1980s 9/11 with Pam Am Flight 103??

what if insteed of the bomb on the plane as in the OTL then the Libyan agents had used it as the 911 hijackeres did ? Taken control and crashed into World Trade Center?
 
Reagan would ask the premier in the Kremlin if he could pave Libya in glas without Soviet interfereing.

Soviet would say: ANything other than nukes are fine with us
 
Reagan would ask the premier in the Kremlin if he could pave Libya in glas without Soviet interfereing.

Soviet would say: ANything other than nukes are fine with us

And no more Gadiffi

But on a more realistic not. The US removing Gadiffi what would have done do the whole Mid.East issue?
 
Last edited:
Well, as someone posted in a thread in which I nearly had Doctor Who cause a meltdown at a MAGNOX reactor (Real incident, Berkeley Nuclear Station, May 1, 1978. Apparently a BBC prop technician used a bit too much explosive while filming "The Pirate Planet"), the MAGNOX cladding would prevent a major nuclear release. Further, the Concrete would help hold stuff in. Not sure how it would hold up against a 747, though US nuclear reactors would likely handle an aircraft impact, even pre-9/11.
 
Well, as someone posted in a thread in which I nearly had Doctor Who cause a meltdown at a MAGNOX reactor (Real incident, Berkeley Nuclear Station, May 1, 1978. Apparently a BBC prop technician used a bit too much explosive while filming "The Pirate Planet"), the MAGNOX cladding would prevent a major nuclear release. Further, the Concrete would help hold stuff in. Not sure how it would hold up against a 747, though US nuclear reactors would likely handle an aircraft impact, even pre-9/11.

Have you ever seen the video where the millitary slammed a fighter jet into a concrete wall to test how well it could survive? And the plane just disintegrates while the wall barely budges? That was a test of just this kind of thing, to see what would happen if you crashed a plane into a nuclear power plant's walls.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8

I mean, yeah, a 747 is bigger but...I'm thinking there's a good chance this fails to cause major damage.
 
Regime change in Lybia and a NATO occupation force in the theater that juuust might discourage Saddam from making that incursion into Kuwait in 1990.

Global War on Terror begins better than 10 years sooner.

The big question comes from that large NATO presence in Lybia: If it deters Sadam from invading Kuwait and threatening Saudi Arabia and the gulf states, the U.S. never establishes a base of opperations in SA thus removing one of Osama Bin Laden's big gripes about infidel feet on holy ground.

Another possibility:

With a war on terror, perhaps the mujahideen in Afghanistan come under closer scrutiny and the threat of individuals like Bin Laden, Taliban elements, etc...are uncovered sooner and said threats are perhaps neutralized, ie; Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are strangled in their crib, so to speak, preventing the attacks that occured later on in OTL, and probably drastically changing the complexion of the Afghan civil war.

If Pan-Am 103 plows into one of the WTC buildings, with a bomb on board and brings the tower down, the ripple effect would change the entire decade of the 1990s.

Also, if the Helsinki warning (which implicated Fatah) becomes a major sticking point in public opinion, you probably see Israel gain more latitude in dealing with the Palestinians which could have a number ripples by itself.

Like I said, we'd be living in a much different world.
 
Top