The Plane That Crashed Into the Empire State Build

[weston white]

Original Article (http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm)


On the foggy morning of Saturday, July 28, 1945, Lt. Colonel William Smith was piloting a U.S. Army B-25 bomber through New York City. He was on his way to Newark Airport to pick up his commanding officer, but for some reason he showed up over LaGuardia Airport and asked for a weather report. Because of the poor visibility, the LaGuardia tower wanted to him to land, but Smith requested and received permission from the military to continue on to Newark. The last transmission from the LaGuardia tower to the plane was a foreboding warning: "From where I'm sitting, I can't see the top of the Empire State Building.

Avoiding Skyscrapers
Confronted with dense fog, Smith dropped the bomber low to regain visibility, where he found himself in the middle of Manhattan, surrounded by skyscrapers. At first, the bomber was headed directly for the New York Central Building but at the last minute, Smith was able to bank west and miss it. Unfortunately, this put him in line for another skyscraper. Smith managed to miss several skyscrapers until he was headed for the Empire State Building. At the last minute, Smith tried to get the bomber to climb and twist away, but it was too late.

The Crash
At 9:49 a.m., the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor.

World War II had caused many to shift to a six-day work week; thus there were many people at work in the Empire State Building that Saturday. The plane crashed into the offices of the War Relief Services of the National Catholic Welfare Conference. Catherine O'Connor described the crash:

The plane exploded within the building. There were five or six seconds - I was tottering on my feet trying to keep my balance - and three-quarters of the office was instantaneously consumed in this sheet of flame. One man was standing inside the flame. I could see him. It was a co-worker, Joe Fountain. His whole body was on fire. I kept calling to him, "Come on, Joe; come on, Joe." He walked out of it.2
Joe Fountain died several days later. Eleven of the office workers were burned to death, some still sitting at their desks, others while trying to run from the flames.
One of the engines and part of the landing gear hurtled across the 79th floor, through wall partitions and two fire walls, and out the south wall's windows to fall onto a twelve-story building across 33rd Street. The other engine flew into an elevator shaft and landed on an elevator car. The car began to plummet, slowed somewhat by emergency safety devices. Miraculously, when help arrived at the remains of the elevator car in the basement, the two women inside the car were still alive.

Some debris from the crash fell to the streets below, sending pedestrians scurrying for cover, but most fell onto the buildings setbacks at the fifth floor. Still, a bulk of the wreckage remained stuck in the side of the building. After the flames were extinguished and the remains of the victims removed, the rest of the wreckage was removed through the building.

The plane crash killed 14 people (11 office workers and the three crewmen) plus injured 26 others. Though the integrity of the Empire State Building was not affected, the cost of the damage done by the crash was $1 million.

...Amazing and it is still standing even to this very day (62 years later)! Did they even have fire retardant on buildings back then, being built back in 1931 built 41 years before the twin towers were completed?

[cyince]

http://www.911myths.com/html/empire_state_b-25.html

They had fireproofing, that was different from the WTCS

http://www.designcommunity.com/discussion/13977.html

Just a 1909 article as well

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9F0DE1DA1031E733A25750C0A9649C946897D6CF somewhat realitve to the fireproofing issue

[weston white]

See now you are rationalizing. Did the bomber cause damage? Did the bomber cause a large fire? did the 1000+ foot building fail as WTC1, WTC2, or WTC7? Heavy weight Bricks vs.a light weight asbestos coating, please you are now arguing that newer technology is actually weaker then the old (which both are outdated as of current date). Please and really.

[cyince]

See now you are rationalizing. Did the bomber cause damage? Did the bomber cause a large fire? did the 1000+ foot building fail as WTC1, WTC2, or WTC7? Heavy weight Bricks vs.a light weight asbestos coating, please you are now arguing that newer technology is actually weaker then the old (which both are outdated as of current date). Please and really.

What am i rationalizing?! The bomber caused damage, no one said it didn't. The bomber caused a large fire (restricted to a floor). The building didnt' fail. If you had read the links you would have an idea why. I post the specifics for you.
The maximum weight of a B-25 ranged from 27,100 lb to a limit of 41,800 lb, for instance (see www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/b25mitchell.html). A 767-200 ranges from 179,080 lbs (empty) to 395,000 lb (maximum takeoff load) (www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/b767), and FEMA said the 9/11 planes had “an estimated gross weight of 274000 pounds” ( http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf ).

The maximum speed of a B-25 ranged from 275 mph to 315 mph, depending on which version it was, and as the B-25 pilot was trying to avoid the building it's unlikely he'd have reached that (cruising speed was 230 mph). On 9/11, "American Airlines Flight 11 crashes at a speed of roughly 470 mph" and "United Airlines Flight 175 crashes at a speed of about 590 mph" (http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/inside911/timeline.html), a considerable difference when you factor in the extra mass as well.

The B-25 had a "normal total fuel load of 974 US gallons" (http://www.b25.net); a proportion of this would have been used already in the plane’s flight. By comparison, "it has been estimated that both UA Flight 175 and AA Flight 11 were carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel when they impacted" (www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_demolition_init.htm).

Much less fuel, much less weight, much less speed. Smaller fire. Contained fire. Different building construction.

he Empire State Building frame is made up of many closely spaced columns and column clusters. This results in an exceptionally sturdy frame which has much structural redundancy, that is, there are many alternate paths for loads to be transmitted from the building to the ground. If the frame is damaged at one point there are other ways for the static and live loads to be supported. Many engineers estimate the Empire State Building is several times stronger than the WTC was. Few doubt that the Empire State Building would have withstood the disaster that collapsed the WTC towers. The disadvantage of this type of construction is that with all those columns the layout of the offices has to be done around the grid formed by the columns. The WTC was designed to have as open a floor plan as possible, and so each tower had light floors supported on the inside with a central core, and on the outside by a tube of closely spaced square columns. There were no intervening columns. Technically, the WTC towers were bearing wall structures, in a way. This resulted in a very flexible layout, but unfortunately concentrated the load bearing structure at the core and the outside perimeter of the towers, making them quite vulnerable to progressive collapse.

I just said the buildings did have some form of fire resistant materials. I said nothing of its effectivness.

So now its your turn, now that you have that specific information why do you still think the situation is analagous. Or you can run away again and call me ill informed if thats easier for you.

[weston white]

I did read the articles. I feel that you are saying that because the plane was smaller the building was saved, I fail to see why how this guarantees the failure of WTC1 and WTC2.

So to sum this up brick is actually stronger then steel because brick is formed at 1000 degrees, yet brick is the first to fail during an earthquake. This logic just fails me.

Run away no, but what you are suggesting is bold in the face of about six or so different professors and professionals that I have come to highly respect over the last 6 months against the word of websites such as wtc7lies, sorry but no thanks I will have to pass on that one.

I have done some of my own research, and have to cooborate what they claim over these many red herring tactics.

[cyince]

I did read the articles. I feel that you are saying that because the plane was smaller the building was saved, I fail to see why how this guarantees the failure of WTC1 and WTC2.

How did you construe that the I said the plane size guarantees failure? I am simply saying the situations are dramatically different and can't be used to draw any sort of conclusions.

Do you concede the plane is smaller?
Do you concede there is far less fuel?
Do you concede the maximum speed is far lower?
Do you concede the design of the Empire state building is different the the WTC?
Do you concede the fires were contained the Empire state building?

These are the arguments I have raised, nothing else.

See if you agree with these conclusions (which there are mountains of evidence to support) you must agree that making a direct comparisons to the WTC Jet impacts is quite different, and foolish.

So to sum this up brick is actually stronger then steel because brick is formed at 1000 degrees, yet brick is the first to fail during an earthquake. This logic just fails me.

I said nothing of the sort.

Run away no, but what you are suggesting is bold in the face of about six or so different professors and professionals that I have come to highly respect over the last 6 months against the word of websites such as wtc7lies, sorry but no thanks I will have to pass on that one.

At this point I am quite sure you have no idea of what I am suggesting.
Who are these professionals, and what have they said specific to this topic.

[mindsplinter]

Here's an article drawn up to more easily understand that buildings can't collapse at free fall speeds. Its actually a logical assumption too that nothing even breaks apart and falls symetrically. A building 1000 ft. high constructed of legos wouldn't have collapsed evenly or symetrically all the way to the ground. Why the pyroclastic dust flow? The whole arguement about what really happened that day is turning into a ridiculous point as the NWO got theirs laws and their war and all the silly folks do is argue.

High School Physics Proves

Towers were Demolished with Explosives.

When I talk to people about the building collapses on 9/11/2001, most people have never even heard about the destruction of World Trade Center Building No. 7, the 47 story steel office tower that fell into its own footprint at 5:20 on the evening of 9/11. But even people who know about building 7 will indicate that they don't feel competent to have an opinion about the plausibility of the official explanation for the twin towers collapse. They will say things like "I'm not a structural engineer." or "I'm no architect."
I contend that you don't have to be a structural engineer or architect to see that the official story, to the extent that there is one, is strictly impossible. Even knowledge of basic High School physics is enough to prove that the official explanation can not be squared with the rapidity of collapse or the plumes of concrete dust observed on 9/11.

9/11 Commission Report Fails High School Physics Test
Newton's law of gravity tells us exactly what to expect from falling bodies. A falling object experiences a constant acceleration of 32ft/sec^2. We can calculate that the time it would take for an object to fall from the top of one of the 1350ft WTC towers is 9.2 seconds without accounting for air resistance. When air resistance is included, for example, for a brick falling from that height, we would expect it to take about 12 sec. This is very close to the approximately 10 seconds it took for the towers to fall as reported in the official Kean-Hammilton-Zelikow report or the 10 to 13 seconds as independently measured from observation of various videos of the collapses. The bottom line is that the towers fell at essentially free fall speed.
Another fundamental law of physics is the conservation of energy and it applies to falling bodies as well. An object, as it falls, converts its gravitational potential energy (due to height above ground) into kinetic energy (speed). If that object has to use some of its energy for something else, like pushing air out of the way, then there will be less energy available as kinetic energy so it will take a bit longer to reach the ground. As we've seen in the example of a brick falling from the top of the tower, even just the energy required to move air out of the way is enough to slow the free fall time from 9.2 seconds to 12 seconds.
In the "official" explanation of the collapse, the so-called "pancake theory", the floor above gives way and crashes into the floor below it, which gives way and together they fall on the next floor below, and so on. The falling floor must use a considerable amount of its energy to break loose the floor below. In addition, to account for the observed dust plumes, the crashing together of the floors has to crush the concrete floor slabs into a fine powder and that takes a very substantial amount of energy as well. Additional energy is then required to eject those tons of crushed concrete at high speed in all directions because that's what was observed on 9/11. All of this energy must be subtracted from the original potential energy of the falling floor, which means there is much less energy available as kinetic energy(speed) so the floors must be falling much slower than they would otherwise.
How much slower? You don't have to be an engineer to realize that the energy required to crush the concrete into fine powder and blow it out of the buildings at high speed is many times more energy than what is required just to move air out of the way. If the energy required to move air out of the way of a falling brick could increase the fall time from 9.2 sec. to 12 sec, the requirement to not only move air, but also crush concrete, and eject tons of crushed concrete dust laterally at high speed, should have increased the fall time considerably.
The fact that the buildings were observed to fall at essentially free fall speed, means that all of the gravitational potential energy of the building was in fact converted to the kinetic energy of falling. The fall speed accounts for all of the gravitational potential energy available. There is no gravitational energy available to break steel, crush concrete, eject dust or do anything else but just fall.
The Conservation of Energy Law forces us to conclude that there had to be some additional source of energy. Some source of energy to pulverize the concrete and send it in all directions at high speed as a fine powder. Some additional energy to knock out the heavy steel beams that had supported the building for 40 years so that the top of the building could free fall unimpeded to the ground in just over 10 seconds.
What was the source of the additional energy? Since the 9/11 commission neglected to investigate the mater, that has been left to your imagination, but large quantities of high grade explosives fit the bill.

[weston white]

How did you construe that the I said the plane size guarantees failure? I am simply saying the situations are dramatically different and can't be used to draw any sort of conclusions.

Why would size matter in this theory? Damage is damage, fire is fire, fuel is fuel, mix them all together and you end up with weakened steel, thus both building should fail in the same fashion, right? In the Empire State building example the fires burned for over 40 minutes as reported, only 10 less minutes then what caused the WTC to utterly fail.


Do you concede the plane is smaller?
767 is a 170 tons heavier.

Do you concede there is far less fuel?
B-25 ~1/5 less fuel.

Do you concede the maximum speed is far lower?
~100 Knots slower the a 767.

Do you concede the design of the Empire state building is different the the WTC?
Which one is larger and which one is stronger now?

Do you concede the fires were contained the Empire state building?
Did not the fire fighters report the same during 9/11 just prior to collapse?


These are the arguments I have raised, nothing else.

See if you agree with these conclusions (which there are mountains of evidence to support) you must agree that making a direct comparisons to the WTC Jet impacts is quite different, and foolish.

Sure, the variables are different but the end result should be similar.


At this point I am quite sure you have no idea of what I am suggesting.
Who are these professionals, and what have they said specific to this topic.

Webster Tarpley
Jimm Mars
Paul Thompson
David Griffin
James Ridgeway
Michael Ruppert
Noam Chomsky
Robert Fisk
Milton Viorst
Claes Ryn
Cockburn and St. Clair
Michael Jones
Kirkpatrick Sale
Naomi Klein
Justin Raimondo
Pat Buchanan
Joe Sobran
Samuel Francis
Jude Wanniski
Thomas Fleming
Eric Margolis
Wendell Berry
Paul Gottfried
Charley Reese
Steven Jones
Kevin Barrett
John O'Neill

Watch their videos, their lectures, read their books.

Extended List: http://defendindependence.org/oif/hal.pdf

[weston white]

Great post by Mindsplinter!

[mindsplinter]

Hey Weston White,
Great post too, It's not just an annomally that the skeptics wilt and die on the vine. Truth will always win. In time.

[kblood]

About the theory that a plane would be unable to penetrate one of the WTC towers:

Take 2-3 inches thick steel plate, then a good sniper rifle, and it will be able to penetrate it easily. Standard army rifles should even be able to do this.

Multiply it up to the size of planes and WTC, and I do not see it all that impossible, and yes, bricks are of course alot more heat resistant than steel. Bricks are hardened with heat, but its the other way around for steel.

I personally see the explosives placed in WTC as the most likely theory, with planes hitting the towers as well to soften the buildings, and hide the obvious inside job.

[weston white]

Hey Weston White,
Great post too, It's not just an annomally that the skeptics wilt and die on the vine. Truth will always win. In time.

lol, amen to that!

[cyince]

Why would size matter in this theory? Damage is damage, fire is fire, fuel is fuel, mix them all together and you end up with weakened steel, thus both building should fail in the same fashion, right? In the Empire State building example the fires burned for over 40 minutes as reported, only 10 less minutes then what caused the WTC to utterly fail.
There was significantly less damage (therefore less structural supports damaged) As well the design of the ESB is different, in the WTC much of the weight was supported by the exterior columns, where as in the ESB it is not. There was significantly less fuel. It also hit at a much reduced speed. Think of crash tests and how the damage goes up signifigantly when the speed is increased.
Say your house got hit by a vehicle, would you rather it be Mini Cooper traveling @ 30kph, or a Suburban travelling at 60 kph. According to your argument it shouldn't matter the damage will be the same.

Why you think the results should be the same in the face of all of these facts is beyond me.

I can take a punch to the chin from my girlfriend and not get ko'd therefore a child can take a punch from mike Tyson....after all a punch is a punch, the result should be the same.


767 is a 170 tons heavier.
B-25 ~1/5 less fuel.
~100 Knots slower the a 767.
767 is 22% heavier
767 impacted the towers 53% faster then the b-25's max speed (it should be noted the plane was well slower than its max cruising speed when it hit)
The 767s were carrying and estimated fuel load of 10,000 gallons vs 1000 in a B-25.

These aren't minor differences, and cannon be dismissed as trivial, and to think the damage they caused would be on the same scale is preposterous.

Which one is larger and which one is stronger now?
The ESB, is this a trick ?

Did not the fire fighters report the same during 9/11 just prior to collapse?
No. All of the radio transmissions have been transcribed. Many of the firefighters have given interviews.

Sure, the variables are different but the end result should be similar.

I'll let you think about this, I think I may even sign up JERF just to post that quote.

[weston white]

No the WTC were much larger and very much stronger then the Empire State is, "now" did not mean, now as in current time, BTW.

Much of the fuel exploded exterior of the WTC, how is it that you still fail to see that?

Fires burned inside of the Empire State building for over 40 minutes, a notably much smaller and weaker building, yet not a single floor collapsed or even weakened in a ready attempt to breach a collapse.

So now you are shifting your logic to structural damage in the Empire State building was not as great as in the WTC (all assumptions by the way) so heat from the fires has to be discounted from the equation... see this is what I mean, altering facts and discounting evidence to support your conclusion.

Let your wife hit your child, sure Mike Tyson will cause more damage then you wife (I assume), but the results will be very similar, child will fall down, they will start crying, their head will hurt, possibly even get knocked out (even by your wife, depending on her swinging strength); as well Mike Tyson may cause permanent brain damage or cause a broken neck where as your wife may only cause a fracture or sprain in the child's neck (assuming a chin hit takes place in both cases).

No, firefighters did broadcast they had the fires contained and said they only needed two lines.

Sure I agree the 767 (or even a 707 for that matter) would likely cause greater damage, but the WTC's were also much stronger and larger then the Empire State building. Though remember that the WTC's were build to sustain a hit from a 707, which is very comparable to a 767 (though once again you choose to ignore this because it goes against the theory you push).

I did not say the damage would be the same, I said is would be similar, hence both instances would have similar results, even in your example. The impact upon the building itself would depend upon the structural integrity of the building itself, i.e. the Empire State building is largely brick, limestone, and granite; while the WTC's were largely steel, steel, some concrete, and yet even more steel.

Try hitting a brick with a sledge hammer then hit a piece of steel... wow, who would have guessed that could have ever happened to that poor, poor, brick!

[cyince]

Much of the fuel exploded exterior of the WTC, how is it that you still fail to see that?
Yes a lot of fuel did explode outside of the Trade Centers. Again were talking a massive difference in teh amount of fuel in each plane, even if 50% of the 767 fuel exploded outside the towers it would still be 25% more fuel then a fully loaded b-25 would have. No to mention the B-25 would be using a much lower octane fuel. (jet engine vs propeller)

Fires burned inside of the Empire State building for over 40 minutes, a notably much smaller and weaker building, yet not a single floor collapsed or even weakened in a ready attempt to breach a collapse.
Why do you keep saying a weaker building? It was not a weaker building. MANY architects and engineers have said if the WTC was built in the same style as the ESB it would most likely be standing today (I have provided links and there not from debunker sites or Main stream media sites). Do you understand that the WTC and ESB have fundamentally different structural designs (specific to core construction and load distribution). They are quite different and as such responded to trauma differently. (Even if the ESB's trauma was far less than the WTCs). The ESB was built to maximize height and strength where as the WTC was built to maximize open floor space for office rentals.

So now you are shifting your logic to structural damage in the Empire State building was not as great as in the WTC (all assumptions by the way) so heat from the fires has to be discounted from the equation... see this is what I mean, altering facts and discounting evidence to support your conclusion.

There is no logic shift. I am stating facts. See the facts in this case all fall on my side. What you see a logic shift is in fact just another fact that is part of my theory (see facts fit together in a cohesive theory). All assumptions? OK GIVE ME FACTS THAT PROVE ME WRONG, until then you can't dismiss something just cause you THINK its an assumption.

No, firefighters did broadcast they had the fires contained and said they only needed two lines.
Really, on what page of the radio transmission log?
http://nistreview.org/DISPATCH-ALL.pdf
If you want to read some firefighter interviews and see their feelings on the issue heres a link (its a debunker site, OH NOES)
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/fdny%26otherwtcfirstresponders But its actually just links to first responder testimony and interviews.

Sure I agree the 767 (or even a 707 for that matter) would likely cause greater damage, but the WTC's were also much stronger and larger then the Empire State building. Though remember that the WTC's were build to sustain a hit from a 707, which is very comparable to a 767 (though once again you choose to ignore this because it goes against the theory you push).
I didn't realize that i was ignoring it on a thread about the Empire State buildings.

Yes the designer/engineer said he believed (at the time of design) that it wold withstand a 707 impact. Again though the biggest factor in this is that in 1963 it was still not imagined that anyone would fly a fully loaded commercials airliner into a building at full speed (it was a plane lost in fog scenario like the b-25). The Calculations that the 707 impact were based on didn't take into account the damage from the fires, which were the ultimate undoing of the trade centers.
The designers/chief engineers have given interviews on this subject, but again you choose to ignore it (to take a page from your play book)
And the towers did survive the impact, and stood for 40+ minutes.

I did not say the damage would be the same, I said is would be similar, hence both instances would have similar results, even in your example. The impact upon the building itself would depend upon the structural integrity of the building itself, i.e. the Empire State building is largely brick, limestone, and granite; while the WTC's were largely steel, steel, some concrete, and yet even more steel.

largely brick, limestone, and granite? Really.
http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/spe/art/photo/hinex/empire/empire.html
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Empire_State_Building.html
See, now your talking about the facade, and decorative aspects of the building. The building is steel framed and concrete core.
If you were serious about learning these things and the truth you could use google. I swear google isn't a debunker site.

[weston white]

lol