half of a building? Add in fire and accelerant (i.e. jetfuel) but know the accelerant isn't enough to melt anything structurally vital to the building.
Are buildings not more structurally stronger on the bottom levels in order to support the top? So even if you destroyed the top floors would not the bottom floors still support it? If the pancake effect was to be applied would not the lower floors eventually slow down and the stop the upper floors before a total collapse? The lower floor has always supported the upper floors ever since the buildings completion so why wouldn't it during a event to the upper floors.

To bring anything down you need to destroy it's foundation. You do not collapse any building from destroying the upper floors. If anything you just made the building lighter.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in