Another angle:

  • Flying Squid
    link
    English
    6
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    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…

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    37 hours ago

    I’m curious how they went about repairing this. Do they cut out sections and weld it together or what?

    • @Buddahriffic
      link
      English
      44 hours ago

      I don’t think they did repair this. That plane looks like a write off.

      • @stupidcasey
        link
        English
        23 hours ago

        Fun fact they actually was able to repurpose it it is now part of the Empire State Building, recycling at its finest.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    7315 hours ago

    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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1817 hours ago

    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.

  • astrsk
    link
    fedilink
    861 day ago

    Holy shit all the people just standing there at the hole in the side of the building…

    • @JeeBaiChow
      link
      English
      371 day ago

      This was pre-OSHA. Now I can’t even reach up to adjust the fan cage on my own.

      • @toynbee
        link
        English
        39
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        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.

        • @JeeBaiChow
          link
          English
          32
          edit-2
          20 hours ago

          yes but we're talking about this generation?

          We’re talking about this generation, right?

          • @Quetzalcutlass
            link
            English
            13
            edit-2
            17 hours ago

            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.

          • @surewhynotlem
            link
            English
            2620 hours ago

            There are fewer of them than there could have been. Regulations are written in the blood of our citizens.

            • @Thebeardedsinglemalt
              link
              English
              5
              edit-2
              15 hours ago

              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.

          • @toynbee
            link
            English
            1320 hours ago

            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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1119 hours ago

              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

              • @toynbee
                link
                English
                318 hours ago

                Maybe, but it seems unlikely that any kind of aircraft would be flying that low through a populous area.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  318 hours ago

                  Oh oops, my comment was supposed to reply to the other picture of the works sitting on the I beam

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                114 hours ago

                A 13 foot drop is still easily enough to kill you. People have died from only a 6 foot drop.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  29 hours ago

                  Oh sure! But the survival of a 13ft drop is wayyyyyyyyy greater than almost hitting terminal velocity and landing on concrete below.

    • @JeeBaiChow
      link
      English
      571 day ago

      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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3017 hours ago

      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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1917 hours ago

      B-25: 33,000lbs @ 225 mph

      vs

      767-200: 300,000 lbs @ 500 mph

      so, roughly 10x the weight at 2x the speed

      • @pahlimur
        link
        English
        1516 hours ago

        If those numbers are correct, that’s 40x the energy.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          37 hours ago

          40x the kinetic energy. Now consider the chemical energy stored in sufficient fuel for a coast to coast flight of that weight and speed.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          4
          edit-2
          16 hours ago

          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?

    • @StaticFalconar
      link
      English
      414 hours ago

      Opposite. This confirms planes back in the day were flimsy as shit.

      • @wildcardology
        link
        English
        011 hours ago

        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.

    • ProdigalFrogOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      351 day ago

      Possible. Though a B-25 is smaller and much slower than a 737.

      • Tar_Alcaran
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1617 hours ago

        A 767-200, like the one that hit the tower in 2001, carries roughly 3 Fully loaded B-25s worth of FUEL alone.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          114 hours ago

          Speed matters more than mass when calculating kinetic energy. A 767 is much, much faster than a B-25.

          • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝
            link
            fedilink
            English
            212 hours ago

            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.

          • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet
            link
            English
            113 hours ago

            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.

            • @evidences
              link
              English
              2
              edit-2
              12 hours ago

              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.

              • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet
                link
                English
                212 hours ago

                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.

      • @espentan
        link
        English
        1524 hours ago

        Not to mention compared to a 767.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2
      edit-2
      17 hours ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        15 hours ago

        yes the B 25 actually lost its engines in the impact that caused two other separate sites with respective fires

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      241 day ago

      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”

      • @Kimano
        link
        English
        311 day ago

        I mean that and a b25 weighs like 40k lbs and a 767 weighs like 400k lbs, and flies twice as fast.

      • Dark Arc
        link
        fedilink
        English
        19
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        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.

        • @TotalFat
          link
          English
          315 hours ago

          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.

          • Dark Arc
            link
            fedilink
            English
            28 hours ago

            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.

        • @Retrograde
          link
          English
          320 hours ago

          Maybe a B-25 killed WTC 7

  • @aeronmelon
    link
    English
    91 day ago

    Empire State Building: “Oh no, anyways…”