Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 09:28 AM
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)



You REALLY think that "collapse" mimics the WTC's collapse? As Mr. Gambini once said: "I think you need dicker glasses"




posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Ok.......A b-25 bomber is nearly 1/50th the size of the 747 that crashed into the WTC. Not to mention the thousands of gallons of fuel a 747 would have vs the b-25. Yawwnnnnn......................








posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Sorry If this has been said before.

But after this incident, didn't they reinforce/build all steel structure buildings so that they could take a hit from a 707 (biggest plane of the time) and not collapse.

I'm pretty sure I remember reading this somewhere, because I know nothing about planes or steel structured buildings, apart from the obvious. I know the 707 was around like 5 years after this incident, but I'm pretty sure I read it was this incident which bought the situation of a plane hitting a building into their eyes, so they decided to reinforce buildings so they could take a plane without collapsing.

Obviously correct me if I'm wrong, in which I probably am.
_______________________________________________________________________________________

Edit To Add - This link talks about how the designers of the WTC's built them to withstand an attack from a 707. It wasn't the link I remember, but it does relate to what I was saying,

911research.wtc7.net...

edit on 19 26uSunday10 20 by vanhippi because: Add updated info



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by intelinside451
 


Good points but what is your point. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel on the floor its burning on let alone 5,10, or 20 stories below the fire. No matter how much fuel was involved.
So the jet weighs more? Are you suggesting the weight of the plane and jet fuel brought the WTC's down?

Who knew that jet fuel is the secret ingredient to making pancaking floors on buildings. Why keep guns out of federal buildings? We should be on alert for jet fuel being brought in. That stuff is apparently like acid.




posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   
If that were a jet, the jet fuel would have brought down that entire building, and several others.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   


Ok.......A b-25 bomber is nearly 1/50th the size of the 747 that crashed into the WTC. Not to mention the thousands of gallons of fuel a 747 would have vs the b-25. Yawwnnnnn......................





I seem to recall they where 767 or similar twin engined jets not 747 for engined carry a significant amount more fuel.

However trying to say a B25 would do the same or more damage to a building is ridiculous. B25 was a very lightweight aircraft and significantly smaller and lighter than a passenger jet. B25 where launch of an aircraft carrier during the Doolittle raids, trying doing that with the weight of a modern jet. They would also be significantly slower. Watching the impact on the twin towers you can see that a larger portion of the fuselage travelled clean through the tower. This surely would have obliterated that floor structurally, I doubt the B25 did anywhere near that amount of damage on impact.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by intelinside451
 



While I THINK you were trying to make a valid point, please allow me to gently correct a little bit....(could have been a typo, on your part???)


Ok.......A b-25 bomber is nearly 1/50th the size of the 747 that crashed into the WT...


It is SO FRAKKING IMPORTANT to be sure, in each and every instance in these sorts of discussions, NOT to make such mistakes. Sorry........

Airplanes that impacted the WTC Towers were BOTH Boeing 767-200s. NOT "747s".
All right....a typo, I get that. BUT, that is exactly how mistakes keep being spread around, on this topic. Some (even if unintentional) misinformation, and OFF to the races it begins!!!!

Having written that, the rest IS proper....it is the difference in the FORCES of impact. Anyoen who cares to research further may find out....the MASS (weight) of the object, multiplied by the VELOCITY (speed) wil result in the impact forces.

PLEASE....do the research for yourselves, and see the numbers that are involved!!!!



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by debunky
If you think that speed and mass have nothing to do with damage dealt, i sugest you try the following:
Shoot yourself in the head with a gun.
Then take a bullet, hold it over your head and let it fall.
See if you notice any difference.
Afterwards try smuggling a molotov cocktail into a federal building.
See if you are really the only person who knows about the dangers of combustible liquids.


You're right except you forgot about inertia - if the planes that flew into the WTC had somehow flown down vertically I could see the whole 'speed' thing being more of an issue.

Mass? Well I don't believe the added mass of the airliner played a great deal in its collapse. The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds. The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds. If you would have placed a jetliner on top of the towers it would not made them collapse, and certainly not have the 'pancake' effect (and yes I do know that mass does not equal weight - I'm just putting this into perspective for you).

The mass of the planes themselves were not enough to damage the structural integrity of the Twin Towers; neither does the speed of said planes even when you put both forces together.

So you do the math - inertia is determined by mass and the state of the object in motion & at rest. Once you calculate this into the huge equation of 9/11 (which honestly I am fully admitting I cannot do but have understanding of basic mathematics) I am sure you would not be able to use just speed and mass as a cause for collapse (not to mention they alone do not control any situation, there is always more variables).

Anyway, your attempt at an analogy, bullet to the head compared to dropping it on your head, has no reflection or correlation towards what happened on 9/11 since a plane wasn't dropped on top of the towers and exploded, nor did it carry any fuel that was capable of burning the metal (which has been stated more times than can ever be counted). The plane flew into the side of the building, it did not drop down, it did not have accelerant other than the fuel that powered the plane so stop with that argument.

Directionality my dear boy... directionality,


edit on 26/9/2010 by highlyoriginal because: fixed sentences



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
The big thing is that before the B-17 aircraft hit the umpire state building people were afraid to rent office space in the building, they were afraid because it was so high, afraid that it might fall.
So after it was hit by the B-17 people started to lease office space because if it was strong enough to with stand this dirrect hit it must be very strong.
But I have my own theory, and I think this was a put up job by the owner of the building to get more business.
They were already doing radio control air planes at this time and I do not believe anyone was even in the plane.
As for the engine that went down the elevator shaft, the engine did not match the size of a B-17 engine.
This goes on and on.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by googolplex
 



....The big thing is that before the B-17 aircraft hit the umpire state building....



LOL!!!!

I may ONLY BE one OF MANY who sees the irony, and the implied....ermmmm ("joke") there.... in that....thanks!!!


It is brilliantly written, and I apologize if I spoil it by posting this to point it out. (**)

(**) It's like comedy --- either you get the joke, or you don't. AND, "explaining" the joke, after-the fact? Spoils the mood.....

(Although, I expect, MANY won't get it anyway....)



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by vanhippi
 


You're right, at least I think you are. I haven't found any documents etc stating that skycrapers were built with possible impacts in mind, but the towers were capable of taking direct hits from 707's (If I've got the right plane there).

Check out the link in my previous post, it's near the bottom of page 3


The chief structural engineer even seems to think it may have been a controlled demolition...

Kyle



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by kai22
 


Time to dispel this misconception, again.


....but the towers were capable of taking direct hits from 707s...[/b[]


Once again....this THREAD is NOT about the events of 9/11, although it has managed to be overtaken by various comments. That need to be addressed for clarity:

The "idea" of a "hit" by a Boeing 707 (largest, 'heaviest' airliner of the era, when the Towers were on the drawing boards) is one of the biggest fallacies of the entire 'argument'.

It was BECAUSE of the controversy, during the design development of the project, that this was bandied about as a SELLING POINT.

It is the subject of ONE person's ability to "sell" an idea, based on "his calculations"...to satisfy the, at the time. criticisms of any detractors. We see the SAME sort of "PR" being employed today, on any number of projects. It is "spin", designed to "spin" opinion. Nothing else.

There are only TWO scenarios, in reality, that would have been considered in any "real life" scenario of the "heaviest airliner of the day" (the B-707) and any accidental impact with the WTC Towers.

Firstly, the most heavily-laden time would be on take-off, and initial climb-out.

Still, the air speeds? SLOW!!! Yes, lots of fuel, but speed??? SLOW!!!!!!

Secondly, the "arrival" scenario. Less fuel, near the end of a normal flight. Still, the speeds? SLOWWWW!!!!

Also, the weights....on take-off? Heaviest. On arrival? Lightest.

But, there is the aspect of SPEED!!!!! Because, at TRHAT altitude (well below 2,000 feet ASL) the SPEEDS would be slow, in any normal airliner's operation envelope. Whether taking off, or on landing approach.

NOT what we saw, on 9/11, with the DELIBERATE SUICIDAL ATTACK by using an airliner at maximum speed, irrespective of any "regulations" or aviation "rules" that are on the books.....



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by highlyoriginal
 


I'd be rather suprised if you think the main difference between shooting yourself and dropping a bullet on you is the direction, and the mass of the bullet.

E=(m*v^2)/2

As you can see the main factor is speed.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by highlyoriginal
 



Now...THIS time, I think I can rightly say it's on topic....and this following statement is very, very wrong:


The mass of the planes themselves were not enough to damage the structural integrity of the Twin Towers; neither does the speed of said planes even when you put both forces together.


....because, in comparing the impacts of the B-25 into the ESB (and the ones on 9/11...sorry)....the comparisons are totally, totally different.

The MASS does matter. But, not only that....the VELOCITY does, as well.

I implore those who don't yet understand it to search online, and find programs that can be used to input the variables, so you can see for yourselves the sorts of forces involved, here.

OK....just because I fear many won't bother, I will do it (begging the OP's pardon).

(Remember, that "force" has a direct relationship to "velocity". I hope all remember that very basic concept of physics)??


This website with calculator is, on surface, for "motorcycle" impact damge calculations --- but, it works for any, just input the specific numbers.

For instance, putting in 300,000 pounds (rough guess on the airplane's --{767's}-- weight), and 400 MPH (conservative airspeed), then a "stopping distance" (this, you can play around with, and adjust to see the results. It is NOT a definative number, unless we have more info....both for the ESB and the B-25, or for the WTC and the B-767 data, because of the chaotic forces involved, and the momentum of every separate part, etc....)

BUT, if I input, say....."50 feet"....again, for the B-767 example outlined above, the final result is a force of 16,057 TONS! A "ton" (U.S. measure) is 2,000 pounds. You can do the math, there. I get, roughly.....32 million pounds!!!

Consider the frontal area of the airplane as well, and how many Pounds Per Square Inch of force may have been involved....it's complicated, but most just don't seem to realize it.....



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



But, there is the aspect of SPEED!!!!! Because, at TRHAT altitude (well below 2,000 feet ASL) the SPEEDS would be slow, in any normal airliner's operation envelope. Whether taking off, or on landing approach.


Weedwhacker, I am glad to see you are waking up. Thank you for explaining why no 757 could have hit the pentagon at the speeds described. Obviously at the more realistic slower speed you talk about, the damaged to the pentagon would have been greatly reduced.

Now people will understand why it could not have been a 757 that hit the Pentagon.
Welcome to the Truth movement.


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



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by CynicalM
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



to rectify what you said i must make it clear that before 9/11 no STEAL structure had ever fell to fire damage...other types of buildings have fallen.

we all should remember whatever the technicalities involved in these different scenarios...it all comes back to 9/11 and the original story given by the government...which has much more evidence against it than for it.

the truth will come out eventually and there will be a lot of betrayed, scared and sorry sheep when they realise the type of people who run our countries.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 06:41 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)



I checked your original video on YouTube....it's derived from this video below:



The "plane" is in question as is the video. Check out the "plane" before it enters the building. Pay attention to the sound of the 'plane' and the silence of the witnesses.

It was edited in with the following video of the TU Delft building fire, which was a PARTIAL collapse after 6-8 HOURS of fire.

Your first video is what's known as a FAKE, and it took me 5 minutes to figure that out.



As for your photo of the Madrid Windsor.. at your link to here >>>> www.911myths.com... it's still stood.It even shows so in the link you provide.

Why would you say a building "collapsed" , then point people to a link of a burnt building still standing, to illustrate your "point"?

Do you have vision issues? Or vocabulary issues?



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



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Prove_It_NOW
 


Actually , I made a post on page two of this thread , where I refuted the validity of the youtube video and said that it was indeed a fake . That post seems to have been overlooked . I have been in contact with the mods trying to get the video post removed , as there was no way for me to edit the post once the time limit expired .

The only "issue" I have is I was unable to edit it myself once I concluded it was a fake .

My statements about the Windsor still stand , as the section of the Windsor that collapsed was constructed of steel . The collapse was contained to this section simply because of the resistance that it was met with due to the reinforced concrete technical floor below it and the reinforced concrete core structure . Plus the fire was actively being fought .

If the entire structure had been identical to the collapsed section then the entire structure would have likely collapsed also , in my opinion .



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 



Okay, so you posted a video which you later had to admit was fake.

So you concede that point.

As far as your Windsor photo....you claimed "IT" collapsed. You did not say a 'section'. Just by your most recent post you admit by default it did not collapse.

You say "it would have if". That's a hypothetical. You still have a photo of an obviously STANDING structure.
You're being disingenuous now to state that it 'collapsed'. If you still maintain that "IT" collapsed, then you are LYING based on observable photos which you yourself posted.

If you have an issue with Webster's definition of 'collapsed'....see the WTC 1 & 2 rubble.

The photo you posted of the Madrid Windsor is nowhere near the Universal definition of 'collapse'.

So do you have an issue with the definition, or your own vision? Which one?

Because your opinion of what it 'would have done' is irrelevant to the photo you posted.





new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join