no steel framed building has ever survived being hit by a jumbojet

[backwoodsbob]

discuss

[PufPuf23]

1. Empire State Building

1945 plane crash

Crash by a U.S. Army B-25 bomber on July 28, 1945At 9:40 a.m. on Saturday, July 28, 1945, a B-25 Mitchell bomber, piloted in thick fog by Lieutenant Colonel William Franklin Smith, Jr.,<18> crashed into the north side of the Empire State Building, between the 79th and 80th floors, where the offices of the National Catholic Welfare Council were located. 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. 14 people were killed in the incident.<19><20> 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.<21> Despite the damage and loss of life, the building was open for business on many floors on the following Monday. The crash helped spur the passage of the long-pending Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946, as well as the insertion of retroactive provisions into the law, allowing people to sue the government for the accident.<22[br />

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_State_Building


Empire State Building incident

On Saturday, 28 July 1945, at 9:40 am (while flying in thick fog), a USAAF B-25D crashed into the north side of the Empire State Building, hitting between the 79th and 80th floor. Fourteen people were killed — 11 in the building, along with Colonel William Smith and the other two occupants of the bomber. <7> Betty Lou Oliver, an elevator attendant, survived the impact and a subsequent accident with the elevator. It was partly due to this incident that towers 1 and 2 of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft.<8>


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-25_Mitchell

[AZCat]

2. I didn't think the Empire State Building was steel-framed.

I could be wrong though - will check later.

There is a significant size difference between a B-25 and a B-767.

[PufPuf23]

4. The ESB is steel framed

There are pictures of a steel worker bolting together girders during construction and the fire after the crash at the ESB wiki link.

Note that WTC1 and WTC2 were designed for a Boeing 707 impact.

[Bolo Boffin]

5. And it is a significantly different design from the towers

The Empire State Building is the older, grid-like structure throughout the building.

There's also this:

[PufPuf23]

7. "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" regards to the 1945 B-25 crash.

Nice chart!

One would think with all that kinetic energy and the less dense structure of the WTC that at least one B-767 engine would have gone more than a block out the other side of the building and found somewhere.

Now don't accuse me of being a no planer or some other ridiculousness.

Frankly, I haven't a clue about what happened that day except watching the 2nd collision live on TV.

[Bolo Boffin]

8. That did happen in New York.

[SDuderstadt]

9. then take the time to educate yourself...

and quit spreading baseless claims and false comparisons. you do know that at least one engine from 9/11 was found some distance away on the street, yes? if you didn't know that, why didn't you?

[PufPuf23]

11. Now I am educated

Unlike some, I do not live in the dungeon.

[wildbilln864]

37. hahaha!

:rofl:

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wildbilln864]

40. Cheap shots are your specialty ....

You certainly can't argue the issues so that's all you're left with I guess! And no I wasn't laughing because you're uneducated.

[SDuderstadt]

42. No, you're laughing because...

YOU'RE uneducated. I'll take you on in a substantive discussion anytime. You merely have to start one, rather than rely on your ubiquitous you-tube videos and silly emoticons which, unfortunately for you, do not qualify as substantive discussion.

[wildbilln864]

43. Can't you start one yourself?

Without all the inane insults for a change. I'll be happy to join in.
If by uneducated you mean I ain't taking the brainwash, then you are correct. I wouldn't want to be educated that way.

[SDuderstadt]

44. Why don't YOU start one, Bill?

Can you?

[wildbilln864]

45. I have started several threads here SDuders.

You've offered no significant contribution to any.

[SDuderstadt]

46. That's like your opinion, Bill

I don't think you're the arbiter of substance, since the majority of your posts are a link to another one of your silly conspiracy theory youtube videos, with no comment from you whasoever, accompanied by one of your ubiquitous emoticons.

Like I said, anytime, Bill.

[wildbilln864]

47. I don't think you are the arbiter either sduders...

that's just your ego baiting you along. I post the way I want to not the way you want.

[SDuderstadt]

48. "that's just your ego baiting you along"...

Would you like to try that again, in English, Bill? You're almost as incoherent as SLAD.

[wildbilln864]

49. I think we're all incoherent to you sduders. nt

[SDuderstadt]

50. Great comeback, Bill....

why...why...I just don't know how to respond to your brilliance.

[wildbilln864]

51. we don't have to worry about responding to that...

in your case.

[SDuderstadt]

52. Then, why did you?

Duh.

[wildbilln864]

53. I responded to your post...

but not your brilliance as you said you didn't know how to respond to mine.

[SDuderstadt]

54. So, what does "that's just your ego baiting you along."...

mean, exactly, Bill? I seem to have misplaced my "WildBill-to-English" dictionary.

[PufPuf23]

59. two questions

1. How come your chart is shrunk so small so it cannot be read now?

2. Please explain how much of the difference in kinetic energy is due to the speed of the aircraft? If can recall, the B-767 is flying 2X to 3X faster than the B-707? Why the difference in speed?

[Bolo Boffin]

60. The chart was resized to make it more legible

It was very grainy before that. Unfortunately I resized it too small, and Photobucket doesn't have an undo. You can still see the comparative arrows clearly.

Your second question doesn't make a lot of sense. When small, light aircraft are going slow, they have less kinetic energy than big, heavier aircraft going really fast. These cows are small, and those are far away.

For your information, I missed this post in a Mark Forum. The next time you go talking trash in other threads, be sure you have all the facts.

[AZCat]

13. I guess I was wrong.

Serves me right for trying to think before I have my morning coffee. ;)

The issue of design re. B-707 impact is a confusing one, because we don't have the original analysis. Without it, we don't know what assumptions were made in order to simplify the calculations (and therefore can't determine the validity of the results). All we have is recollections of the designers and a Port Authority document that mentions the analysis.

[SDuderstadt]

6. ''truther logic''

all buildings are designed and constructed the same way.
all planes are the same.
therefore, any plane crashing into any building should produce the same result.

forgive me, but you're either so invested in your conspiracy theory that you cannot see the flaws in your thinking or, like many conspiracy theorists, you deliberately omit facts which contradict your theory. in the case of the empire state building, you're omitting the fact that unlike the wtc, it isn't a ''tube-in-a-tube'', as well as the fact that the esb is heavily masonry-reinforced.

as another poster has already pointed out, a b-25 is not remotely comparable to a jumbo jet and, in the incident you cite, it impacted the esb at a far slower speed. why did you leave these important facts out? this kind of poor reasoning/tactic is embarrassing to liberals, as we embrace logic and reason. i despise bush and cheney and hope they are indicted, prosecuted and convicted. but we don't need to invent stuff they didn't do. i implore you to quit embarrassing liberalism with this inanity!

[PufPuf23]

10. I am not a "truther" nor conspiracy theorist

and there is no need to have someone insult me nor invent thought prints of my mind.

I posted an interesting bit of history and nothing more.

Was my post a strawman or a turd in the dungeon?

I have never posted in this forum before nor any 9-11 conspiracy post ever anywhere.

Glad you feel that way about GWB and Cheney.

[SDuderstadt]

12. i'm sorry if i insulted you...

but it sure seemed like you thought the esb incident was comparable to the wtc crashes when they were considerably different. i am glad to hear you are not a conspiracy theorist nor a no-planer. do you believe in mihop or lihop?

[PufPuf23]

15. Belief implies faith or access to full information

of which I have neither in regard to m/lihop so not at this time nor would I make such an accusation for the same reasons.

I prefer to believe no.

I read the 9-11 Commission Report when it came out and found it lacking or confusing in many respects and would support more investigation mostly out of curiosity.

IMO GWB and Cheney had an obligation to testify alone, in public, and under oath and didn't. Likewise key individuals like Rumsfield et al.

Also the proper response should have been law enforcement and special forces not a military attack as my nature is antiwar/violence in general. The War on Terror has been a disaster.

The event was used as an excuse by the neocons for military adventures, more global than most people realize (not just Iraq and Afghanistan).

There is so much crap and disinfo out there about the 9-11 events that it is pointless now to dwell on the matter.

You caught me slumming in this forum; when I am bored I peek in the Lounge or in here for high weirdness factor.

[OnTheOtherHand]

32. I didn't think it especially seemed like that

It seemed like a straightforward substantive response to the OP.

Personally, I think it's more fun to try not to treat every forum post as another salvo in the Great War. Just saying.

[JuniperLea]

58. I'm sorry... butt...

:eyes:

[JuniperLea]

57. If you are so sure you are correct in all of this

Why do you feel the need to insult?

[RetiredTrotskyite]

55. As you pointed out...

the Empire State Building was hit by a B-25 . A B-25 is not a jumbo jet.

[wildbilln864]

3. the twin towers survived...

for a bit but it was the kerosene fires that brought them down. :rofl:

[hack89]

14. The kerosene was burned off in 10 minutes

you really need to keep up with the OCT.

[SidDithers]

16. Try spreading kerosene throughtout your house, bill...

and then light it. See if the fire goes out after the kerosene has burned off.

Sid

[wildbilln864]

36. the towers weren't my house

and my house isn't framed with steel. When the fuels are consumed the fires go out!

[rollingrock]

17. WTC 7 was hit by no plane

How do you explain the total collapse on 9/11 of a 47-story skyscraper that was hit by no plane and had extremely limited fires?

[Bolo Boffin]

18. "had extremely limited fires"

There's your problem. The facts prove otherwise. WTC 7 had fires that were allowed to burn without surpression for over seven hours. And when thermal expansion is found to be the root cause of the collapse, it doesn't take much heat to get a steel beam expanding. And when they are as long as the beams over the access ramps were, then that can cause some problems in a building that's got an unrecognized design flaw.

[rollingrock]

20. You should get a patent on that idea

you'd make millions.

To bring down a modern steel-framed skyscraper, simply light a couple of floors on fire and watch it collapse virtually symmetrically down onto its own footprint. No elaborate, expensive controlled demolition set-up or explosives required!

:rofl:

And you're wrong because the fires were indeed being suppressed in WTC 7, otherwise the flames would have spread throughout every floor of the building instead of being limited to no more than 3 or 4 floors as they actually were. And the fires didn't even engulf the whole floor, they were limited to a few rooms each!







btw, how come this steel-framed skyscraper didn't collapse?
The fires were obviously much more severe because they engulfed every floor.
How are you going to spin this one? This should be good..lol.

:popcorn:

[Bolo Boffin]

31. Well, if you're just going to make up your facts, there's no discussing anything with you

How were the fires suppressed in WTC 7, rollingrock? The primary and secondary sprinklers in the lower floors relied on water from the main, the main that was destroyed when 1 and 2 fell. The firefighters couldn't get water to 7. How exactly were the fires suppressed?

And if that's the Mandarin Oriental building:

[LARED]

34. "fires were indeed being suppressed in WTC 7"

How?

[rollingrock]

21. 'Unrecognized design flaw'

Oh boy, never heard that one before. link please?

I'm not finding anything about a 'design flaw' in the official 'Final Report on Building 7.'

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf


Have you informed them of this design flaw yet? Because they must have missed it.
Oh well, back to the drawing board with you, NIST. It appears your report isn't
so final after all.

[AZCat]

23. That's the wrong report.

You're linking to the draft version released last August. This is the final version.

And no, NIST did not miss the design flaw.

[rollingrock]

24. Nope, nothing there either.

My search results for 'flaw':

'Reader has finished searching the document. No matches were found.'


Uhh, next.

[AZCat]

25. You might need to READ the damn thing first.

I know that's a big request, but I know you can pull through.

[rollingrock]

26. It's why the Search function was invented

Most normal people don't have the time to read the whole book or document of something just to get to the part in question. If the Search function doesn't find it, it basically doesn't exist except maybe in your dreams.

[AZCat]

27. Unfortunately for you, the Search function isn't sophisticated enough...

to search for concepts rather than specific words or phrases. If you want to find where the NIST report discusses the flaw(s) in the design, you'll have to actually read the report. It isn't a terrible burden - you can skip the first 36 pages, cutting the total down to less than 100. I could point out the specific section in the report where this is discussed, but I think you would benefit greatly by reading the whole document. Even if you don't agree with NIST's conclusions, you'll be better informed of their arguments.

[rollingrock]

28. Damn luddites

You still on Dos or what? Ever heard of an invention called copy and paste?
Or are you just a really poor bullshit artist?

:rofl:

[AZCat]

29. Ahhh, good old MS-DOS.

Back when things failed the way we expected them to!

I'm not going to copy and paste the relevant section, rollingrock. You should read the whole report, then we could discuss it from an informed perspective.

[rollingrock]

30. I will take a look at it tomorrow

when I get a chance. Enjoy your weekend.

[LARED]

33. Almost all reports have something called an

Executive Summary. Start there as almost all relevant findings will be at least summarized.

[Bolo Boffin]

35. "Larry A. Silverstein" isn't in there either

I guess he didn't own the building.

[vincent_vega_lives]

56. Try doing a search for

"column 79"

It was mentioned over 40 times.

[SDuderstadt]

19. this has been explained numerous times...

what is the point of repeatedly rebunking this? if you could find a smoking gun, you'd win instant converts, myself included. floating the same nonsense over and over is hurting your ''cause''.

[rollingrock]

22. Well, where is it?

I've been waiting for this famous alleged debunking for a while now.

[wildbilln864]

38. yep!

me and you both rollingrock. They just keep trying and failing. :shrug:

[SDuderstadt]

41. Where is what?

Try to be a little clearer, please.