432
Another angle:
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2024
432 points (98.6% liked)
HistoryPorn
4979 readers
132 users here now
If you would like to become a mod in this community, kindly PM the mod.
Relive the Past in Jaw-Dropping Detail!
HistoryPorn is for photographs (or, if it can be found, film) of the past, recent or distant! Give us a little snapshot of history!
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive.
- No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions.
- Share relevant content.
- Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
- Use appropriate language and tone.
- Report violations.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
- No genocide or atrocity denialism.
Pictures of old artifacts and museum pieces should go to History Artifacts
Illustrations and paintings should go to History Drawings
Related Communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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.