More than likely they would have been fine as they were designed for it. The difference is, most accidental scenarios would be while the plane was trying to land, which means it would be traveling a LOT slower compared to 9/11 (about 180 MPH I've heard, compared to 400-500+), and much less fuel, therefore less physical damage and less fuel for fires. In all honesty, the buildings did a LOT better than they were designed for. As both buildings survived the initial impacts at the high speeds mentioned above, it was the fires that immediately followed which eventually brought them down.
It could have been an incident like the Japan Airlines plane where the tail broke off. The pilots could be trying to turn back, flying at a lower altitude because of depressurisation (admittedly not as low as buildings, the JAL plane hit Mount Fuji) and have very little control. You could still have a high-speed, fully-fueled impact in that scenario. The speed would come from the plane rapidly losing altitude, and the pilots maybe trying for a water landing near Liberty Island, but finally totally losing control right at the wrong moment.
This nearly happened in 1981. There was a flight coming into JFK from Argentina on a foggy night, and it was on a collision course with the south tower. The pilot was able to course correct in time.
Please do a video on how things would have been different if both towers had collapsed immediately after the plane impacts. There would have been several more thousand casualties for sure.
There was an incident back in the 80’s when a plane almost crashed into the north tower. I would’ve either hit the antenna or the upper floors. It would’ve withstood the crash since the plane was going around 200 mph.
You have some of the best informative content about the World Trade Center on CZcams. Do you think you can please do videos about the 92nd floor of the North Tower (that was one level below the impact zone but had no survivors) and the story of Stanley Praimnath and Brian Clark (who survived from the impact zone of the South Tower? Thank you and keep up the great work!
This is still a subject that interest me greatly on a daily basis. I have watched many videos, movies, commentaries, anything BUT conspiracy, I will NOT watch ANYTHING on that dealing with 9/11. Our government is vile and I distrust it greatly but I saw what I saw. I know people that were there and I went to ground zero less than a year after the attack. I was at the pentagon in March of 2001. Thank you for your videos.
If it was just an accident there is one alternate reality of it all. USA and Canadian citizens would still be able to visit each others country without a passport for another 20 years when the pandemic forced closures and extra documentation to be required.
i have a idea for another 9/11 video, what if the north tower fell first, like they still both fall, just reversed order, the marriot would be damaged differently, building 7 would fall still and overall events would be the same but the north tower could damage the south tower
If it was a private plane, Cessna or equivalent, it would not have collapsed. A 757/767 Airbus equivalent, nothing would change. The tower hit would collapse 😮
@@RedKnight-fn6jrat a lower speed the fuel would have been going slower too, therefore more of it would remain inside the building fuelling the fire, it wasn’t the airplanes that brought those buildings down it was the fire that followed, therefore a slower moving aircraft more of it would have remained inside the buildings fuelling the fire, faster speeds means more of the aircraft and fuel would pass through, therefore absolutely the outcome would be the same it would collapse, but with more fuel and aircraft parts remaining inside the towers fuelling the fires
@@ytzpilotIt was a combination of the fires AND impact damage. The impact severed numerous exterior columns and in the building core, which redistributed the weight to the remaining columns. The fire weakened the remaining columns which were already carrying all that extra weight, causing them to buckle. Also, in an accident scenario, not as much of the fireproofing would have been blown off the columns, allowing them to withstand the fires for far longer before softening. There's a reason the terrorists chose transcontinental flights and rammed them into the buildings at full speed.
@@dustinzilbauer7582 enough impact damage would have occurred even at slower speeds, but the biggest issues was the truss system failing from the heat, not the impact damage, when those trusses failed the building was doomed. Firemen have a saying ‘never trust a truss’
If it were an accident,the damage would have been much less.The plane would not have been full of fuel and going abnormaly fast.It might have just clipped the side of the building with the wing tip.These planes were intentionally aimed at the buildings,they were planed long distance flights because of size and fuel load.
I think all depends on the circumstances. If ithis would have been a "missed landing" situation there would be way less fuel in the plane and the speed would be also significantly lower. In this scenario even in the case of a wide body plane there's a chance that the tower does not collapse since both the initial damage and the fires would be way smaller. On the other hand - hundreds would die even in the "lightest" possible accident and who knows that even if the tower stays up can the damages repaired, would it be even economically reasonable.
if it was an accident then the plane would have been going a lot slower. meaning the damage inside won't be as bad most likely the towers would have stayed standing
Yes. I was a bit surprised he didn't take that into account in the video. Even if the same plane had hit the building, it would have been going much slower and with far less fuel probably. The damage would have been extensive, but far fewer deaths and most likely the building would have stayed up. I wonder if they would have been able to repair the damage or had razed the building. There's another video idea maybe.
Love your what ifs. I see a flaws in your premise on this scenario. I think the chance of the one tower collapsing would be decreased. If it was an accident, the planes speed would have been lowered. How much is tough to say. But that means impact force is less. Maybe be enough that the aluminum wings get pulverized upon initial impact meaning only the fuselage fully penetrated. Since speed is already lower, it wouldn't penetrate as far. Maybe the inner core gets damaged, but not as catastrophically. Maybe then the water lines could allow the sprinkler system to work, maybe reduced level but would help. Maybe the damage leaves a stairway for evacuation open. Since firefighters have less of a rescue operation (and only one building to fight fire in) fire suppression would be stronger. It also continues that less smoke, less heat, they may have been able for air support for the fire suppression. I'm not saying any of this would have happened, but just would make it unrealistic to assume it would have definitely collapsed. I would love to hear your take on the scenario of what if one plane hit by accident and the building survived.
It’s wild how well the Chrysler Building and the Empire State Building design have aged compared to the Twin Towers. They look old. But they are classic. They are old timey and have charm. A lot of the 1920s-40s industrial designs have been back in style anyway. But the Towers definitely became outdated really fast and that isn’t good for such a massive set of buildings. It makes me wonder how well the freedom tower will age and will it look silly 20 years from now.
What's silly is calling it the "Freedom Tower" (no offense, I know you didn't name it that). It's a completely cheesy and stupid nickname for the building thanks to George Bush throwing that term around after 9/11. Its real name is simply 1 World Trade Center.
MAJOR ISSUE with your hypothetical if it was an accident the plane would have been travelling probably at 180 to 200 mph (not over 440 MPH )and would have less damage and may not have penetrated the core and thus would not likely collapse
Back in 1975, an arsonist set a fire in the north tower I believe, it went on for 3 hours. Confined to 6 floors, but I can't find much info on it. Makes me wonder why
You’re from another reality where that happened, and several others from your reality slipped here, too. That’s why there’s so little to be found about it
@@worldcomicsreview354 from the little i gathered, he set fire to one of the floors and it spread, around midnight or so it started. There's really almost nothing about it
Hey Depressed Ginger have you ever seen the clip of the dude BASE jumping of the south tower in 1991. If not, look up ‘John Vincent BASE Jumper’. Would love to know your thoughts on the incident.
It honestly would have been a less scary day, when news got out that the pentagon was hit people knew it was an act of war and that anywhere in the USA wasn’t safe.
If many are wondering, why didn't the Empire States Building fall in 1945 if a C-10 Bomber hit it? If it survived... Why not the WTC Towers? Well... that is due to many reasons... The empire states building is made up mainly of brick (mostly) correct me if I'm wrong. On the other hand, the WTC was mostly glass (due to the 110 floors that each of the towers had) so if a Boeing 767 of the same proportions as the planes that destroyed the twin towers had crashed into the empire states building, its collapse would have been unlikely, since because it is made of more resistant material than the one it was made of The Twin Towers would have had to burn almost 5 times more than the north tower and the south tower combined for that building to be destroyed. (Correct me if I'm wrong) I searched up on google and empire states building is made most of steel
No 102-story skyscraper standing 1,250 ft (381m) in the sky is going to be made up mainly of brick… Skyscrapers are built out of steel, whether the Empire State Building or World Trade Center. The Empire State Building was built in 1930 using a traditional skyscraper design of a dense forest of steel columns and beams forming the skeleton of the structure, while the exterior walls were thin curtains for keeping out the whether and did not support the structure. The World Trade Center was built in 1970 using a novel design of a dense steel core in the centre of each tower surrounded by an open floor plan connecting by trusses to each of the steel exterior walls which created a self-supporting tube-like structure, without the need for internal support columns everywhere. Also the B-25 bomber that accidentally hit the Empire State Building in 1945 was much smaller and slower than that Boeing 767s that hit the Twin Towers.
If it was an accident those scenes of people trapped and falling would soon take on a whole new meaning. From "poor victims murdered by terrorists" they'd become "poor victims killed by poor design choices". The other tower would go from being an icon of New York to a reviled, unsafe deathtrap. Tenants would flood out, and workers would probably strike, refusing to even go in the "accident waiting to happen" building. Demolishing it would probably become a neccessity. Also the other tower collapsing likely did some serious damage to the foundations. Checking and repairing them while also keeping the tower standing would probably cost far more than knocking everything down and starting again.
I enjoyed this video. However, your suggestion sounds familiar to an event of a jumbo almost hitting one of the towers by accident back in 1981, here's the link so you can do a sort of sequel to your video of the topic if that accident did happened: czcams.com/video/1bxT3v2tUOY/video.html
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
More than likely they would have been fine as they were designed for it. The difference is, most accidental scenarios would be while the plane was trying to land, which means it would be traveling a LOT slower compared to 9/11 (about 180 MPH I've heard, compared to 400-500+), and much less fuel, therefore less physical damage and less fuel for fires.
In all honesty, the buildings did a LOT better than they were designed for. As both buildings survived the initial impacts at the high speeds mentioned above, it was the fires that immediately followed which eventually brought them down.
It could have been an incident like the Japan Airlines plane where the tail broke off. The pilots could be trying to turn back, flying at a lower altitude because of depressurisation (admittedly not as low as buildings, the JAL plane hit Mount Fuji) and have very little control. You could still have a high-speed, fully-fueled impact in that scenario. The speed would come from the plane rapidly losing altitude, and the pilots maybe trying for a water landing near Liberty Island, but finally totally losing control right at the wrong moment.
This nearly happened in 1981. There was a flight coming into JFK from Argentina on a foggy night, and it was on a collision course with the south tower. The pilot was able to course correct in time.
Think it was only 90 seconds from hitting the tower
I still can’t believe someone walked a tightrope between the two buildings.. js
Yea that guy is NUTS!! Rigged their own rope too that’s insanity
You guys didn't hear about that till now? It was trending since 2011-
@@quackzduckiezduckieduck500that guy did that in 1973..
@@theallseeingkats6321wasn't it 74?
@@theallseeingkats6321 i mean the stories about thim started going viral then.
Please do a video on how things would have been different if both towers had collapsed immediately after the plane impacts. There would have been several more thousand casualties for sure.
THIS!
Expected casualties would've been 20,000 to 25,000
There was an incident back in the 80’s when a plane almost crashed into the north tower. I would’ve either hit the antenna or the upper floors. It would’ve withstood the crash since the plane was going around 200 mph.
Yes
What happened? Why did it almost hit the North Tower?
@@nikitakuznetsov8446i think it was Lost In the fog
You have some of the best informative content about the World Trade Center on CZcams. Do you think you can please do videos about the 92nd floor of the North Tower (that was one level below the impact zone but had no survivors) and the story of Stanley Praimnath and Brian Clark (who survived from the impact zone of the South Tower? Thank you and keep up the great work!
This is still a subject that interest me greatly on a daily basis. I have watched many videos, movies, commentaries, anything BUT conspiracy, I will NOT watch ANYTHING on that dealing with 9/11. Our government is vile and I distrust it greatly but I saw what I saw. I know people that were there and I went to ground zero less than a year after the attack. I was at the pentagon in March of 2001. Thank you for your videos.
Are you familiar with the store of Aerolinas Argentinas flight 342 that was heading towards the North tower?
You should do what if the sears / Willis tower was hit
If it was just an accident there is one alternate reality of it all. USA and Canadian citizens would still be able to visit each others country without a passport for another 20 years when the pandemic forced closures and extra documentation to be required.
what if both accidentally hit the same one
i have a idea for another 9/11 video, what if the north tower fell first, like they still both fall, just reversed order, the marriot would be damaged differently, building 7 would fall still and overall events would be the same but the north tower could damage the south tower
If it was an accident the tower wasn't gonna collapse
If it was a private plane, Cessna or equivalent, it would not have collapsed. A 757/767 Airbus equivalent, nothing would change. The tower hit would collapse 😮
@@carmgitto Even at a lower speed with less fuel? Planes coming in to land would be the most likely to hit WTC by accident.
@@RedKnight-fn6jrat a lower speed the fuel would have been going slower too, therefore more of it would remain inside the building fuelling the fire, it wasn’t the airplanes that brought those buildings down it was the fire that followed, therefore a slower moving aircraft more of it would have remained inside the buildings fuelling the fire, faster speeds means more of the aircraft and fuel would pass through, therefore absolutely the outcome would be the same it would collapse, but with more fuel and aircraft parts remaining inside the towers fuelling the fires
@@ytzpilotIt was a combination of the fires AND impact damage. The impact severed numerous exterior columns and in the building core, which redistributed the weight to the remaining columns. The fire weakened the remaining columns which were already carrying all that extra weight, causing them to buckle. Also, in an accident scenario, not as much of the fireproofing would have been blown off the columns, allowing them to withstand the fires for far longer before softening. There's a reason the terrorists chose transcontinental flights and rammed them into the buildings at full speed.
@@dustinzilbauer7582 enough impact damage would have occurred even at slower speeds, but the biggest issues was the truss system failing from the heat, not the impact damage, when those trusses failed the building was doomed. Firemen have a saying ‘never trust a truss’
7:17 What is that in the sky, above the south-west corner of WTC2 South? A blemish in the photo, or a deflated balloon of some sort?
If it were an accident,the damage would have been much less.The plane would not have been full of fuel and going abnormaly fast.It might have just clipped the side of the building with the wing tip.These planes were intentionally aimed at the buildings,they were planed long distance flights because of size and fuel load.
“By” accident, not “on” accident.
If it were an accident, the towers wouldn't collapse!
these 9/11 videos are really great to watch such a horrible day i witnessed it first hand but it’s crazy to still think the towers are gone
I think all depends on the circumstances. If ithis would have been a "missed landing" situation there would be way less fuel in the plane and the speed would be also significantly lower. In this scenario even in the case of a wide body plane there's a chance that the tower does not collapse since both the initial damage and the fires would be way smaller. On the other hand - hundreds would die even in the "lightest" possible accident and who knows that even if the tower stays up can the damages repaired, would it be even economically reasonable.
The buildings were full of abesthos, they all needed rebuilding. Building's 4, 5 and 6 were totally crushed
Imagine if the person who walked on the tightrope between the towers died
the other tower would have not be destroyed. it wasn’t actually that old like the sears tower and the empire are still considered “modern” skyscrapers
What if twin towers were never attacked
if it was an accident then the plane would have been going a lot slower. meaning the damage inside won't be as bad most likely the towers would have stayed standing
Yes. I was a bit surprised he didn't take that into account in the video. Even if the same plane had hit the building, it would have been going much slower and with far less fuel probably. The damage would have been extensive, but far fewer deaths and most likely the building would have stayed up. I wonder if they would have been able to repair the damage or had razed the building. There's another video idea maybe.
The link to your Twitter is NOT in the description
X
Love your what ifs. I see a flaws in your premise on this scenario. I think the chance of the one tower collapsing would be decreased. If it was an accident, the planes speed would have been lowered. How much is tough to say. But that means impact force is less. Maybe be enough that the aluminum wings get pulverized upon initial impact meaning only the fuselage fully penetrated. Since speed is already lower, it wouldn't penetrate as far. Maybe the inner core gets damaged, but not as catastrophically. Maybe then the water lines could allow the sprinkler system to work, maybe reduced level but would help. Maybe the damage leaves a stairway for evacuation open. Since firefighters have less of a rescue operation (and only one building to fight fire in) fire suppression would be stronger. It also continues that less smoke, less heat, they may have been able for air support for the fire suppression. I'm not saying any of this would have happened, but just would make it unrealistic to assume it would have definitely collapsed.
I would love to hear your take on the scenario of what if one plane hit by accident and the building survived.
It’s wild how well the Chrysler Building and the Empire State Building design have aged compared to the Twin Towers. They look old. But they are classic. They are old timey and have charm. A lot of the 1920s-40s industrial designs have been back in style anyway. But the Towers definitely became outdated really fast and that isn’t good for such a massive set of buildings. It makes me wonder how well the freedom tower will age and will it look silly 20 years from now.
What's silly is calling it the "Freedom Tower" (no offense, I know you didn't name it that). It's a completely cheesy and stupid nickname for the building thanks to George Bush throwing that term around after 9/11. Its real name is simply 1 World Trade Center.
The Twin Towers only became outdated because they collapsed. The Chrysler Building and Empire State Building are still standing.
But the Empire State Building got hit by a plane as well and remained standing
@@christophergrimes12 way smaller plane with way less jet fuel.
It looks silly now. Just my opinion.
Have you done if it’s at night? Can’t see an airplane hitting it on accident it’s a tight clearance to line up to.
I think he has a video of that topic already, search his videos.
He's probably thinking of an impact similar to the 1945 Empire State Building incident.
MAJOR ISSUE with your hypothetical if it was an accident the plane would have been travelling probably at 180 to 200 mph (not over 440 MPH )and would have less damage and may not have penetrated the core and thus would not likely collapse
Back in 1975, an arsonist set a fire in the north tower I believe, it went on for 3 hours. Confined to 6 floors, but I can't find much info on it. Makes me wonder why
You’re from another reality where that happened, and several others from your reality slipped here, too. That’s why there’s so little to be found about it
6 entire floors burning? What did he use?
@@InimicalWit time to go watching alternate reality videos again. Really trippy to think about
@@worldcomicsreview354 from the little i gathered, he set fire to one of the floors and it spread, around midnight or so it started. There's really almost nothing about it
@@InimicalWit You just killed me! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
I wonder if the north tower fell how would the south tower look with the freedom tower by its side
Hey Depressed Ginger have you ever seen the clip of the dude BASE jumping of the south tower in 1991. If not, look up ‘John Vincent BASE Jumper’. Would love to know your thoughts on the incident.
Great video mate. What if all hijacked planes that day hit the towers?
It honestly would have been a less scary day, when news got out that the pentagon was hit people knew it was an act of war and that anywhere in the USA wasn’t safe.
*hello! I’m the freedom tower! I’m also known as one World Trade Center!*
my npc quote lol
If many are wondering, why didn't the Empire States Building fall in 1945 if a C-10 Bomber hit it? If it survived... Why not the WTC Towers? Well... that is due to many reasons... The empire states building is made up mainly of brick (mostly) correct me if I'm wrong. On the other hand, the WTC was mostly glass (due to the 110 floors that each of the towers had) so if a Boeing 767 of the same proportions as the planes that destroyed the twin towers had crashed into the empire states building, its collapse would have been unlikely, since because it is made of more resistant material than the one it was made of The Twin Towers would have had to burn almost 5 times more than the north tower and the south tower combined for that building to be destroyed.
(Correct me if I'm wrong)
I searched up on google and empire states building is made most of steel
No 102-story skyscraper standing 1,250 ft (381m) in the sky is going to be made up mainly of brick… Skyscrapers are built out of steel, whether the Empire State Building or World Trade Center. The Empire State Building was built in 1930 using a traditional skyscraper design of a dense forest of steel columns and beams forming the skeleton of the structure, while the exterior walls were thin curtains for keeping out the whether and did not support the structure. The World Trade Center was built in 1970 using a novel design of a dense steel core in the centre of each tower surrounded by an open floor plan connecting by trusses to each of the steel exterior walls which created a self-supporting tube-like structure, without the need for internal support columns everywhere. Also the B-25 bomber that accidentally hit the Empire State Building in 1945 was much smaller and slower than that Boeing 767s that hit the Twin Towers.
If it was an accident those scenes of people trapped and falling would soon take on a whole new meaning. From "poor victims murdered by terrorists" they'd become "poor victims killed by poor design choices". The other tower would go from being an icon of New York to a reviled, unsafe deathtrap. Tenants would flood out, and workers would probably strike, refusing to even go in the "accident waiting to happen" building. Demolishing it would probably become a neccessity.
Also the other tower collapsing likely did some serious damage to the foundations. Checking and repairing them while also keeping the tower standing would probably cost far more than knocking everything down and starting again.
I enjoyed this video. However, your suggestion sounds familiar to an event of a jumbo almost hitting one of the towers by accident back in 1981, here's the link so you can do a sort of sequel to your video of the topic if that accident did happened:
czcams.com/video/1bxT3v2tUOY/video.html
2:09 get pic of what NY would have looked like if 9/11 never happened, looks like a current photo with the towers still standing
**by accident. No debate
You'd still have ppl die from the collapse
If it collapsed. A slower plane means much less internal damage. Fewer columns knocked out.
I’ve never been pinned by a ginger before
FIRST
Could I have an invite to your Discord, please?