No?Furthermore, the Empire State Building is a reinforced masonry structure in which the structural steel beams are encased within limestone walls or slabs of concrete 8 inches (20 cm) thick. The burning jet fuel contributed significantly to the WTC collapse - THERE WERE NO DEMOLITION EXPLOSIVES PLANTED IN THE WTC.The design of the WTC required an intact exterior in order to carry the load of the upper floors to each lower floor. This insulation was simply blown off the WTC structure by the 767 collisions exposing the steel beams and floor trusses to the raging fire.
Of course, the kinetic energy would be non-trivial…Nearly half of the 767’s weight being fuel - more than three times the entire weight of the B-25. Many modern skyscrapers like the WTC towers have eliminated this extensive use of stone and concrete to reduce cost. Any collapse of an empire, or even the slower ending of one, is always a period of uncertainty and risk. NO BUILDING in the world, built at the time of the WTCs construction (early 1970's) could have withstood the combination of kinetic energy and thermal energy caused by the jets crashing into them.
Don't know offhand the specs of that, though.It's not like the 767 is about 16 times heavier than a B-25 or anything..Or that the B-25 was moving slowly while the 767s weren't..Certainly none of that could be a factor.. could it?the empire state building and the twin towers were both designed with the largest aircraft of the day in mindthe bomber that hit the empire state building wasn't carrying enough fuel to fly across the countrythe planes that struck the wtc towers carried a lot more fuel than had been taken into account, because planes had changed so much since the 60sThe B-25 that struck the Empire State Building weighed approximately 21,500 lb and was traveling around 200 mph. In fact.........there have been plenty of skyscrapers hit by planes. The Empire State Building was struck by a B-25 bomber. They could probably rebuild the damaged section much more cheaply than demolishing it.Note the other point in the article. The Empire State Building (ESB) was built with a riveted solid-steel exo-skeleton, clad in stone; the World Trade Center (WTC) Buildings did NOT have a rigid steel exterior framework and had poorly-insulated, weak/flimsy trusses.Another difference: the jets that hit the WTC bldgs carried hundreds of thousands of pounds of highly-flammable jet fuel and the planes themselves weighed hundreds of thousands of pounds each. The plane that hit the the ESB, although a large plane for its time, was much smaller and much lighter than the jets, and carried a few thousand pounds of less-flammable/lower octane aviation fuel.The jets that struck the WTC towers were loaded with fuel for a trans-continental flight and had taken off less than an hour before they struck the WTCs; the plane that hit the ESB was at the end of its flight, thus carried much less fuel.
When the floor beams bent enough, they pulled loose from the walls, further increasing the load factors on the surviving exterior supports until the supports could no longer carry the load. As a comparison the fuel load carried by a 767 is more than the gross take off weigh of a B-25. This heavy mass provides exceptional fire protection that insulates the steel within from excessive heating. “Give me morphine, hypos, needles, first aid kits! There was much less steel in the Twin Towers design, and it was thinner (possibly to save costs). Wide-body aircraft didn’t exist when it was developed. The terrorists didn't need explosives, the fuel carried served that purpose.First of all, the design of the ESB and the WTC were very different - the construction of the WTC contributed to its own destruction.
The important thing to note is that although these incidents have similarities, they also have many very big differences. When they snapped it was an instant fail.…Structurally, the WTC was designed to withstand a DC8 sized aircraft. This heavy mass provides exceptional fire protection that insulates the steel within from excessive heating. The +/- 250,000 pounds of jet fuel were more than enough to bring down the WTCs, factoring in the wood, cloth, paper, plastic and other flammable material in the WTCs and in the planes themselves. Long-term, it would probably have to be at least partially demolished.I don’t think so. How do you think about the answers?
Of course, the kinetic energy would be non-trivial…Nearly half of the 767’s weight being fuel - more than three times the entire weight of the B-25. Many modern skyscrapers like the WTC towers have eliminated this extensive use of stone and concrete to reduce cost. Any collapse of an empire, or even the slower ending of one, is always a period of uncertainty and risk. NO BUILDING in the world, built at the time of the WTCs construction (early 1970's) could have withstood the combination of kinetic energy and thermal energy caused by the jets crashing into them.
Don't know offhand the specs of that, though.It's not like the 767 is about 16 times heavier than a B-25 or anything..Or that the B-25 was moving slowly while the 767s weren't..Certainly none of that could be a factor.. could it?the empire state building and the twin towers were both designed with the largest aircraft of the day in mindthe bomber that hit the empire state building wasn't carrying enough fuel to fly across the countrythe planes that struck the wtc towers carried a lot more fuel than had been taken into account, because planes had changed so much since the 60sThe B-25 that struck the Empire State Building weighed approximately 21,500 lb and was traveling around 200 mph. In fact.........there have been plenty of skyscrapers hit by planes. The Empire State Building was struck by a B-25 bomber. They could probably rebuild the damaged section much more cheaply than demolishing it.Note the other point in the article. The Empire State Building (ESB) was built with a riveted solid-steel exo-skeleton, clad in stone; the World Trade Center (WTC) Buildings did NOT have a rigid steel exterior framework and had poorly-insulated, weak/flimsy trusses.Another difference: the jets that hit the WTC bldgs carried hundreds of thousands of pounds of highly-flammable jet fuel and the planes themselves weighed hundreds of thousands of pounds each. The plane that hit the the ESB, although a large plane for its time, was much smaller and much lighter than the jets, and carried a few thousand pounds of less-flammable/lower octane aviation fuel.The jets that struck the WTC towers were loaded with fuel for a trans-continental flight and had taken off less than an hour before they struck the WTCs; the plane that hit the ESB was at the end of its flight, thus carried much less fuel.
When the floor beams bent enough, they pulled loose from the walls, further increasing the load factors on the surviving exterior supports until the supports could no longer carry the load. As a comparison the fuel load carried by a 767 is more than the gross take off weigh of a B-25. This heavy mass provides exceptional fire protection that insulates the steel within from excessive heating. “Give me morphine, hypos, needles, first aid kits! There was much less steel in the Twin Towers design, and it was thinner (possibly to save costs). Wide-body aircraft didn’t exist when it was developed. The terrorists didn't need explosives, the fuel carried served that purpose.First of all, the design of the ESB and the WTC were very different - the construction of the WTC contributed to its own destruction.
The important thing to note is that although these incidents have similarities, they also have many very big differences. When they snapped it was an instant fail.…Structurally, the WTC was designed to withstand a DC8 sized aircraft. This heavy mass provides exceptional fire protection that insulates the steel within from excessive heating. The +/- 250,000 pounds of jet fuel were more than enough to bring down the WTCs, factoring in the wood, cloth, paper, plastic and other flammable material in the WTCs and in the planes themselves. Long-term, it would probably have to be at least partially demolished.I don’t think so. How do you think about the answers?