this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2025
72 points (92.9% liked)

Mildly Interesting

22052 readers
167 users here now

This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.

This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?

Just post some stuff and don't spam.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

BOK Tower (originally One Williams Center) was constructed in 1976 for The Williams Companies Inc. a petroleum producer in Tulsa, Oklahoma. John Williams, the CEO at the time, liked the look of the recently completed World Trade Center so much that he hired the original architect to build essentially a half-scale version of WTC Tower 1.

The lobby even has marble walls and wall hanginga similar to the old World Trade Center.

top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

His building in Seattle is really wacky. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainier_Tower

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Hopefully they used a slightly different literal design, because the WTC had serious design flaws that allowed it to fall as it did.

Basically, it's columns along the outside held together only by the floors' structure themselves. So when a plane took out a bunch of floors and the fire weakened more, there was suddenly an entire middle section that didn't have any lateral support. This allowed the colimns along those sections to accordion in/out to begin the fall. Since buildings aren't made to have dynamic forces of the scale of the entire freaking building's weight, that made even the structurally sound sections fail on impact as the upper floors came down ontop of them, etc.

There were also compounding construction issues, as the fire resistant coating was supposed to be sprayed directly on to the steel floor beams up to a minimum depth, but investigations even before the collapse showed the builders were lazy fucks and just sprayed large sections from one vantage point, leaving some areas thinner or not covered at all.

If they used a similar design, something as simple as a typical fire could cause the whole thing to collapse.

[–] ViperActual@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Neat, I was visiting the area last September and took a photo!

📸

[–] tacosanonymous@mander.xyz 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

We have an opportunity to do the funniest thing…

[–] AlexisFR@jlai.lu 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What plane would be a 50% Boeing 767 though?

[–] tacosanonymous@mander.xyz 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

A 737?

An A320 would be right in there too.

[–] MadnessForTsar@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

I can't afford some airplane now🙁

[–] stupidcasey@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Take alone the either of the twin towers were a perfectly boring tower that shouldn't exist, the hide that fact by making two of them so it's not surprising that is is a cookie cutter design.

[–] houstoneulers@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Ayyy i used to work there

[–] bandwidthcrisis@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

There are two towers in Century City by the same designer, although their design isn't as similar, and they are triangular.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_Plaza_Towers

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

You just made it a target for terrorists with low ambition.

[–] renamon_silver@lemmy.wtf 4 points 1 day ago

It's 75% harder to hit, that has to count for something.

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

And me without my Beechcraft king air