Another angle:

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    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…

  • SuperCub@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 hours ago

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

  • Wahots@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    70
    ·
    15 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.

  • Krauerking@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    16 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@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    83
    ·
    1 day ago

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

      • toynbee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        41
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        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.

          • Quetzalcutlass@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            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@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            24
            ·
            19 hours ago

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

            • Thebeardedsinglemalt@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              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@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            19 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.

            • SynopsisTantilize@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              19 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@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                18 hours ago

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

              • frezik@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                14 hours ago

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

                • SynopsisTantilize@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  9 hours ago

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

    • Krauerking@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      16 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.

        • booly@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 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.

        • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          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?

      • wildcardology@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 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.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      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.

      • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        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

    • AJ1@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 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 ArcA
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          15 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 ArcA
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 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.