4 ms·

The framed-tube structure of the original Twin Towers was pretty novel at the time. It allowed the building to have wide open floor plans without the need to ha

The framed-tube structure of the original Twin Towers was pretty novel at the time. It allowed the building to have wide open floor plans without the need to have a grid of support beams everywhere like most other skyscrapers up until then. It also likely would not have collapsed if built the traditional way. Then again most modern skyscrapers are built more like the original WTC and less like the Empire State Building, so it's not really a design flaw. The visual design of the towers was also striking in it's minimalism, and quite controversial too. I think people got used to them but after they were first opened many saw them as a blight on the skyline. IMO, I prefer the old towers to the new, not that the new one is particularly ugly or anything. They were kinda like the Pyramids of skyscrapers; just build a shape, as big and tall as you can. Maybe if 9/11 never happened a future civilization would have called them "The Rectangles".

jiofih 7y ago
The post mentions both the John Hancock Center and Sears Tower already used similar structures.
Merrill 7y ago
The 208' square floorplan resulted in a slender monolith. With other construction methods, they may have toppled, rather than collapsed within the tube. That may have resulted in even more death and destruction. The development of the World Trade Center destroyed "Radio Row". Possibly more of the electronics industry would have stayed in the New York area had than not happened. "The Death of New York's Radio Row" https://www.qcwa.org/radio-row.htm https://www.qcwa.org/radio-row.htm
- furgooswft13 7y ago
  > The 208' square floorplan resulted in a slender monolith. With other construction methods, they may have toppled, rather than collapsed within the tube. That may have resulted in even more death and destruction. I guess we'll never know, so I'm just theory crafting, but the structure above impact on the South Tower did topple to a pretty extreme angle before falling straight down: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/07/3d/04/073d041d28159fc6f376aae70d6eded3.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/07/3d/04/073d041d28159fc6f376... I suppose for a concrete grid structure like Empire State Building, it might have slid off and fell to the ground without collapsing the structure below. Not really sure if that would be any worse, or better. The only way to get it to topple like you'd expect a tree would when chopped down is for the airplane impact to be much lower on the structure. That would not have been possible of course because of all the other buildings in the way, but it was I believe the intention of the 1993 WTC bombing.
  - Merrill 7y ago
    Interesting photo, thanks. I was thinking that the top would buckle at the point of impact and fall sideways. Compared with the B-25 collision with the Empire State Building, the B-767s are over 10 times heavier, were moving more than twice as fast, and the WTC has half the cross section of the Empire State. Plus, the fuel load of the 767s is comparably greater and causes a greater fire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_Empire_State_Building_B-25_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_Empire_State_Building_B-2...

jiofih 7y ago

The post mentions both the John Hancock Center and Sears Tower already used similar structures.

Merrill 7y ago

The 208' square floorplan resulted in a slender monolith. With other construction methods, they may have toppled, rather than collapsed within the tube. That may have resulted in even more death and destruction. The development of the World Trade Center destroyed "Radio Row". Possibly more of the electronics industry would have stayed in the New York area had than not happened. "The Death of New York's Radio Row" https://www.qcwa.org/radio-row.htm https://www.qcwa.org/radio-row.htm

furgooswft13 7y ago
> The 208' square floorplan resulted in a slender monolith. With other construction methods, they may have toppled, rather than collapsed within the tube. That may have resulted in even more death and destruction. I guess we'll never know, so I'm just theory crafting, but the structure above impact on the South Tower did topple to a pretty extreme angle before falling straight down: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/07/3d/04/073d041d28159fc6f376aae70d6eded3.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/07/3d/04/073d041d28159fc6f376... I suppose for a concrete grid structure like Empire State Building, it might have slid off and fell to the ground without collapsing the structure below. Not really sure if that would be any worse, or better. The only way to get it to topple like you'd expect a tree would when chopped down is for the airplane impact to be much lower on the structure. That would not have been possible of course because of all the other buildings in the way, but it was I believe the intention of the 1993 WTC bombing.
- Merrill 7y ago
  Interesting photo, thanks. I was thinking that the top would buckle at the point of impact and fall sideways. Compared with the B-25 collision with the Empire State Building, the B-767s are over 10 times heavier, were moving more than twice as fast, and the WTC has half the cross section of the Empire State. Plus, the fuel load of the 767s is comparably greater and causes a greater fire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_Empire_State_Building_B-25_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_Empire_State_Building_B-2...