9/11: Only one of the towers are hit.

Drunkrobot · Aug 23, 2015

What would be the effect if the people on either one of the planes headed towards the twin towers were able to have the plane crashed/landed before hitting the target ala Flight 93, the other hitting their tower and said tower not collapsing onto the other? Is the effects of the attacks somehow dampened or amplified?

Of course, I have the deepest respect for those who perished and their loved ones. I ask only to incite discussion, not conflict.

redlightning · Aug 23, 2015

Any crashed flight that missed the World Trade Center would be hailed as martyrs and heroes as those on Flight were. The only difference of one tower surviving is that the death toll is reduced by maybe more than half over all depending on which building is destroyed. About 1,300 people were killed in each tower. This will still cause dramatic outrage and also a call for war as OT.

Instead of building the new Freedom Tower facility, they may simply rebuild the tower which collapsed again.

teg · Aug 23, 2015

Would the surviving tower still be structurally sound after this?

teg

Resurgam · Aug 23, 2015

teg said:
Would the surviving tower still be structurally sound after this?

teg

Highly unlikely. The sheer force of that much material slamming into the ground right next to it, to say nothing of all that debris crashing against it, would make the surviving tower very unsound. If it didn't come down on its own in the days and weeks to come, it would have to be dismantled.

NHBL · Aug 23, 2015

even more survivors?

It proved impossible to land helicopters on the roofs due to the flames and updrafts, I've heard. Would it have been in any way possible to improvise some sort of bridge to evacuate people from the upper level of the burning tower to the undamaged one? Zip lines, perhaps?

Resurgam · Aug 23, 2015

NHBL said:
It proved impossible to land helicopters on the roofs due to the flames and updrafts, I've heard. Would it have been in any way possible to improvise some sort of bridge to evacuate people from the upper level of the burning tower to the undamaged one? Zip lines, perhaps?

Sparing one tower does not prolong the life of the compromised one.

Apollo 20 · Aug 23, 2015

Former New Yorker here who had a great familiarity with the WTC complex; I passed through it daily on my way to work elsewhere downtown for 5 years. It seems almost impossible to me for one tower to collapse without affecting the structural integrity of the other tower. They weren't that far apart physically and were connected by a vast underground complex of shops, mechanical components, parking, subway stations, etc.

If, by some miracle, one tower collapsed and the other remained intact and structurally sound or at least stable enough to be repaired, it would have been unusable for some time. The subway lines would have been affected (part of the underground complex connecting them) and the sheer amount of debris nearby would have required removal before the surviving building was usable. This task, due in part to the presence of human remains, took quite a bit of time.

Bearing in mind that these two buildings were connected underground, it is also possible that debris removal of the collapsed tower would have of necessity compromised the structural integrity of the other. Dismantling one tower would have been an immense engineering challenge and may well have taken years. Due to density, demolition would not have been a safe option.

mattep74 · Aug 23, 2015

A lone tower standing in the mist of smoke for days will look like a gigant FU finger to the world courtesy of NYC.

The thing is, if the second tower is hit and not the first that was struck OTL then there would be more people killed from that tower since it was struck in a lower level and it would be not partially evacuated.

ANARCHY_4_ALL · Aug 23, 2015

mattep74 said:
A lone tower standing in the mist of smoke for days will look like a gigant FU finger to the world courtesy of NYC.

I can see this being an ITTL Time magazine cover.

andy1979 · Aug 23, 2015

Even if one tower survived its structural integrity would likely be severely weakened to the point that it would have to be either seriously reinforced or be torn down before it falls down.

Caramelcorn · Aug 23, 2015

andy1979 said:
Even if one tower survived its structural integrity would likely be severely weakened to the point that it would have to be either seriously reinforced or be torn down before it falls down.

At this point in time the US might have emptied its entire treasury to reinforce the remaining tower. There's no way they would willingly tear it down unless the damage was so extensive it would collapse within days.

packmanwiscy · Aug 23, 2015

Considering 7 World Trade Center collapsed due to debris, I would imagine that only one strike would be necessary to bring down both.

Alanith · Aug 23, 2015

andy1979 said:
Even if one tower survived its structural integrity would likely be severely weakened to the point that it would have to be either seriously reinforced or be torn down before it falls down.

It'd be political suicide to suggest tearing the remaining tower down unless there is literally no other choice.

bookmark95 · Aug 23, 2015

Besides the possibility of having to tear down one tower due to the collapse of another, would having a surviving tower really change history?

andy1979 · Aug 23, 2015

bookmark95 said:
Besides the possibility of having to tear down one tower due to the collapse of another, would having a surviving tower really change history?

Well fewer people would die if say only the North Tower was hit as the World Trade Centre was still being evacuated when the South Tower came down. Though I don't think it would really make that much of a difference to be honest - Bush and his war hawks would still use the horror and pain of the attack for their own ends.

Blue Max · Aug 23, 2015

Rethinking 9-11 a bit here.

If only one tower is hit, the damage caused by the second tower flinging shrapnel wouldn't happen. Everyone in one of the towers gets out, perhaps the other tower falls minutes later than OTL, and there are a few more survivors?

OTOH, events on United 93 did hinge upon the decision of the passengers to try to take on the hijackers. There were cellphone conversations where they were informed that the WTC was hit. If the World Trade Center isn't an obvious terrorist attack, do they still make that attempt?

United 93 was probably heading for the US Capitol Building. A 9-11 that ends with the Capitol Building hit instead of one of the WTC's towers may very well be a worse scenario.

NHBL · Aug 23, 2015

not prolonged

USSManhattan said:
Sparing one tower does not prolong the life of the compromised one.

True--but if one tower's seriously in trouble, is there any way to improvise some sort of connection from one tower to the other, allowing people to zipline or otherwise cross from the doomed structure to the other one?

mattep74 · Aug 24, 2015

NHBL said:
True--but if one tower's seriously in trouble, is there any way to improvise some sort of connection from one tower to the other, allowing people to zipline or otherwise cross from the doomed structure to the other one?

That is a scenario that only works in movies lik The Towering inferno IMO

BlueTrousers · Aug 24, 2015

NHBL said:
True--but if one tower's seriously in trouble, is there any way to improvise some sort of connection from one tower to the other, allowing people to zipline or otherwise cross from the doomed structure to the other one?

FDNY technical rescue teams should have the skills and equipment to rig a Tyrolean traverse, depending on the separation between the towers. This would probably be the preferred option for the task. They may not have the time to do so, and it's doubtful whether any significant number of people could be extracted this way.

It's possible that by allowing rescue efforts to concentrate on one tower, more people might be evacuated by conventional means, further reducing the death toll. Gimmicks like ropeways and helicopters on the roof might make good TV, but aren't realistic mass rescue options.

Resurgam · Aug 24, 2015

NHBL said:
True--but if one tower's seriously in trouble, is there any way to improvise some sort of connection from one tower to the other, allowing people to zipline or otherwise cross from the doomed structure to the other one?

Both towers' lives were measured in minutes after impact. There simply isn't enough time.

Besides, how would they have rigged up this structure to evacuate to the intact one? All the stairs and elevators are destroyed, all but impassable and/or clogged with evacuees.