@@Bumble013he is not finding Exaclty all about 9/11 he is just finding that’s are just cool and fun but some of them are made up. And it’s sometimes a theory. A 9/11 THEORY
I'm a structural engineering student. I agree with you that the Empire State Building would have been less likely to collapse, but I think you're missing something. The World Trade Center was a steel structure while the ESB is reinforced concrete, the impact of the plane wasn't the direct cause of collapse...it was the fires that ensued because of all the jet fuel. If it was because of the columns taken out, it would have collapsed immediately, but it took an hour. In fact, without the fires it probably would have lasted a lot longer. The fires caused thermal expansion of the floors which then caused the floors to push outwards on the columns and also softened the steel. Eventually the steel buckled and caused the progressive collapse. The ESB on the other is concrete which is virtually fire resistant so it probably would have prevented structural damage due to fire.
If the ESB was New Yorkers would have gone berserk they didnt really like the Twin Towers they adore the ESB the world and the rest of US loved all 3 Structures.
@wamegoamigo The ESB wasn't designed around a reinforced concrete core. It's too old; it was built in 1931, a skeleton made of structural steel was used. Old school structural steel is surrounded by heavy masonry for fireproofing. Beams holding up floors were also solid steel I-beams. Trusses are much weaker under extreme heat than an I-beam, any distortions to the individual triangles mean the safety factor is the only thing holding it up. Simple spray-on fireproofing became dislodged after the initial attack, which left the trusses unprotected. Once enough trusses started to sag, the steel columns started to become unstable, eventually causing them to buckle.
Not only that, but ESB is a beast. They used masonry and a pyramid type design which makes it one of the most stable structures. Every 6 - 8 floor section is smaller than the lower ones making it a low key step pyramid using smaller bricks. It would be okay except for having substantial damage.
Concrete crumbles, and steel bends. Meaning that likely there would have been huge chunks/sections of square footage missing out of the E.S. Building around the spots where the planes hit, but it wouldn't have fell. Try to view it like a really sharp hatchet. If you swing it across a big sheet of aluminum, it cuts through the aluminum and the aluminum falls. If you swing the same hatchet as hard as you can into a concrete block, you will not a big junk out of it probably
@@craigusselman546 Correct. I'm South African and I was born just before 911(May 2000) and even I'm hacked about 911. I would've loved those had they still been here. If the ESB had to have an equivalent attack that somehow made it collapse. I'd be very angry. The ESB is just saw iconic and is synonymous with NYC. It's not NYC without the ESB man.
On that day, we were all thinking it was next. We didn't even hear about the other planes, but we were thinking more were coming, especially the ESB being the next target.
I personally do not think there is a single tower in the world that would not collapse if the exact same type of impact happened, with the same type of plane and the same amount of jet fuel. Keep in mind the towers didn't collapse because of their base not being wide enougg. Once one floor buckled it lead to a chain reaction similar to what you see in earthquakes or when they do controlled demolitions.
Well, the current One World Trade Center uses a concrete core which, in theory, won't result in that building collapsing should an airliner impact One World Trade. The building designers kind of took into consideration the strength of steel (or lack thereof) when contemplating how to erect One World Trade, so I think the use of steel in the building is kept to a minimum, unless steel is absolutely needed.
The Sears Tower similarly would've likely been able to withstand the planes impact and not collapse right away, if that building got hit up high like the north tower did it probably would've only been a partial collapse since only part of the building actually goes up that far.
@Depressed Ginger: Thank you so much for listening to me & making this video after I posted this suggestion in a previous video! I cannot find any other creator on RU-vid who discussed the hypothetical scenario of the ESB getting impacted by a plane. You have reassured my feeling of safety after watching this video. Before, I had always felt anxious and always wondered if I should continue working in the ESB. Every single day, there are STILL numerous commercial jet planes flying at a low altitude near the ESB which gave me chills. I still will take precautions and familiarize myself with the fire safety staircases in the ESB in the event something tragic occurs in the future.
@coreyrowe4119 I live on the same street as the Sears Tower, so as someone that is obsessed with 9/11 I think every now and again about the same thing.
Any impact with that much force into any building would cause cracks to run throughout the superstructure. The cracking would keep getting worse until the superstructure would totally fail and the building would collapse.,
The design and materials used in the Empire State Building lead me to believe it would have withstood taking a 767 to the chest fairly well and possibly would have survived - possibly. The WTC was light and airy. Their design maximized floor space. And as soon as their central core was destroyed, they were doomed. People forget that each plane that hit them not only caused fatal structural damage but also ignited the largest office fires ever seen in a skyscraper. Those infernos spanned multiple floors and engulfed the whole breadth of each building. Couple that with the lightweight design of each tower and the fact they had now been crippled beyond repair, they were doomed. It's a miracle they stood as long as they did. The Empire State Building being built with multiple setbacks and with a traditional steel skeleton with granite, limestone, and cement in its construction was/is much sturdier.
my understanding on why they chose the world trade center and no other large buildings like the empire state or sears tower is because the twin towers represented America's economic dominance over the rest of the world at the time. If the twin towers were owned by a corporation or were for another purpose other than "world trade" they probably wouldn't have been targeted.
@@kenheise162 because a 20,000 lbs airplane low on fuel is nothing like a 250,000 lbs jet going over twice as fast with 10,000 gallons of fuel hitting a building built completely different
In my opinion any large planes flying at extreme speeds full of fuel is going to give any building a hard time even the freedom tower (yes I know it was designed to withstand another attack, but the twins where designed to take a plane hit too) nothing is impossible.
The Freedom Tower is much tougher. The old towers would have withstood the attack if it wasn't for the fact that they lacked good fireproofing. The new one is tougher structurally and could supposedly handle fire better. All of that being said, a plane veering off of its flight path like that now would probably be shot down long before it came in the vicinity of the tower
I wonder how the stairwells and connecting stairwells worked. I see stories of survivors getting out of one stairwell and getting into a connecting stairwell on the upper floors. That seems confusing since most stairwells are designed in one straight column to the ground floor.
I've always wondered if the second plane had missed, would they have flown around for another pass at WTC? Or would they have kept going north and go for the Empire State Building instead since it would be right in front of them.
That plane was traveling at nearly 500 mph. If it missed the south tower there wouldn’t have enough time for it to pivot to the Empire State Building right away. It would likely be already past the Empire State Building before the hijacker could make an immediate turn. He would have needed to circle back around to make a direct hit.
@@ErikCB912 I guess the reason I wonder is if they had missed, is because that would have presented an opportunity for the passengers to revolt once they realized they missed their target, and to prevent that the terrorists would have just gone for another prominent target without taking the time to reset for another run at the south tower and wasting the opportunity to kill more people than just those on the plane. The passengers had a clear view of the burning north tower, and upon flying past it, they might have seen it as an opportunity and tried to turn the tables on the terrorists, especially since the intent of the terrorists would have been completely obvious at that point.
@@mcteethinator or since it was in a rapid descent, maybe it would have just crashed into other builds or the street depending its position at point of impact
So fun fact I live near Bethlehem, PA home of the now debunked Bethlehem steel corporation. Bethlehem steel along with the Chrysler building, made the steel for the Empire State Building. Bethlehem steel outbid US Steel and one the bid to build the twin towers. However, the port authority came back and said this bid is just too high. And then they hired private contractors and built the towers with imported steel all the way through.
I live in Harrisburg PA and I was 19 during 9/11 and right in the middle of all 3 crash sites, and I remember being terrified that day because it was heavily rumored that Three Mile Island was going to be a target (which would've done more damage than the other 4 planes combined).
@@StepUpMedia039 I lived in Middletown at the time, went to Kunkle elementary. I still remember the teachers freaking out because they thought TMI was next. Your right, if they hit the power plant it would have had way more casualties and longer lasting effects from the event. I'm looking at the towers from my back deck as I'm tying this. At that time that was a real fear.
Interesting comparison between the Twin Towers and the Empire State Building... 🤔 I've been to the 85th floor observation deck of the ESB and it just felt SOLID! 🤗 As far as the catastrophe of the Twin Towers, IF only the hundreds and hundreds of tenants had been able to evacuate after the first Tower was hit, by IGNORING the security guards, the loss of life would have been much lower! But keep in mind it was the largest evacuation of people safely from a disaster, as well as the largest boat "flotilla response" to assist in leaving! Incredible! RIP to those lost 🙏
He literally mentioned this in the video and said its not worth talking about. It was like 1/20th of the size of the 9/11 planes and like 400 mph slower with a TON less fuel. Its not a comparison.
I’ve always thought about this, but one thing that brought to my attention that never did previously. Apparently the attendance of workers at TWC was low compared to a typical Tuesday workday, would the Empire State Building have a similar scenario that the building wasn’t at its full potential of being filled with people?
Empire State was built OLD SCHOOL, heavy steel cage for structure, thick heavy weight concrete floors, all structural steel encased in concrete to fireproof them, well compartmented with heavy walls, large stairs encased in concrete and tile for fire protection, and the OUTSTANDING FDNY REQUIRED FIRE TOWER. That vented stairway was encased in 4hr rated concrete and allows safe egress from the Bldg. PA refused to install it in their Towers which is why NO ONE COULD GET DOWN ABOVE CRASH FLOORS.
The ESB would have been okay with some structural damage because it's designed based on a step pyramid with smaller sized bricks making it extremely stable. People don't use pyramid strictures for skyscrapers because the taller the building, the larger the base and it would be too much of a hassle at 100 stories. Pyramids are solid structures.
You also failed to consider the durability of the buildings against fire. One factor is concrete has better resistance than exposed steel. Another is oxygen. Wtc open floor plan would likely create more avenues for oxygen to feed the resulting fires. Another factor would be fire suppression. Since the plane would likely not penetrate as deep, the chances of it severing all water lines leading to sprinkler systems would be much smaller, meaning resulting fires would not be as intense. I think total collapse only above impact point would only be possible but not likely. I think chance of total collapse of entire building would only be negligible to marginal.
Any speculation on how the country would have reacted to the empire state being destroyed as opposed to the twin towers? How would that have affected politics and the course of history?
I don’t know if you’ve seen it, but have you seen the limp bizkit video, rollin air raid vehicle, that music video is filmed on the observation deck of the south tower which is very crazy
Hitting the Empire State Building is like hitting a tower made of concrete blocks. Hitting the World Trade Center is like hitting towers made of popsicle sticks.
I think the Empire State Building would have had a much better chance of not collapsing due to the better distribution of structural loads. The fire would have still been immense but the firefighters would have had a better shot at fighting it. They didn't stand a chance at the WTC. The WTC design doomed it from the start. It was genius in terms of increasing floor space but it was extremely vulnerable to the type of damage and fires that occurred on 9/11.
Perfectly wrong. Tubular design is what prevented the immediate collapse. That is the structural engineering consensus. Such impacts occuring on classical structures do not lead to good weight distribution. Weight pushes straight down, into the void of severed loadbearing members. WTC's perimeter wall with a dense mesh of large spandrels connecting columns, and hat truss on the top, redistributed the loads away from the impact zone. Neither you or OP know what you're taking about.
@@lajoswinklerHold up! I didn't say the tower's design was flawed or that they should have collapsed immediately. You're right, the design of the towers kept them standing as long as they did considering the initial damage and thank God for that. However they didn't remain standing long enough for firefighters to mount any real battle against the fires. We all know those fires led to the sagging trusses pulling inward on the exterior columns causing them to buckle which ultimately caused the collapse. The subsequent pancaking of floors is what led to complete collapse. Like I said, the design was genius but that same design led to its complete destruction. The Empire State Building may very well had partially collapsed as well but I just dont see it completely collapsing as the towers did. That was the point of what I was saying.
Kind of reminds me of an after 9/11 late show joke.It starts off by saying I got a plane to catch and there's a connecting flight at the empire State building.
What would happen if the twin towers were hit head on to the corner of the buildings, instead of in the center? Taking out a corner a whole corner of the building makes you think it would lean significantly, possibly enough to collapse instantly.
Well 2 WTC was hit rather close to the corner, as opposed to 1 WTC. It fell under an hour later, and the section above impact point did fall sideways. If it was hit directly on the corner, the upper section would have fell pretty instantly.
@@btappan88 Oh gosh yes, it’d have been even worse, dare we say. Nobody would have had time to escape. There was already so much devastation, which still lives with us all. I couldn’t imagine it being worse, but it would have been.
In the 1940s the Empire State Building did get hit by a plane! By accident though. And in fact that was the first thing I thought of back during 9/11 when I first heard about it and saw at the time only one of the towers hit. Until the second one was hit, the thought never even crossed my mind the idea of hitting buildings with planes on purpose to try to destroy them and kill the people inside.
I've read other analysis that the Empire State would have stood. I disagree. If hit 1/3 down from the top I think it would have fallen down right away, killing 5000-10,000 in and around it. The B-29 that hit the Empire State was a fairly small plane and it was moving slowly. A big jet with lot of fuel moving at 550mph.... I think it would have been lights out. Glad we never found out.
I still wonder though if the empire state building would do as well as most people say. The engine of the plane that hit the empire state building in 1945 was still able to puncture a hole on the other side of the impact. So an even bigger plane like a 767 hitting it would still do an enormous amount of damage due to all the masonry. I wonder if the empire state building would do worse than the twins in handling the inital impact due to using more masonry than hardened steel like the twins, but much better and handling the fires cause of the concrete and masonry. Even though the twins used trusses for floor support, they still used alot more high strength steel than the empire state building.
ESB has no reinforced concrete. Masonry in it is decorative and only a weight, it does not contribute to structural stability. OP makes it look like "most people say ESB would fare better" but that's false. Most people do not say that and it is factually incorrect on its own. Tubular design is what saved so many lives on 9/11. Had the fireproofing been less flimsy and held up better, they would've had survived for even longer time. Maybe even completely.
The comparisons are rather misleading. The Twin Towers were explicitly designed to withstand accidental impacts from large airliners (in the sense of not collapsing immediately), having been designed in the 1960s. The ESB was designed in an era when large airliners did not existed. It would collapse instantly.
@lajoswinkler I've seen comments all over Quara and the internet that say ESB would fare better, which is the reason I made the comment cause it doesn't seem like a common opinion, at least from what I've seen on the internet. What would you say about the tube design that makes it better for handling a plane impact?
ESB was overbuilt, and it's modern experimenting models suggest it would take up to an 1100 mph wind to knock it over. In the later years during the WTC construction the technology was better and they built them as needed without overbuilding them like the ESB. The Steel beams used were much larger and stronger than was found to be needed during later studies it was determined, not to mentioned they were just as thick if not thicker, and they were both riveted and welded. Chances are move likely than not that the ESB would have withstood with serious damage. The bomber that hit the ESB had an engine that made it through the core wall and dropped all the way down the elevator shaft all the way to the bottom. Another elevator car had its cables sheared and it dropped over 76 floors to the bottom so fast that the emergency breaks were not able to fully kick in, and the female operator survived but with broken legs and other bones, but thankfully made a full recovery, and actually went back to work after that! Chances are the ESB structure would hold up well to a quake maybe up to 6.5-7.0 but the limestone facade would crumble for sure and rain death on people on the streets below. But the column layout is so extensive, that the building is supported VERY well even though it was not built to stand to quakes. BTW - NYC is expecting at one point a quake between 5.0 possibly as much as 6.0, and that would be far worse than the San Andreas quake if maxed atg 8.4 when it finally snaps in the Southern (Palm Springs) region where most of the stress is and directs to LA. BTW - in the 1906 San Francisco quake which ruptured VERY close to the city, most of the larger high rise buildings held up ok, and many of them still stand and are in use to this day without a problem. When you look at pics of the damage from 1906, you will see a lot of the damage from pics taken after the US Army had blown up countless buildings (or what remained) with dynamite in an attempt to stop the spread of fire. Most buildings even back then did not completely collapse, and instead were more partial collapses. Most moden buildings in NYC will hold up to a Magnitdue 6 to as much as a 6.5 and will do fine including the very large structures including the WTC and other massive buildings. The older mortar based buildings would crumble unfortunately, which many apartment/condos are made of and they would crumble to dust and entob hundreds of thousands of people with just a mgnitude 5.5 quake, and for that reason it would be the worst quake to hit the US (as far as death toll) when it eventually WILL HAPPEN.
The Empire State Building was hit by a Military Bomber Plane in the year of 1945. The reason why it got struck by a Bomber was because of extreme fog. The plane that hit the Empire State building was fully fueled. It was traveling about 450 to 565mph. When it struck the building.
It probably would still collapse, but there would be less deaths and not 3,000 dead. The Empire State Building isn’t a highly trafficked area especially in the early morning hours. Plus could they even hit it if they wanted to? The only reason they could hit the towers is because it was possible to hit the towers. They were in a position that was easy to hit and it’s not like the towers had other buildings that could prevent the crash. The Empire State Building is located more in the city and I don’t think a plane could realistically crash into the Empire State because it would end up down somewhere in the city by the angle they would try to hit it.
People seem to forget the tragedy of 9 11 wasn’t the buildings. The buildings were hit and obviously collapsed but it was the collapse that cemented it as the tragedy as we remember. So many life’s were lost just in the collapse alone. They estimate a 3,000 people causality rate which is what we remember most. If the buildings didn’t collapse and somehow did survive people would’ve survived and maybe 911 wouldn’t be so erected in our brains but the high casualty rate is what makes it the tragedy that it was.
@@tylerthomas7763never mind the pentagon that was just scathed … I like the idea that one Numbskull architect said “seeing them Go Back up would be just as Powerful as watching them go down” Too bad we were still too cowardly 😡😓
to be honest, i think that if we had the same szenario of the plane crash that happened with the empire state building in 1945, but it would hit one of the twin towers, the one whos got hit would also fell. after seeing this video, i really lost believe that the twin towers with they floor design could handle alot of damage, but as soon as a fire starts, the tower would collapse the almost same way, as it happened on 9/11 but of course taking longer. i just cant believe that they can survive a plane crash with an fire outbreak when i look at the thin and weak floors
The Empire State building was built of steel. If it was it hit it would’ve collapsed instantly. The world trade center were genius buildings. You clearly know nothing about structural engineering. You should look up Leslie Robertson engineering. He was the genius that made the towers stand. It’s because of him that they stood as long as they did and allowed thousands of people to leave.
Again with the conjectures and disproven ideas, man. Bad video. The wider base of ESB has *no effect on its stability in the event of aircraft impact* . It's not a box to be feared of tilting and crashing like a pole in the direction of impact. What matters is the structure on the impacted floors and few floors below. Distribution of energy upon impact was perfect for Twin towers. Two structures with viscoelastic dampers performed as they were supposed to. ESB, compared to Twin towers, is a very rigid structure. You do not want rigidity for dynamic loads. Rigidity leads to breaking of load bearing structures. What saved Twin towers from immediate collapse was exactly the tube-in-tube design. That is what prevented thousands of additiona deaths. When there is a forest of columns everywhere, loss of those in the path of the impact leads to all that upper weight pushing on a hole. No, ESB would not distribute the forces better. It is a general consensus that classically built skyscrapers like ESB would most likely collapse upon impact of such magnitude, or very shortly afterwards. Loads aren't distributed around the damaged area, but keep kneading into the missing support structures. And no, upon the collapse, *the top would not flip over and away* . It would crash through, down. Just like with Twin towers. Buildings are basically air. Once the columns buckle, there is no stopping. Also, not even North tower went straight down. It tilted towards south where the worst fires burned and where the perimeter caved in. It only looks like it went straight down from the cameras positioned north of it. And you keep repeating the "open floor plan" of WTC and equalizing it with the false idea that towers had totally opened offices with cubicles. Open floor plan means you can design space without columns disturbing it. Towers did have walls inside. They were not all empty voids of cubicles. Once again, curb your excessive rate of posting videos and think and analyze more about what you'll say.
You compleatly missed to most important difference between the two which is fire protection. The twin towers had thin girders between the core and the walls with sprayed on insulation that got blown off from the impact. Once this happened the heat from the flames caused the girders to bend then fail causing the collapse. If not for this issue the towers would not have collapsed. The Empire State building has heavy steel ibeams covered in concrete that are far more fire and blast resistant and could withstand heat of a fire much longer. You really should not talk about things you do not understsnd. Blocked your channel since life is too short to listen to people who do not know what they are takling about.
While he is constantly repeating disproven things, I don't think ESB has concrete covering the columns. It's just steel. It might've been retrofitted later with insulating foam, I don't know, but to my knowledge, there is only concrete poured on the floors as a walking surface.
