First hand reports I've seen and read from those inside and fleeing the buildings said that there was a lot of damage throughout the building -- cracks in walls, twisted staircases, railings popped out of their mountings, jammed doorways. All that says to me that the impact and the violent swaying of the building caused an enormous amount of damage to the building. The floor joists, trusses, and bolts that held the structure together would have likely experienced tremendous damage and stresses. This leads me to believe that even if the tower stood, it would be so structurally compromised, that they would have no other option but to deconstruct it.
your right for this video to go there is stupid damage like that smart way is clean everything out repair rebuild strengthen no design towers could have been built alike the same again taller to honor the lost wish it went to 150 floors but the horror that day edge in our minds it would have to 300 yrs from now for people to forget and move on even the towers many called a death trap there inside design was terrible lucky they did not fall on there own with out the planes hitting them
Unless you're a truther, in which case all this is disregarded for bombs planted up and down the building by Wile E Coyote, who is standing inside building 7 with a plunger and a tiny umbrella as the buildings come down...
my dad was fdny at the time he told me over the years that they would have been required to take it down floor by floor which would have taked a good 20 or so years to do they werent gonna be savable
They reminded me of old tech, like 2 big retro robots looking over the city. Not as iconic as the Chrysler building or the Empire State building, but still iconic.
we have to remember They cleared an Entire Neighborhood Otherwise known as Radio Row for The Twin Towers to go up so alot of those local to Radio Row were probably VERY pissed about that and Also Alot of em called em either boxes that carried the empire and chrysler building in or two filing cabinets in the sky. but this was prob caused from the business district Radio Row.
NY’er here. They were impressive but not beautiful like much older skyscrapers from fifty, seventy years earlier as designs change through time. I’m not impressed with the new tower.
I think it’s a true testament to their structural and architectural brilliance that they actually stood for nearly an hour each and didn’t just get destroyed and collapse on impact.
Trolls and 9/11 go hand in hand. I still can’t believe that day actually happened, it was so surreal and life changing but the conspiracies actually started because of politics. The left wanted George W gone so bad they were willing to say anything and if you repeat lies over and over for two decades the mentally unstable members of society will believe it.
Had tower 1 survived and tower 2 been rebuilt, the replacement tower would most definitely have been a haunted skyscraper. That much death, fear, and trauma would leave lots of residual energy.
@@773guzman oh I don’t remember it was that long ago. It was either on a RU-vid comment or a Reddit comment. They said it sustained 80% of the damage it needed to fall instantly
Dude if they were so rebuild those towers no company in the world would lease any office space in those structures for fear of another attack, remember those buildings were attacked twice in 1993 and 2001, plus it's a gravesite/memorial.
If one tower didn't collapse, it would probably just get taken apart. The fires did a lot of damage to the building. It wouldn't be safe to keep it open to the public.
I doubt it. The media and American public would most likely see it as the terrorists winning if the tower was demolished and would strongly be against the notion. What would likely happen would be the most precise and grand-scale project in engineering history to restore and reinforce the surviving tower.
@@Wymiatatorex according to you? It was widely known it was going to cost a great deal to remediate. A shitload of first responders that are still alive would think you’re a fool…
One building, I believe the Deutche Bank?, remained standing for some years after 9/11. It was only about a decade later that they finally demolished it, the reason being that due to the damage, toxins, etc, the building was simply no longer habitable. I don’t think had the North tower stood, that it could ever be used again in its intended purpose. The damage it had already sustained before the collapse was already quite severe, ie: The plane impact, the collapsed floors, the very extensive fire damage, the fuel, which was carried down through elevator shafts, exploding on multiple floors, the damage sustained from the south tower collapse and the dust and debris. I think it would have been eventually demolished.
Good points that you have made. I hold the view that at most 1/2 of the building would be preserved. Perhaps, most of it would be demolished, except for the lowest few floors. It would likely be an eerie memorial, as what was left of the building would have been kept as empty as possible to minimize the load.
@@fortpark-wd9sx There was a plan to erect a hollow "shell" of the lobby and a few floors around one of the memorial fountains, but in the end they were both left in the open air,
Hi from Sweden, correct on DB. And not by controlled demolition due to the scale and the surroundings. The same would have counted for either of the twins if it came to that. There was a lot of dispute with allegations of corruption and red tape etc during the memorial design process. In the end I think the fountains turned out peaceful and worthy even if the new WTC overall doesn't make it to the seven miracles list. I always found that the WFC carried the main bulk of the area's esthetics, both before and after the attacks. Still looking fresh, still without trying too hard - I'm glad all of those survived.
If one of the towers avoided suffering a comprehensive collapse like both eventually did, it would obviously be the North Tower due the number of floors within and above the impact zone being far less than those in the South Tower. The tower's core and a rigid exoskeleton allowed the building's engineers to create large, open workspaces unencumbered by load bearing steel columns seen in most other office towers in New York at the time. Each floor was composed of a 4-inch-thick reinforced concrete slab which rested on a system of steel trusses that were loosely attached to the core and exterior in order to give it the flexibility needed to move with the motion of each tower impacted by the various forces of nature present at the south end of Manhattan Island. Its design was a brilliant way of constructing such a groundbreaking building project on the scale that designers of the World Trade Center envisioned while keeping costs better under control. The slip-tie bracketing of the WTC's floors to the core and exterior set the stages for the catastrophic failure of each tower when introduced to the variables that everyone saw unfold live on TV on September 11, 2001.
I wonder how many more people would be saved if the building didn't collapse. Most people above the impact zone probably died due to smoke inhalation, but we know for sure that there were people still clinging to their lives... I just wonder 😢
There were ALOT of alive people at 10:28 am. But if the tower stood, the fires does upper, so in next few hours upper floors is going to be on fire too. By the time the fire is designated, most of the survivors would gone.
Well, the situation would vary depending on the tower. If we're talking about the South Tower, a lot more people would've been saved, as 1 staircase remained intact after impact, so more people could've been saved by firefighters. Unfortunately, the case at the North Tower would be really different, as the plane impacted almost dead center, which means all exit passages were either destroyed or full of debris. 0 chance of survival, nobody would've survived in the upper floors anyway.
I had a dream about this last night. WTC1 didn't fall, and fast forward to now, it was a whole 9/11 museum inside the building. The stairs were weirdly enough still destroyed, and the whole time I was terrified the building would collapse so I had to convince my girlfriend to take the elevator back down with me 😭
I still remember watching this live on tv while living in nyc and feeling like 20 + min gap between collapse lasted forever. I actually started to think that the North tower was going to survive the event and that the skyline would be changed forever with one tower standing...but little did I know both would be gone...
Really enjoying your videos on the twin towers! I went to the top of the south tower four times to the observation deck and the roof and have been obsessed with those buildings since I was a kid I’m 41 now. I was there a month before 9/11 and stayed at the Marriott world financial center, and still remember looking up at those two monoliths it’s impossible to describe how massive and intimidating those buildings were to look up at. I’ve seen the new one multiple times and it’s just not even close to the same. It’s a good question you ask as to what would’ve happened if only one fell. I think they would’ve pry kept the remaining tower since it would’ve been a huge grave for all those who perished when the plane hit and the fires that followed.
I was there the weekend before 9/11/01. Lived in Connecticut at the time so we were there a lot playing shows. We thought it'd be fun to do the tourist stuff that trip so we went around everywhere on the island. When I saw it happening on TV, I was floored.
I believe the south tower collapsed first because it was struck at a much lower area then the north tower; therefore, there was much more weight pushing downward on the impact area.
@@voltage4176 trump's idea was TERRIBLE, adding 5 extra floors to an already flawed building structure was abominal, but I understand why. I also never really liked the steel beams and skeleton because it's just a really boring concept that didn't make sense but I understand where you come from
The impacts revealed glaring flaws in the entire concept that needed to be reworked so that the whole thing couldn't just happen again. I for one really like the antiprism design of the new WTC.
@@GabrielquintasYT Still room to improve, despite the same design (wich was very solid). The whole thing about the world trade centers was them being big and wide sky scrapers. But sure, lets have skinny sticks made of glass instead and go with minimalism, show the world we are afraid to go big. Bet you are real happy about that.
@@brutallica2944 Look buddy, I wish we still had these towers. This is about security and safety concerns, not about the outside design and size of the towers. The initial design had extremely tight stair cases, and smokey ones at that. The metal beams practically liquified after a few minutes because the resistant glue placed on the metal beams couldn't resist the huge amount of heat produced by the aircraft fuel. It was a cheaper metal that was easily damaged in the process. But yeah, "perfect design". Oh, and the entire tower easily swayed with no problem. You should see one of those videos at 8x speed showing the sway of the South tower. Maybe try to do some research before saying "I don't like the towers" and that "big buildings are bad".
If the north tower remained standing I believe at a minimum every above the impact zone would have had to have been removed and then reconstructed. The damage to the exterior and core columns was pretty extensive. Also most of the floors/ floor trusses in the impact floors were destroyed or severely damaged from the impact and subsequent fire. To reconnect those broken members would have been extremely difficult since they were probably warped or knocked out of place. The Deutsche Bank Building was damaged beyond repair by the events on 9/11. The took it down one floor at a time starting at the roof and proceeding to the ground. If WTC 1 was damaged beyond repair they would demolish it in a similar fashion. A controlled demolition of a 1,200 foot tall building would not be done in such a dense urban area like lower Manhattan.
Yes, had the north tower somehow survived the day without collapsing it's almost certain it would have been more expensive for the Port Authority to work with/around the extant structure rather than simply start with a clean slate.
One thing I never see mentioned, is the sheer force of the south tower collapsing affected the north tower - by which I mean, you have a north tower that is already severely damaged, and now its' twin collapses, causing essentially a small "earthquake" right next to it. How would that affect the base\support of the remaining tower? Could it have fatally damaged the core support at the base? Or weakened it to a point where it could only support what was above it for a limited time? For what it's worth, I saw the event after the 2nd plane had hit (my father called me and informed me about it - he hadn't seen the 1st plane hit, but was watching on T.V. when the second did). My first reaction was, "My G*d, the people on those planes...". My second reaction, immediately after, was, "My G*d, I hope those towers don't fall". I had immediately thought upon seeing it that those impacts had created a "weak spot", and that the mass\weight of the tower(s) above the impacts would give way and "pancake" their weights onto the areas BELOW the impact. And, essentially, that was what happened.
Actually the core of the north tower was super strong so strong that even after the south tower it wasn't affected that much and it even somewhat survived the north tower collapsing. The core only collapsed when the north tower was debris
The north tower would’ve still been demolished had it stood because of the immense structural damage. It would’ve been leagues cheaper to demo and rebuild it than to refurbish, not to mention a “fixed” building would’ve still been structurally deficient with a plethora of issues. It wouldn’t have been a controlled demolition tho; it’s an extremely tall building in a dense area and would’ve still caused a lot of damage to the surrounding area (again). Much like the Deutsche Bank Building next door that was extremely damaged just by the collapses, the north tower would’ve been put in a shroud while recovery and investigations happened and scaffolding would go up that would help to deconstruct the building.
If one tower had survived and the other was rebuilt, you would certainly have two identical looking buildings. However, one building would have all the safety features learned from 9/11 incorporated into its construction (as with the current 1 WTC) whereas the other building would retain all of the problems that contributed to people being trapped on 9/11: only 3 sets of stairs, those stairs and elevators all grouped in the same area. The stairways would be narrow, would not have emergency lighting, and would not be pressurized to keep out smoke as the current ones are. The new building would presumably have more stairways, located on different sides of the tower to maximize your chances of escape based on your location. It would have a dedicated elevator for firefighters/EMS that can reach all floors and is located away from the main elevators as in the current 1 WTC, the older building would not. It's hard to imagine people willing to go back to work on the 92nd floor of that older building, especially after seeing all the pictures and videos of people at the windows of the North Tower trying to breathe and eventually falling. It's also hard to imagine sitting at your desk on the 92nd floor of that older building, looking across and seeing a brand new tower that has every conceivable safety feature while your building has none of these. If I'm right (and obviously there is no way to know), then the older building would no longer have tenants and would not be generating income for its owner and despite what sentimentality and nostalgia might have existed post 9/11 I imagine the building would have been dismantled. Which is sad because they were truly New York icons and I'm happy I got to visit them before their demise.
*If only one of the twin towers had fallen, the impact on history and the response to the attacks would likely have been different, but it's challenging to predict precisely how.* *The aftermath of such an event would depend on many factors, including the extent of the damage, the response from authorities, and the public's perception of the situation.* *The twin towers were both symbols of economic power and international trade, so the consequences of one tower collapsing would have still been significant.* *And The World Trade Center Tapestry & Sky Gate, New York. Would survive.*
Unfortunately, they (especially the southern one) were doomed because of the fire. I really don't understand why they didn't use a fire helicopter with a hose, that would be the most effective thing.
they were thinking of it but it was just to much smoke and it would be hard to see and also there would be risk of crashing the helicopter because of the thicc smoke
You should discuss the implications, if 9/11 was larger in scope, think a successful attack on the Capitol, a strike on the Willis tower, John Hancock Building, or US Bank Tower, etc.
Obviously not as many would have died. I always wondered this too, but I suspect given how Freedom Tower went the years after, I see them not rebuilding the lost tower, and putting up a memorial in its place. The reason they didn't do that after the bombing was because everything remained, nothing to collapse, so a tiny memorial set in place. Had the whole hotel collapsed instead, pretty sure there'd no longer be a hotel there, just like the federal building in Oklahoma City never got rebuilt (on the same spot that is).
IF they were re-built, They differently would have been built with stronger beams so that something like that won't happen. even if the north tower didn't fall, they would have to rebuild the beams.
I keep hearing too that when the south tower feel people inside the north tower thought it was their building coming down. So the tower swayed/ shook a lot. Some people believe that is what ultimately caused the north tower to come down. The first 9/11 Time magazine actually referenced that.
Not a New Yorker but I’ve heard conflicting assessments of public opinion on the aesthetics of the Twin Towers. At the beginning it was definitely true that public perception was that they weren’t very handsome. However they gained popularity over time. By 2001 the Twin Towers were well loved by New Yorkers from what I have read.
I'll probably get hate for saying so but yeah, no...I was never a great fan of the twin tower layout. It was just so...monolithic looking, I guess. It lacked that certain, I dunno...that certain _je ne sais quoi_ if-you-will. I think the original design should have done something to incorporate a less minimalistic/brutalistic finish to the tower's top. I think a slightly quasi-tapered roof should have been done along with a creative way to do something to better accentuate the vertical nature of the steel girder exterior construction...like a crest of steel spheres or something more aesthetically pleasing that would also attempt to tie everything together in a more thoughtful way if that makes sense.
i don't even know why people brought up that people hated them when it was built. like yeah well people also hated Eiffel Tower back when it was built and now it become an icon, was loved by many.
I honestly thought the North Tower was going to remain standing. The Towers were actually designed to shelter each other from strong winds. When the South Tower collapsed, and the North Tower remained standing I had my 🙏🤞. I think if the North Tower had remained standing, the PA (Port Authority of NY & NJ) might have done EVERYTHING in it's power to save it. HOWEVER, because of where and how AA 11 impacted it, it's eventual collapse was inevitable. The other thing is that 1,300-1,400 people lost their lives in the North Tower above AA 11's impact zone that Morning, the majority of them Windows on The World Restaurant employees. It would have been like saving a mass gravesite had the building survived. And of course, the internal damage was FAR TOO GREAT to save it in the end. The thing about the new WTC is that it has all sorts of architectural safety features (learned as a result of 9/11) built into it that the original towers of the WTC didnt have. I think we're better off with the new WTC complex.
I’m from Tulsa Oklahoma and our tallest building is a 1/2 scale World Trade Center. It’s called the Williams Tower. It looks good as a stand-alone building. We have a very beautiful skyline for a small city. The building is made by the same architect who designed the twin tower’s
Very interesting. In my opinion. If the North tower stayed up they could have at least repaired the damaged portion, and it would have still been able to function as it normally did.
I don’t think so, the asbestos would still be conquering the building, the floors would all be pancaked at the top, and the fire would make the building completely unstable.
They were built to get hit by a plane, not a 767. Anything smaller than a 737 I’m guessing. But they held up well after they got hit and before they collapsed.
I feel that if the North Tower Survived they would be forced to either knock it down in a controllable Demolition because the Structural Integrity after the Smoke and Fires had ended it had a Gaping Hole in the Side of the North Tower or they could go for a muliti million or muliti Billion dollar Super Project to Repair the North Tower which would have taken a while due to the Collapse of the South Tower still which would be hindering any repair efforts as everyone would be trying to dig out Survivors from the South Towers Rubble after the Collapse so therefore I think that the New York Port Authority who constructed and Authorized the Construction the World Trade Center Complex would try and opt to Repair it
You have to think that although the impact zone was so high up, the towers were slightly fragile on the interior. It would look like a war zone. Only the floors going from the basements up to the first technical floors set would be "somewhat safe" to enter and you'd still notice the damage. To try and go higher would just be futile by regular means. No elevator inside the building would work, their shafts would be twisted and many staircases would share the same fate, too. You'd probably have partial collapse on some floors, especially those at or around the impact zone. Forget about the office space, many walls would've gone down, but those were fairly replaceable, as the towers had an open floor concept. The most severe and compromising damage would be located at the core and perimeter columns of the impact zone. It would be astronomically expensive to repair that. That would be the final nail on the North Tower's coffin. I'd say it would stand up to 2003 - 2004, maybe 2005 depending on how much time the repair works take. Then it would slowly disappear from the skyline as the new complex rises.
I think about the surfside collapse when it comes to this question. Yes, it was a part of the same building that the imploded, but it is kind of the same deal where the remaining section just had too many questions of structural integrity so they took down the standing part of that building. I think since north tower was so tall with so many possibilities of failure and having seen the first tower fall, they would have had to demolish it imo. Although even that would put the demo company at so much risk having to be in there to put in the explosives. I guess we are in one way lucky that it fell so we didn’t have to risk anymore lives in the rebuilding/fixing or even the controlled demolition if the structure failed while people were in it for either answer.
Curious what is making you create all these vids on the towers ? I never clicked on one story until 2 weeks ago . then I found your channel and from the comments it seems you never did anything like this ? what's prompting you to do this ?
2:53 the way the south fell with almost a 3rd of it toward building 4 to the south east, that's why the north didn't suffer as much damage as could have had they actually been closer together, or if the south fell straight down all the way.
This is a question that I've always wanted answered. What if 9/11 never happened and the Twin Towers remain to this day? Would they still keep the original design or would they do a drastic remodel of the buildings? I don't think that's possible but maybe if they did a mild makeover of the towers to make them more modern since they would be 57 years old now. It's not worth thinking about since they're gone but sometimes it's nice to think "what if?"
They'd probably remain the same. If the Empire State Building didn't get remodeled despite it's age, what makes people think the Twin Towers would've? I think they would've just kept the original look. At most, they'd probably go through a galvanization process, due to rust issues. Unpopular opinion incoming, but I think they would've looked just fine in today's skyline.
Only the interiors would look very different by today, and perhaps the plaza would have been modernized. Windows To The World and the lobby and mall would likely look very different, if you look at photos things like the carpet and overall interior design are very obviously from the 80s/90s and would be a bit of an eyesore today. The buildings themselves though? Absolutely not. No skyscraper in New York has, to my knowledge, ever had their facade changed, only cleaned up and perhaps partly replaced due to weathering. But no design changes.
No. Then NY’ers would probably dislike a modernization of her skin. Although not a skyscraper, mid to late seventies they modernized the original Commodore Hotel on 42nd next to Grand Central with a greenish/gray glass facade resembling a mirror. They should’ve left the original brick exterior from the 1920’s. This is now or soon be demolished to build a massive new Commodore Tower which will also be one of Manhattan’s tallest midtown skyscraper when finished.
@@maxoniteWhat was that skyscraper on Sixth Avenue and 41/42nd by Bryant Park that underwent a complete exterior renovation about 2000? That was a good fifty stories and believe a former telephone company.
Damn dude, you must really be depressed to make these videos but i love your work. If one tower had remained I genuinely believe they would have rebuilt the other tower.
Those buildings were Iconic even before the disaster. If anything was salvageable after 9/11 it would have been. I doubt that they would have just taken them down.
What a coincidence I was just thinking like 30 minutes earlier what if only 1 tower fell. I think they would either rip both down, and build a new one, or rebuild the other one but plane proof.
It's a very interesting idea, of Tower 1 staying up. And with not being able to see the base of it after Tower 2 fell and the damage it sustained and if the fire could be extinguised could Tower 1 have survived. I don't think they would remove Tower 1. Only remove the section above the impact zone. And then repair the damage, there would have to be massive supports would be installed. And eventually rebuild Tower 2, but with all the safety improvements added. But move it's location and make the footprint of Tower 2 as the memorial. I still believe that the new Towers should look on the outside just the same as the old pair did. That would show the enemies that they can't defeat us. And we will always rebuild. Just like the Pentagon was repaired. The museum and memorial would be the same.
I suspect that if WTC2 were already gone and almost half of WTC1 was severely damaged (to say the least), they would just torch WTC1 and start again. Although I do not subscribe to the conspiracy theory that Silverstein conspired to demolish the buildings as an alternative to paying for removal of asbestos, the fact is that any remaining structure would still have asbestos in it that would surely be required to be removed during any reconstruction. Further, rebuilding the upper section of WTC1 would perpetuate the flaws/limitations inherent in the original design, some of which would no longer meet modern building codes.
There was this idea in 2003 I think, that if the North Tower had stayed up it could’ve become sort of vertical park, with vines and trees on the inside and even the roof, I personally think it would’ve cool if it had happened
I'll admit that one tower still standing without the other would have looked kind of weird, and not exactly right either. That of which was briefly the case when Tower #2 went down, with Tower #1 clinging to dear life, until it too died a mere half hour later, and was almost like the North Tower had to go with it's twin in a way. But this in reality could indeed have indeed been the case if the one passenger on American Airlines Flight 11 who was trained to take down terrorists could have stopped their mission, or if United Airlines Flight 75 either collided with the Delta Flight it missed by a mere 300 feet, or had missed at least most of the building it was targeting, which nearly happened too.
If it missed most of the building, the plane would have fallen into another building or simply into the streets… A lot of people would have died either way unfortunately…
Rest in peace to those who died 🕊🤍 So sorry to their loved ones My respect goes out to them ❤ Thank you to those who tried saving Another life during this including firefighters, doctors , nurses, police officers 🕊🤍 Thank you to those who built the World Trade Center ❤, you are amazing
Even if World Trade Center 1 had to be deconstructed, it would’ve not collapsed. This means the debris which caused a fire would not have rained down on World Trade Center 7. So even after Tower 1 is taken apart and dismantled, Building 7 would be cleaned up, repaired, and back into service by 2002 most likely. Imagine today in 2023 the Modern Day World Trade Center with all of its blue glass skyscrapers, and instead of the new Building 7, the old one still stood. It would be the last bit of the original WTC. Would’ve probably made it quite popular. The Building that survived. Unfortunately the same can’t be said for the Marriot… though instead of being flattened to 2 shriveled up floors it would’ve been left split down the middle. There were some people who survived in there I believe, maybe some more people would survive. Still it would have to be taken down, perhaps a demolition would be possible due to its size, it was around 22 floors I think. The Bankers Trust would still be deconstructed due to the damage it received being entirely from Building 2. Also maybe World Trade Center 5 is in better shape. I still feel like it would be damaged, maybe slightly less. Though the whole site would just be cleared obviously.
If both one or both of the towers were damaged but did not collapse then they would have likely controlled demolished them regardless. For example, when the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was bombed on April 19, 1995 that was also an act of terror. Nevertheless they still demolished the building in a controlled setting after it was bombed and the debris cleared instead of rebuilding it in an act of defiance to terror.
United Airlines 175 (Hit South Tower)'s right wing sliced the right of the tower, not fully, but made it stand on one side, forcing balance on one side
The fires alone would have caused a dilemma on wether to keep the structure and clean it all out or dismantle the whole thing piece by piece. It’s not like an old water tower on some farm in Kansas where you can have a controlled demolition. I think a controlled demolition would be out of the question in lower Manhattan. I couldn’t get over the common L brackets connecting the floors to the core and to the exterior of the building. The truss flooring seemed ( looked ) inadequate to tie the heavy exterior to the core ( elevator shafts) I’m not a civil engineer and wish a member of Local 40 would chime in and would love to hear what they have to say about the construction of the towers.
Its not just an engineering issue: its a political issue. If 1WTC had survived, it would ave been a priority to conserve and rebuild it. However the complexity of dealing the the collapsed south tower AND conserving the North towner would have been an order of magnitude more difficult to achieve than clearing the entire site and repairing the retaining wall against the Hutson river. With half the underground area intact, less of the retaining wall would have been destabilised, but we simply don't know what the condition of the rail station would have been if only WTC2 had collapsed. Also, the condition of the smaller WTC buildings would have been. Building 7 would still collapse because WTC1 would have been evacuated and the entire area cleared of emergency personal for the first 72 hours, because of the risk of collapse, so the fire that destroyed building seven would have still happened. There would have been no searching the pile immediately after the collapse, so its likely that some of the people that were rescued early on would not have survived. Also the water mains that were broken would have continued to flood the underground section under building one until the mains to the entire block were isolated. This would have made assessing the damage to building one very difficult. Securing building one to prevent collapse would have been a unique challenge, unlike anything involved in the actual clearing of the site. I am not sure how or even if preventing collapse would have been possible. The problem is twofold. One: the internal fire damage extended the entire length of the building. If the top of the building had not collapsed, the building could still have collapsed later due to internal damage by fires lower down. Two: there would be no room for error demolishing the ruined top of build one. Any significant collapse during demolition of the top, could trigger a cascade failure of the entire building. The ruined top would first have to be secured before it could be demolished. All of that could only be achieve through the air. The only way I can see this happening is by tying exposed structural members with cables, filling gaps with foam plastic or pressurised bladders. De-bulking the top section of loose material would be especially difficult. Absorbing the energy of falling materials during the demolition process would have been key. Im not sure its possible, given that the ability of every part of the top structure to resist stress and hold its own weight, would always be an unknown. You cannot trust any peace of steel that’s been exposed to fire. I think the whole issue is well worth exploring because we may one day be forced to keep up a steel mega structure, that has been destroyed by fire. Like the USS Maine and the Normandy, both vessels had to be refloated and moved in one piece, before their eventual disposal was finalised.
The North Tower would probably also be Renamed to the Freedom Tower like the current WTC cuz there’s no point in it still being called North Tower if south tower is gone
Here's one What if both were hit at a angle exactly at the same point But I honestly think if it were to still stand they would have to do a heck of a lot of work. Anyway, all the jet feel that ran down the building that would be a pain in the rear end, especially taking the plane out that in itself would be a lot of work
I would love to see them copy the current one WTC. I think a simple boxy black WTC with glass would have been perfect. More like how the Willis Tower looks.
Most of the towers' weight was supported by their outer skins. Their collapse was only a matter of time since the skins were compromised. The fire heating and warping the steel sped up the process.
Suppose flight 11 attempted hitting the North Tower lobby, if 9/11 happened in Winter/Spring, if flight 175 hit the same way of the North Tower, if both planes hit almost the same moment, if one missed the building, were they truly fighting the fires??.
There's a lot of factors to consider but on the off chance that rngineers would declare the North Tower stable, especially considering what they just saw happen to its Twin, that there would be a national outcry to save the North Tower like never before. In my opinion they would have to build it stronger and safer to reassure the public so it would get a major overhaul and redesign. Possibly they would even enlarge the footprint, essentially building an exterior tower around the North Tower. Now that leaves the South Tower. I think many people would see it as sacred ground just as they do today and so I doubt that something commercial would be built over the site even if it was a replica or near replica. I'd imagine that there probably would be a second tower somewhere because of the outcry, but it would probably be shifted over to the east, further widening the gap between the North and South Towers. I would like to imagine that there would be a pool reflecting absence much as there is now in the original footprint as well as another dedicated museum and a memorial regarding the bombing. Personally I would also love to see the Freedom Tower as an extra middle finger to terrorists. I actually do like the design, (except for the very top with that oversized ring/pterodactyl nest around the antenna. Something a little more subtle I think would be more appropriate)... And then there's the issue of rebuilding the Marriott.
Honestly i agree it’d change a lot of history and the narrative of the world moving forward. Even if they’d rebuild the south tower to have a similar facade but update the interior which would be realistic since who’s gonna complain, the 2 buildings already look monolithic and now surviving an attack would bring it to that actual status of being a living monument.
M.I.T Grad over here - Field of expertise *ordnance handling expert* care to explain to me how 40,000 workers in the 2 towers never once witnessed (Plus the Port Authority Police in the North tower) or recalled anyone who looked suspicious of expertly planting explosives? go-ahead I'll wait for a reply or answer that will never come
6:06 pause here, and look at that model. See how the street slopes? That's why the north tower was exactly the same as the south tower toward the plaza (1,350 feet), but from ground to street, they varied (1,362, and 1,368). That 1,350 comes to the plaza, but the street values differ, look at that model in the paused video.
if they rebuild the towers, they could make them more castle like. At least have them at least 2001 ft, and have a giant gothic spire on the north tower 5-600ft. It would be similar to the spire on the Empire State Building, but gothic instead of art deco.
I was only 14 year old watching it happen live on the news from the UK at my mum's flat and seeing the two planes go into the twin towers, I still remember it like it was only yesterday, I just can't get my head around how they both collapsed almost to the ground floor when the impact was from way above😢🇬🇧
I’m confident that if the South Tower had not gotten hit, the fire department would not have abandoned the effort to put out the fire in the North Tower and would’ve gotten it done. The trusses and columns would have been cooled off and not warped and eventually gave way. The one that’s the big question is, had the South Tower gotten hit but it was up higher and thus lasted longer, would they have worked at the same speed to put out the North Tower, or would they still have been doomed by having to divide their forces?
As much as I hate the idea of demolishing perfectly good buildings because of the embedded carbon emissions that go into any building that mean you want it to stand for as long as possible; I still think they should have dismantled the north tower if it had stayed standing. 40 years newer technology for a building like that is massive in terms of energy efficiency and therefore emissions. And also in various other ways, there would be huge improvement. You also mentioned the 40 year old aesthetics, and the fact that it was designed to complement the other one. And I think if it was standing by itself, it would be probably an even more painful reminder to people (especially family of victims) than what is there now.
Even if somehow they were able to repair the north tower no company in the right mind would get office space in it. The tower would be basically vacant. They wouldn’t even think of saving it due to it not being worth it financially
I'd like to know what they would have done if there was only one successful plane hit and collapse. Meaning one tower was hit by a plane but the other wasn't. And then the one that was hit collapses and the other one doesn't. Other than the damage it would receive from the other tower falling, the one not hit by the plane would basically be just fine. No airplane damage etc. What would they do in that situation?
If the north tower only collapse down the the 91st floor and didn't pancake all the way down, the tower would very well need to be demolished given the degree of damage. The core actually stood for ~10-20 seconds after the rest of the building came down around it. So it could be possible that, if the plane struck just a few floors higher, only those top floors would have failed, piling on top of the lower floors
If you would ask me, in reality, who would like to stand and have an office every day on the floor 95 where the plane hit, or at the floor 102, 103 where a lot of people suffered and jumped, or they were burning to death. To walk on the stairs where a lot of people couldn't...
Knowing so much about the twins prior to that fateful day since I was studying architecture at the time, my heart sank and somehow, I just knew that the South would go once the North went (Identical design, plane speed and height hit notwithstanding).
If the North Tower survived, the original WTC 7 building would have survived as well, but when the North Tower fell it caused severe damage to the south side of WTC 7, it eventually collapsed not long after the North Tower.
Don’t forget about the fire damage.. that made it all the way down to the lobby from the elevator shafts from the jet fuel in the North Tower.. That alone would have been too much. The foundation is another thing. It would have been drastically offset from the lack of one building.
