| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
kookomula
Validated Poster
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 328
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 8:59 am Post subject: Why the Empire State Building didn't fall in 1945 |
 |
|
I watched Loose Change 2 for the first time yesterday and was completely stunned, shocked and numbed by what I saw. Even for someone who is fairly familiar with the content, there was a lot to take in.
I have recently read a few old threads re. 911myths and a guy saying ok so no building has been brought down by fire, but what about the planes "mention the planes" and I could understand his point of view. This may have been dealt with already but yesterday while watching Loose Change 2 they mentioned the bomber that crashed into the Empire State Building in 1945 and I was interested to know if anything was said about this on their official site.
I copied this from the frequently asked questions section.
Question: Can you tell me more details about the B-25 that crashed into
the building in 1945 and how it was different from what happened at
WTC?
Answer: On July 28, 1945, an Army Air Force B-25 crashed into the
Building between the 79th and 80th floors. Fourteen people died. Damage to the Building was $1 million but the structural integrity of the Building
was not affected. There are several reasons the twin towers "collapsed"
and the Empire State Building was left intact in 1945. Both WTC towers
entire support was the exterior steel -- the ESB is built into bedrock,
is constructed of steel, limestone, brick, marble and has an extensive
system of steel and concrete interior support beams. The B-25 was a
smaller plane, carried less fuel and was nearing its destination, so was
low on fuel. If a big plane hit ESB, the building not fall down, but
undoubtedly there would be damage and loss of lives -- just another
unimaginable thought....There was only one book ever written about this
incident: "The Sky is Falling" by Arthur Weingarten, bit it is out of
print. You may check the 7/29/45 archives for The New York Times and the Associated Press for more information. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Both WTC towers
entire support was the exterior steel -- the ESB is built into bedrock,
is constructed of steel, limestone, brick, marble and has an extensive
system of steel and concrete interior support beams. |
This posted by kookomula taken from 911myths is interesting.
The first point regarding the twin towers is incorrect. Both the exterior and interior construction were loadbearing, not just the exterior. In fact this made the twin towers better able to cope with a side impact because they were each designed to act like a pipe - pierce a hole in a pipe and its structural qualities remain intact.
For those who haven't heard this already, listen to this interview with one of the WTC architect's discussing the construction of and his surprise at the collapses of the towers on Jerusalem Post Radio on September 11th
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=11333
Further proof that 911myths fails to answer the questions correctly.
By the way, I used to be an architect so I know how buildings work, just in case anyone from 911myths or A Sharp Major cares to challenge me on it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kookomula
Validated Poster
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 328
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 5:56 pm Post subject: Empire State Building Official Site |
|
|
| Sorry, I didn't make it clear that the question and response came from the Empire State Building official site. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
