Nitpick: The Empire State Building was struck by a B-25 not a B-17
Thanks, Mr. Miskatonic, for the link to the Macaulay book on unbuilding the Empire State Building. That was a favorite of mine when it came out. Still a classic: funny, thorough, accurate, and fascinating.
Do I get points if I was visualizing a B-25 when I said it? Yah, I know, it’s a smaller plane.
As I said earlier, if the insulation had remained in place the buildings would still be intact. However, the extent of damage woud have been substantial. When the tanks ruptured they poured fuel everywhere and the effect was felt all the way to the ground floor. If you remember accounts on the ground, the elevator doors were blown out. That means the fuel entered the shafts and vaporized into a fuel/air bomb. The passengers in the elevators where riding inside a projectile shot down an 86 floor barrel. Not sure if I would use the word “lucky” to the survivors of the trip considering how extensive they were burned.
An issue not touched on yet. If the WTC had been damaged but not collapsed, would the owners have been able to find tenants to move back into a repaired tower?
Start with a scenario where fire burns the floors from the impact up. There would have still been heavy loss of life. There would have been injuries to people coming down 60+ flights of stairs. I’d guess there would be lots of people, employers and employees, who wouldn’t want to move back into there. Fears about safety, fears of a repeat attack, bad memories… Lots of reasons.
Oh, don’t worry. People would have moved back in. Futures traders, the whole ‘Masters of the World’ types? They’re full of artifical balls and testosterone.
Cite?
:dubious:
It would take too much manpower, time, and money. The owners of the 30-story Landmark Tower didn’t have it “unbuilt”.
Each of the WTC Towers were 3.5 times as tall as the Landmark Tower. How much time, do you suppose, would it take to tear down each of the 110 story structures? I’ll bet it would take more time than it took to build them. It would make more sense to have a controlled demolition if necessary.
the problem with controlled demo. on a building like wtc (and also meridian in phila.) is the shopping, parking, and subway system under it.
there are many buildings mostly in east coast cities that have to be “unbuilt” because structures under them must be kept intact.
There have been lots of skyscraper fires. The only skyscrapers to collapse supposedly as a result of fire were the 3 on 9/11.
If those buildings had not collapsed then engineering schools would not have to explain why those 3 did, which they have not done in Fourteen Years.
Regardless of what the truth is how can the collapses be explained without accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the towers. Curious how no engineering schools have mentioned any need for the in 14 years.
psik