9/11 but less bad.

[3rdplanetfromsun]

So in our timeline we kinda got the nicer version of 9/11 because one of the planes didn't hit its target, this was because that plane was delayed and when it was hijacked the passengers knew what was happening in New York already and took the plane back from the hijackers. So what if the flight that hit the South tower, or the flight that hit the pentagon, or both were delayed and so the same thing happened on those planes just like what wouldve also happened on the flight meant to hit the capitol or white house. Maybe the South tower would still be standing? How would a less horrific 9/11 affect the way america would view it?

 

[overoceans]

Assuming the other tower still falls with the same number of casualties, I think the psychological, and hence political, impact will be about the same.

 

[3rdplanetfromsun]

Assuming the other tower still falls with the same number of casualties, I think the psychological, and hence political, impact will be about the same.

Yes my idea is that the North tower would still collapse.

 

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

Yes my idea is that the North tower would still collapse.

The North Tower collapsing will likely compromise the foundations of the South Tower to the point it is in danger of collapse, which might be worse: that part of lower Manhattan has to stay cordoned off for months (?) while they try to figure out how to safely demolish it.

[ Picturing the South Tower ringed by hastily-erected construction crane towers with steel cables threaded through floors to try and bear the weight; wrapped in tarps to keep hazardous dust in and rainwater out; and floodlit 24/7 to watch for any signs of movement ]

 

[northstar88]

Have the planes destroy the Capitol building and maybe the Washington Monument. If 1 gets shot down targeting the White House, that would be traumatic, but not nation damaging. The planes striking the towers and destroying them has started so many conspiracy theories. Butterflying that away and destroying national monuments and buildings would take the conspiracy angle way down. Maybe have a plane strike the U.N. building in place of the towers. There will be massive reaction to the attacks from revenge to mourning, but the eventual national divide won't be as pronounced without the conspiracy's surrounding the Twin Towers.

 

[Bellacinos]

I know this really doesn’t answer your question, but is there 100% definite proof that United 93 was taken down by the passengers and not shot down? I’m not trying to float any conspiracy theories or disrespect any of the passengers of United 93, but I could absolutely see a situation in which both Bush and Cheney ordering for United 93 to be shot down once it’s confirmed to be hijacked (which would have been justified in this scenario) and then drumming up some patriotic story to get America all riled up and shift any attention away from the fact that they just shot down a US commercial plane.

I do believe that United 93 happened like it’s told to us, but I could absolutely see the other situation being true too especially because I could see the Bush administration doing something like this

(Please let me know if this violates the spreading conspiracy policy for the rules and I will delete it. Made it this far without a Coventry visit and would like to keep it that way.)

 

[oboro]

I know this really doesn’t answer your question, but is there 100% definite proof that United 93 was taken down by the passengers and not shot down? I’m not trying to float any conspiracy theories or disrespect any of the passengers of United 93, but I could absolutely see a situation in which both Bush and Cheney ordering for United 93 to be shot down once it’s confirmed to be hijacked (which would have been justified in this scenario) and then drumming up some patriotic story to get America all riled up and shift any attention away from the fact that they just shot down a US commercial plane.

I do believe that United 93 happened like it’s told to us, but I could absolutely see the other situation being true too especially because I could see the Bush administration doing something like this

(Please let me know if this violates the spreading conspiracy policy for the rules and I will delete it. Made it this far without a Coventry visit and would like to keep it that way.)

Not 100%, but I think there were phone calls from people on the plane to loved ones on the ground as they took it back - “Let’s roll” and all that…

 

[3rdplanetfromsun]

Assuming the other tower still falls with the same number of casualties, I think the psychological, and hence political, impact will be about the same.

I don't think so I'd see people looking at the South Tower as a symbol of resilience to the American people as it had powered on as its twin had died. I can see politicians using that as sort of a "last beacon of hope" sort of thing. There would definitely still be a war on terror but maybe not at the scale we see in our timeline as this alternate 9/11 won't be as devastating.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I know this really doesn’t answer your question, but is there 100% definite proof that United 93 was taken down by the passengers and not shot down? I’m not trying to float any conspiracy theories or disrespect any of the passengers of United 93, but I could absolutely see a situation in which both Bush and Cheney ordering for United 93 to be shot down once it’s confirmed to be hijacked (which would have been justified in this scenario) and then drumming up some patriotic story to get America all riled up and shift any attention away from the fact that they just shot down a US commercial plane.

I do believe that United 93 happened like it’s told to us, but I could absolutely see the other situation being true too especially because I could see the Bush administration doing something like this

(Please let me know if this violates the spreading conspiracy policy for the rules and I will delete it. Made it this far without a Coventry visit and would like to keep it that way.)

Air Force aircraft on missions over the continental U.S. did not fly armed unless on very special tasks, like firing at a live range (and that was not done very often) So even if they were intercepted in time about the only way to stop it would have been ramming. In the six+ years I worked on the F-15 flightline at Langley I can not remember a single time we loaded live missiles (all missile firings were done down on the Gulf Coast on the weapons ranges. There were very rare flights with loaded guns but only off the coast against towed target and they were TP-T rounds (Target Practice-Tracer) which were designed to punch holes in the aluminum coated balsa wood towed targets. They would probably take down an airliner if you got enough of them to hit, but you usually had a limited number of rounds for a few passes.

 

[farmerted555]

Are we limited to the date itself?

 

[3rdplanetfromsun]

Are we limited to the date itself?

wdym?

 

[tonycat77]

Air Force aircraft on missions over the continental U.S. did not fly armed unless on very special tasks, like firing at a live range (and that was not done very often) So even if they were intercepted in time about the only way to stop it would have been ramming. In the six+ years I worked on the F-15 flightline at Langley I can not remember a single time we loaded live missiles (all missile firings were done down on the Gulf Coast on the weapons ranges. There were very rare flights with loaded guns but only off the coast against towed target and they were TP-T rounds (Target Practice-Tracer) which were designed to punch holes in the aluminum coated balsa wood towed targets. They would probably take down an airliner if you got enough of them to hit, but you usually had a limited number of rounds for a few passes.

Kinda insane to think there was no 5 minute ready aircraft available in the east coast at that time.

Here we have 2 planes armed on scramble alert at any time in Brasilia or Rio to protect the navy assets.
That's how we got to intercept that Vulcan back in '82.

 

[oberdada]

The North Tower collapsing will likely compromise the foundations of the South Tower to the point it is in danger of collapse, which might be worse: that part of lower Manhattan has to stay cordoned off for months (?) while they try to figure out how to safely demolish it.

[ Picturing the South Tower ringed by hastily-erected construction crane towers with steel cables threaded through floors to try and bear the weight; wrapped in tarps to keep hazardous dust in and rainwater out; and floodlit 24/7 to watch for any signs of movement ]

Or image it gets stabilized, but is unusable.
And for political reasons, demolition is not an option.