Link

You can clearly see a nice big hole in the side of the Empire State building from a smaller and slower flying plane. To get a idea of how big the hole is scroll down and look at the people standing in the hole. You can clearly see a slice (in other pictures) from what could be a wing and then a huge hole. Well the ESB is made of concrete and steel. So what is the difference? Am I missing something? Looks like the same scenario to me, just a different, but still very strong building.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean was the strike faked? I don't think it was faked. Does that answer your question?

The hole in the side of the empire state building seems to look about the same as the WTC. I dunno, maybe Im missing it. I just dont get the NPT. It seems that if you can find similar circumstances with similar results it would seem to not be hard to believe. Look at WTC impact hole, and the ESB seem close. Not identical but two different planes at different speeds. Now I can say, the ESB was hit, one engine busted through the tower and out the other side while the other crashed half way through and fell down the shaft. It left a large hole, it burned with billowing black smoke. ALL similar to WTC. But the ESB didnt fall. Why did the WTC?

I guess my point is the plane hitting the ESB seemed to do damage similar to the jet hitting the WTC. So why is the WTC plane being called fake and the ESB not? Grainy low res video? Seems like flimsy proof.

With the ESB crash, a wing also flew off into the street. Are you aware of that?

The only reason why the starboard (right) wing got sheared off is because damage to that wing started before the plane even hit the building.



As you can see, the right wing was striking the building on the right, just before the plane slammed into the building. Otherwise, you would have 2 wing penetrations instead of just one. Seems cut and dry to me.

And to even mention the wing getting sheard off and trying to compare it to the WTC is deceptive and misleading because neither plane that hit the WTC had their wings hitting the side or corner of a building to have them sheared off.

Sorry BoneZ,

I don't agree with your 'analysis'. But that's OK. On this, I'll agree to disagree. I have no intention on getting sidetracked from another topic I wish to discuss with you.


"What Is The Proof The Wtc Hit Videos Are Authentic"
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...showtopic=8718

Obviously, the 1945 incident between the Bomber and the ESB is not a hoax but its use as support for the unique behavior of the 911 planes most probably is.

In my opinion, the championing of this story as proof of a plane's ability to penetrate scrapers, was skillfully managed, in its initial stages, by disinformation artists. I am not impugning anyone here at P4911T. I am merely pointing out the fact that we are constantly being manipulated by half truths and distortions. (I do wish more of us would wake up to the Perpeteers' ruses. )

During a recent exchange between Bonez and myself, when BoneZ brought up this same old chestnut, I wrote this in response:

"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."

Empire State Building Collision

Apart from the two engines:

(1) Some debris from the crash fell to the streets below

(2) Most fell onto the buildings setbacks at the fifth floor.

(3) The bulk of the wreckage remained stuck in the SIDE of the building.

Not much total penetration going on there!

The discussion between BoneZ and myself can be read on page 2 (and following) of this thread:

BoneZ and FfG discuss 1945 ESB collision.

shrug7272: I hereby direct you, and all future champions of the ESB Penetrator to the above Alt. Theory Topic. Quite frankly, I begin to tire of all these repeated exchanges about it.

Also, can you compare a reinforced masonry exterior to steel?