Another angle:
I read it as B52 at first and wondered how the building survives
You can take multiple band members and chuck them at a building with little to no effect. The equipment too. It’s only when you get to the tour bus that it tends to leave a mark.
What about their Chrysler which is as big as a whale?
Does it seat about 20?
No, this is about the Empire State Building. The Chrysler building is completely different.
Holy shit all the people just standing there at the hole in the side of the building…
This was pre-OSHA. Now I can’t even reach up to adjust the fan cage on my own.
Regardless of “can” or “can’t,” I wouldn’t stand on a modern balcony that had passed inspection at that height, let alone a crumbly unsecured hole that has made no promise to maintain its integrity. Even if there were hypothetically no risk, I see no rail or even, like, a cable.
A strong gust of wind or particularly intrusive thought could easily ruin one or more lives there.
We’re talking about this generation, right?
There are fewer of them than there could have been. Regulations are written in the blood of our citizens.
Every single modern safety regulation is because someone died, or at least was seriously injured, doing exactly what the rule tells you not to do.
Knowing a construction worker’s usual sense of humor, I’d be afraid of one giving the guy sitting next to them a solid slap on the back as a joke. Especially if they had just expressed a fear of heights.
Yes, and I don’t share their sensibilities.
Just this photo makes me want to hide somewhere very close to the ground, maybe even under.
I’d like to see the rest of a zoomed out perspective. There is a chance it’s above a other floor. And it’s really only like 13 feet up
Maybe, but it seems unlikely that any kind of aircraft would be flying that low through a populous area.
Oh oops, my comment was supposed to reply to the other picture of the works sitting on the I beam
A 13 foot drop is still easily enough to kill you. People have died from only a 6 foot drop.
Oh sure! But the survival of a 13ft drop is wayyyyyyyyy greater than almost hitting terminal velocity and landing on concrete below.
I wonder if it was likely this was the most exciting thing these people had ever seen, or close to it?
These pictures where taken back when people knew how to party!
deleted by creator
Betty had a shit fucking day.
Elevator operator Betty Lou Oliver was thrown from her elevator car on the 80th floor and suffered severe burns. First aid workers placed her on another elevator car to transport her to the ground floor, but the cables supporting that elevator had been damaged in the incident, and it fell 75 stories, ending up in the basement.[13] Oliver survived the fall due to the softening cushion of air created by the falling elevator car within this elevator shaft; however, she had suffered a broken pelvis, back and neck when rescuers found her amongst the rubble.[14] This remains the world record for the longest survived elevator fall.
Especially bad when you consider the elevator shouldn’t have fallen in the first place.
Elisha Otis invented his automatic elevator brakes in 1853 – designed to instantly stop cars from falling if the cables snap … and the Empire State Building used Otis safety elevators.
Given how dead simple and reliable the safety mechanism is something must have gone horrible wrong.
A bit more on Betty and the incident:
Tldr; she lived till 74 and had a family and children, so it looks like it all worked out after nearly dying two or three times from the crash/burn/elevator crash.
That’s like one of my worst fears
Being thrown from an elevator or elevator falling 75 stories or airplane hitting the building?
Yes
Record setting go-getter
Holy fuck
Crashed due to low visibility in fog.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_Empire_State_Building_B-25_crash
Don’t build em like they used to.
either that or they don’t make jet fuel like they used to
in before “um, actually, the B-25 was a propeller-driven aircraft and therefore obviously did not use jet fuel”
I mean that and a b25 weighs like 40k lbs and a 767 weighs like 400k lbs, and flies twice as fast.
Very very different crashes.
The planes that hit the twin towers were bigger, going faster, and had more fuel.
The twin towers themselves were also built with a different skyscraper design at well that used fewer steel beams. I don’t remember what the names of the skyscraper design types were but I remember a 9-11 history channel program going into it.
I may be wrong but I recall the twin towers had a central spine that was the load bearing component like a tree or something. Older buildings had a frame and load bearing exterior with a soft, gooey center.
I remember it being explained as the twin towers “hung” somehow, so the central spine makes sense.
The older buildings were basically just steel beams like you see in cartoons. Lots and lots and lots of steel basically in cubes from what I recall. So there was just a lot more to catch the load. In some sense they were overbuilt.
Jet fuel can’t melt steel memes.
But chememetrails can!
I heard they made hypnotoad gay!
but the resulting fire can absolutely diminish their load capacity, making them frail and pliable like boiled spaghetti
Mom’s spaghetti?
Perhaps counter-intuitively, if your pockets are full of Mom’s spaghetti, you’re more likely to be structurally sound.
Either that, or Bush did 9/11
Maybe a B-25 killed WTC 7
Should have used jet fuel!!! I hear it can melt steel beans
I thought it was that it “can’t” melt steel beams
Beams? Of course not.
Beans? Absolutely.
Wake up, sheeple.
That’s what they want you to think
This confirms Things were more solid in the past?
Possible. Though a B-25 is smaller and much slower than a 737.
Also weighs much less.
Speed matters more than mass when calculating kinetic energy. A 767 is much, much faster than a B-25.
While you’re right, the MTOW of a B-26 is around 17 tons, the 767 is 150-200 tons.
So there is a factor of around 10 between them, so if the 767 flies 3 times as fast - which it doesn’t, the B-26 cruises at more than 0.35 Mach at close to sea level, and the 767 is not supersonic - that means that the factor from the speed can’t be more than about 3 squared, so 9.
So the factors from the weight and the speed are roughly equal IMO.
Speed matters more than mass when calculating kinetic energy.
Are you sure about that? An air rifle shooting supersonic aluminum pellets has considerably less kinetic energy than a .22 LR bullet, because of the weight of the bullet. Some air rifles actually shoot their projectile faster than a .22, but they have like 10x less energy upon impact.
I’m no mathlete but looking up the formula for kinetic energy it’s K.E. = 1/2 m v^2 so I’m pretty sure velocity is going to have exponentially greater effect on kinetic energy than mass.
I guess it’s because of the huge difference in weight that we see such a difference in kinetic energy from pellet guns, even though velocity has an exponential impact on the energy. A standard pellet weighs under 14 grains, and a .22 LR bullet weighs 40 grains. Thanks for sharing the formula though. I didn’t realize how huge of a contribution velocity makes for kinetic energy, and I’ll definitely look for a faster rifle whenever I upgrade my air rifle.
A 767-200, like the one that hit the tower in 2001, carries roughly 3 Fully loaded B-25s worth of FUEL alone.
Not to mention compared to a 767.
I mean the modern skyscraper is definitely built very different these days.
The world trade center used hollow exterior support so they could avoid having support columns interrupting the floor plans and large central support columns but you can see what happens when the exterior support gets damaged and heat causes sag from the weight.Advanced techniques usually mean less material and faster build times.
You know what was even more solid? A huge pile of rocks in the shape of a pyramid.B-25: 33,000lbs @ 225 mph
vs
767-200: 300,000 lbs @ 500 mph
so, roughly 10x the weight at 2x the speed
If those numbers are correct, that’s 40x the energy.
40x the kinetic energy. Now consider the chemical energy stored in sufficient fuel for a coast to coast flight of that weight and speed.
rough approximation, but I did double check the numbers.
ie we don’t know the exact weight of the bomber, but that’s its average laden weight, could be lighter without bombs
in 2001 the second plane hit faster than the first and I believe the first is guessed from footage but the second is from the black box?
Not the bomber.
Opposite. This confirms planes back in the day were flimsy as shit.
Those bombers back in the day needs to be made of lighter materials so they could carry those bombs and ammos for the . 30 machine guns.
Different/less fuel I imagine. The problem with WTC was the fires kept burning which weakened the steel enough for it to collapse under its own weight.
Edit: Admittedly, I read the headline as “B-52” but I think the comment stands.
yes the B 25 actually lost its engines in the impact that caused two other separate sites with respective fires
Man that is some insane photos and damage.
Both because it’s impressive and minor all at once. The fire damage looks far more severe and like it hit multiple floors and yet the exterior stone is barely wedged out of place.
You can even still see the debris of the plane.
On the morning of 9/11, after the first plane had hit the first tower, my dad, a news junkie, called me to tell me a plane hit the WTC, but I was busy with work and I told him I couldn’t talk but I hoped it wasn’t too bad. I assumed it was some sort of accident like this (which I already knew about).
Then he called a little while later to tell me that a second plane had hit the other tower…
Empire State Building: “Oh no, anyways…”
I’m curious how they went about repairing this. Do they cut out sections and weld it together or what?
I don’t think they did repair this. That plane looks like a write off.
Fun fact they actually was able to repurpose it it is now part of the Empire State Building, recycling at its finest.
