Safe Mode: On
When planes hit buildings

Damage done by planes.


Added: May-24-2012 Occurred On: May-24-2012
By: wolfvisor
In:
Propaganda
Tags: empire, state, building, pentagon, wtc, world, trade, centre, behold, media, spud4x, wolfvisor
Location: United States (load item map)
Views: 1869 | Comments: 45 | Votes: 0 | Favorites: 2 | Shared: 0 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 1
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE
Sort by: Newest first | Oldest first | Highest score first
Liveleak opposes racial slurs - if you do spot comments that fall into this category, please report them for us to review.
  • Are you comparing a B25 with a max speed of 272mph to a loaded 767 with a max speed of 567 mph.

    Lets compare how they were built. 1 is a warplane designed to take damage. 1 is a passenger plane designed for fuel mileage.

    The B25 empty weight is 19,480 lb while max is 35,000 lb. The 767 empty is 176,650 lb and MAX is 315,000 lb.

    Fuel capacity is 974 US gallons on AVGAS (high octane gasoline) in the B25 compared to 16,700 (JET-A, a kerosene based jet fuel which burns hotter then AVGAS)US gal More..

    Posted May-24-2012 By 

    (6) | Report

    • @Aariss
      You also have to take into account that the B25 was landing. That means a light fuel load and declining air speed. Not a full fuel load under full power like the jets on 911.

      Posted May-24-2012 By 

      (2) | Report

    • Comment of user 'LimitedTime' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
    • @LimitedTime You all seem to have forgotten the towers were desinged to take a hit from a fully laden 707, lets see ur calculations on that, dont forget the 4 engines....

      Posted May-24-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @gosst60 ...and they did. Both buildings on 911 withstood the impact of the aircraft. The fire caused the collapses more than 2 hours AFTER the impact.

      Posted May-24-2012 By 

      (-1) | Report

    • @gosst60 Shit is designed to do a lot of things.. unless you can real world test them, it's just a theory. They did take the hit.. they collapsed well after the hits when the fire melted the supports.

      max weight of a 707 is still 50 tons less then a 767

      Posted May-24-2012 By 

      (1) | Report

  • Comparing the damage caused by a 3 ton aircraft going 200 mph into a building with a stone facade with the damage caused by a 150 ton aircraft going 500 mph into a building with a glass and sheet metal facade . . . is a foolish comparison.

    Old video was cool to watch though, thanks for that.

    Posted May-24-2012 By 

    (3) | Report

    • Comment of user 'nomadlife' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
    • @nomadlife "The notion is just ridiculous and demands one to refuse the laws of physics"

      Your statement shows that you have refused to learn physics. See there is this thing called potential energy and gravitational force, normal people understand the concept of these words maybe you should join along especially if you think physics its ridiculous.

      Posted May-24-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

    • Comment of user 'tugpilotsmiffy' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
    • Comment of user 'tugpilotsmiffy' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
    • @tugpilotsmiffy never can waste time battling ignorance!!

      My comments arent only for the truthers but for everybody, especially people who are on the edge. When a rational person comes along, I want them to see the arguement and who presents the "truth" the best and who's evidence trumps the others.

      I feel like Houdini did with the palm readers!!

      Posted May-25-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

  • Now way does the size difference in a B-25 mitchell and a giant passenger jet make the destrction worse! LoL! Much Much more impact area and force! Oh yeah, and fuel. Good footage, but stupid video!

    Posted May-24-2012 By 

    (2) | Report

    • @weekendaviator But of course jet fuel can burn at 2750 F to burn 4" steel structured core..sorry

      Was a good video tho

      Posted May-24-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @Wyseguy67 When they inspected the metal after the collapse thats what it showed. It was hot enough to weaken the structure enough for it to collapse not to mention the connections melt at even a lower temperature.

      Posted May-24-2012 By 

      (2) | Report

    • Comment of user 'LimitedTime' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
    • @Wyseguy67 ...the jet fuel on 911 burned for less than 2 minutes. The buildings came down because the contents burned for too long. Not hot enough to melt steel but easily hot enough to weaken steel and cause buckling.

      Posted May-24-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

  • LOL you have to be stupid to compare the old video of the empire state building to 911.

    The dynamics are COMPLETELY different. You have differing air speeds, differing sized planes, differing types of fuel, differing amounts of fuel, and differing amount of time the building burned. You have differing airplane designs....modern airliners are built MUCH stronger structurally these days.

    There are so many differing dynamics at work. You CANNOT compare apples to oranges.

    These truthers are More..

    Posted May-24-2012 By 

    (2) | Report

  • The similarities are staggering

    10 ton plane VS. an 89 ton plane,
    High octane gas VS. jet fuel
    200 mph or less VS. 550+ mph
    2 floors hit VS 6 in one & 8 in another.

    Yup, that explains it all. LOL

    Posted May-24-2012 By 

    (2) | Report

    • @Ruffus You've solved it perfectly with no questions. Genius! Lets dance.

      Posted May-24-2012 By 

      (1) | Report

    • @wolfvisor

      WooHoo

      What did I solve?

      The fact that these two events have almost zero in common apart from flying machine hitting a building?

      There was a Cessna crashed into an apartment building in Florida soon after 9-11. You could post a comparison about that next :@)

      Posted May-24-2012 By 

      (1) | Report

  • Wow, it's a good thing I got an ejukation. Now compare 9/11 against the Star Wars Death Star.

    Posted May-24-2012 By 

    (2) | Report

  • What another one. yawn.

    Posted May-24-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • So many things wrong with this stupid video its not even funny....for example how about the fact fully fueled commercial airliners much bigger than a b-25 slammed into the buildings at over 600 miles an hour, yes the b25 hole spanned 2 stories whereas on the trade center is spanned over 10 stories. What's your point? And that last picture is not even from a plane its from a natural gas explosion in Russia that occurred in the middle of the building and notice the hole doesn't have a couple hundr More..

    Posted May-24-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

    • @The Grim The picture is the aftermath of a plane strike into a block of flats in Iran.

      Posted May-24-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @wolfvisor Are you sure about that? http://englishrussia.com/2010/01/13/what-a-view/

      Not to mention I lived in Russia so it takes me all of a second to recognize the shitty apartment buildings they have, those are old soviet style apartment blocks, so it pretty much proves the point that you'll just believe anything thats shown to you even if its total bullshit.

      Posted May-24-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @The Grim lol at 4:34 it look like batman

      Posted May-24-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

    • Comment of user 'LimitedTime' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
    • @The Grim ...I don't think that Russian building was hit by an aircraft. It just collapsed due to poor design. Panelized construction is not permitted over here anymore due to similar collapse in Britain.

      Posted May-24-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

  • The entire prop plane that hit the empire state building was about equivalent in weight to the fuel load of the jets that crashed into the WTC buildings under full power. There is no comparison. That's not even mentioning that the prop plane was coming in for a landing with a light fuel load and flaps down to slow the approach to under 200 mph.

    Posted May-24-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • Most definitely placed in the correct channel, propagnda

    Posted May-24-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • So what happened to building 7...it just fell down.

    Posted May-25-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

    • Comment of user 'MAKMAK' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
  • Comment of user 'nomadlife' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!