Sorry to interrupt...this will only take a moment.
This site is an independent reader-supported project.
Because you have viewed at least a few articles now...
Can you give a small donation to keep us online?
We can give you e-books and audiobooks and stuff.
This site is an independent reader-supported project.
The cost of keeping it running are considerable.
If you can spare a few dollars it would help us enormously.
We can give you e-books and audiobooks and stuff.
×
×
Experimental Feature

Select 'Atmospheric Audio' from the Audio menu to add subtle background audio to certain portions of the article.

The Lost Bomber

Retired Article • Written by Daniel Lew

Computer rendering of the B-25's final moments above water.  Image Copyright Filmet Inc.
Computer rendering of the B-25's final moments above water. Image Copyright Filmet Inc.

In the middle of the afternoon on January 31, 1956 a B-25 bomber crash-landed into the Monongahela river near Homestead, Pennsylvania. All six aboard survived the impact, though two of them died before they were saved from the cold water. It was an unfortunate accident, and in the following weeks a search for the sunken plane was conducted.

The odds of finding the plane seemed pretty good - at the crash location the river was only 500 to 1,000 feet in width and 25 to 35 feet in depth. In comparison, a B-25 bomber is 52 feet long, 17 feet tall and has a wingspan of 67 feet. It took 15 minutes to sink underwater, and there were plenty of witnesses, so its last location above water was well known. It did not seem that finding the bomber would be a difficult task; yet after two weeks of hard searching, the plane was still missing and the operation was abandoned. So where did the B-25 really go?

The conspiracy theories flew fast and loose on this mystery. The most popular story was that the plane secretly carried some important, confidential cargo and was recovered incognito by the government. Anything from nuclear bombs to aliens were said to be inside the plane. As such, in the middle of the night a squad of elite government cover-up men retrieved the plane from the river, and had it shipped away. There were, of course, eyewitnesses who saw this secret operation. And the public search? Nothing but a hoax to cover for the real rescue. Oh, there was also an undercover seventh member of the crew who was pulled from the river. And Glenn Miller was aboard, they flew into the Bermuda Triangle, and...

Courtesy Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Courtesy Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Like most conspiracy theories, it's rather preposterous. The government's side of the story is both less ridiculous and less intriguing. According to military representatives, the plane was carrying no secret cargo - instead, it was to deliver two people to Harrisburg, as well as pick up airplane parts. Due to a malfunction the plane ran out of fuel on the way to its destination. The crew tried to turn around and get to a nearby airport, but by the time they realized they were under-fueled they were just too far away. The engines sputtered to a halt over the Mon, and the pilot crashed it there.

As for the search operation, the plane was almost found, but not quite. On the second day they hooked onto what appeared to be the wing of the plane, but the hook became unhinged and the plane sank back into the river. In the following days the river was dragged by searchers, resulting in a few broken cables due to other objects underneath the water, but no plane was found. In two weeks the government gave up.

While it's nice to think that the U.S. government could be so powerful as to secretly recover and ship away a large bomber in the middle of the night, that's hardly realistic. Still, it's difficult to believe that a plane could so easily get lost in such a shallow river. Where did the plane go?

In 1995 a few people calling themselves the B-25 Recovery Group decided to give the search another attempt. Headed by John Uldrich, they did everything in their power to find the lost B-25. After a few years of heavy research, the group claims to know the exact location of the plane:

Copyright Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Copyright Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

...the B-25 is buried approximately 150 feet off the left descending bank of the Mon, at mile point 4.9, at a place know to river men as Bird's Landing. Bird's Landing was once a tie-off spot for barges. Bird's Landing was also a favorite stopping place for "gravel pirates" who dredged gravel from the river and sold it to customers along the Mon, Allegheny and Ohio rivers. It was the activities of these entrepreneurs that created the open pit that would eventually be the burial site of the B-25. Somewhere in that filled in gravel pit, under 32 feet of water and 15 feet of silt lay the remains of a B-25.

There you have it: gravel pirates and their underwater tombs. The plane had been buried beneath a soft layer of silt that no one knew existed in the 1950s. Who would have thought that such an innocent action as stealing muck from the bottom of a river could have such plane-disappearing consequences? The latest news with the recovery operation is that they need $25,000 to rent the proper equipment to at least confirm the location of the plane - money that still has not been obtained. Maybe they could try their hands at the swashbuckling trade of gravel-piracy...

Article suggested by Bob Thompson

Further reading:
The B-25 Recovery Group's Homepage
About.com article: Mystery in the Mon

For more information or to contact the group, e-mail Matt Pundzak

Article written by Daniel Lew, published on 03 July 2006. Daniel is a contributing editor for DamnInteresting.com.

Edited by Alan Bellows.

For more science, history, and psychology, follow us:
SHARE

More Information
Related Articles


36 Comments
Snailpace
Posted 03 July 2006 at 11:38 am

I hope they do get the money, those poor aliens have been stuck down there all this time and are getting bored with the pack of playing cards they were left with...


another viewpoint
Posted 03 July 2006 at 11:54 am

...another government project run a-muck?

There's no way the military could have reacted fast enough to recover a crashed plane on the very night of it's "going down". My first thought would have been that river currents would have taken the plane some distance down river as it was sinking.

As for alien playing cards...well, the peanuts are probably pretty well water-logged by now as well.


mmmpopcorn
Posted 03 July 2006 at 12:53 pm

I'm from the area, yet, oddly enough, I'd never heard of this. Obviously evidence that the government is covering something up. (The government. A thick layer of sluge. Is there a difference?)

Seriously, though, what is it with mysterious plane crashes in western PA? The minute I read this I thought of the events of September 11 and Flight 93.


1c3d0g
Posted 03 July 2006 at 01:33 pm

Sigh...don't people ever get tired of their ridiculous conspiracy theories? I mean, some of them might be plausible, I admit it, but this one? Come on... :-/


slong
Posted 03 July 2006 at 03:05 pm

I have to agree with 1c3dog. Get a life folks.


Crispy
Posted 03 July 2006 at 06:04 pm

I have to disagree. Get a sense of humour folks.

Conspiracy theories are good clean fun, provided you realise that 99% of them are completely bogus. Sadly, there are some people who are unable to distinguish fiction from reality; but they can't be helped.


junebee
Posted 03 July 2006 at 06:39 pm

I blame Al Gore.


Arcangel
Posted 03 July 2006 at 09:28 pm

junebee said: "I blame Al Gore."

Would that be because Bush isn't smart enough to come up with a conspiracy theory of his own.

Interesting story and it would be great to see the plane recovered intact.


ballaerina
Posted 03 July 2006 at 10:03 pm

I liked the conspiracy theory better.

I'll admit: I like reading about theories. I think, despite the fact that they're usually ridiculous, they challenge our assumptions.

You know, Daniel Lew, ya'll should do on an article on some of the most famous conspiracy theories, i.e. the lunar landing, Kennedy's assassination, etc.


Spookie1
Posted 03 July 2006 at 10:09 pm

Anyone hear of project Jennifer? You should look it up


Mad Cow
Posted 03 July 2006 at 10:59 pm

junebee said: "I blame Al Gore."

And Al Gore blames Manbearpig.


mensadave
Posted 04 July 2006 at 05:01 am

How big was this gravel pit, anyway? It's interesting that this plane would settle in the exact spot where this pit was created. Hmmmm, I suspect there is some high strangeness at work here . . .


Furnace
Posted 04 July 2006 at 05:22 am

Ten thousand years from now, someone's going to be digging for fossils in a dry riverbed, pull up a plane and think, "WTF?"


debbiebf
Posted 04 July 2006 at 06:00 am

What do you mean Bush isn't smart enough to come up with a conspiracy theory? Didn't you know he and his cronies came up with the entire 9-11 fiasco, and it is all a conspiracy? Plus he has conpiracies going with Iran, Iraq, Korea, Tony Blair, Valerie Plame, and his girlfriend, Condoleeza Rice (who is tearing up his marriage). Just to name a few. He talked over 300 people who worked at the Pentagon to fake their own deaths and go into hiding, even from their families, for the rest of our lives so that we could get our hands on the oil in Iraq and punish Saddam for what he did to Bush the Elder. Now THAT is a conspiracy!


just_dave
Posted 04 July 2006 at 10:54 am

debbiebf said: "What do you mean Bush isn't smart enough to come up with a conspiracy theory? Didn't you know he and his cronies came up with the entire 9-11 fiasco, and it is all a conspiracy? Plus he has conpiracies going with Iran, Iraq, Korea, Tony Blair, Valerie Plame, and his girlfriend, Condoleeza Rice (who is tearing up his marriage). Just to name a few. He talked over 300 people who worked at the Pentagon to fake their own deaths and go into hiding, even from their families, for the rest of our lives so that we could get our hands on the oil in Iraq and punish Saddam for what he did to Bush the Elder. Now THAT is a conspiracy!"

Well said, debbiebf!


Sen.McCarthy
Posted 04 July 2006 at 12:43 pm

You're also forgetting that Bush blew up the levies in New Orleans because he hates black people so much.


Vivendi
Posted 04 July 2006 at 08:11 pm

Sen.McCarthy said: "You're also forgetting that Bush blew up the levies in New Orleans because he hates black people so much."

Well the levies were blown up by the government... through inaction.


radish123
Posted 04 July 2006 at 10:40 pm

everyone who belives in theroys might find this funny the sad thing is people actually belive this

http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20060619


just_dave
Posted 04 July 2006 at 10:59 pm

Vivendi said: "Well the levies were blown up by the government… through inaction."

Yeah, the Feds should've been there before the hurricane even hit. Shoulda known that the hick governor and mayor wouldn't be able to keep things going. That silly Posse Comitatus thing is just a nuisance anyway. Bring in the troops!


interested_fanatic
Posted 04 July 2006 at 11:23 pm

I remember this site what was about how the deribs found on the lawn of the Pentagon after 9-11 didn't match the amount of deribs from a 747 jet plane that had crashed into some other building and that is was one super-bad government conspiracy/coverup.
It was so stupid, it was funny :D


Arcangel
Posted 05 July 2006 at 12:17 am

Damn it Daniel, I highjacked your articles comment section with that idiot Bush and conspiracy theories. Sorry about that. Now what was the original topic again?


Bobt250
Posted 05 July 2006 at 05:09 am

I'm from the area mentioned in this article. While it's the most plausible theory for where the plane is I find it hard to believe. I boat the three rivers around Pittsburgh and I rarely find spots deeper than 25 feet and on accasion in areas of gravel mining I once saw a depth of 45 feet. Bodies of drowning vivtims are routinely recovered from the waters of the three rivers around Pittsburgh. If they can find a body why couldn't they find a bomber? The government couldn't find it in the first two weeks which would be long before it would have time to accumulate 15 feet of silt on top of it.

There have been other theories including underground caves but I suppose the gravel pit story remains the most plausible but until they prove it the theory remains far from certain.


Bobt250
Posted 05 July 2006 at 09:27 am

Well, weve been debating this at work and the prevailing theory is that during the supposed two week "search" they were actually sneaking it out of the water in pieces at night. Another suggestion as to the secretive nature of such an operation was that at the time the cold war was at it's worst (maybe) and also nuclear testing was at it height (I think). Perhaps the plane had nuclear stuff aboard. The residents of the Pittsburgh area...most of whom derive their drinking water from the rivers probably wouldn't be too happy about plutonium in the river. Besides, there was the obvious military cold war era secrecy. Anyway, if that's the case couldn't someone find out through declassified documents or with the freedom of information act?

Maybe that's where the searchers should look.


just_dave
Posted 05 July 2006 at 12:00 pm

Bobt250 said: "Bodies of drowning vivtims are routinely recovered from the waters of the three rivers around Pittsburgh. If they can find a body why couldn't they find a bomber?"

Maybe it has something to do with the weight/density of a bomber vs. that of a human body. Bit of a difference there.

Bobt250 said: "The government couldn't find it in the first two weeks which would be long before it would have time to accumulate 15 feet of silt on top of it."

I'm not familiar with the Monongahela River, but I do know that in more active river systems sand bars and silt beds can move pretty rapidly. From what you can see of that area on Google Maps, it's a big river. Add to that the fact that the crash happened at a sharp bend in the river where there had been dredging going on earlier, and you've got three ingredients that can make for quick changes in the river bed.

Bobt250 said: "Well, weve been debating this at work and the prevailing theory is that during the supposed two week "search" they were actually sneaking it out of the water in pieces at night. Another suggestion as to the secretive nature of such an operation was that at the time the cold war was at it's worst (maybe) and also nuclear testing was at it height (I think). Perhaps the plane had nuclear stuff aboard."

If that's the case, then why wouldn't they just sneak the nuclear stuff out at night then put up a good show in daylight getting the plane out? That would've accomplished the same thing but eliminated any possible claims of a coverup operation.

My thought is that the thing happened just as it was told; the plane crashed, the riverbed ate it, and the people responsible for pulling it out are left scratching their heads. Enough weird things can happen without any outside intervention that there is little need for conspiracy theories.


Misfit7707
Posted 05 July 2006 at 12:57 pm

junebee said: "I blame Al Gore."

Arcangel said: "Would that be because Bush isn't smart enough to come up with a conspiracy theory of his own."

debbiebf said: "What do you mean Bush isn't smart enough to come up with a conspiracy theory? Didn't you know he and his cronies came up with the entire 9-11 fiasco, and it is all a conspiracy? Plus he has conpiracies going with Iran, Iraq, Korea, Tony Blair, Valerie Plame, and his girlfriend, Condoleeza Rice (who is tearing up his marriage). Just to name a few. He talked over 300 people who worked at the Pentagon to fake their own deaths and go into hiding, even from their families, for the rest of our lives so that we could get our hands on the oil in Iraq and punish Saddam for what he did to Bush the Elder. Now THAT is a conspiracy!"

Sen.McCarthy said: "You're also forgetting that Bush blew up the levies in New Orleans because he hates black people so much."

Vivendi said: "Well the levies were blown up by the government… through inaction."

just_dave said: "Yeah, the Feds should've been there before the hurricane even hit. Shoulda known that the hick governor and mayor wouldn't be able to keep things going. That silly Posse Comitatus thing is just a nuisance anyway. Bring in the troops!"

Arcangel said: "Damn it Daniel, I highjacked your articles comment section with that idiot Bush and conspiracy theories. Sorry about that. Now what was the original topic again?"

Yeah I thought the article was fascinating, too.

Y'know, it seems like red was the perfect choice of color for quotes... really to be honest, I never thought so much comment space could be devoted to something that's not only not related to the topic, but comes from a debate that is senselessly drilled into our heads day in and day out by a lot of ignorant people saying: "oh, so-and-so sucks," or "whatshisface blows," or EVEN "whatshisface doesn't suck as much as so-and-so blows!!"

Hey, I'm all for the random funny comment that may or may not have anything to do with the article.. But please... all this amounts to are insults that don't go anywhere! It's pointless, unnecessary, a waste of space, and simply fuel for more arguing.

Am I the only one who's tired of this? Fortunately there are some people out there who are able to stay on track after this all got started, namely ballaerina, Spookie1, mensadave, Furnace, and Bobt250.

As for how I felt on the article, I thought it was fascinating. What are the odds the plane would land in a hole the right size, depth, and location, not to mention the right time? It sounds like what you'd see in a cartoon or something. Besides the plane, what other cargo is salvageable? Anybody remember how much work it took to salvage the fighter jets under the ice? HA maybe they should call the same guys to rescue this one.

Also, the article said there were two passengers aboard that plane... it also said that two of the people involved in the crash died on their swim to shore. Were those the passengers or what?

Great article, Daniel Lew!


Vanya
Posted 05 July 2006 at 03:01 pm

When they find that plane, they will probably find the rest of DB Cooper's money in it.


rhea_sun
Posted 05 July 2006 at 11:14 pm

Misfit7707 said: "Yeah I thought the article was fascinating, too.

Y'know, it seems like red was the perfect choice of color for quotes… really to be honest, I never thought so much comment space could be devoted to something that's not only not related to the topic, but comes from a debate that is senselessly drilled into our heads day in and day out by a lot of ignorant people saying: "oh, so-and-so sucks," or "whatshisface blows," or EVEN "whatshisface doesn't suck as much as so-and-so blows!!"

so why repeat so much of it?


sierra_club_sux
Posted 06 July 2006 at 01:10 am

That's Damn Interesting. The weight of the plane probably sunk it in the silt pretty quick. I never realized how deep that stuff could get.


Bobt250
Posted 06 July 2006 at 05:13 am

I don't believe it would sink quickly into the mud simply because of the weight to surface area ratio. There is a lot of weight but it's spread out over a a large area resulting in low downward pressure per square foot. Essentially what I mean is that it should sort of float on the mud. I also don't think the mud is that deep since they easily pull up gravel when they dredge for it.....although I can't be sure as I'm no expert on that.


noway
Posted 06 July 2006 at 09:02 am

junebee said: "I blame Al Gore."

Arcangel said: "Would that be because Bush isn't smart enough to come up with a conspiracy theory of his own."

debbiebf said: "What do you mean Bush isn't smart enough to come up with a conspiracy theory? Didn't you know he and his cronies came up with the entire 9-11 fiasco, and it is all a conspiracy? Plus he has conpiracies going with Iran, Iraq, Korea, Tony Blair, Valerie Plame, and his girlfriend, Condoleeza Rice (who is tearing up his marriage). Just to name a few. He talked over 300 people who worked at the Pentagon to fake their own deaths and go into hiding, even from their families, for the rest of our lives so that we could get our hands on the oil in Iraq and punish Saddam for what he did to Bush the Elder. Now THAT is a conspiracy!"

Sen.McCarthy said: "You're also forgetting that Bush blew up the levies in New Orleans because he hates black people so much."

Vivendi said: "Well the levies were blown up by the government… through inaction."

just_dave said: "Yeah, the Feds should've been there before the hurricane even hit. Shoulda known that the hick governor and mayor wouldn't be able to keep things going. That silly Posse Comitatus thing is just a nuisance anyway. Bring in the troops!"

Arcangel said: "Damn it Daniel, I highjacked your articles comment section with that idiot Bush and conspiracy theories. Sorry about that. Now what was the original topic again?"

Misfit7707 said: "Yeah I thought the article was fascinating, too.

Y'know, it seems like red was the perfect choice of color for quotes… really to be honest, I never thought so much comment space could be devoted to something that's not only not related to the topic, but comes from a debate that is senselessly drilled into our heads day in and day out by a lot of ignorant people saying: "oh, so-and-so sucks," or "whatshisface blows," or EVEN "whatshisface doesn't suck as much as so-and-so blows!!"

Hey, I'm all for the random funny comment that may or may not have anything to do with the article.. But please… all this amounts to are insults that don't go anywhere! It's pointless, unnecessary, a waste of space, and simply fuel for more arguing.

Am I the only one who's tired of this? Fortunately there are some people out there who are able to stay on track after this all got started, namely ballaerina, Spookie1, mensadave, Furnace, and Bobt250.

As for how I felt on the article, I thought it was fascinating. What are the odds the plane would land in a hole the right size, depth, and location, not to mention the right time? It sounds like what you'd see in a cartoon or something. Besides the plane, what other cargo is salvageable? Anybody remember how much work it took to salvage the fighter jets under the ice? HA maybe they should call the same guys to rescue this one.

Also, the article said there were two passengers aboard that plane… it also said that two of the people involved in the crash died on their swim to shore. Were those the passengers or what?

Great article, Daniel Lew!"

Bobt250 said: "I'm from the area mentioned in this article. While it's the most plausible theory for where the plane is I find it hard to believe. I boat the three rivers around Pittsburgh and I rarely find spots deeper than 25 feet and on accasion in areas of gravel mining I once saw a depth of 45 feet. Bodies of drowning vivtims are routinely recovered from the waters of the three rivers around Pittsburgh. If they can find a body why couldn't they find a bomber? The government couldn't find it in the first two weeks which would be long before it would have time to accumulate 15 feet of silt on top of it.

There have been other theories including underground caves but I suppose the gravel pit story remains the most plausible but until they prove it the theory remains far from certain."

Bobt250 said: "Well, weve been debating this at work and the prevailing theory is that during the supposed two week "search" they were actually sneaking it out of the water in pieces at night. Another suggestion as to the secretive nature of such an operation was that at the time the cold war was at it's worst (maybe) and also nuclear testing was at it height (I think). Perhaps the plane had nuclear stuff aboard. The residents of the Pittsburgh area…most of whom derive their drinking water from the rivers probably wouldn't be too happy about plutonium in the river. Besides, there was the obvious military cold war era secrecy. Anyway, if that's the case couldn't someone find out through declassified documents or with the freedom of information act?

Maybe that's where the searchers should look."

Vanya said: "When they find that plane, they will probably find the rest of DB Cooper's money in it."

rhea_sun said: "so why repeat so much of it?"

sierra_club_sux said: "That's Damn Interesting. The weight of the plane probably sunk it in the silt pretty quick. I never realized how deep that stuff could get."

Bobt250 said: "I don't believe it would sink quickly into the mud simply because of the weight to surface area ratio. There is a lot of weight but it's spread out over a a large area resulting in low downward pressure per square foot. Essentially what I mean is that it should sort of float on the mud. I also don't think the mud is that deep since they easily pull up gravel when they dredge for it…..although I can't be sure as I'm no expert on that."

Please, everyone follow misfit's lead and quote every post before you in your comments...then you have to follow it up with whining about being off-topic, which in itself is off-topic. But that's ok because you quoted everything else before you, so it makes perfect sense...


noway
Posted 06 July 2006 at 09:03 am

O, sorry about that last post...I didn't include enough whining...


Drakvil
Posted 06 July 2006 at 02:03 pm

I met someone a few years ago flying a kite in the park next to Shorleline Village in Long Beach, Ca. He repeatedly flew his stunt kite into the water, and a few seconds later flew it out of the water back into the sky... he just had to lean back a little harder to control it while underwater. Fluid dynamics and aerodynamics are more or less the same thing, with a change in the viscosity of the medium. If a plane-shaped object survived mostly intact from a water landing, I'd be willing to bet that in a good current it could travel quite a ways before reaching the bottom. And moving at speed, an object with the mass of a plane striking silt could bury it deeper than any near-bouyancy-neutral human body could get sinking slowly through the water.

Drowning victims will float to the surface on their own after a few days, as the bacteria in them generate gas, and turn them into balloons. It's not a pretty sight.

After this rash of off topic and obviously trolling posts, perhaps it is time for DI to start removing such messages that don't contribute to the discussion on the fine articles themselves?


Bobt250
Posted 07 July 2006 at 08:33 am

Interesting about the kite. I wouldn't have thought that possible. However, I don't think something the size of a bomber would sustain any speed once in the water besides the article said it took 15 minutes to sink. At that time the plane's speed would be that of the river which is generally between 3 and 7mph depending on rainfall. As someone who has spent all my life boating and skiing those rivers I can tell you that there is plenty of mud. I can only speak for the shorelines and the shallower water near the shore. Some places are rocky and some places are muddy....in some cases deep mud. When standing in shallow water in the muddy areas a man will generally sink up to his knees in the goo.......I know this from experience. That's 200 pounds on the surface area of two feet. I cannot speak for the middle but that's the way it is near the shoreline. I doubt the plane could have buried itself in the mud so far to become impossible to find on impact/sinking.

There are theories that the plane drifted underwater downstream but there are dams every few miles so the plane would stop when it hits the dam and I think I once heard that the area above the dam was part of the search. I also heard a theory that the water has undercut the hillsides (the area is somewhat mountainous) and the plane slid under a hill somewhere.

All of that being said think about this: There have been many ships and submarines found at the bottom of the ocean. Most notably the Titanic. It went down in the middle of the night in the middle of the ocean in thousands of feet of water and was found.

Just some more thoughts.


wa3fkg
Posted 19 July 2006 at 12:11 pm

What I find interesting in this day and age is that if the group mentioned in the article has indeed located the plane that in this day and age they could not get some reality television show to finance a project to bring it up from the bottom. Just a few thoughts from along the Allegheny River in Oakmont.


Engineer1
Posted 29 July 2006 at 09:13 pm

There are mountains of documentation on the effects of aircraft crashes. Thousands have been tested in mock and simulated realtime test. The fuel used by the Boeing 757 is type JET A-1. It's temperature is known to burn at a maxium of about 1500 degrees fahrenheit. Steel is known to melt at way above that temperature, about 3000 degrees fahreneit. This of course would be under perfect and control conditions. The WTC was struck by a 125 ton bullet going about 770 feet per second, made of basically out of two metals; aluminum and magnesium with copper and other alloyed metals thrown in. The heat from the impact, friction and compression of air within the aircraft compartment alone would be enough to ignite these metals. Magnesium and Aluminum once started burning burns hotter than jet fuel, about the same temperature of thermite (4000-5000 degrees fahrenheit). The thermite effect would easily melt steel girders. With about 64 tons of burning aircraft metal compacted into the center of one of the WTC towers one would believe structural damage like that occured on 9/11 would be plausible. A simple test would prove this.


GrawneyMan
Posted 30 July 2006 at 05:24 pm

I'm a mechanic, and there is a very interesting phenomenon that occurs everytime I accidentally drop a bolt, nut or other small, yet vitally important piece of the machine I'm working on... the object will absolutely, 100% of the time fall into the most obscure and hard to reach, darkest place possible. It's gotten to the point that if I'm within 10 ft of a floor grate and I drop something I will automatically go and look in the grate before I look where I think the piece fell.
Just a little insight for all those plane-seekers to ponder.


END OF COMMENTS
(New comments disabled on retired articles)