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

page: 2
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Buildings don't collapse when hit by planes ?

Sure they do , take a look :

www.youtube.com...

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

Sure they will , here , take a look :

www.911myths.com...

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




A portion of the building fell. That makes sense. However, it did not buckle in then cave in then disappear into the ground like the wicked witch of the west did!


As far as your second presentation for the defense. (First let me interrupt please. I never said building don't catch fire) Now, back to exhibit B.
The Windsor Building burned for 18 hours. It still did not disappear in dust. If anything you're helping out the opposition!


Next witness please.




posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 


I just want to clarify, are you saying that the WTC's were taken down by planes?? If you are, please explain WTC7 to me!

and the WTC1 and 2's were far enough to NOT cause damage for the building to collapse. Let's not forget, "Larry" himself said "Pull it"!!! WOW, I must be stupid!!!

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



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
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.


Any reason you forgot to say the two towers employ a far more massive design than the empire state building.. Capable of withstanding an
air strike from a jet?
How is it all the lying, ruthless, backstabbing, murdering politicians, all turn into lil angels that would never tell a lie
when it comes to 911?



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


No reason at all. The design differences are still immense. The aircraft involved are night and day different. Regardless of what I left out, note I did say I'm less than knowledgable..., there really is no valid comparison...



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 



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 section of the Windsor that did collapse , did so due to fires . The reason the building didn't collapse any further was due to the technical floors of reinforced concrete and the core section was made up of reinforced concrete and steel .

Plus , unlike WTC , they were actively fighting the fire .



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



In the newsreel they had stated "Lost the Beam" or something of that nature.

I know the WWII era aircraft bombers had a "Radio Compass" which worked off of a similar principle using Non Directional Beacons or NDB a predecessor to VOR. Each location had it's specific frequency which you tuned the radio compass to.

It's been awhile since I've flown, it's too damned expensive....and with today's fuel costs ....whew !

I still love it though.

I get more thrill from motorcycles and and its considerably cheaper as well as closer to the ground to fall if you ever have to crash !!!!!





posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 



the two towers employ a far more massive design than the empire state building..


This is simply not true . The Empire State Building employed interior columns , the WTC did not . The Empire also employed steel beams for floor supports , whereas , the WTC employed lightweight bar-joists for floor supports .

As has been said , there is simply no comparison .



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


That would be changing the topic. We are discussing the buildings that were hit by airplanes. Not a building that was, in all accounts, heavily damaged by debris.

The two towers were brought down by airplanes, rather large fast moving ones at that; and the resulting catastrophic damage that resulted.



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 

I'm not changing the topic. Why did the buildings around WTC7 not collapse? WTC7's damage (in collapsing) miraculously did NOT collapse the buildings around it. It was a 47level building.....You got an answer to that?



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by TortoiseKweek
 


Has ATS been hacked? Why do we all have the same avatars?



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   
"Just Testing" - Should we know about this??



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by nh_ee
 


Yes...that's why I jumped when you wrote "LORAN". Wrong implications. LORAN (very, very outdated for aviation use, today....but of course, used back then) is for LOng RAnge Navigation, using low frequency (90 - 110 kHz) transmitters and airborne receiving equipment. Generally, it was suitable for those long over-water routes. Low frequencies propagate further, and aren't subject to line-of-site restrictions. I am old enough to have used a version of it (way back) and I forget what we called it! Old age, I suppose.....but, it was essentially the same thing, and of course, this was well before GPS became so commonplace. We had only two or three 727s with the equipment installed...out in the Pacific.

ADF (NDB) ....usually interchanged, and it confuses people. Non Directional Beacon is the facility that is doing the transmitting, on the ground. It uses the AM radio band spectrum, actually...just below it to be exact. Automatic Direction Finding (or "finder") refers to the instrument onboard that receives the signal from the NDB, and how it's interpreted by the pilot.

All it is, is a needle that POINTS in the (usually vague and general) direction of the transmitter. Subject to interference, and static...and signal bounce. It's rather inaccurate, and thus hardly used for Instrument Approaches anymore....though, we DID have to learn back int he day, AND do them in the Simulator. Many, many times, just in case we ever had ONLY that to rely on in real world, some day.

The ADF instrument has a compass bezel that can be rotated, for pilot's orientation and situational awareness when navigating via the NDB signal.

A modern ADF instrument, typical for light airplanes:



The knob lower left corner rotates the compass rose bezel.

Modern airliners still have the ADFs (so far)...and those have compass roses that are synced to the other compass systems, and "turn" to always reflect current airplane heading.

In those cases, and what I am familiar with, they are called an "RDMI"....Radio Directional (or, "Distance")Magnetic Indicator...or somesuch. Like this one:



(The orange, and orange/white striped "flags" indicate power is off to the instrument --- makes sense, since it's not installed!!! OR, they indicate an improper signal of some sort, or other fault).

The orange "HDG" flag refers to the compass rose fault....in this case, no power.

Those two rectangular buttons, you push them, and they cycle each needle (the thin single, or the wide double) to point towards either a tuned NDB, or VOR, depending on pilot's choice.

The indicator near the button will change, as shown....if you could push the one on the left (if this were interactive) then it would next read "----> VOR". Push it again, and it's back to "----> ADF"...etc.

This instrument also incorporates the DME windows, to display that feature. DME is associated with TACAN (the military version of VORs) and MOST (in the USA) VORs are actually "VOR/TACs"....A VOR and TACAN station co-located.

(TACANs operate in the UHF frequency spectrum, VORs in the VHF spectrum. DME receivers can receive, in UHF, only the distance info...azimuth signals aren't available for civilian airliners, from the TACAN).



edit on 25-9-2010 by weedwhacker because: Image size



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Buildings don't collapse when hit by planes ?

Sure they do , take a look :

www.youtube.com...

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

Sure they will , here , take a look :

www.911myths.com...

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




A portion of the building fell. That makes sense. However, it did not buckle in then cave in then disappear into the ground like the wicked witch of the west did!


As far as your second presentation for the defense. (First let me interrupt please. I never said building don't catch fire) Now, back to exhibit B.
The Windsor Building burned for 18 hours. It still did not disappear in dust. If anything you're helping out the opposition!


Next witness please.
Does the Windsor building have a similar design to WTC 7 or 1/2? Was the structure of the Windsor building fireproofed prior to this incident? Clearly you must have researched this, it's not like you're just parroting claims from conspiracy sites without any researching whatsoever.

edit on 25-9-2010 by technical difficulties because: Add the last part



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Originally posted by technical difficulties



I implore you to do your own research but I will touch upon this ever-so-slightly.

Oddly enough, the Windsor Tower lacked fireproofing on the upper floors yet still stood. On the other conspiracy hand, all THREE WTC towers had sufficient fireproofing yet all..............crumbled and are no more.

But you're right. Nothing to see here. Keep the cattle line movin'........................



edit on 25-9-2010 by Human_Alien because: fix quote



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



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.


I agree with you for once, but......

There isn't anything to compare with the 3 towers falling on 9/11 because never before have any buildings collapsed due to fire....One I could accept as a fluke, but three ???? nah



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Come on.. do you guys even pay attention to the stuff you watch.. watch that video again. Look at the building (the far left side gives it away if its not already obvious enough. The building that is hit by the plane and the building that fall are completely different buildings. His point is nil.

Ah.. i'm newer to the site, i'm referring to the F16 crash video that the on fellow tried to make a point with, probably should have used the quote as opposed to just reply huh?

edit on 25-9-2010 by GogoVicMorrow because: clarification.



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Come on.. do you guys even pay attention to the stuff you watch.. watch that video again. Look at the building (the far left side gives it away if its not already obvious enough. The building that is hit by the plane and the building that fall are completely different buildings. His point is nil.

Ah.. i'm newer to the site, i'm referring to the F16 crash video that the on fellow tried to make a point with, probably should have used the quote as opposed to just reply huh?

edit on 25-9-2010 by GogoVicMorrow because: clarification.




Don't you pay attention to the stuff you READ?
I've already addressed the partially fallen building that was hit by a plane in a previous thread.

But what you're saying is liken to: Anyone who sticks their hand over a fire will ALL suffer 3rd degree burns.
Now, isn't that silly?
It would all depend how close your hand was, how hot the fire was, how calloused/fine your skin is and......... how long your hand was there.

Not everything is a carte blanch ''given".



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Come on.. do you guys even pay attention to the stuff you watch.. watch that video again. Look at the building (the far left side gives it away if its not already obvious enough. The building that is hit by the plane and the building that fall are completely different buildings. His point is nil.

Ah.. i'm newer to the site, i'm referring to the F16 crash video that the on fellow tried to make a point with, probably should have used the quote as opposed to just reply huh?

edit on 25-9-2010 by GogoVicMorrow because: clarification.




Don't you pay attention to the stuff you READ?
I've already addressed the partially fallen building that was hit by a plane in a previous thread.

But what you're saying is liken to: Anyone who sticks their hand over a fire will ALL suffer 3rd degree burns.
Now, isn't that silly?
It would all depend how close your hand was, how hot the fire was, how calloused/fine your skin is and......... how long your hand was there.

Not everything is a carte blanch ''given".



No, I don't think you are catching my meaning. In the comment of yours I initially replied to you were trying to make a defense when it wasn't necessary because in the video the building that is hit by the plane and the building that fell are two completely different buildings so how the falling building collapsed is irrelevant as it didn't collapse due to an f16 (or any plane for that matter) hitting it.

And everyone has been responding to that video as if it was a real point being made hence the "do you guys even watch the videos" that was to everyone. Also you did not acknowledge that the partiall fallen video was in fact NOT hit by a plane. So YOU aren't getting it. Watch the video again. One building hit by a plane, a completely different building collapsing regardless of the partial or totality of the collapse.



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   
how come the event in the video was not on the mainstream history I mean shouldn't it be as famous as the Hindenburg, Challenger, and Space shuttle columbia? This is the first time I've learn about it

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



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


Are you referring to this video? I am getting a little confused here.



If so....then, yes! The plane didn't hit that portion of the structure but it clearly is responsible for whatever caused that fire and subsequent, PARTIAL collapse.

What's the big deal? This isn't reminiscent to the WTC 7-like mystery at all!
A plane hit (several feet away) and the impact-trauma affected the other structure. Looks about right to me.

I am starting to lose the point of this whole debate
so please, enlighten me. Thanks





 
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join