Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 3
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by starwarsisreal
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)



The Empire State building WAS a big event only it was like what.....?....back in the 1930's?
They didn't have YouTube back then so that's why the OP probably put this little diddly together for you youngin's in case your grandfather's forgot to tell you the story.

Several different planes, at different times, hit different buildings in NY back then. Another major one was in Park Slope Brooklyn.

I'm just sayin'.....................




posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

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?


Well...Maybe not multiple, but definitely single impacts, which was the case on 911...

Statements by Engineers


Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires. John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.

911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 




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 .


What? You mean because you don't want it to be true?
Look say it with me? Ima nota iron worker.



Was that just a sad attempt at disinfo or what? Or do you just admit to not knowing anything about what you're talk'in about. Here you can clearly see the box in a box design. Massive steel columns running vertically throughout. Proof in your face you are wrong. Listen to me ok. I am an iron worker. You are wrong.






This design had two major advantages. First of all, it gave the building remarkable stability. In addition to shouldering some of the vertical load (the weight of the building), the outer steel columns supported all of the horizontal forces acting on the tower (the force of the wind). This meant the inner support structure was completely dedicated to the huge vertical loads.

Credit How Stuff Works


You see this is why the question I ask, Where is all the steel going during the collapse? Sounds ludicous to you.
Because you don't know anything about skyscrappers.When I ask another Ironworker, where is all the steel?
Those who hate what they know just walk away shaking their head in disgust.The rest are rebels and agree.
None of them would agree that it isn't a controlled demo. Ironworkers know better than anyone. Even the designers.

Here's some 101 foryou.


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



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


The columns you are showing are the CORE columns .

There were no columns/beams in the open-floor space .

World of difference from the Empire .

See also : floor supports in Empire vs floor supports in WTC .



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 





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


These are your words. This is in context at the moment. The fact you don't know, or suffer from bouts of memory loss while posting I don't know.
You don't need to tell me anything about the use trussjoists in commercial buildings. Lighter joists are always used for lightweight concrete. The less the building weighs the better the steel can do it's job on a daily basis.
Those verticals in the center at the very least would have prevented the exact type of collapse we see. They seem non existent but there I don't like to tread. Speculative.

Please forgive me if I'm a bit short with you. I really don't mean to insult you. I just wish you at least at somepoint would acknowledge ironworkers. Everyday I put this stuff together prolly before you were out of diapers
These buildings are my life guy. I'm telling you You just don't know you don't understand the incredible force all that steel in the center is against one thing. A level to level downward collapse just shouldn't be.


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



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


That vid on youtube with the plane crashing into a building is fake. The building that is shown collapsing is the Delft University School of Architecture here is a pic of it in another thread on ATS.

Delft University School of Architecture collapse from fire

No plane hit that building but like the building in madrid it also didn't completely fall. It looks like in both of those incidents only the parts on fire collapsed.



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 



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


THOSE are YOUR words .

Then , you turn around and say that you know all about bar-joist floor trusses which , by the way , I am not arguing with . Maybe you do , I have no reason to doubt you when you say you are an iron worker .

But , you kinda contradict yourself by saying :


The less the building weighs the better the steel can do it's job on a daily basis.


giving me the impression that you are agreeing with me that the towers had less mass than the Empire ?

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



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


No offence taken . And like I said , I have no reason to doubt you when you say you hang steel .

But , we can't know for certain how that steel should have reacted , as we don't know for certain what was taking place inside of that collapse(s) .

All I'm saying is , steel can and will weaken from intense heat . Buildings can and will collapse when struck by an airliner . Buildings can and will collapse due to fire .

The section of the Windsor that collapsed was steel only , no concrete reinforcement . The sections that didn't collapse were reinforced with concrete .

The Empire had the 'Grid' or 'Cage' design built into it . The towers did not .



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 





giving me the impression that you are agreeing with me that the towers had less mass than the Empire ?


And I am of course. You said WTC had no, none, in the center..and for the lighter wieght the steel carries in WTC
there is a massive steel structure of columns running through 1 and 2 vertically that simply should have held.
Now what is more likely to come down more weight or less?




The Empire had the 'Grid' or 'Cage' design built into it . The towers did not .


The way you say that makes them sound as though they just weren't worthy of anything called design.

WTF

That struck me funny sorry . They employed what was called the box in a box design.



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



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Okay , I will concede that I should have worded that differently . What I meant was that the towers did not have support columns spaced every 20-30 feet as was incorporated into the design and structure of the Empire .

The towers also did not have the heavy duty I-beams and/or H-beams for floor supports , as the Empire did .

As for diapers , I have been retired for a few years .



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


You are correct . I believe they were of a faulty and dangerous design and I also believe that the same tradegy would occur if a plane ever crashes into any other building that has incorporated that design .

You seem like a reasonable guy , please read the following article :

www.nytimes.com...



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


Alright and you are right in the empire being unreasonably massive and heavy. But only because skyscrapper
tech still had advancements to make. I tell you one thing, if the ES ever starts to come down I bet it measures a five on the richter. While the noise will be deafening.




The floor trusses, made of some of the thinnest steel in the World Trade Center, almost certainly began deforming before anything else of consequence. At first, the trusses probably expanded, bowing the exterior columns -- themselves thin and weakening in the heat -- outward in places and causing dangerous stresses. All along the eastern face of the south tower around the 80th floor, tremendous fires raged. Eventually the thin steel of the trusses became so hot in that area that they began to soften and sag, hanging like clotheslines between the exterior and core of the building. The sagging trusses tugged inward on their bolted and welded connections to the exterior columns, and those connections began to snap. Video records of the disaster show a line of dust beginning to blow out of the east face around the 80th floor as floors began to slip away from their moorings and fall one upon the other.


This sounds like incredible BS. Or propaganda. Take the first line. There is no way that isn't a lie."made from the thinnest steel? You do see that I hope? I don't mean to sound as if I know everything about skyskrappers. Please that is propaganda. Bullcrappy pappy. Tremendous fires raged? Funny all I saw were tremendous explosions and what appeared to be at the most smolderings. As far as what was visible.

If one were to end this paragraph properly it would need to be extended. Something like this.
While the full center box of columns that were specifically designed to prevent that trype of collapse decided
to take the day off. No resistance to freefall from 47 vertical columns ? Come on you guys? Please ?

edit on 26-9-2010 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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.


I already in another post spoke to that and did some simple math. It's 33 times the energy as the B-25 could deliver, maxed out. That didn't even include the fuel load itself but just the energy stored from momentum.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Upon further examination , I must conclude that the youtube video in my first post is obviously a fake .

Not afraid to admit when I am wrong . My apologies .



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by CynicalM
never before have any buildings collapsed due to fire....One I could accept as a fluke, but three ???? nah


You might want to tell that Vincent Dunn



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien
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


NO! It did NOT because those are two different buildings. The one hit by the plane is NOT the same building that collapses. Watch the cut. Pay attention to the details of the building.

Edit: What's funny is I'm trying to help your argument here and you are disagreeing with me. I'm showing you that the video he posted is a fake.

edit on 26-9-2010 by GogoVicMorrow because: clarification.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Nephi1337
 


They should have used the same construction company for the twin towers that built the empire state



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Nephi1337
 


Thanks for sharing the video, I've never seen that footage before.

And seriously I'm so tired of 9/11 threads; as much as I know the OS is BS I can't keep arguing about something that people are going to just deny forever


I will keep trying to help people see the truth but that doesn't guarantee success.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


I thought I'd have a little look into that, since I'd heard that the WTC towers could at least withstand one passenger jet impact each.

I was suprised to find this page, which includes quotes from John Skilling, head structural engineer.

Link

I found it quite revealing, what do you think?

Kyle



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 


But they told us it was the fires that collapsed the towers and caused them to fall.

Speed and impact has nothing to do with the towers falling. If that were so then those towers would of collapsed as soon as those planes hit from such a 'high speed' impact.





new topics




 
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join