GP's right dave; your post is full of inaccuracies.

WTC did not collapse from poor and lax building codes or poor design. it failed structurally from impact of plane collisions and the subsequent fires. the collisions 1) weakened the structure, 2) dislodged fireproofing from ceilings, and 3) severed fire sprinklers. this allowed the subsequent fire to heat the steel to the point of elasticity, where it ultimately failed.

the empire state building is not a concrete structure. it is a steel structure that supports concrete slab floors. steel members [[columns and beams) are not encased in concrete.

steel does not reach the point of elasticity in a couple of minutes if drastically heated. the steel at the south tower withstood fires of several thousand degrees for almost an hour. the north tower made it almost two. the structure at the ESB would've suffered the same fate eventually.

building codes and standards were not better in 1931 than they were in the late 60's [[when the WTC was being designed). they continue to make codes more stringent, not less, throughout the years.

the stairs and elevators at WTC were encased in concrete.

the difference between the two is not quality control or times that they were built in. the difference is structural systems. ESB is a standard post and beam system laid out in a grid. this system offers a lot of redundancy and would allow sturtural failures to be localized. [however, if one section collapsed on 80, then that section above it would collapse and result in that section below it would collapse. no structure on earth is designed to withstand more than 5x what it's designed to hold initially.] WTC is a structural tube system. this system is very strong and allows for open floor plates. WTC would never have been built in the same system as the ESB. even if it was, that's no garauntee it would've stood without harm.

and, for the record, the lafayette building is not suffering from wear and tear, but neglect. if the structural failure [[if there is one) occured a floor or two down, you can bet that the sections above and below it would come tumbling down as well.

also for the record, the B-25 that crashed into the ESB was not carrying any ordinance. this instance, in fact, led the designers of the WTC to design the building withstand an impact from a 707 [[one of the largest jets at the time). the jets that impacted the WTC were 767, roughly 3 times larger than a B-25. also fully fueled with jet fuel, not aviation fuel for piston engines the B-25 would've used.

and, as far as your ascertation of the ESB being more expensive, it would cost $346351312.99 in today's dollars to build. when completed in 1972, the two main towers of WTC cost over $900 million. if we're generous, we could assume site preparation and foundation work was a third, and the two towers each cost a third. in today's dollars then, one tower would've cost $1527500757.30. granted economic conditions were vastly different, but just because you don't like the materials, doesn't mean that makes them "cheaper."