Originally posted by AThousandYoung How come the Empire State building didn't go down like the twin towers?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUlWpqLsOVs
A B-25 has a 67 ft. wingspan. A Boeing 767 has a 156 ft. wingspan. I don't know what the fuel capacity for a B-25 was, but a 767 holds 16,700 gallons of fuel.
The fuel capacity consisted of four tanks in the inner wing panels, with a total capacity of 670 US gallons.
http://www.b25.net/pages/b25spec.html
So the answer is that a B-25 is a much smaller plane than a Boeing 767 and, more importantly, that it's fuel capacity is dwarfed by that of a 767. A B-25 is capable of carrying various external fuel tanks, but I doubt the one that crashed into the Empire State Building was so equipped.
Yes, but the Empire State building probably would not have gone down anyway. In the old days, they built with perimeter reinforcement much stronger than the "tube & truss" cheaper builds of the 60s on. There are tradeoffs. The modern buildings are more flexible and handle earthquakes and strong winds better. But you would not see the truss collapse and pancake phenomenon of 911.
Originally posted by Kunsoo Yes, but the Empire State building probably would not have gone down anyway. In the old days, they built with perimeter reinforcement much stronger than the "tube & truss" cheaper builds of the 60s on. There are tradeoffs. The modern buildings are more flexible and handle earthquakes and strong winds better. But you would not see the truss collapse and pancake phenomenon of 911.
Thank goodness. Rwingett's good sense and rational analysis was no fun at all.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung How come the Empire State building didn't go down like the twin towers?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUlWpqLsOVs
Because the Empire State Building had to be strong enough to cope with a giant gorilla, whereas the Twin Towers only had to support a guy on a tightrope.
They Don't Make Em Like They Used To
03 Feb '12 23:20
YouTube
Back to Top