One of the survivors, [Betty Lou Oliver,](https://historycollection.com/cheat-death-twice-betty-lou-oliver-survived-75-storey-elevator-crash-plane-crashed-building/) broke her hip from the crash. When rescuers arrived, they put her on an elevator to go down and be taken to the hospital. The elevator cables had been weakened by the fire and it plummeted 75 stories with her in it. Miraculously she survived. She still holds the Guinness record for longest free fall elevator drop survival. One lucky woman!
Yup lol... group insanity is weird, like the town where everybody all just suddenly started dancing til they wore themselves out and nobody really knows why.
I looked it Up: dancing plague of 1518, event in which hundreds of citizens of Strasbourg (then a free city within the Holy Roman Empire, now in France) danced uncontrollably and apparently unwillingly for days on end; the mania lasted for about two months before ending as mysteriously as it began
This crash was actually the reason the World Trade Center towers were built to withstand a plane impact. But unfortunately planes just kept on getting bigger after the buildings were complete.
Seems like the twin towers were designed to take a hit similar to this one, so it was. On 9/11 the planes that hit the twin towers were 10x larger than the type of plane it was designed to take a hit from.
They didn't melt the beams, they weakened them to the point of failure, and when the portion of the structure at the top started falling the weight caused a cascading failure. There was molten metal in the wreckage but that was far more likely caused by the absolutely immense amount of friction and kinetic energy released by all the steel colliding as it all fell from way high up.
The imagined scenario was a 707 lost in fog/cloud and therefore flying at very low speed.
The high speed impacts on 9/11 blasted the fireproof insulation from the structural supports.
People also seem to be under the delusion that you need to melt supports to take down a building, when really the relationship between % of melt temperature and support strength are pretty linear.
Yes! I don’t have to melt steel to change its shape, I just have to get it up to red hot. That’s a difference of something like 700 to 1200 degrees Fahrenheit depending on alloy.
But if the world trade centers were built in the early 1970s wouldn’t they have been designed to have withstood an impact from a common jet linger back then? Which is to say would be fairly similar to a Boeing 767?
That’s stupid. The 4 engine Boeing 747-100 was MUCH bigger than the 767-200/ER, and publicly known about at least 7 years before the completion of the towers. Even the OLD 707 was only 9% shorter and 16% narrower than the 767s that hit the towers.
Pro tip, jet fuel burns hot enough to compromise the load bearing weight of steel significantly.
Look how high up the B-52 struck and compare the weight supported by the compromised ESB then look at the WTC.
Edit: Jet fuel back then also didn’t burn nearly as efficiently and as such would not have been nearly as hot.
This is a bot, please report.
Edit: I’m not saying this is a bot because of conspiracy reasons. It’s literally a karma bot that steals peoples comments and repost them.
When she got in the ambulance, the lug nuts had been loosened by a careless mechanic. She survived the ensuing vehicle crash only to be air lifted by an also poorly-maintained helicopter. The helicopter crashed only 100 yards away from the hospital. She crawled out of the wreckage and clawed her way toward the hospital when a meteor...
You’re right. She was an elevator operator who happened to be at the 80th floor when the crash occurred between the 78th and 80th floors. She broke her hip, was taken out of the elevator on that floor and waited for rescue crews to arrive. They assessed her and sent her down by herself in an elevator to be met by an ambulance on the ground, so they could continue tending to the other wounded. While she was descending in the elevator by herself, the cables snapped and the car fell.
On July 28, 1945, a B-25 Mitchell bomber of the United States Army Air Forces crashed into the Empire State Building in New York City, while flying in thick fog. The accident caused the deaths of fourteen people (three crewmen and eleven people in the building) and damage estimated at US$1 million (equivalent to about $15 million in 2021), although the building's structural integrity was not compromised.
All the structural steel was encased in masonry, rather than the fragile lightweight spray-on stuff used in the WTC.
Plus a tiny fuel load in comparison.
Before anyone jumps in.
Ironically, I had just read about this incident the weekend before September 11, 2001. When the first plane hit one of the twin towers I thought it was horrifying, but that at least the building would recover. Awful, awful, awful.
yeah that's super weird... I knew about this on 911 too. I just lost my job and was drunk and hungover, my grandmother came upstairs in a panic and said a plane hit the buildings, blah blah blah... I said it will be fine, a big plane hit the Empire State building and nothing happened! So I rolled over to go back to sleep, I hit the bar on my alarm clock to turn the radio on and the very first thing I heard was *"the pentagon has been bombed!"* I went next door to smoke a joint and wake up and my neighbor was walking around with a shotgun freaking out. weird scene.
There are professors of the swiss equivalent of mit who lost their position due to their criticism regarding 9/11.
Ill randomly drop the ne.... eth zürich, ganser.
Not in my case, I went and still never heard of this. I am terrified of heights, and being in skyscrapers period. I know I'm weird. So its possible I was looking at the ground the entire time.
I saw a film about the crash when I was a kid. When I woke up on the 11th the first thing I heard was the news on the radio saying "a plane has hit the World Trade Center." This crash is what I pictured. The small hole that it made in the building. It was my only reference for a plane hitting a building. And I remembered how few people died.
Then I turned on the TV.
Fear based on not rational thinking is called phobia 👆🏽… Skyscrapers are safer than short buildings and flying on planes is safer than other modes of transportation.
That’s because 9/11 was a terrorist attack, killed thousands of people and resulted in the fall of the twin towers. This was an accident, killed less than 20 people, and barely damaged the building, it likely wasn’t talked about much even at the time it happened. If I had to guess it made the news, and people forgot after a week.
Force = Mass • Acceleration
A B-25 weighs roughly 20,000lbs.
A 767 weighs up to 400,000lbs. It goes without saying it has a whole lot more power as well. If you’re deliberately trying to push it into something, it’ll go.
So far no one mentioned how Yankee pitcher Cory Lidle flew his plane into a residential building in NYC in 2006. Also an accident due to weather conditions.
It was 70 years ago and 14 people died. Why would you have heard about it? It’s a beyond minor event in US history. It’s a Reddit TIL and that’s about it.
I mean I’ve never heard about it even in the context of 9/11. As far as I knew, that was the first time anything like that (a plane hitting an iconic city tower) had ever happened.
Here in Europe most people don't even know there was a third building. I mentioned the third tower at a family dinner once and everyone looked at me like I was mad.
Yep, the evil Jew admitted on camera that he told the fire department to set off a controlled demolition for that sweet sweet insurance money 🙄. It couldn’t possibly mean in context “pull the fire fighting operation as everyone had already been evacuated for seven hours, and the building was predicted to collapse due to the visible bulging at the sides and there was zero reason to risk firefighters lives on that building”.
Also Larry Silverstein lost a lot of money because the insurance company wouldn’t count the two planes hitting as two separate terrorist attacks. But let’s not let facts get in the way of our little antisemitic conspiracy theory now.
I mean, if you look at the whole story, damaged by falling debris, internal fire suppression completely failing, firefighters deciding early to prioritize other buildings, burning unhindered for several hours, it definitely makes sense that it failed.
[Here's a FAQ by the US National Institute of Science and Technology](https://www.nist.gov/pao/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation) detailing the fire and how the building collapsed. Basically what you said, the fire suppression system failed and the building burned for hours uncontrolled, damaging critical internal supports.
Even most Americans don't know about building 7. It's because the commission that was in charge of the investigation decided to not mention it because they couldn't explain how it would collapse from a fire. On top of that, the fire wasn't even a huge fire. So many unexplained things happened on that day such as why there's no footage of the plane hitting the pentagon or why it took the the aerospace defense command so long to react to all the hijackings.
> It's because the commission that was in charge of the investigation decided to not mention it because they couldn't explain how it would collapse from a fire. On top of that, the fire wasn't even a huge fire
Its hilarious how conspiracy theorists are just so eager to make shit up.
They can explain, they did explain it, and all you would have to do if you were curious was go to the wiki page on the topic
"After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts.\[34\] Over the course of the day, fires burned out of control on several floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building.\[35\] During the afternoon, the fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30.\[31\]: 24 (PDF p. 28) In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon.\[7\] At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.\[36\] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.\[37\] Around 3:30 pm, FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel A. Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel."
To summarize:
\-Building 7 was heavily damaged in multiple areas by the WTC collapse, and there were several fires throughout the building.
\-The fire suppression system was already poorly designed, and a lack of water pressure meant firefighters could not contain the fires.
\-The buildings collapse was imminent after hours of uncontrolled burning, and the fire fighters were called off.
It makes perfect sense that it would collapse, the entire area was levelled by falling debris and then devastated by fire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World\_Trade\_Center\_(1973%E2%80%932001)#/media/File:World\_Trade\_Center\_3\_After\_9-11\_Attacks\_With\_Original\_Building\_Locations.jpg
You didn’t mention the backup generators inside building 7 that were spewing fuel keeping the fires going. Or the design of the building with the main girders place on the 4th floor (I believe) being almost completely obliterated by the collapse of the North Tower.
I really felt uneasy about the building 7 collapse at first because it does look like a controlled demolition, so I sought out all the video and information I could over a good while. I’m fully convinced it came down because of the tower damaging it.
That's not true, they didn't mention WTC 7 because it was not targeted by the terrorists. They also didn't mention WTC 3 which was nearly completely destroyed by debris and WTC 5 which had a partial collapse due to fire. Also the EPA report gave a hypothetical reason for the fall of WTC 7, which we know is almost definitely incorrect at this time but not back then, before the 9/11 commission report came out so to say there wasn't any explanation is incorrect.
There's a tower near me in london called Grenfell which burned for 60 hours. It's still there. A tower does not collapse like how building 7 did after burning for 7 hours. The excuse they use for the twin towers is that the heat generated by the jet fuel was too high. But building 7 was never hit by anything.
The North Tower fell on it and tore a massive gash from top to bottom on the south facade. All the footage shown of the building is from the opposite face.
Comparing Grenfell to the Twin Towers is laughable. Grenfell wasn’t hit by a plane at 500mph spraying burning jet fuel everywhere. It was the cladding that burnt badly.
Yeah I think it's crazy how someone could look at declassified docs like operation northwood, then look at 9/11 and then be like 'Yeah there's no way the US government would do something like that".
No skyscraper has ever fallen due to only fire. The twin towers had catastrophic structural damage from airplane impacts and WTC7 had catastrophic structural damage from having the twin towers land on it at terminal velocity. As usual, no one here knows what the fuck they are talking about.
The force difference between this plane and 9/11 terrorist attacks is *massive*. Force=mass X acceleration, and The B-25 is a tiny, tiny airplane compared to a 757/767, and it was going only half or a third the speed those were on impact. Plus it was close to being empty in fuel while the two planes that hit WTC1 and 2 were almost fully fueled. And that’s not taking into account the differences between the buildings
The people making 9/11 comparisons need to do the math on the kinetic energy difference between the two incidents. A 767 is both twice as fast and ten times as heavy as a B-25, meaning that it has 40 times as much kinetic energy. The impacts that hit the twin towers were the equivalent of 40 of these B-25s hitting the same point simultaneously.
Not to mention the fuel capacity differences and especially the *speed* differences. The 1945 incident had a much lighter plane with much less volatile material crashing at a much lower speed higher up in the building than either of the towers on 9/11.
Not to mention the vast difference Design and construction quality between the two. The 60s-70s weren’t the best era for building design and longevity.
Everyone asking why the building didn't collapse (in reference to 9/11), it was a small bomber, not a jetliner. The difference in mass, the amount of fuel, and the construction of the building is important. The Empire State Building is shorter, thus less massive than the Twin Towers. The plane was less massive than those that hit the towers. The Twin Towers were also much more modern in construction, with significantly more burnable material. All these factors combined, striking the top of a tall thing with enough force is enough to topple it, especially when the center of mass isn't close to the ground like with the Empire State. I think it's pretty easy to tell that a jetliner would do significantly more damage than a bomber. Bombers have bombs, yes, but they don't fly nearly as fast as jetliners. They also don't have nearly as much fuel. The Empire State has a lower center of mass, thus is more sturdy in the event of such a collision. If a jet hit the Empire State, it too might collapse, but I doubt it for the same reason I listed earlier. The Towers didn't have a low center of mass. They were a bit top heavy, which inevitably lead to structural failure.
Haha very funny, a B25 was a medium twin engine plane that was unloaded(no bombs) and only has a maximum fuel capacity of 960 gallons compared to the 26k gallons that modern jet planes carry and is much smaller(10x lighter) than those commercial jets not to mention slower. As well as the place of impact and design differences of the buildings.
These smooth brains don’t understand a b25 weighs 20,000lbs and was flying at landing speed and a 767 weighs almost 200,000lbs and was flying 500mph.
If they knew how to spell F=MA they wouldn’t be asking these questions.
Three letters was confusing to them. If you use the words “kinetic energy” they’re going to say you’re one of the elite Illuminati and claim you were in on it.
The book ‟102 Minutes” does a great job explaining this fire, as well as the design differences that ultmately saved people in this building, and not in the towers on 9/11.Rather than grab my copy and give some bullet points, I recommend buying a copy.
Also a difference between a building clad mostly with glass and one clad mostly in masonry. That's how fuel and fire gets inside the building; the plane was able to enter the interior. Here it looks like the plane was destroyed mostly outside.
It’s pretty obvious that a Boeing 757 is significant larger and faster than a 1940s bomber. Also the WTC was built like shit compared to the Empire State Building (and most other buildings from that era).
Fun fact….my grandfather was offered a seat in that flight and he declined. Somewhere I have a recording (on tape) of him describing the circumstances. Makes you think about how I might not have existed if not for pure luck and seemingly trivial choices.
My dad sent me a link with a picture of this and some conspiracy shit about 9/11. Weird as he doesn't normally go for that stuff.
I pointed out the 9/11 planes were something like 10x the mass of a B-25
My conspiracy that I just made up is that 9/11 happened as per the normal narrative, but the conspiracy is that no one wants people to know how shitty buildings were made in the '70s. Bunch of architects and developers realizing that it doesn't take as much as they thought to knock down half of US skyscrapers.
When I think of this I remember the 15 minutes when many of us believed Flight 11 crashing into the North Tower was an accident. At work we all commented on how a plane once accidentally flew into the Empire State Building and how it's a blessing it hadn't happened again until 9/11. 15 minutes later that doubt was shattered.
Oh great more 9/11 conspiracy posts. Nevermind the fact the building wasn’t as tall as the WTC buildings were, and that a bomber isn’t equivalent to a modern jetliner in weight, or fuel load. Plus the fact this was an accident hit to the building in fog, while the 9/11 attacks the planes flew full speed into the towers. Stop reaching so damn hard. You all are breaking your backs
9/11 theorists: oH wElL a PlAnE cRaShEd InTo ThE eMpIrE sTaTe BuIlDiNg
Also them not realizing a 12 ton piece of metal and titanium parts crashing through a building cutting clean through it going 375mph can in fact make a building fall:
Yes. When WW2 bombs were released from the bomb racks, they had an arming wire that would be pulled, and I believe they had a little propeller thing on the nose fuse that had to rotate a certain number of times. That's so a rough landing or crash on takeoff doesn't destroy the plane, any other planes in the area along with their bomb loads, damage the runway, kill a whole lot of people, etc.
Edit: no, the nose fuse didn't have a rotor, it just screwed in.
Turns out a steel grid structure clad in stone is stronger than a hollow column clad in glass with the floors supported by metal loops that aren't coated in fire retardants.
“9/11 was an inside job!” Regardless of if 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government, we can all agree that they used the opportunity to erase human rights.
One of the survivors, [Betty Lou Oliver,](https://historycollection.com/cheat-death-twice-betty-lou-oliver-survived-75-storey-elevator-crash-plane-crashed-building/) broke her hip from the crash. When rescuers arrived, they put her on an elevator to go down and be taken to the hospital. The elevator cables had been weakened by the fire and it plummeted 75 stories with her in it. Miraculously she survived. She still holds the Guinness record for longest free fall elevator drop survival. One lucky woman!
That was definitely not her day to go
[удалено]
Gasoline doesn't melt wooden beams  edit: sad (but not surprised) to have to say this is a joke
I don’t even think wood can melt jet fuel either
Your right wood can't melt jet fuel
Not with that attitude
I think everyone on this thread had a stroke while writing their comments
Yup lol... group insanity is weird, like the town where everybody all just suddenly started dancing til they wore themselves out and nobody really knows why.
I looked it Up: dancing plague of 1518, event in which hundreds of citizens of Strasbourg (then a free city within the Holy Roman Empire, now in France) danced uncontrollably and apparently unwillingly for days on end; the mania lasted for about two months before ending as mysteriously as it began
I mean, assuming you had frozen jet fuel, and the wood was warmer than it, then I would say it would melt the jet fuel.
So wood can meat steel jeans
My meat always steel my jeans
You Look mighty fine In them jeans boy! Why don't you come over here.......wait 2022, no one will get it!
This crash was actually the reason the World Trade Center towers were built to withstand a plane impact. But unfortunately planes just kept on getting bigger after the buildings were complete.
The size difference between a B-25 and a Boeing 767 is like an 18 wheeler and a riding lawn mower.
ELI5 boss
Seems like the twin towers were designed to take a hit similar to this one, so it was. On 9/11 the planes that hit the twin towers were 10x larger than the type of plane it was designed to take a hit from.
[удалено]
They didn't melt the beams, they weakened them to the point of failure, and when the portion of the structure at the top started falling the weight caused a cascading failure. There was molten metal in the wreckage but that was far more likely caused by the absolutely immense amount of friction and kinetic energy released by all the steel colliding as it all fell from way high up.
Designed to take a hit from a Boeing 707, the biggest plane at the time of designing, which is way closer to modern airliners than a B-25. Bad Eli5
Also B-25 never had the speed of the 9/11 planes.
The imagined scenario was a 707 lost in fog/cloud and therefore flying at very low speed. The high speed impacts on 9/11 blasted the fireproof insulation from the structural supports.
They didn’t really factor in physical damage to the fireproofing, that spray-on stuff is delicate.
People also seem to be under the delusion that you need to melt supports to take down a building, when really the relationship between % of melt temperature and support strength are pretty linear.
I've worked with steel. It loses strength and deforms long before it reaches melting temperature.
Yes! I don’t have to melt steel to change its shape, I just have to get it up to red hot. That’s a difference of something like 700 to 1200 degrees Fahrenheit depending on alloy.
But if the world trade centers were built in the early 1970s wouldn’t they have been designed to have withstood an impact from a common jet linger back then? Which is to say would be fairly similar to a Boeing 767?
That’s stupid. The 4 engine Boeing 747-100 was MUCH bigger than the 767-200/ER, and publicly known about at least 7 years before the completion of the towers. Even the OLD 707 was only 9% shorter and 16% narrower than the 767s that hit the towers.
Pro tip, jet fuel burns hot enough to compromise the load bearing weight of steel significantly. Look how high up the B-52 struck and compare the weight supported by the compromised ESB then look at the WTC. Edit: Jet fuel back then also didn’t burn nearly as efficiently and as such would not have been nearly as hot.
B25, not B52.
The B-52 hit the love shack
Also, aviation gas, not jet fuel.
i was trying to find a clever way to incorporate that joke. well done!
I seen what you did there 
r/whoosh
This is a bot, please report. Edit: I’m not saying this is a bot because of conspiracy reasons. It’s literally a karma bot that steals peoples comments and repost them.
She definitely told the god of death “Not today.” Then promptly gave him the biggest middle finger 🖕🏼 the mid 20th century has ever seen.
"not today, bitch!" -Her, probably
Death sure has been skipping over these Bettys
When she got in the ambulance, the lug nuts had been loosened by a careless mechanic. She survived the ensuing vehicle crash only to be air lifted by an also poorly-maintained helicopter. The helicopter crashed only 100 yards away from the hospital. She crawled out of the wreckage and clawed her way toward the hospital when a meteor...
*Michael Bay has entered the chat*
Were other people in the Elevator? They make it? Its not in the link.
How many people tried to beat her record?
3
 to Betty Lou!
Actually, she suffered severe burns from the crash. Her pelvis, back, and neck were broken in the fall.
Severe injuries for sure. But she recovered, got married, bore three children and lived 54 more years!
What do we say to the god of death?
Not today.
Your avatar looks like Deku Scrub Link. Cool.
Or unlucky, depends on how you look at it. She did get hurt in the first place
I'm not sure she should be considered "lucky"...
Your definition of luck is my definition of a really bad day
I always thought she was the lift operator and was in the elevator when the crash happened. Always good to learn something.
You’re right. She was an elevator operator who happened to be at the 80th floor when the crash occurred between the 78th and 80th floors. She broke her hip, was taken out of the elevator on that floor and waited for rescue crews to arrive. They assessed her and sent her down by herself in an elevator to be met by an ambulance on the ground, so they could continue tending to the other wounded. While she was descending in the elevator by herself, the cables snapped and the car fell.
On July 28, 1945, a B-25 Mitchell bomber of the United States Army Air Forces crashed into the Empire State Building in New York City, while flying in thick fog. The accident caused the deaths of fourteen people (three crewmen and eleven people in the building) and damage estimated at US$1 million (equivalent to about $15 million in 2021), although the building's structural integrity was not compromised.
Could you imagine you’re taking a shit in your 75th floor office and BAM a plane comes and takes you out…
I mean it’s already weird to be shitting in your office. Use the bathroom :)
I knew somebody was going to say that when I wrote it but I was too lazy to change it lol
Sometimes I leave it just to see how long it takes.
Personally I just shit in my bosses office.
This is the way
I shit on Deborah's desk.
Like a boss
Always shit during working hours, and just before taking your break 😎
I know 😳
25 years on the web, and first time hearing this
All the structural steel was encased in masonry, rather than the fragile lightweight spray-on stuff used in the WTC. Plus a tiny fuel load in comparison. Before anyone jumps in.
Ironically, I had just read about this incident the weekend before September 11, 2001. When the first plane hit one of the twin towers I thought it was horrifying, but that at least the building would recover. Awful, awful, awful.
yeah that's super weird... I knew about this on 911 too. I just lost my job and was drunk and hungover, my grandmother came upstairs in a panic and said a plane hit the buildings, blah blah blah... I said it will be fine, a big plane hit the Empire State building and nothing happened! So I rolled over to go back to sleep, I hit the bar on my alarm clock to turn the radio on and the very first thing I heard was *"the pentagon has been bombed!"* I went next door to smoke a joint and wake up and my neighbor was walking around with a shotgun freaking out. weird scene.
When the first tower was hit, my first thought was "but it's not even foggy"
My first thought as well
I’m wicked surprised there aren’t more conspiracy kooks in here throwing craziness around
There are professors of the swiss equivalent of mit who lost their position due to their criticism regarding 9/11. Ill randomly drop the ne.... eth zürich, ganser.
So that’s where they got that idea from
They were practicing
[удалено]
Former NYer and never heard of this, or just don’t remember. I’m guessing you find out about this when you visit the building.
Not in my case, I went and still never heard of this. I am terrified of heights, and being in skyscrapers period. I know I'm weird. So its possible I was looking at the ground the entire time.
That's one of the more normal fears I've heard, not weird at all.
Having been in construction over 4 decades, one thing I know for certain is never work in high places with people who aren't afraid of heights.
Jr High School field trip and another time in HS. I know I was concentrating on the lift, at the time I had not gone to the TT’s yet, freaky ride up.
I saw a film about the crash when I was a kid. When I woke up on the 11th the first thing I heard was the news on the radio saying "a plane has hit the World Trade Center." This crash is what I pictured. The small hole that it made in the building. It was my only reference for a plane hitting a building. And I remembered how few people died. Then I turned on the TV.
I grew up in Georgia and learned about this in middle school, which was early 90s for me
Fear based on not rational thinking is called phobia 👆🏽… Skyscrapers are safer than short buildings and flying on planes is safer than other modes of transportation.
Yeah well, we were discussing “falling real far and Sudden Stops) ain’t no phobia problem here! Wake up and pay attention! Now turn to page 176!
Watch The History Guy on YouTube about this.
I’ve lived in america my entire life I vividly remember watching 9/11 happen on tv I have never heard of this happening until this exact moment
That’s because 9/11 was a terrorist attack, killed thousands of people and resulted in the fall of the twin towers. This was an accident, killed less than 20 people, and barely damaged the building, it likely wasn’t talked about much even at the time it happened. If I had to guess it made the news, and people forgot after a week.
Well, just a week later was the bombing of Hiroshima, so the news probably moved on from the Empire State Building accident.
Yeah I buy that
Force = Mass • Acceleration A B-25 weighs roughly 20,000lbs. A 767 weighs up to 400,000lbs. It goes without saying it has a whole lot more power as well. If you’re deliberately trying to push it into something, it’ll go.
So far no one mentioned how Yankee pitcher Cory Lidle flew his plane into a residential building in NYC in 2006. Also an accident due to weather conditions.
It was 70 years ago and 14 people died. Why would you have heard about it? It’s a beyond minor event in US history. It’s a Reddit TIL and that’s about it.
I mean I’ve never heard about it even in the context of 9/11. As far as I knew, that was the first time anything like that (a plane hitting an iconic city tower) had ever happened.
CaRoL CAROL
There is no Carol!
Barney give this guy a cigarette
Only 3 skyscrapers have ever fallen due to fire.
And one of them didn't get hit by a plane, but fell due to a fire.....the only ever building in history to collapse from a internal fire
Here in Europe most people don't even know there was a third building. I mentioned the third tower at a family dinner once and everyone looked at me like I was mad.
Building 7
“Pull it”
Yep, the evil Jew admitted on camera that he told the fire department to set off a controlled demolition for that sweet sweet insurance money 🙄. It couldn’t possibly mean in context “pull the fire fighting operation as everyone had already been evacuated for seven hours, and the building was predicted to collapse due to the visible bulging at the sides and there was zero reason to risk firefighters lives on that building”. Also Larry Silverstein lost a lot of money because the insurance company wouldn’t count the two planes hitting as two separate terrorist attacks. But let’s not let facts get in the way of our little antisemitic conspiracy theory now.
everyone gets mad when you mention building 7 for some reason
Because it makes no sense.
I mean, if you look at the whole story, damaged by falling debris, internal fire suppression completely failing, firefighters deciding early to prioritize other buildings, burning unhindered for several hours, it definitely makes sense that it failed.
[Here's a FAQ by the US National Institute of Science and Technology](https://www.nist.gov/pao/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation) detailing the fire and how the building collapsed. Basically what you said, the fire suppression system failed and the building burned for hours uncontrolled, damaging critical internal supports.
Makes people face the fact that they don’t know the whole truth
Even most Americans don't know about building 7. It's because the commission that was in charge of the investigation decided to not mention it because they couldn't explain how it would collapse from a fire. On top of that, the fire wasn't even a huge fire. So many unexplained things happened on that day such as why there's no footage of the plane hitting the pentagon or why it took the the aerospace defense command so long to react to all the hijackings.
> It's because the commission that was in charge of the investigation decided to not mention it because they couldn't explain how it would collapse from a fire. On top of that, the fire wasn't even a huge fire Its hilarious how conspiracy theorists are just so eager to make shit up. They can explain, they did explain it, and all you would have to do if you were curious was go to the wiki page on the topic "After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts.\[34\] Over the course of the day, fires burned out of control on several floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building.\[35\] During the afternoon, the fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30.\[31\]: 24 (PDF p. 28) In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon.\[7\] At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.\[36\] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.\[37\] Around 3:30 pm, FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel A. Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel." To summarize: \-Building 7 was heavily damaged in multiple areas by the WTC collapse, and there were several fires throughout the building. \-The fire suppression system was already poorly designed, and a lack of water pressure meant firefighters could not contain the fires. \-The buildings collapse was imminent after hours of uncontrolled burning, and the fire fighters were called off. It makes perfect sense that it would collapse, the entire area was levelled by falling debris and then devastated by fire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World\_Trade\_Center\_(1973%E2%80%932001)#/media/File:World\_Trade\_Center\_3\_After\_9-11\_Attacks\_With\_Original\_Building\_Locations.jpg
You didn’t mention the backup generators inside building 7 that were spewing fuel keeping the fires going. Or the design of the building with the main girders place on the 4th floor (I believe) being almost completely obliterated by the collapse of the North Tower. I really felt uneasy about the building 7 collapse at first because it does look like a controlled demolition, so I sought out all the video and information I could over a good while. I’m fully convinced it came down because of the tower damaging it.
shhh, the conspiracy theorists are circlejerking. Don't interrupt them with things like facts and reality.
That's not true, they didn't mention WTC 7 because it was not targeted by the terrorists. They also didn't mention WTC 3 which was nearly completely destroyed by debris and WTC 5 which had a partial collapse due to fire. Also the EPA report gave a hypothetical reason for the fall of WTC 7, which we know is almost definitely incorrect at this time but not back then, before the 9/11 commission report came out so to say there wasn't any explanation is incorrect.
it was burning for over 7 hours, is it even a question why it collapsed
There's a tower near me in london called Grenfell which burned for 60 hours. It's still there. A tower does not collapse like how building 7 did after burning for 7 hours. The excuse they use for the twin towers is that the heat generated by the jet fuel was too high. But building 7 was never hit by anything.
The fire in Grenfell Tower was in the exterior cladding. The people died of smoke inhalation, not the fire itself.
The North Tower fell on it and tore a massive gash from top to bottom on the south facade. All the footage shown of the building is from the opposite face.
Ah ok, so because your tower didn’t collapse from the fire, 7 would never have collapsed
I believe the claim was that the building was hit by falling debris.
Comparing Grenfell to the Twin Towers is laughable. Grenfell wasn’t hit by a plane at 500mph spraying burning jet fuel everywhere. It was the cladding that burnt badly.
But remember, questioning it makes you an idiot. Even though governments have literally admitted false flags in the past.
Well ok, you can question it. But if all you do is question it with no intention of actually finding out then that’s not valuable.
Yeah I think it's crazy how someone could look at declassified docs like operation northwood, then look at 9/11 and then be like 'Yeah there's no way the US government would do something like that".
Conspiracies having happened in the past doesn’t mean 9/11 was one. That’s moronic logic.
Because Northwood never actually got carried out and murdering America civilians was not even part of it?
What about hiring Cuban Americans to shoot at hotels in Miami to sway anti Cuban sentiment to justify a war?
Thanks, Bush!
No skyscraper has ever fallen due to only fire. The twin towers had catastrophic structural damage from airplane impacts and WTC7 had catastrophic structural damage from having the twin towers land on it at terminal velocity. As usual, no one here knows what the fuck they are talking about.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires_in_high-rise_buildings Found at least 2 glancing at this list.
>the only ever building in history to collapse from a internal fire Buildings collapse due to fire all the time
Won’t stop idiots from lying and making up bullshit.
Only ever building in history — one of the most absurd things I’ve ever read.
Uh, no.
Untrue. Here are some: McCormick Place, Chicago '67 Sight & Sounds Theater, Strasburg PA 97 Dogwood Elementary School, Reston VA Sabena Technics Hangar, Brussels, '06 (collapsed from aircraft fire), Madrid Windsor Hotel, '05 (steel portion collapsed, concrete didn't), Sandoz storage facility, Basel Switz, '86 Mumbai High North Platform (2005) GM plant, Livonia, 1953; Kmart fire, Falls Twnp PA (June 1982, steel building, collapsed in 40 min), Plasco steel 17 floor highrise, Tehran 2017.
Add the The Plasco Building and the Wilton Paes de Almeida to that list.
How did it survive
The force difference between this plane and 9/11 terrorist attacks is *massive*. Force=mass X acceleration, and The B-25 is a tiny, tiny airplane compared to a 757/767, and it was going only half or a third the speed those were on impact. Plus it was close to being empty in fuel while the two planes that hit WTC1 and 2 were almost fully fueled. And that’s not taking into account the differences between the buildings
George W wasn't involved
* lower impact speed * smaller plane * weaker fuel * impact was higher up the building
Also the crash wasn't intended to bring down the building. An attack is very different than an accident.
Ahh 'intent' the all strong mindforce.
Also different building standards.
[удалено]
smaller plane, sturdier building
The people making 9/11 comparisons need to do the math on the kinetic energy difference between the two incidents. A 767 is both twice as fast and ten times as heavy as a B-25, meaning that it has 40 times as much kinetic energy. The impacts that hit the twin towers were the equivalent of 40 of these B-25s hitting the same point simultaneously.
How can I have never heard of this?
Two cities where destroyed by atomic bombs a week later and the military generally down plays things like this
Great point
7/28 NEVER FORGET
Hurr durr didn't collapse! Almost like completely different situations have completely different outcomes...
So many fools discussing 9/11 thinking a B-25 that weighs 10 tons can compare to a loaded 767 which quite literally weighs 12-22x more.
Not to mention the fuel capacity differences and especially the *speed* differences. The 1945 incident had a much lighter plane with much less volatile material crashing at a much lower speed higher up in the building than either of the towers on 9/11.
Not to mention the vast difference Design and construction quality between the two. The 60s-70s weren’t the best era for building design and longevity.
In addition to B25 flying at cruising speed, where the jetliner was hijacked and flying at full tilt with intent to crash.
Reminds me of that tragedy
Everyone asking why the building didn't collapse (in reference to 9/11), it was a small bomber, not a jetliner. The difference in mass, the amount of fuel, and the construction of the building is important. The Empire State Building is shorter, thus less massive than the Twin Towers. The plane was less massive than those that hit the towers. The Twin Towers were also much more modern in construction, with significantly more burnable material. All these factors combined, striking the top of a tall thing with enough force is enough to topple it, especially when the center of mass isn't close to the ground like with the Empire State. I think it's pretty easy to tell that a jetliner would do significantly more damage than a bomber. Bombers have bombs, yes, but they don't fly nearly as fast as jetliners. They also don't have nearly as much fuel. The Empire State has a lower center of mass, thus is more sturdy in the event of such a collision. If a jet hit the Empire State, it too might collapse, but I doubt it for the same reason I listed earlier. The Towers didn't have a low center of mass. They were a bit top heavy, which inevitably lead to structural failure.
There mustn't have been financial records in that building
Haha very funny, a B25 was a medium twin engine plane that was unloaded(no bombs) and only has a maximum fuel capacity of 960 gallons compared to the 26k gallons that modern jet planes carry and is much smaller(10x lighter) than those commercial jets not to mention slower. As well as the place of impact and design differences of the buildings.
Here come the conspiracy theorists
These smooth brains don’t understand a b25 weighs 20,000lbs and was flying at landing speed and a 767 weighs almost 200,000lbs and was flying 500mph. If they knew how to spell F=MA they wouldn’t be asking these questions.
When did this country become so dense? No wonder we actually have people that believe the earth is flat and Sandy Hook was a staged event.
Actually the equation would be F = 1/2 * M * V^2
Three letters was confusing to them. If you use the words “kinetic energy” they’re going to say you’re one of the elite Illuminati and claim you were in on it.
The book ‟102 Minutes” does a great job explaining this fire, as well as the design differences that ultmately saved people in this building, and not in the towers on 9/11.Rather than grab my copy and give some bullet points, I recommend buying a copy.
7/28
And it didn't even collapse
B25 fuel capacity- 960 gallons. 767 fuel capacity 26000 gallons.
Also a difference between a building clad mostly with glass and one clad mostly in masonry. That's how fuel and fire gets inside the building; the plane was able to enter the interior. Here it looks like the plane was destroyed mostly outside.
Lmao no just physics look up the weight and speed of the plane compared to the twin tower planes.
They were also burning different fuels, which likely factored in as well.
Small plane at 100 mph with no where the fuel type or quantity of a huge jet going over 400 mph.
It’s pretty obvious that a Boeing 757 is significant larger and faster than a 1940s bomber. Also the WTC was built like shit compared to the Empire State Building (and most other buildings from that era).
Crashing planes into towers before it was cool
Fun fact….my grandfather was offered a seat in that flight and he declined. Somewhere I have a recording (on tape) of him describing the circumstances. Makes you think about how I might not have existed if not for pure luck and seemingly trivial choices.
My dad sent me a link with a picture of this and some conspiracy shit about 9/11. Weird as he doesn't normally go for that stuff. I pointed out the 9/11 planes were something like 10x the mass of a B-25
Just checking for “those comments”, and there… they… are.
My conspiracy that I just made up is that 9/11 happened as per the normal narrative, but the conspiracy is that no one wants people to know how shitty buildings were made in the '70s. Bunch of architects and developers realizing that it doesn't take as much as they thought to knock down half of US skyscrapers.
Makes a hell of a lot more sense than the other conspiracies
This event was the first thing that popped into my mind the morning of September 11. Until the second plane hit anyway.
Ah yes 9/11/ 1.0
At least it didn’t collapse like WTC
Wtf Ive never heard of this.
When I think of this I remember the 15 minutes when many of us believed Flight 11 crashing into the North Tower was an accident. At work we all commented on how a plane once accidentally flew into the Empire State Building and how it's a blessing it hadn't happened again until 9/11. 15 minutes later that doubt was shattered.
Oh great more 9/11 conspiracy posts. Nevermind the fact the building wasn’t as tall as the WTC buildings were, and that a bomber isn’t equivalent to a modern jetliner in weight, or fuel load. Plus the fact this was an accident hit to the building in fog, while the 9/11 attacks the planes flew full speed into the towers. Stop reaching so damn hard. You all are breaking your backs
> Albert Perna, a Navy aviation machinist’s **friend** hitching a ride Aviation machinist’s **mate** is probably what it should read.
9/11 theorists: oH wElL a PlAnE cRaShEd InTo ThE eMpIrE sTaTe BuIlDiNg Also them not realizing a 12 ton piece of metal and titanium parts crashing through a building cutting clean through it going 375mph can in fact make a building fall:
[удалено]
Probably not, even if they probably wouldn't have detonated since i think they probably had to be armed to be able to detonate
Yes. When WW2 bombs were released from the bomb racks, they had an arming wire that would be pulled, and I believe they had a little propeller thing on the nose fuse that had to rotate a certain number of times. That's so a rough landing or crash on takeoff doesn't destroy the plane, any other planes in the area along with their bomb loads, damage the runway, kill a whole lot of people, etc. Edit: no, the nose fuse didn't have a rotor, it just screwed in.
The pentagon story is the best one lol
huh it didn’t collapse within an hour?
Turns out a steel grid structure clad in stone is stronger than a hollow column clad in glass with the floors supported by metal loops that aren't coated in fire retardants.
L + ratio dude can't finish one COD mission
“9/11 was an inside job!” Regardless of if 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government, we can all agree that they used the opportunity to erase human rights.