see, my thought process here is that what if the pandemic never happened because the world trade center never fell. Like, think about it. If they didn't fall, we probably wouldn't have gone THAT hard into our military ( at least not any harder than we already were). Debt wouldn't have been as bad, may the 08 recession would have never happened, the world is generally more peaceful, yata yatta yatta. What if it all somehow came back to one hell of a butterfly event. Unlikely, but its a non-zero possibility, since it could be an infinite number of them.
@@ThatweirduncleAlternative timeline is hard to predict in general. Maybe it’s possible in some timeline far away from our…we live in one of the worse timeline,but not literally the worst timeline ever. That would be a timeline where the White House was attacked in that very same day (that’s still not the worst case scenario but that’s just an example)
I've lived on Long Island my whole life. The sentiment of the towers being an eye sore, or useless was more in the late 60's to early 80's. By the time of the economic boom of the late 80's into the 90's the Twin Towers became an iconic part of NYC, symbolizing the strength of capitalism. If you look at NY sports merch from that era the WTC is featured heavily. The 2000 World Series had them featured, the Met's old score bord still has them on there. If people did not like them, they would not be symbolized as much.
i think with the adding of the WFC in the late 80s and the vista/marrott hotel kinda really helped the towers become less of an eye sore and more of an iconic symbol
THEY SHOULD HAVE REBUILT THEM RIGHT FROM THE START AND STILL SHOULD WITH THE FREEDOM TOWER RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE I NEVER LIKED THE FREEDOM TOWER I AGREE WITH U
@@DB-kl9bpThey kinda do though, as someone who never got to see the towers in person, I'd only ever really seen the towers from footage of that day, or as part of the skyline and I thought they just looked like two big gray boxes too. All of the pretty cool looking architectural features of the towers are sort of lost at that level. It was only when I saw like pictures of what the entrance to the buildings looked like before the disaster that I was like "oh that actually looks nice". I like the look of them at night time too, with lights on in the building. But it's totally an understandable joke, as most people would be seeing the towers from some distance with the bottom portion obscured. They would just see two big gray boxes.
People didn't like the towers in the 70s when they were finished, but by the mid to late 80s, the buildings had grown on most people (at least from what I've been told). They just became one with the city and people did end up appreciating them. I mean they were the tallest buildings in the world when they were completed and even when they were surpassed in the 80s, they were still an engineering marvel and were among the first of their kind
@lucah1824 people started to love the twin towers in the late 70s because they created jobs.. back then jobs were hard to come by.. much like today.. I cried my heart out to all the people who lost their lives that awful day in 2001.. i prayed for the loved ones who were grieving... even though I live in the UK it so touched my heart and still does to this day.. I will never forget.
They were very beautiful buildings. Ive always been very interested in them, although i never got to see them bc i was born afew months later. I didnt know they were the tallest buildings in the world at one point. They were the tallest buildings until 1973 or 74 when the sears tower was completed. The Empire state building was the tallest building in the world for about 40 years or so before the twin towers were built.
IMO the worst part of 9/11 is NOBODY should've died in the South Tower. They said they didn't want people outside with the falling debris from the North Tower. But they could've evacuated at the underground transit level. Still a huge mistake not to get people out of there.
@@benmangrum8626 This gets me so angry, because despite the bombing in '93, there was still no plan in place for anything like this. Those buildings have always been a target. So much better to have been safe and evacuate everyone out.
Even if they had fully evacuated the South Tower immediately after the North Tower was hit, it would have taken some time to get people out. Would they all have been below the impact site in time?
fact: in 2002 the world trade center was slated to get a full renovation to The concourse AKA The shopping Mall and subway station located in between both of the Tower's. it was to have a much modern and sleek look with even an expansion to add more shops and restaurants. construction was to begin around November 2001.
If I recall correctly one of the reasons why no one was able to get to the roof of either tower during 9/11 is that access to it was closed for initial repairs relating to this renovation process
i've heard that it was also planned to remove the asbestos in the towers with that project - the asbestos exposure killed the most people in the long run after 9/11
It's very interesting to consider what would have happened if the towers didn't collapse. Even all these years later it still seems so surreal that all of that happened. So incredibly sad.
As a kid commuting to Manhattan and seeing the Trade Center growing up, they were a very significant part of our NYC identity and was popular as an international landmark. It showed the strength of the US as a whole but also as an economic power what they represented to the Financial District and Downtown/Battery Park. Although built in the 70s it always had such a cool look to them and especially when we used to commute on a city bus over the bridge and see the sunset gleaming off of them. It was a very awesome look. I didn't get the same vibe with the Freedom Tower but understand why they didn't go with a design that was too similar in concept to the original WTC. Although if you asked the late teenage me at the time some of us did want that design to be updated to show our enemies that we wouldn't back down some even wanted them to be one floor taller as a "middle finger" towards Al Queda. That's why a lot of concepts being proposed were "two large towers" even if not the same heights initially.
My first memory of standing near a tall building was standing next to the WTC in 1997. I remember it clearly because it didn't look tall at all standing next to it looking up, and secondly, it was a weird building because it didn't have any real defined "point" at the corner but had the corners cut off. When the attacks happened I was in a different state so it all seemed far removed. What didn't get removed was the TSA and how that absolutely made me hate air travel. I remember walking up to the gate back in 1998 waiting to pick up friends. They can call it the freedom tower but we don't have "freedom" anymore.
I remember eating fish and fried oysters with my cousins at the windows of the world restaurant on the 107th floor of the north tower, when I was 6 and a half years old, my oldest cousin was 21 and interning at a tech company back home in Omaha, Nebraska but got to visit there for a couple days and a lot of us family went. November 17, 2000. The view I thought was amazing and then we did the view on the 110th floor sky observation deck in the south building later that afternoon. One of my best childhood memories
Your comment actually gave me an idea for what they could have done if they had rebuilt the Twin Towers, though they would have had to employ the same reinforcements they used for building the Freedom Tower to better resist a hypothetical repeat of 9/11. They could have built a sky bridge as an escalator from the Windows on the World on the 107th floor of the North Tower to the observation deck on the roof of the South Tower like they did with the Umeda Sky Building in Osaka, Japan, alongside two level sky bridges at the two sky lobbies on the 44th and 78th floors for tenant use. Though, I think being on a transparent escalator 1,300 feet above street level would be horrifying, especially going back downstairs and being that much more able to see just how high up you really are. As a 9/11 memorial, being able to see just how high up they are would also force the passenger to viscerally appreciate how long of a fall the victims who decided to jump faced, knowing full well that they were going to die on impact at close to terminal velocity.
I went to New York in June 2000 for my 10th birthday, and I was with my mom, my best friend, and his mom. We went inside the lobby of one of the towers, but for reasons I can't remember, we decided not to go up, thinking there's always next time or something like that. I'll always regret not going up the towers, but at least I've been in one (plus I did go up the Empire State so there's that).
My dad had an office in Manhattan at the time, thought not in the Twin Towers. We had gone up to the observation deck with the family a few month before 9/11. I was 4 years old at the time and do not remember much of it.
The towers were designed to fall straight down in case of something horrific happening. The architects were not thinking of planes but more in the line of earthquakes, or hurricane. The thought was if one of them start to lean and fall over it would cause major damage to several city blocks, and killing alot more people.
@@aaronlovell6026 yes, this is true. They weren't built to withstand planes of the 2000s. I also speculate that the design probably still wouldn't have withstood the planes from the 70s.. or at least ones not fully loaded with jet fuel.
@@Jay-gf8tm you may be correct, I don't know. But, I can tell you I'm an architect, and the generation that the towers were built, is alot like this generation of computers. By the time it's planed, drawn out, and built, it's already out of date.
@@aaronlovell6026 interesting, I'm no architect, I am in construction, and can see how that is true, besides for obvious advances in technology, lessons learned from the past, etc. In your opinion, knowing what you know, do you think a 70s era plane would've taken the towers down? I think that because they were fully loaded with fuel, it didn't really matter the type of typical domestic plane (not a Cessna or 747) that went through it. The floor design had a flaw that made it collapse after the steel was weakened.
Ive never thought about the "what if the towers never fell" scenario. Wow, an interesting thought. Thanks for giving me this to chew on. I wonder, if they had survived, if the top third of each building might have been carefully dismantled and the overall height of each would have topped out at around the 78th floors. I could also imagine some kind of walkways placed between the skydecks of each building to aid in emergency evacuation. And what about insuring those buildings after such an attack. It would have been at a phenomenal cost. Lots to think about here. You're the kind of guy I think I could sit and have long interesting talks with! Thanks for something interesting on YT.
If the towers never collapsed, hundreds would have still died. The victims on the planes would still have died, the people in the immediate impact zones. The people trapped above would likely have died from the smoke long before firefighters would have reached them. If they reached them. If anyone on the top floors of the north tower didn't die from smoke, they may have been trapped for days without water. Even if the buildings didn't collapse, they would very likely have to be demolished because of the damage.
By the time the towers fell, most New Yorkers had grown to love them. They also served as landmarks. You could often tell where you were in lower Manhattan simply by looking up at the giant twin sentinels. One stood 1,368 ft tall and the other 1,362 ft. They briefly held the title of the world’s tallest buildings until Chicago’s Sears Tower reached 1,450 ft in height. Originally, Sears was said to be 1,454 ft tall but that measurement was not taken from the building’s main entrance.
Im not even american and for me, the twins were a image of the US economic ita also show the impressive architecture of USA compared to other countries backthen
If the twin towers were left standing after the plane attacks, many more would've survived given time to evacuate, but the cost of repair and insurance risks of reopening would've been daunting. Plus, the big question is who would want to enter the buildings or even work in them after such a cataclysmic event? Like others have said, I think they would've been dismantled anyways. I visited the 9/11 memorial last June and the freedom tower looked incredible.
The death toll in the North Tower probably would not have been substantially lower had it not collapsed. As the building was burning occupants trapped above the impact zone made hundreds of calls to 911 and to family members. These calls had almost entirely ceased some time before the collapse, making it evident that nearly all the occupants were dead by then. On a similar note, there were very few if any calls from people with offices on the two or three floors directly affected by the impact, almost certainly because the occupants didn't survive the impact.
9/11 is already one of the biggest and costliest insurance claim in history, i'm not sure what you mean by the cost of repair and insurance risk of opening, the insurance claim is worse if the tower did fell as it happened and yes there will be a lot of people remain to work after a cataclysmic events, as it already bombed multiple times prior to 9/11 and one obvious example is the pentagon which also suffered the same plane attack but remains standing despite major damages to its wing, also taj mahal hotel suffered a major and deadly terror attack and people still stay in the hotel, charlie hebdo is also a company that suffered the more famous terror attack and remains operational despite moving to other location for its obvious safety reasons, had it still stand and survive the attacks i think given the examples i provided above (plus the fact the twin towers were already bombed or threatened multiple times) the decision to dismantle would be in the hands of the architects that evaluates the worthiness and safety of the building as dismantling the twin towers would equally as costly as suffering such attack
There's video with a translation on the subtitle that states that Bin Laden had thought it was likely that the floors that were hit by the planes could collapse, but he didn't expect the whole building to collapse.
Those buildings were heavily damaged all the way to the ground floor. What you don't see during any of the 9/11 footage is that the buildings swayed to the point where people just below impact, thought that the building was going to fall over. There would be no way they could be repaired or kept in place as some sort of memorial.
@alexcortez3357 except the video from the crew following a group of firefighters into tower 1. The glass to the lobby was all blown out, and the marble walls were mangled. Don't forget the stories from the people that were in the buildings when they were hit.
@@scottg9855 blown out glass doesnt prove the overall structure was compromised. You realize just the decibels of screaming jet engines can break glass from flying too low. again people have STORIES but the evidence left behind to back those claims up is non existant
They would still have to be demolished as the structure of both towers were significantly compromised, especially the south tower as it was hit sideways which caused a huge shift in weight to the impacted side. It would be too dangerous for salvage. In fact, the south tower would have collapsed no matter any attempt being made to save it.
No, it would not have collapsed. Not without explosives. Even if the floors above the impact were ready to collapse, they would not cause the far more remaining INTACT floors below to disintegrate instantaneously and burst into dust. Jet fuel or collapsing floors don't cause cement and steel to explode. Use your eyes, use your brains. I'm sorry if it's all too scary for you to believe..... it should be scary.
How would a controlled demolition take place with such a massive structure and a population that dense? It seems like it would have a similar outcome to what happened on 9/11.
You know, I never thought about what if the towers had not fallen after they fell, like ever until now. BUT, I never thought about them falling before 9/11 or even in that day or the week before having lunch at the foot of the towers in the courtyard area. Would have never thought those buildings would be gone exactly 8 days later. I’m so glad I did get to at least see them in person one last time. 😢
For me personally, I loved the Twin Towers from the beginning (My beginning of when I first acknowledged them. They were built before my time). As a UK Citizen, I've always wanted to travel to the states and the Twin Towers was one of the big reasons why I wanted to visit along with other landmarks in New York and the states in general. But on that awful day when the towers collapsed, my heart sank and this put me off visiting the states for a short while. However my love for the Twin Towers grew even more when they were gone as I always wanted to visit them but didn't have the money to fly to New York at the time (Also I was only 19 on that awful day). Obviously none of us thought the Twin Towers would be gone before September 11th 2001. Recently I've been getting back into subject of The Twin Towers and I love them now more than ever, even though they've been gone for 22 years now. Although we have the One World Trade Center which too is a fascinating building and one day hope to visit, the Twin Towers will always have a special place in my heart. I'd like to thank you for releasing such interesting videos based on the Twin Towers, it's really appreciated. I learn more about them everyday. Rest in peace to all those who died on September 11th 2001 🙏
Personally, one tower instead of two feels like such a "settle for less" decision and serves as a sign that we never fully recovered as a nation. The new tower just doesn't hold a candle to the originals.
My mom used to work for an american company that held anual conventions for their international employees back in the 90s. She traveled from Mexico City to NYC in 1997 for one of those, and the company held a fancy dinner and ball on the Windows on the World restaurant that was located on the North Tower on the 107th floor. She remembers how impressive the towers were, she says that to reach the restaurant you had to take two elevators that moved super fast. She told me the view and the restaurant was incredible it almost felt like a movie scene. It makes me think about how some of the staff that day probably still worked there on 9/11, RIP to all the victims and their families
I really don’t think they would’ve demolished the towers if they survived the attacks. Such an option would be genuinely unpopular with the public, as it would be seen as a victory for the terrorists. To take it down with a controlled demolition would cause damage to neighboring buildings like what we saw in the original timeline. It would’ve been best to have the towers undergo extensive repairs before they can open up again, sometime as early as around the summer of 2003. The Marriott hotel as well as buildings 4, 5, 6, and 7 would still be open to keep the complex functioning, and a memorial would be built in dedication to the victims of the attacks. If the attacks never happened, the WTC would still undergo renovations, with an expansion of the mall in 2002 (renamed Westfield Shopping-Town World Trade Center) and a refurbishment of the Windows on the World restaurant in 2003-04. Indeed, there would still be an attack against America if 9/11 had been foiled, but I feel as though news of the foiled plot would catch the attention of George W. Bush, and airport security would still have to be enforced to ensure no plane hijackings take place, therefore the terrorists would have to resort to the attacking America the old-fashioned way, using bombs. You would’ve seen a series of bombings in many parts of cities across the US, and it would most likely happen on the night of the 2004 Presidential election or the 2006 Midterm election. Over 500 people would die as a result, not as many as 2,977 on 9/11, but it is still a serious event regardless.
They took on Too much damage. If you watch the French brothers documentary the lobby had foundational damage, and survivor accounts recount that the stairwells had massive damage were railings had come off supports and large cracks were running along the walls. At best the towers would have been taken down floor by floor until well below the strike zones and then the buildings would have been stripped to their foundations to look at any unseen damage. At that amount of money, it’s always less expensive to just demolish. I think if they had not fallen over but instead had to be demolished, most people would have been ok to rebuild them (updated of course).
that is the more logical and makes sense to me, had the twin tower stood, the best thing USA can do is to ensure the publicity how the battle-scarred tower survived the terror attack and becomes a rallying point
Not really they would have removed the aluminium exterior to expose the beams so they can add a huge 30 story metal beam for the North and for the south 60 floors and would have removed every column 20 floors of the impact zone and then add new columns new floors and then dismantel the huge beams that were supporting
Unpopular with the public maybe, but if they are in a precarious state and in danger of collapse (or things regularly falling off) then demolish is the only real option. I personally think they would have been demolished.
I think the most likely renovation would be that the space hit by planes would not be occupied any more, it would be the museum and memorial in the sky, load bearing structures are on the outside and the core, it could be repaired in a way that left those floor space without decking, so it could be memorial park up there on the crash sites, imagine those holes having tree and bushes visible from the outside, would be the best compromise of keeping the towers up and respecting the victims. When the lighting condition is right, we would see almost transparent voids on those floors, but overall, it would still retained its silhouette in most time of the day.
What’s what I was thinking, the floors where the planes hit would be turned into museums and not used as office space anymore. That would be fair and righteous. Going up there and pay tribute and respect to the life’s that parished on that horrible day.
When I was watching the coverage on that day, I remember thinking a very similar thing about how this would be resolved. Neither of the towers had fallen yet, so as far as I knew at the time, the fires may well have eventually burned out, and the structures would remain upright. Of course that didn’t happen. But I wondered what WAS going to happen. I wondered if the type of structured demolition of the buildings mentioned in this video would take place. I never saw it as an issue of “letting the terrorists win.” I believed then, and now that it was primarily a safety issue.
This is an interesting take. I have never thought about "what if the towers never fell". A lot more people would've survived. Always interesting to think "what if".
what if they scrambled the jet fighters ? instead of sending them all to do training in Canada ? What if the '' terrorist '' couldnt actually take control of the cabin just with box cutters ?? what if the defense system at the Pentagon worked ? what if we stop believing all the BS they told us ? that make zero sense and just makes you feel more comfortable.....
*What if the Twin Towers NEVER fell?* You have *NO* idea how much I wish that was the case. In fact, I wish the events of 9/11/2001 had *NEVER* happened at all...that it would just be another day. 😢
Exactly. The date September 11th is always gonna bring those disgusting memories back, even after all these years my mind immediately turns to those thoughts. I had a medical appointment on September 11th just past and both of us started talking about 9/11. That date is forever tainted. Maybe younger generations won't go through this, they don't seem the smartest anyways.
People forget that the Empire State Building was also quite unpopular when completed and was mostly empty for quite some time after completion. That’s not the case anymore. The same goes for the twin towers, when they were destroyed these buildings were powerful symbols of capitalism and economic might. A lot of people DID like them when they were destroyed.
Even if the Twins never collapsed, they would have had to be deconstructed due to the damage and then rebuilt. AA 11 and UA 175 did a lot of damage to the Towers internally and obviously externally. The fire also damaged the steel allowing the floor trusses to pull away from the load bearing exterior columns.
I worked in the North Tower and was there when it and the South Tower both collapsed. When compared to its next door neighbor the World Financial Center, the WTC felt crude and outdated. At times, I mentioned to my colleagues that I preferred the WFC as my place of employment instead of the WTC. Given the tragedy of 9/11, I would gladly eat my words if it meant saving all those innocent lives.
The WTC was a very futurist, brutalist, internationalist post-war early '60s design whereas the World Financial Center embraced the warmer aesthetic that was budding by the end of the '70s and early '80s. 7WTC tried to adopt this warmer aesthetic which is why it looked so out of place next to the other WTC buildings. Even the WTC interiors got an update to be warmer, first with the Marriott Hotel renovations after the bombing, then Windows on the World, and finally the PATH hall and outdoor plaza itself right before 9/11. Westfield had plans to modify the mall yet further that had to wait until the rebuilding. The new WTC in some ways marks a return to that icy cold aura that the towers had in the '70s, but even colder. The buildings themselves, the new mall concourse, all feel like a perennial winter tundra: all silvers and whites.
@@anastege11 I don't understand what the issue is? People with a history of working at the old world trade center are bound to visit videos like this out of interest.
The buildings would’ve simply been dismantled over the next decade. My question is: what would’ve happened if Flight 175 never hit the South Tower due to a failed hijacking attempt. The South Tower would still be there, but it would’ve still been heavily damaged from the fallen North Tower
Actually more likely Flight 175 would have been shot down by the Air Force just before impact leaving the FDNY to focus on just the tower that was hit by Flight 11. They could have put out the fire and only deconstructed the top portion of the building and maybe rebuilt the top with something better.
United 175 came perilously (if that’s the right word) close to colliding with another Delta aircraft on its way to Manhattan, less than 300ft separation. Your question was very nearly answered in reality. Absolutely infuriating how lucky the hijackers got at every turn, however having said that who’s to say there wouldn’t have been more lives lost if they’d crashed along the way? There wouldn’t have been the heads up that the North Tower was structurally unsound, evacuation could have taken place a lot slower and also trapped people in the South Tower.
@@nickcockayne7880 Yeah, you can listen to the air traffic controllers having a conniption while following 175. I'd agree about the hijackers getting all of the breaks, but at the same time, we weren't prepared for an event like this. Back then a hijacking meant a free ride to I don't know, Cuba or somewhere and you'd eventually be ransomed. Look at how the 1st responders set up their command posts right at the base of the towers. It just didn't occur to anyone how bad shit was about to get.
I'm more curious what if flight 11 didn't. 11 and 93 were supposed to depart at similar times, but 93 got delayed, leading to the passengers learning about the plot and deciding to fight back. I wonder what would have happened had 93 left on time and 11 was delayed
@@redkite121Then 93 would have successfully hit the capitol building or the white house. THAT would have changed everything. The image of the burning capitol building would have been the defining image of the day and the US Government response would have been even more extreme.
My biggest grip with the original World Trade Center was the extremely terrible emergency staircases and their structuring. Those staircases should’ve been far bigger and wider which would’ve saved a lot more lives on 9/11. However, it would be interested if the Towers were still around in 2023.
Rest in peace to those who died So sorry to their loved ones My respect goes out to them 🤍🕊 Thank u to those who tried to help another life during this 🤍🕊
The smoke engulfing the top floors still had toxic amounts of carcinogens like mercury, arsenic, led, dioxins, asbestos. Etc Being inside the building would be dangerous. The impact of the hit also impacted the entire foundation of the building it’d be nearly impossible to fumigate and repair to the point of it ever realistically being rehabilitated.
@@willisapril How would they even go about demolition without toppling the towers? All of Manhattan would have to be evacuated as even collapsing a few floors incrementally would cause the building to collapse unable to bear the weight.
Not at all, the areas below the plane impact were relatively undamaged. Just need full inspection by engineers to determine if they would remain sound. Engineers can figure out how to rebuild, and the towers were insured against terrorism, so the funds would've been available. If they didn't collapse they would still be there.
@Jay-gf… I’m a structural engineer. I’m sorry, but you’re completely wrong. The amount of structural damage that occurred would have been beyond the scope of safety or repair. And the entire area surrounding the buildings would have been unsafe to inhabit for months. The entire core of the building was ripped out on both of them. It’s a miracle they stayed up as long as they did.
You are wrong about the Newyorkers' sentiment towards the towers. Negative sentiment back when they were built - yes, but even then it was partial. A lot of people loved to go to the, back then undeveloped, Battery park city which was a big sandy surface next to the buildings. There was a lot of art. Even a wheat field and huge beach with an amazing view. Citizens grew to love the towers quite fast. You are also wrong when you say they would be obsolete. They had open floor plans and lowered ceilings and were extremely customizable. The pandemic did not affect other skyscrapers and it wouldn't affect these, either. That one picture of the interior you found is just one large office with cubicles, not representative of the overall composition in 2001. Also, why on earth would anyone redo the facades? They WERE glass. Steel box columns clad in shiny aluminium, with windows in between. The design is historically important and works wonderfully. They did not look like two concrete blocks. Fully glass clad buildings are never like in renderings. They are always nontransparent for a reason (privacy, sunlight and heat management) and look generic, dull, uninventive. I think you researched the subject matter poorly.
Yes there were extremely customizable however they never reached the 100% occupancy, and were leased because they were doing poorly and the port authorities needed money
The main problem here was the fire. When you have a fire that intense at those heights, how do you put it out? They didn't even try to put it out on 9/11. What was the end game going to be if the towers hadn't fallen so quickly? Were they just hoping it would burn itself out?
They really didn't fall quickly. They showed remarkable resistance to an event where strongly damaged structure gets engulfed in a multistorey fire at one point in time. Kerosene burned off in less than ten minutes or so, and office combustibles continued to burn afterwards, heating the thinwalled box columns resisting now increased weight loads. For an evens so terribly outside design parameters, these two buildings performed remarkably well. Some firefighters probably had doubts about the buildings standing, but were under such adrenaline to think it through. They did have to know this is a type of fire so large in surface and so poorly accessible that firefighting was out of the question. Nobody in their right mind thought anything other than letting it burn off would be considered as a plan.
@@lajoswinkler I'm not criticizing the buildings, except for the unusually small number of emergency staircases. This was an unimaginable event for sure. But, if the towers falling like that had been so predictable, why was everyone, including FDNY, caught so off guard?
If the towers hadn't fell, 9/11 basically would've been similar to the '93 bombing event, but with more casualties and the buildings would've been closed longer for repairs, if they wouldn't be torn down. And the Plaza Base would probably be a memorial since there was already a small memorial there for the 6 victims of the '93 bombing.
Look, the firefighters did what they were trained to do and they went to put out a “fire”. They knew they weren’t coming back so rip and my respect to them and family but the towers were built basically with the trusses, like revolutionary 1970’s create more office space with core of building in the center, shitty design for 2001 but in 70’s it was seen as an achievement.
As a native New Yorker who isn't old enough to remember the city before the Twin Towers,I found them useful for getting around downtown,south of 14th Street. I used to use them as a compass of sorts to make sure I was heading in the right direction. As for the buildings themselves,they were one of my favorite places to go to in the entire city,and were THE landmark of the city. Sure,we have the Empire State Building,Citicorp,the Flatiron Building,etc,but no buildings said "New York" to me like the Twin Towers. I was even disappointed when I found out they were only building one. I honestly wanted to see two more modern versions as a show of defiance and resilience. As for conspiracy theories, I'm not sure what to believe,but it wouldn't surprise me if Bush LET 9/11 happen to justify invading Afghanistan and Iraq. People also talk about seeing explosions on the floors below just before the buildings collapsed. This video has me thinking, maybe charges were put there long before 9/11,in the event that WTC was attacked again,to minimize damage to the surrounding areas if the buildings werent salvageable. Of course,none of that matters now
I'm fairly certain that even if the fires were put out quickly those building would still collapse. They probably would've stood throughout the day and just collapsed overnight.
I think the towers would have been repaired. While it seems like an impossible task, certainly there's engineering that could make it happen. They can raise large ships from miles below the surface of the ocean...certainly they could have stabilized the buildings and made repairs. I'm sure the federal government would throw any amount of money to see that it happened too. However, if they determined they couldn't be repaired, they either would have torn them down to the site of the impacts and left the buildings shorter, or they would have disassembled them piece by piece with a crane; I don't think a controlled demolition would have been practical given the size of the buildings and the amount of buildings nearby.
The repair process would probably still be going today. The base of the building was even affected from the impact with multiple floors crushed and reduced to rubble sitting at the base. From the impact area all the way down multiple levels were burned and destroyed. The air inside would be unbreathable. The floors wouldn't be safe to step on and roofs you wouldnt know what is safe to walk under because it could collapse at any moment. The roofing, walls, floors, elevators, stairs, and electrical would need to be replaced on every floor. And the whole thing would just be a nightmare to work on a leaning twisted building with floors as stable as thin ice 100s of ft in the air with no windows. I dont think many construction workers would be willing to risk it. Also cant forget that the building would probably be closed for investigation for up to 5 years + before the rebuild process. In the end it'd probably cost 30× the amount of money and 30× the time repair both towers than to just build a new modernized tower from the ground up
I think the buildings would have HAD to come down regardless of whether they collapsed or not. The raging fires would have weakened the structure to the point that it was no longer safe.
The architects actually planned for if a plane hit the towers but back then planes were a lot smaller so nothing much would have happened back then. RIP to all the victims. :(
I went in the south tower in 1981 86th floor to register my business in the dept of Taxation and Finance and I was never so nervous being that building .i couldn't wait till got to back down the lobby ! RIP FIIRST RESPONDERS Employees , American and foreign visitors ..
I think sky scrapers is what makes your city skyline beautiful and picturesque. I live in Toronto Canada and driving into The city especially during the night makes you proud that your part of the city. I spent a few months in the Bronx and i remember driving into the city and The Towers were the first thing i saw from a far enough distance. New York even now is one city I always recommend as a place you should visit. There is no other city like New York in The world and like i mentioned before im from Toronto The biggest city in Canada.
I thought he said in a video he thought once the plans went in that the buildings would come crashing down. The idea of them standing, burning and then collapsing didn’t even go through their head while planning the attacks.
Osama Bin Laden? Apparently he thought only the floors above the plane would fall off so he was pleasantly surprised when the whole buildings came down.
Would have been a HUGE engineering challenge to repair the impact and fire damage, but likely doable with the willingness of Port Authority and the public. Still potentially easier than pulling them down. I can sort of see the support scaffolding thing with char marks and impact holes though if they kept standing. Maybe FDNY eventually puts out those fires once their crews reached the fires by attaching hoses just below the impact. That would have likely saved first responders lives from the collapses, and maybe a few people above the impact. But of course, what if, what if, interesting to think about though. And if the office towers remained empty at least the observation deck and Windows of the World may have still been around
I remember this day here in Brazil, I arrived home from school and my mother was watching a news channel talking live about this attack and showing the towers and shortly after they collapsed, the strangest thing is that they seem to have exploded, doesn't it seem like that they fell because of the collision of the planes....
IF THE TOWERS DIDN'T FALL; You have to keep in mind that about 7 floors below the impact areas on down in both towers were intact. They would have been able to be repaired. The new World Trade Tower would never have been built. Instead, all that money would have been used to repair and restore the Twin Towers, and there most likely would have been a Marble Stone Memorial in the lobby area on the wall of each tower with the names of the victims that died relative to each tower.
"intact" is a loose word, doors were jammed as low as the 22nd floor from the building absorbing the impact of the planes, the marble in the lobby was cracked which I'm sure meant at least some of the lower structure had been affected
I like the twin towers design when it was made in the 70’s it stands out from other cites in other states , now that it’s looks completely different because the twin towers are no longer there, it just looks like any other cities , just plain , unrecognizable to me I don’t know just my opinion!!!!
They would probably take apart the top parts (above impact zone) and rebuild them from just below impact zone to top. They would also probably have a memorial with the names of victims on the observatory deck of tower 2 and the restaurant of tower 1 (if they would ever re-open it)
I've thought this a lot. What if only one tower fell? Would they have demolished the other because of damage? Leave it standing alone? Would they have reconstructed the one that was lost? What if the fourth plane had hit Congress or the White House? So many what if scenarios and surprisingly, it could have been much worse. Had they hit the towers 2 hours later, a lot more people would have been there.
They could shorten the towers down to where the core is no longer damaged. Would end up with a complex of differing height. 75 floor south tower and 90 floor north tower. The 3rd tower would still be built and would have created a complex of 3 towers each 15 floors taller than the next
Ask anyone who has worked in construction, they'll tell you that fire and the contamination from smoke damage destroys EVERYTHING in a building. Everything at or above the impact floors would have had to have been demolished and scrapped. Since the buildings were mostly made of prefabricated pieces, it would likely have been dismantled piece by piece in the reverse of how they were constructed. As for the floors below, it's difficult to say if they could have been saved. There were small fires started in other parts of the buildings, and a lot of interior cosmetic damage like cracked walls and severed stair railings. The end result likely would have been two shorter and modernized twin towers.
@@ssg9offical To me it doesn't matter if they stayed or not, they had to be taken down. If they had been rebuilt and reoccupied, something would've happened again. They had to build a more sturdy tower like the 1 WTC.
@@Bbouy1HD I’m just saying If flight 11 missed the North Tower due to people finding out about the hijacker’s that would’ve changed history and the North Tower would survive but the south tower would be hit regardless.
Never found so many people that agree with me that tower 2 was hit in the worst spot and it was doomed and the other one was hit in a better spot. Sure it still went down but there's was a better chance of saving it
2:05 those are the moving support structures they work the same as when the new confinement for the old confinement. They use each floor as a support then drill a hole into the floor and attach a support block. Then the very strong long hydraulic piston pushes down on the support block. Next the lock’s release. Then they do the same with the support block but for the locks. Next the locks lock on to the support lock block. Finally the old support lock blocks and old support blocks get removed and the drill section is repaired and filled. Wow engineer is such a beautiful invention. Also this what inspired the company to use this for building the new Chernobyl containment build to go over the old Chernobyl containment building for the damaged block four.
I kinda agree with you but not quite on other things. Yeah, some people might of or did hate the buildings just because the way the looked etc, but you left out the part where on the flip side, others loved those structures. What some folks don’t realize the magnificent and marvelous marvels these two structures where. The architecture was unbelievable. Lots of people fail to realize or admire that and they where not ugly. The first time I saw them I thought they looked amazing. Fun fact, I’m not a New Yorker, not from there and never been there and never saw the towers in person. Lol but I can admire there beauty from a far, in pictures etc…. It’s common sense and logical right.. To me, if they where still standing till this day, I think they would be even more admired, probably still in some kind of in service status, not abandoned or demolished or non of that. The whole area just like today would be a historical place, museum and office space etc. maybe some people just like today would be frightened to go back to the site but even if the towers where still standing, others won’t be afraid to go there especially this generation lol because if people where all afraid, they won’t even step foot onto the the memorial site today. That logical in a way but that my take on this.
Exactly, there's adults today in the military that weren't even born on 9/11 so these newer generations wouldn't have any problems going to work in the Twin Towers if they were still standing.
4:34 There's a building in the Netherlands called Amare that looks exactly like this, in terms of the columns and height. Look it up, it's unbelievably similar. The architects claim they weren't aware of the similarities and it was all coincidence, but that's clearly a lie if you see the similarity.
Honestly I think it would be a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If there hadn't been enormous loss of life, perhaps they could have rebuilt and stood again for something. But the fact that thousands of people perished, it would just be a continuous sad reminder and friends and family of loved ones of the lost would not hold it in a positive light and would probably proposition for them to be brought down and a memorial built. There were a number of models with resembled structures of the tridents and replica facias that looked really cool, but again, the loss of life factor really changed the appearance of them. It's hard to know what the right thing would have been with a remaining structure.
Even though I am not from New York City, I am going to try to echo some of the comments made about your sentiment at 0:39. That was much more the sentiment from 1968 when above-ground work began on the Twin Towers through the early 1980s, with many tabloids quoting opinions such as being the Amazon Prime boxes the Empire State and Chrysler Towers were shipped in. And while structurally, there may be some truth to those sentiments, it would be the understatement of the millennium to say that the Twin Towers grew on us; so much so that they will be mourned for centuries if not millennia yet to come. Even 22 years later, we continue to mourn the loss of the Twin Towers and the nearly 3,000 people who lost their lives there that fateful Tuesday morning.
All I can say is that having lived in NY from 99 to 06 the towers were absolutely landmarks by the 90s in TV, film and just as a general way to orient yourself in the city. They were my reference point from my apartment in the West Village until that fateful day. I worked in Midtown so I watched it unfold from our south facing conference room until the second plane hit and we then evacuated our building 100 Park Ave. I will carry it with me until my dying days. It was a horrible day and I miss the old WTC.
That first image is very powerful of what could have been. Unfortunately the structural system relied too much on the outer structure. Once it was punctured, it was only a matter of time.
In the year 2023, 25% of Americans never got to see the Towers stand. That's why this feeling of the towers exist today. They were the heart and soul of NY and America overall. The twin towers represented the economic might and the dream of what democracy can achieve. I'm a lifelong Nyer. On 9/11, i mounred for the buildings. I couldn't accept the life lost and the way it ended for many.
I saw them in Aug 2000, went inside, up to the observation floor, walked outside and up higher. Was so cool seeing the other tower right across the way. Regret not taking pictures. Never thought was last time I'd see them
@@chrism3784 I have some great pics of the towers. Some from a circle line cruise past them and the Statue of Liberty. I'm glad you got to experience them. There's nothing to compare them to in this century. The freedom tower is soulesss and the skyline will never be the same. It's sad. I also have pics from ground zero over the years.
The twin towers became a landmark before the attack, I also do think New Yorkers had grown to love those 2 towers over time. I wish I had the opportunity to go back into the Twin Towers.
Had they not fallen, they would have been demolished and likely something similar to what we have now would have been built. Silverstein (the lease holder for the WTC site) was paying $1M/month, a fee he was liable for after the attacks as well, even as the site was a smouldering ruin. Given this, the incentive to get something rebuilt as quickly as possible was there. Had they not fallen, I can't help but wonder what horrors we all might have witnessed as the towers continued to burn. All those trapped above impact in the north tower would still have died, only without collapse death would have taken much longer. Conversely, perhaps nearly all those killed in the south tower collapse could have made a successful evacuation if allowed enough time. Basically, I think the north tower would have been a prolonged scene of horror as we all sat helplessly watching ~1000 people either jump or burn alive. [Side note: had they stood, it is likely the voice recorder boxes from the aircraft would have been recovered, which would have been really interesting].
Actually it was 10 million a month. They have the lease agreement on google somewhere. I read it. He made that payment every month even during the reconstruction. Over 11 years that's 1 billion 320 million dollars. He got 4 billion in insurance payout but his group has spent almost 7 Billion in rebuilding. Puts them nearly 4 billion in the hole in 2011. They expect to be in the black by 2030. Larry is 92 now so he won't see it go profitable but he knows he saved his city.
The Sears Tower now Willis in Chicago is amazing. The Main Plaza of the Tower has some of the best Restaurants in Chicago. Rick Bayless has a Restaurant there. Besides the Restaurants, they could have converted them into High Rise Condos like the John Hancock Tower.
In all likelihood, they would've been demolished anyway. Not only would there have been a stigma around the buildings after 2 attacks, but there's also the damage aspect. The North Tower alone had its central core severed almost completely. All the stairwells were cut off which resulted in it created the highest approximate death toll that day. The South Tower was worse as it was hit at an angle. When you watch playback of it collapsing, you can actually see it topple over sideways at the start. So this really becomes more of a definite reality as it would've cost millions, if not more, just to reinforce and repair both buildings from potentially collapsing. Plus you have to consider the cost of renovating the buildings with updated fire code regulations that would've come post-attack. You have to remember that the buildings were built with asbestos for fire-proofing. Hundreds, if not more, people contracted illnesses after 9/11 because they breathed the dust from the collapse. The overwhelming financial figures just wouldn't come close to being feasible to rebuild the towers as they were or demolish and rebuild identical ones. Unfortunately no matter how you look at it, it's a losing situation.
It is just absolutely stunning that there was anyone even in the South Tower after the North got hit. The WTC had a history of being targeted by terrorists. There were bombs that exploded back in 1993. The fact that many people were told to go back in and get to work is just unforgivable.
Biggest question is what if the terrorists knew the buildings could collapse? Had that been the case they would’ve focused on hitting the floors in 50s rather than 80s and 90s. The buildings would’ve fell within 25 minutes and the death toll would’ve been over 20,000
They were not skilled enough in flying large passenger jets to be able to pick and choose where they would hit. Al Shehhi very nearly missed the building completely in UA175 and struck the corner. Ironically though his impact caused the building to collapse quicker than Atta’s more central strike. They were basically aiming to hit the buildings full stop rather than pick where. That was outside of their abilities and possibly anyone’s at the speed they were going at.
I think they would have still pulled them down in respect of victims or the other option would have been to turn those floors where the planes hit into memorials and then the other floors would still be offices
even if the Twin Towers weren't demolished, the South Tower looks like it would've inevitably collapsed at some point the image with the support structure shows that the portion of WTC 2 above the impact zone is slightly leaning to the left (which could be a result of just poor cropping) could lead to an interesting future nontheless
The Woodrow Wilson School of International Affairs at Princeton University was designed by the same architect who designed Twin Towers. It's a white building that looks like the bottom part of the towers. It has those same long narrow arches. I always thought it looked like the towers even before I knew it designed by the same guy.
A controlled demolition would have run the risk of the towers tipping sideways and taking several other buildings with it. These other buildings would have been evacuated but even if it just heavily damaged them they too would have to be brought down as well. From a demolition standpoint the way the steel structure was heated fairly evenly the towers both fell perfectly, a slight tilt from above where the planes hit but they went down about as well as you could hope for if it were a controlled demolition.
I don’t know. Are controlled demo like explosives even allowed to be used in New York? Maybe in the case of emergencies. Buildings can be dismantled floor by floor with backhoes and heavy machines. The courthouse in my city was demolished this way in about a month. That was 13 stories. That’s what my guess would be but I could be wrong.
I always think of them as coming straight down, and it's taken many viewings online to 'get it straight' that they were leaning at the tops just before collapse, then came down before they could possibly topple sideways. Incredible event.
@@dennett73mk In the case of sky scrapers they are designed to last a couple hundred years or more so they know that it will be someone else's problem when it needs to come down. In New York City there were many sky scrapers built within a few decades of each other so many of them will hit the end of their useful life at around the same time and it will be a bit chaotic.
I remember thinking it will be interesting to see the footage of the damage from inside and looking out onto the city from the gaping hole in the side once the got the fires out.
Not many remember but,a real estate guy from Queens wanted to build the towers right back but stronger.He had a model built within a month and they looked beautiful . I remember seeing the model in a photo and thought it was a great idea.I wish that would have happened instead of what is currently there.
@@AnthraciteHorrorStories wdym vanilla? the originals are textbook vanilla lol theyre giant cement rectangles with no unique defining characteristics from a distance
*Thanks for this... Often wondered how they'd be repaired... Despite the naysayers in this thread, they could have been salvaged, even if it required demolishing large amounts*
First off, I gotta say as a person who is a fan of the original, I love this video man. You definitely got my subscription. Second of alI, i definitely agree with your idea that the new world trade center should’ve been twin towers, but clad in glass and still geometrically the same. It’s too perfect of an idea! The fact that they didn’t go with that is almost appalling to me. Hell even Donald Trump/ Kenneth Gardners idea of “Twin towers 2” would’ve been worth it. I feel like it was just too iconic in the skyline to not be replaced similarly, and I’ll stand by that.
I could c the towers being repaired, just like the Empire State Building was back in 1945. Sure it would’ve been more expensive but it would’ve been possible.
Interesting video. I always wondered what their fate would have been if not for the collapse. An article I read recently said the Port Authority couldn’t devise a plan to remove asbestos from the two towers. It would have been an expensive, labor-intensive process, so I doubt they would still be used today, due to the carcinogenetic risk. Who knows? All questions that will never be answered.
The entire towers weren't filled with asbestos. They had only used it to fire proof up to a certain amount of floors before they had to stop using it. If the towers remained standing and they truly wanted to keep those beauties then they could have done the work to remove the asbestos.
@@leeriches8841do you have any idea how large of an undertaking that would’ve been? Source: I own a historic home covered in asbestos & leads paint. My little home could kill someone if they decided to go poke around and create airborn particles
Asbestos isn't dangerous if left undisturbed. The problem is when it was used in floor tiles or other products that would receive daily wear and tear. Most cases of asbestos-generated cancer were in workers removing asbestos before proper safety gear was known to be needed for such work. If the buildings were kept in good repair, the asbestos could have been left there for years to come.
@@c.j.nyssen6987 Asbestos wasn’t just used on the fireproofing, but in the North Tower’s cement mixture up to the 38th floor. It couldn’t be contained, as elevator cables hit against it daily. When both towers fell, 400 tons of asbestos entered the toxic plume.
@@kittymaya4615 Just saw your comment, and you’re exactly right. In the early ‘80’s, my junior high school took the entire summer to remove asbestos. Remember riding by it, and it literally looked like they were removing E.T., hazmat suits and white plastic covering the windows…basically anyplace where an ion could escape. Not the “easy fix” most people think it is, plus it’s not cheap, either!
Everyone I watched with on TV was expecting the top part above where they were hit to fall over. We were expecting by the end of the day to see buildings with the top missing and bottom 2/3rds still standing. Couldn't believe it when we watched both buildings come completely down.
Born and raised in N Y when I was a kid, I was at the Dedication of Towers in 1974. I loved the NYC skyline and was crushed on 9/11. Those people are Super Heroes! Fortunately I have not been there since they were standing. I saw it constantly too when living there. So that is my memory
The exteriors of the towers could not be altered as they carried the weight of the building. The towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707. And survived the impact of the 7678's. What brought them down was the heat from the fire. The structure used the core and the exterior to bear the weight with floor trussed used to link them and help with weight transfer. The impacts damaged the fireproofing of the floor joist, so the heat weakened the steel until it lost its tensile strength. Then the floor joists failed, which cause the remaining structures to become loaded beyond their designed strength. That's when the buildings failed.
I was thinking about this recently. If the buildings had somehow survived the attack, they would have had to undergo a multimillion dollar reconstruction process. Due to their unique structure, they would be demolished down to the damaged floors and rebuilt to their original heights. A series of tower cranes would need to be built to dismantle the top floors of the buildings, and would then most likely be used in the reconstruction process. They would be closed during this process until they are deemed structurally safe. The buildings owners would use this opportunity to thoroughly modernize the buildings, with new lighting, internet cables, electric, plumbing and hvac. Due to the design, they wouldnt have changed much, but they probably would have become more energy efficient and modernized. The steel reinforcment structure used in those renderings would have been absolutely ineffective, if anything, the structure would have been installed around the openings in the structure to help disperse the load around the parts of the building that are missing or weakened. It would have been an engineering feat. There would absolutely never have been a controlled demolition of these buildings if the intention was to take them down. The city doesnt allow it because of the damage it would cause to underground utilities. When a building is taken down in NYC, it undergoes a very careful dismantling process where it is literally taken apart piece by piece. A famous example of this would be the Deutsche Bank building which was damaged on 9/11 and deemed unsafe, or the more recent 270 Park Avenue which was taken down to make way for an even bigger building.
There's literally a video of 2 men talking about that as they're filming the first tower burning. One says 'will they have to implode it?' Other guys says 'you can't even implode, you have to dismantle it bit by bit.' And the second he finishes saying that the 2nd tower is hit.
@@leeriches8841 I thought it was a well known fact that NYC doesnt do implosions. This isnt Vegas, theres stuff underground here, nevermind the fact that the buildings are close together and the city is packed with people.
If the towers never fell it would be too unsafe to get back into the building without the chance of the building falling down from the layers of floors that were burned. They would have to demolish the building anyway.
As someone who worked in an office for 6 years and has been working at home the past 3, I can honesty say that I am so much more productive at home. There are a few reasons: 1. No commute. I can wake up, eat breakfast, take a shower and get dressed for the day, and simply pop open my laptop and start my day at the same time I would be driving to work. 2. Less sick days. If im sick, I can shut my curtains, wrap up in a blanket, and still work. Also, I don't have kids, but all of my coworkers did, and they were always bringing stuff in, that their kids picked up at school. Colds, strep throat, stomach bugs, etc. - it was rough. 3. Like i said, I have no kids, so I have next to zero distractions at home. My dog may need to go out and my cat might cough up a hairball, but that's about it. No loud coworkers or people stopping by my desk to talk (which, i do miss sometimes, but it did eat away at my productivity). 4. If i want coffee or have to go to the bathroom, there is no line that i have to stand in, for who knows how long. Just my experience, i kind of wanted to share. Thank you for this video, because I found myself asking these what ifs, but no one to discuss it with. Seeing this video was very interesting.
Technically, you could possibly repair them but I think the damage would have been too great and the cost to repair them probably wouldn’t be worth it. To repair you’d likely have to strip the buildings from the top to the damaged area. That’s where you would then decide if it’s worth it. Which I doubt it would be. This is only the exterior. The interior would have suffered significant damage. Cracked stairwells and walls. The impact from the planes would have compromised the inside as well. So in my opinion it would have been cheaper to take them down. You could tear them down floor by floor, a controlled demolition would still cause a dust storm.
yeah. I don't see how anyone would be willing to go back in those twin towers and work there after that, even if they could salvage both towers. Not to mention the structures would be soo heavily damaged that you would have to remove anything above where the planes hit.
I disagree, the attack would've still united the country and the general feel of the population would've been "they can't break us or our spirit." The companies who lost it's employees would sponsor a memorial, and the floors that took the direct hit from the plane turned into memorial/museums in each building. Not to mention that many of the people working there had very high paying jobs. If those buildings were still there today, they would be full of workers just like before.
@@Jay-gf8tm How do you know if they would have or not? You don't. Fact is no one knows what would have happened. all you can do is speculate what might have happened.
