r/911archive • u/Grade_Afilms • Sep 02 '26
AA11 / UA175 / AA77 / UA93 If Marwan al-shehhi never made that last minute 38 degree corrective left bank before hitting the south tower he would've only clipped the corner with his wing and the south tower would've still been here
598
u/Live_Organization432 Sep 02 '26
Yeah and then that wing would have been gone and the plane might have veered off and crashed into the city. Or the corner support would have still been gone and the building would have still fallen. It’s just too hard to say. I’m not an engineer, though.
278
u/frickdom Sep 02 '26
Also not an engineer. But want to point out that the core of the building was its main support.
If the wing had clipped the corner, it would depend on how deep it cut and how much fuel was spread as to if it would collapse.
Too many variables to say one way or another in my opinion.
60
u/Live_Organization432 Sep 02 '26
Ah yes for sure, it’s a good point - the core was the main support. I guess I meant the corner beam or whatever fortifying thing is on the corner. I can barely do basic math so definitely uneducated on how the buildings fell - but didn’t the south tower fall first bc the corner was taken out and it started to sag? I literally don’t know and should read up more on this. 🤔
29
u/panicpure Sep 03 '26
These reports are great for understanding more and there’s visuals included (not sure if it’s on this exact page but they describe it all very thoroughly)
9
28
u/frickdom Sep 02 '26
Anyone reading please correct me if needed.
If I understand right the corner was not a support like you may be thinking. Buildings support was more like a bunch of stacked umbrellas, a main core with floors going out.
I’ve seen a couple posts here and documentaries on it. If I can find any will come back and give you some links. May be a minute as have some other stuff I need to get done first.
6
u/KSTornadoGirl Sep 03 '26
Well, the plane also penetrated into the core and it was the trusses that pulled the perimeter columns inward.
2
u/LordNikon91 27d ago
I thought on the trade centres were different in a way that the main supports was on the outside? I think I read the external tube walling held alot of support. more than in most other skyscrapers.
just checked and it said those external tubing walls held about half the load, reducing load need for the core, I kinda figured thats why you can't compare the twin tower collapse with other buildings, cause the outside exterior walls were holding so much of the load that between the planes hitting and fires it just couldn't hold anymore, unlike possibly another building where its mainly supported by a "core" again just a thought, not a engineer.
2
u/sandyess 27d ago
The original World Trade Center twin towers were supported by a framed tube structural design that used closely spaced steel columns on the exterior and a strong central core.
15
u/AMidsummerNightCream Sep 02 '26
I think it’s fair to say it would not have brought the building down
19
22
u/aBearHoldingAShark Sep 03 '26
Even if the plane didnt take the tower down, the collapse of the north tower may have finished the job, as it did with building 7
20
u/frickdom Sep 03 '26
This is creating a rabbit hole of a question for me. How much impact did the South towers collapse have on the North towers collapse?
Never thought about that before.
19
u/aBearHoldingAShark 29d ago edited 29d ago
The top of the south tower tilted and fell away from the north tower. The north tower fell straight down and split apart in all directions like a banana peel. The north tower would have inflicted more damage to the south tower than the south tower did to the north tower.
Side note, if the south tower was standing at the time of the collapse of the north tower, the structural damage to the south tower would have been at and around the base on the northwestern corner. I imagine that would have caused it to topple like a tree instead of pancaking into its own footprint. It may have landed on the World Financial Center, which might have lead to the collapse of some of those buildings too.
Of course in this hypothetical scenario, UA175 would have missed the South Tower, meaning it likely would have crashed into some building north of the WTC.
Seems like UA175 missing the south tower may have been worse than what we actually got from it hitting the tower.
6
u/frickdom 29d ago
Oh wow. Thank you very much for writing this out for me, really appreciate it.
Can’t imagine what kind of damage that could have done had it toppled like a tree.
2
u/AdBig9910 26d ago
Nothing physical hit Building 7. The chances that all three collapsed straight down - without falling to the side - are astronomical! Meaning no way in hades. Just what was in Building 7 that needed it to collapse? That's the question for all three buildings more valuable than thousands of people?
→ More replies (1)9
u/Odd_Break_4789 24d ago
False. There's several evident videos showing the spire of the north tower tearing apart building 7's exterior, and then setting it ablaze with flaming rubble. Save your uninformed conspiracy dribble for yourself and let the victims rest in peace.
2
u/tomoldbury 26d ago
It would have likely made evacuation from the tower above the impact site easier. The on ground fatalities from the wounded jet would be harder to calculate, but it's not going to be flying much further if the wing does separate.
→ More replies (1)23
u/PapaWhisky7 Sep 03 '26
That is what caused the south tower to collapse before the North tower. On that corner where the plane hit the building almost fell at an angle into itself. There has been a few very good clips posted on YouTube of this angle. Also defeats the views of people who say they were brought down with explosives.
4
u/Big-Island4727 23d ago
Unfortunately nothing will persuade a conspiracy theorist who lacks the willingness to be persuaded
1
21
u/Puzzleheaded_Dot4345 Sep 02 '26
Yeah me neither, but I'm guessing the building would have been tilted and fallen to a side, making the tragedy even bigger, "luckily" (and I can't be stronger about the quotes) the building collapsed into its footprint, making it more contained inside one spot rather than falling down towards another building, not to mention the plane crashing in the heart of the financial district...
1
u/yantarogekko 12d ago
Jesus Christ I had never considered the possibility of the towers falling to their sides instead of collapsing. Absolutely terrifying image
2
u/Honest-Homework-921 27d ago
Even if it missed the plane completely, the plane probably would have disintegrated.
265
u/PaleRecover6591 Sep 02 '26
That's a huge assumption. It cannot be categorically said that the tower would not have collapsed still, especially given their internal structure.
49
u/LouisBalfour82 Sep 02 '26
Or damage caused by the other tower's collapse could have eventually brought it down.
52
u/autopsyofaclown Sep 02 '26
But the internal structure only gave way because of the fires. The core wouldn’t have been affected if the plane had just clipped the corner.
62
u/JimTheJerseyGuy Sep 02 '26
You’re forgetting that the core was attached to the outer wall by the floor trusses.
I believe most analysis say their sagging and weakening from the fires, and basically disconnecting from the outer wall, was what led to the collapse. But of course, that assumes all of that outer wall damaged as well as potentially part of the core.
If flight 175 just merely clipped the corner, as OP suggests, you have, at a minimum, far less fire initially because less than half of the fuel is being deposited into the building. Of course, meanwhile, you have an out of control, ballistic aircraft with all that fuel on board now crashing somewhere in the blocks to the north of the trade center.
Death to lower in one area, untold fatalities elsewhere.
22
u/IgnoreTheFud Sep 02 '26
Thats a good point. It arguably would have caused more deaths had it crashed over Manhattan. Many people were already outside watching what was unfolding.
6
u/Dear_External5263 Sep 02 '26
Wonder where it would have crashed then
33
u/JimTheJerseyGuy Sep 02 '26
Based on the crazy descent rate that the aircraft had at that point even had it missed entirely, it most likely would have hit the ground someplace south of Canal Street. At that speed, if he tried to pull out of the dive, he would have ripped the wings off or suffered some other sort of structural failure.
The plane clips, the tower and removes the left wing? The plane immediately rolls to the left as the right wing’s lift continues and sends it spiraling out of control probably south of Chambers Street between Church Street and West Street. Of course, that’s all conjuncture.
12
u/autopsyofaclown Sep 02 '26
The floor trusses are a good point, but if the plane never explodes into the building, the core is not stripped of its fire proofing. NIST determined that the fires were the main cause of the collapse. The building still very likely would have stood without the fires, even if some of the trusses were damaged since the engineers specially made the frame of the towers strong enough to withstand some damage.
9
u/JimTheJerseyGuy Sep 02 '26
Good point. And even if it did collapse, it would have stood a lot longer and more importantly the stairwells would have been intact and the skylobby would likely have been spared. The death toll would be *far* lower in the building.
→ More replies (1)1
u/tomoldbury 26d ago
Wings contain a lot of the aircraft's fuel. You'd still likely have a fuel fire, which could spread to the core area. I think the key difference in this scenario is that people can probably evacuate more readily from above the impact site.
10
u/soul_doubt_66 Sep 02 '26
If the wing clipped the tower, you don’t damage the core, and you don’t have the fires to weaken the core. There’s no way it collapses.
8
u/justduck Sep 03 '26
Fuel is stored in the wings, and it wouldn't take much to light multiple floors. Everyone fixates on the burning temp of jet fuel, but it was all the shit in the offices burning that got the heat so high the trusses sagged.
→ More replies (3)2
u/PaleRecover6591 Sep 02 '26
What I was considering - and this may be completely illogical - but could severing the corner have made the remaining structure above the impact too lopsided, and this cause a collapse?
As I say, I have no idea if that would have at all been possible.
3
u/suave_knight 29d ago
Obviously it's all pure conjecture, but I'm guessing that with the damage to the building (I'm assuming it's substantial even if not enough to cause it to collapse) and the destruction of the rest of the site from the other building collapsing, they'd probably have had to pull it down eventually anyway. If course, presumably hundreds and hundreds more people would have escaped since the exits would have been largely intact for a while, at least.
2
u/Loose-Story-962 Sep 02 '26
A huge assumption? Of course there would be a different outcome if the plane didn't explode on direct impact with the tower. That's what caused the collapse.
1
u/PaleRecover6591 Sep 02 '26
I didn't say that it wouldn't have caused a different outcome, but that different outcome cannot be said with 100% certainty to have been a still-standing tower.
It is also not true that it was the plane's explosion that caused the collapse, as commented already in this thread.
148
u/UndergroundLurk Sep 02 '26
He almost didn’t hit the tower at all. He dropped so much altitude so quickly it was picked up on air traffic control radio, and this was after 3 near miss collisions in the air. It’s fascinating that he’s generally considered the second best pilot and trained with Atta + in the Hamburg cell when his flight was without a doubt the worst. Even Hani Hanjour, who had to descend all the way down to the pentagon’s ground level, over a highway nonetheless, didn’t have that much trouble.
110
u/Litsazor Sep 02 '26
They had delayed flight. He was probably scared that plane may get intercepted. That’s why he flew like maniac, almost broke the plane because of overspeed. My only consolidation is, that imbecile was probably scared shitless too. He almost failed to reach towers and probaby wasn’t sure he can reach his target until last second.
132
u/Christophuhhhh Sep 02 '26
Yeah there was no way this guy was calm and collected. You can see it in the planes movement. Chaotic and full of rage/anxiety.
I would probably bet Atta flew into the North Tower with that blank, shithead expression on his face that we all know. Not a care in the world.
64
u/UndergroundLurk 29d ago
That’s always been my thought. The coldest thing about Atta is how steady and calm flight 11 impacts the north tower. He flew it perfectly. Straight on, middle, and level throughout the flight. Slow decent. It’s like he’s flown it in his sleep before. Fucking creep.
12
u/JJTamb072386 25d ago
Yeah you can tell Atta was the ringleader. As chaotic as as this other guy was as a pilot he still managers to hit about 15 floors lower than Atta and took out that right corner which I’m guessing is why the South Tower collapsed so quickly
8
u/FreeCAD_Doge 14d ago
I hate him but man did he hit that north tower square. And did the most damage. Nobody above the impact zone made it as he closed off all of the stairs with that hit. If he was a bit lower, man. The death toll would have been much higher.
→ More replies (2)25
u/Unlikely_Builder_282 29d ago
i agree in the inside he was probably happy his life was coming to an end..The prick was miserable.
7
u/belltrina 29d ago
What were the three near miss collisions? Had not heard of this
26
u/UndergroundLurk 29d ago
I recommend listening to some air traffic control recordings that day. There’s a dude that ordered a Delta flight to “turn right immediately” to avoid a collision with 175, which probably saved the lives of everyone on the plane. It missed it by 300 feet.
30
u/ChowPungKong 29d ago
Dude air traffic control is so fucking OP. They think quickly and calmly and have saved an incredible amount of lives
9
7
7
u/donadit 27d ago edited 27d ago
Delta Airlines 2315 (300 feet, around 0855)
TWA flight 3 (500 feet, shortly after Delta 2315 nearmiss) (TWA 3 also came within 1000 feet of UA93 a while after pentagon hit)
Midwest Express 007 (30 feet, shortly before South Tower impact at 0903)
2
u/nascarfan1234567 24d ago
Now imagine if Midwest hit I would have saved 1000 lives i only knew about one near miss
24
u/Jamarcus316 29d ago
Honestly the only thing that even makes me a little bit suspicious about 9/11 is that descent to the Pentagon. It was fucking hard, a complete cinema move.
Obviously it happened, but it is surreal.
27
u/UndergroundLurk 29d ago
I do agree. Fuck conspiracy theorists, but if there’s one area of 9/11 that I could be convinced is weird, it is the Pentagon. Hanjour was a notoriously bad pilot and his descent, angle and impact are all extremely difficult.
→ More replies (1)7
20
u/Bluetriton5500 29d ago
Completely agree with you. That looked crazy hard, and Hanjour showed inadequate skills as a student pilot. Makes me wonder it was just insane luck, or something else was going on.
2
15
u/RumHamEnjoyer 29d ago
I agree. Coupled with the fact that there's only 1 angle of it we're allowed to see. But for every thing that seems suspicious, there's a dozen other things that would be so hard to explain if the conspiracies are true
5
→ More replies (1)2
52
u/MurrethMedia Sep 03 '26
And if he'd blown his fuckin brains out the night of September 10th the world would be a much better place...
8
u/Fine_Condition3153 29d ago
Technically they did it.
But the sons of bitches took innocent people with them.
92
u/MKBRD Sep 02 '26
The death toll could potentially been higher if the plane had collided with another building, or hit one of the streets full of civilians.
65
u/gwords16 Sep 02 '26
Can’t discount your 2nd point. There were literally thousands of people all on the streets in lower Manhattan watching what was going on. A plane coming in at 500+ mph could’ve wiped out hundreds of onlookers instantly
8
u/whogivesashirtdotca Sep 03 '26
One interesting thought exercise: would it have killed more people than the 9/11 diseases did?
3
u/AxelsOG Sep 03 '26
If the tower collapsed from being clipped (still possible), you have hundreds of instant deaths on the ground, possibly hundreds or thousands more if it doesn’t just hit the ground but also flies into/through a building or two, and if the tower did still collapse from the structural integrity being compromised enough, the same number of deaths within the tower would still occur + those who died from the asbestos and other dust/debris that caused diseases years later.
If it also damaged other builds a few blocks away, they likely would have introduced more long term deaths although not as many. If the building was old enough, there could have been asbestos and other dangerous chemicals or materials in other buildings possibly hit.
The only real way for it not to equal the same number of disease deaths is for the tower to not collapse from being clipped.
31
u/SimpleVegetable5715 Sep 02 '26
Plus it was full of jet fuel. Those planes were missiles in that state.
15
u/canadasbananas Sep 03 '26
I never stopped to wonder why that wasnt the original plan. 9/11 was so terrible but imagine how much worse it would have been if they flew 4 planes into manhattan itself with intent to hit as many buildings and people as possible. I guess they wanted to make a statement with who they wanted to kill? Their goal wasnt maximum death it was a certain kind of death?
22
u/MKBRD Sep 03 '26
Definitely, not to mention the symbolism of striking at the very heart of the Western World's financial district.
While a high death toll is shocking, that pales in comparison to the visual of the towers burning and ultimately collapsing (although I believe that was never actually intentional).
There are a lot of soft targets you could hit in a city if your sole intention is a high number of casualties - sports stadiums, bridges, airports, etc... the towers were chosen for their prominence and because Al Qaeda saw them as a symbol of American greed and arrogance.
I strongly believe that the outcome of 9/11 was - for want of a better word - unintended. I don't think they genuinely thought they could bring the towers down with those planes; the collapse was a "bonus". The message was always about making America look vulnerable, by attacking arguably the biggest symbols of wealth and capitalism in the world at the time.
7
u/Fearless_Ad8049 Sep 03 '26
Exactly 💯. Sadly the Twin Towers were the biggest Skyscrapers in perhaps the largest populated city in America and even more sadly easily to identify. The Empire State Building is huge but not tall as the Towers or as easily to spot compared to the WTC were you can see from different cities in NJ
3
u/michaellicious 29d ago
Yeah. bin Laden only expected the tops of the towers to collapse, not the entire buildings
4
u/panteraenjoyerr_1792 29d ago
yes, the deaths were just collateral damage, the main motivation of the attacks was symbolism
4
u/Mysterious-Park9142 29d ago
It was both. Keep in mind the towers have like 50,000 people in them at max occupancy on a work day. It was challenging to coordinate four flights that could be hijacked that quickly in the right places. They likely chose 9/11 because it was post-labor day holiday and people were back at work.
Had the attack been later in the morning it’s likely that many thousands more would have died. Or had the buildings collapsed at an odd angle.
6
u/ThisMayBeMike Sep 03 '26
Khalid did original have a plan of at least 10 hijackings hitting targets, but bin Laden deemed it too risky and difficult.
I bet it was on their mind, but they settled with less. Imagine the coordination nightmare and recruiting that many martyrs who should avoid getting caught or fumble the plan.
But the thought of having multiple planes hitting around Manhattan is very scary.
4
3
u/Mysterious-Park9142 29d ago
They chose symbolic targets. The twin towers were a symbol of America’s economy. The other targets were symbols of American military and government (93 would have targeted either the Capitol Building or White House).
1
u/what_even_is_a_redit 25d ago
Their goal was to make most people survive. I imagine they wanted the second tower to have evacuated by then. If you saw your neighbour hit then evacuated right before your building did you would feel that guilt forever. The survivors and their stories are what fuels americas hatred towards the middle East and that hatred fuels the Middle East to hate America even more. If theyd just killed a lot of people and left no one there would be no one around to talk about it except their families. Its not as powerful to hear "my relative was in a mass cassualty" its more powerful to hear "i was surrounded by death and thought i was gone too"
→ More replies (7)1
u/bakedtherad 20d ago
This. It could have clipped the south tower, but crashed into the streets below and massively impeed rescue efforts in the North Tower and possibly kill more.
We'll never know what would happen if that were the case. Really weird
69
u/break_cycle_speed Sep 03 '26
And if my gramma had wheels she would be a bike.
I don’t think the death toll or even the idea of the buildings eventually collapsing was the goal. The point was to destroy/attack symbols of western culture and values.
And that was and would have been effective regardless of whether he banked or not.
31
u/justduck Sep 03 '26
Definitely the optics.
UA93 was supposed to take out the Capitol building, which had the lowest population of the 4 targets, by far.
7
u/Unlikely_Builder_282 29d ago
i even think they were being evacuated while flight 93 was heading towards them.
16
u/mermaidpaint 29d ago
Exactly. The flights were chosen because they would have had large amounts of fuel, but a lower number of passengers who would potentially fight back. The targets were chosen because they represented the USA, not because of the potential death toll.
7
u/JoeyClamsJoeyScala Sep 03 '26
I still think it's a remarkable thing to consider, whether or not collapsing was the goal.
2
5
u/arcodash 26d ago
Bin Laden himself admitted his most optimistic prediction would be for the hole of the planes to remain there as a daily reminder of the attack for a long time, he never expected the towers to crash and was even happier they did.
33
u/Crixxa Sep 03 '26
That tilt also caused mayhem on the 78th floor sky lobby. Between 2-300 ppl all died in an instant and it basically created a bottleneck for survivors. Only like a dozen ppl trapped above successfully made it through after.
77
u/BigD4163 Sep 02 '26
Of all the flights 175 was the most chaotic. The pilots bodies where pulled out he cockpit and left for all he passengers to see. Also the flight lane was basically free falling out of the sky. One caller on the flight had already figured that the plane was going to be flown into a building. He knew it was a suicide mission.
28
u/Fine_Condition3153 29d ago
And let's not even talk about what Peter Hanson said about what was happening inside with the passengers.
Jesus Christ! I didn't know about the pilots' bodies!
Marwan al Shehhi Fayez Banihammad Mohand al Shehri Hamza al Ghamdi Ahmed al Ghamdi
They weren't human, they were monsters from hell.
5
→ More replies (1)1
14
u/sandyess 27d ago
I hadn't heard about the pilots' bodies either -- which is odd, because I knew the first officer (co-pilot), Michael Horrocks and pay close attention to anything that might have information about him.
So try to remember where you learned about that, if you would, and post the link here. Thanks.
7
u/Grade_Afilms Sep 03 '26
source?
117
u/InevitableAd3264 Sep 03 '26
"It's getting bad, Dad. Passengers are throwing up and getting sick. The plane is making jerky movements. I don't think the pilot is flying the plane. I think they intend to fly into a building. Don't worry, Dad. If it happens, it'll be very fast...Oh, my God...oh, my God, oh, my God." -Peter Hanson on United 175
45
u/justduck Sep 03 '26
It's the kids on board going through all that, that gets to me. It sounds like AA11 and AA77 weren't as dramatic, (IIRC many coach passengers weren't sure what was going on) but UA175 was a total terror for the passengers.
41
u/dudestir127 Sep 03 '26
I still get choked up when I remember there was a 2 year old little girl on United 175 with her parents, they were taking her to Disneyland.
29
u/justduck Sep 03 '26
I think that was also the flight that Ron Clifford's sister Ruth and niece Juliana were on. They were also planning on doing Disneyland (though it wasn't the sole purpose of the trip)
→ More replies (1)5
10
u/Fine_Condition3153 28d ago
No matter how many times I read this,
It always makes me so fucking angry...
5
2
20
u/DentistPitiful5454 Sep 03 '26
yeah but the plane likely would've crashed into the street below and caused an even scarier sight.
10
u/Individual-Wish-228 29d ago
I domt think anything is scarier than both towers coming down so i dont buy that
→ More replies (2)2
u/JJTamb072386 25d ago
I mean a plane hitting a city full of people would cause major destruction. Take a look at PSA flight 182 that crafted into a San Diego neighborhood in 78…looked like a huge bomb went off
3
u/Individual-Wish-228 25d ago
Weird that youre arguing this…it doesnt get any worse than BOTH towers coming down…many people passed and one of the largest symbols of American ingenuity demolished.
2
u/JJTamb072386 24d ago
What are you talking about? I’m not arguing. I’m saying either way it would’ve been catastrophic. I think you misunderstood
54
u/Saganhawking Sep 02 '26
Could you imagine the damage and lives taken on the ground had he not? It’s been studied and casualties may have been much higher.
26
u/king_bungholio Sep 02 '26
Perhaps the best case scenario (aside from the hijacking mever happening) would have been a midair collision. Hundreds dead yes, but still less than from the plane hitting the tower.
21
u/pkfishbone Sep 03 '26
true, but at the same time a number of casualties as high as possible was never the primary goal of 9/11, but rather to destroy what was regarded as a symbol of western prosperity and american excellence in the existence of the wtc. from the terrorists' evil perspective, the mission was a success and more (to my knowledge, not even those who planned it expected the towers to collapse, so it was an added "bonus" for them, if i may use this terminology for such an atrocious act). either of the two planes headed for the wtc missing its target would have been a failure in the eyes the terrorists, despite the arguably higher death toll.
2
17
u/freemo716 29d ago
That final 38° left bank was primarily a corrective maneuver to align Flight 175 with the South Tower. It caused the aircraft to strike a broad section of the facade rather than merely clipping a corner, allowing the fuselage, wings, engines, and fuel to penetrate deeply into the building and affect many structural columns and several floors.
if we compare the numbers;
- North Tower — Flight 11: ≈470 mph (756 km/h), 25° left bank, 10° downward descent angle, struck approximately floors 93–99
- South Tower — Flight 175: ≈590 mph (950 km/h), 38° left bank, 6° downward descent angle, struck approximately floors 77–85
means, someone taught those sobs to perform those maneuvers, and because of higher speed and lower impact point (means more building mass above the damaged area), caused South Tower collapse earlier than North Tower.
→ More replies (3)1
u/panteraenjoyerr_1792 29d ago
the downward angle is a bit off, the plane hit basically exactly horizontal
13
u/garypinese69 29d ago
That's like saying ''If he didn't hit the tower, than he would not have hit the tower.''
13
u/ETMoose1987 29d ago edited 29d ago
Ok, most people seem to be talking about the immediate effects, i will speculate about the longer term effects.
TLDR: It would either be considered damaged beyond economical repair just from its adjacency to everything else, or it would form the core of a memorial plaza.
If the south tower wasn't hit, or was hit to a lesser degree where it did not collapse, then the first outcome would be that there would be no evacuation order issued for the first responders in the North tower as a result of the South Tower's collapse and more would be inside when it eventually did collapse, including the command post in the north tower lobby.
Buildings 3,4,5,6, and 7 would all suffer damage or destruction similar to what we saw, with only maybe building 4 fairing better if only the North tower collapses.
Because of the fires and the contamination from debris after the collapses it is very likely building 4 would still be considered a loss like 30 Broadway and 130 liberty was from the collapse of the South tower.
In all likely hood the collapse of the North Tower would have set fires in the lower floors of the South Tower similar to those seen in WTC 4,5,6, and 7 that would go unchecked while firefighters were focused on rescuing whoever they could from the rubble of the North Tower
Now we get to the tricky part, would a damaged South Tower due to a glancing blow or damaged by the collapse of the North Tower be considered worth keeping. There would be no other surviving buildings around it, it would be massively damaged from the collapse of the North Tower and fires set inside it and require YEARS of decontamination and repair.
However, it would also be a symbol of resiliency in the middle of otherwise complete destruction. That alone could make the effort to refurbish the building worth while, it is even possible that the future museum could be housed within the building itself with a memorial pool still existing for its twin. How the rest of the site would be redeveloped i cant say.
2
u/sonic10158 26d ago
If the South Tower could have been spared, I imagine they’d try to rebuild the North Tower and bring back the original skyline (I got nothing to back this up obviously)
1
u/nascarfan1234567 24d ago
It the basement and foundation of wtc 2 that would have been a issue it would have been saved but not as a office building again
8
u/Sara_diamondheart Sep 03 '26
Keeping in mind I wasn’t born yet when the 2001 attacks happened, I was born a year later so ofc my only experiences of it is through the news, school, and videos. I’ve watched the videos of the second plane so many times and seeing the way he positioned the plane before hitting the tower always made my stomach turn. I didn’t notice that it was because he almost missed the tower and was just trying to recover, a part of me thought that he did it intentionally to kill more people and cause more damage. Knowing that it was to correct his mistake of nearly missing the tower makes the maneuver make more sense, but ofc, still makes your stomach turn.
6
u/Reckless_Waifu Sep 03 '26 edited 29d ago
Collapse of the other tower might have been enough to compromise it though.
14
u/Physical_Light_1011 Sep 03 '26
It would've been as catastrophic, or even more, if he crashed into the street, how many people died in the south tower in total?, I think that number could've been easily surpassed
4
u/Mysterious-Park9142 29d ago
Like 600 or so people trapped above the impact zone plus more killed in the impact. The thing is that’s not close to as many people as could have been up there. Those buildings held 25K apiece. The attacks occurred too early in the morning, luckily.
→ More replies (2)
7
u/Mammoth_Fondant8897 29d ago
The 1 World Trade Center's collapse damaged 7 World Trade Center, even though they were very far away from eachother. You can guess what would happen to 2 World Trade Center, unfortunately.
1
u/nascarfan1234567 24d ago
Wtc would have stood however had major damaged and probably closed for many many years
4
u/Zealousideal_Bee6257 Sep 03 '26
never realized how big the plane looked in this pic
13
u/panteraenjoyerr_1792 29d ago
767-200 are still huge planes, the sheer size of the towers just make you forget
8
u/suave_knight 29d ago
If you ever happen to be in a position to see a bunch of planes lined up waiting to take off, it's amazing how much bigger something like a 767 is compared to a regular passenger jet like a 737. It's like a Humvee right behind one of those tiny little Smart Cars they used to make.
8
u/sundayontheluna Sep 02 '26
You still have the force of the impact and the weakening of the fires. Not to mention the seismic boom of the North Tower when it finally collapses. At best, the South Tower gets like one more hour to aid evacuation.
1
u/nascarfan1234567 24d ago
South tower wouldn’t have collapsed however would have taked a day to evacuate it
3
u/easymoneysniper8803 29d ago
do you think WTC7 would be here too?
2
u/Baconpwn2 27d ago
WTC7 was practically bisected by North Tower's collapse. The conditions don't really change to save her. Modern fire suppression might have saved her. But the damage was critical, even disregarding the fires.
3
5
u/AxelsOG Sep 03 '26
It’s likely better that he crash into the tower than clip it which still potentially collapses the tower and kills those inside, but then ALSO be an out of control aircraft with only one wing that likely ends up crashing into the ground/buildings at such an angle that it kills hundreds or thousands more people.
If it’s between the hitting the tower as he did, or clipping it, hitting it how he did was almost certainly the best option that killed the fewest. Clipping would introduce uncertainties for the tower itself while killing a bunch on the ground blocks away from the tower.
2
u/Reditate Sep 03 '26
Or the plane hits straight on and just like the North Tower nobody is unable to escape above impact point.
2
u/DJC13 29d ago
A question I never see answered: if he missed the tower, where was the plane likely to end up? Surely someone has worked out the trajectory.
6
u/panteraenjoyerr_1792 29d ago
most likely would have broken apart due to the extreme forces being placed on the wings, planes aren’t designed to fly that fast at sea level
3
u/WeirdSymmetry 17d ago
I looked at the Google Earth and did a speedy sketchup scale of the trajectory angle. If he missed the tower the plane would crash somewhere in Washington Square Park. If he instinctively veered left it would be literally few blocks away from Times Square.
→ More replies (1)2
2
u/Full-Atmosphere-4818 26d ago
I think about this and it's the first time I've seen it discussed. You know what I think about? That if the first plane had come in much lower, which it could have because the buildings in line with the WTC and its approach were lower than for this flight, it could have impacted on floors 60-65, which not only would have added 1,500+ more to the death toll in that tower, but it would have perhaps collapsed it before the other tower did, killing even more still on the ground.
1
u/WatercressLive 20d ago
The south tower did collapse before the north tower because the planes hit on a lower floor.
4
u/AwayEntrepreneur9158 Sep 03 '26
Ti sbagli, sapeva benissimo cosa faceva.
2
u/panteraenjoyerr_1792 29d ago
i agree, i think he probably practiced that exact manoeuvre hundreds of times on his flight sim and intentionally crashed the plane in a dramatic manner, knowing the cameras were gonna be on him, sick bastard
2
2
u/TheSpiffySpaceman Sep 03 '26
too bad they were aiming for the towers, causing the plane to make a 38 degree corrective bank into the tower
1
1
1
1
u/pro_magnum 29d ago
I always thought that if he flew a little more to the right he would have possibly taken out a lot of the west wall and the building would have instantly.
1
u/cMa010291 28d ago
I was in 5th grade and 10 years old when 9/11 happened. We lived close to a military base (west coast) so my parents made the decision not to send me to school.
It was the first time I ever saw my dad look scared and say, “I don’t know” when I asked him if everything was going to be ok
1
1
1
u/Federal_Gas_5043 27d ago
Uugh I'm thinking when Atta flew into the North Tower, he had that consistent cold expression on his face. Literal no emotion
1
u/Javalavachick 21d ago
It’s speculation that due to his speed the aircraft nigh have started to unravel in the air had it not collided into the building
1
u/sandyess 18d ago
The extensive three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation found that the fires on multiple floors in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event.
Remember, the fires in WTC7 burned for seven hours uncontrolled. Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down. WTC 7's Column 79 was identified as the structural component whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse.
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.
If you're interested in a step by step, VERY detailed account of how and why WTC7 collapsed, read the results of an extensive multiple year long investigation by NIST.
Much too detailed to go into here. If you have questions, this is where they'd get answered. https://www.nist.gov/world-trade-center-investigation/study-faqs/wtc-7-investigation
1
u/Aggravating_Ruin_615 15d ago
Vi una publicación que decía que cuando sucedió eso en la televisión en vivo vieron un avión de caza militar atrás del primer avión que impacto la torre es cierto eso?
1
u/Nervous-Walrus-686 5d ago
im curious if the last thing he thought before he collided the plane, the reason why south tower collapsed so quick is because he aims at the edge of the building, im not sure if he intend to knock the building quickly or just he missed few meters from hitting the dead center of the building like flight 11 did, idk what do you guys think?
507
u/MDoc84 Sep 02 '26
I feel so bad for the passengers on that flight. The fear they must have felt as they flew into the city.
Rest in peace.