9/11 was on 26/2, 1993

What if the 1993 World Trade Center bombing succeeded and managed to destroy the Twin Towers. How would 9/11 being 8 years earlier effect the War on Terror? How would Bill Clinton respond to these attacks? How would this alter thr history of the 1990s and the 21st century? What if?
 
If the original hope of the terrorists' happens, the towers collapse sideways onto Lower Manhattan, killing potentially hundreds of thousands of people. We would still be rebuilding the area, and New York's place at the head of the world economy would probably have been ceded to London in the meantime.
 
What if the 1993 World Trade Center bombing succeeded and managed to destroy the Twin Towers. How would 9/11 being 8 years earlier effect the War on Terror? How would Bill Clinton respond to these attacks? How would this alter thr history of the 1990s and the 21st century? What if?

Mayor David Dinkins would have probably lost to Rudy Giulian that year in the mayoral election in 1993, but worse than his 2 point loss. Staten Island, a Republican stronghold, goes more than 90% for Giuliani.

Mario Cuomo would probably still lose to George Pataki in the 1994 gubernatorial election.

Clinton would probably be slightly reelected in 1996.
 
Wasn't Al-Qaeda in Sudan at the time? There could be a Sudan War. Any more thoughts?

Given our relations with Sudan that is entirely possible. I don't know what the ramifications of a Sudan conflict (as opposed to an Afghan one) would be for the United States and the region. A broader "war on terror"? Sudan also has its share of complexities-theres a number of issues with regards ethnicity, religion, and so forth. Given the time frame it would define the Clinton presidency and the conflicts that would presumably still happen during it-Rwanda, Yugoslavia, and Somalia (especially Somalia). It also kills the 1990s 'end of history' vibe pretty quick, and would throw a monkey wrench in the development of OTL party politics.
 
Given our relations with Sudan that is entirely possible. I don't know what the ramifications of a Sudan conflict (as opposed to an Afghan one) would be for the United States and the region. A broader "war on terror"? Sudan also has its share of complexities-theres a number of issues with regards ethnicity, religion, and so forth. Given the time frame it would define the Clinton presidency and the conflicts that would presumably still happen during it-Rwanda, Yugoslavia, and Somalia (especially Somalia). It also kills the 1990s 'end of history' vibe pretty quick, and would throw a monkey wrench in the development of OTL party politics.

the genocide in Darfur would be more widely-known, for one
 
I wonder what the bombing would be called- '1993 World Trade Center Bombing' is too much of a mouthful, and I don't think 2/26 would stick either, because the date doesn't have much meaning- maybe the 'Twin Tower Bombing' or 'Twin Tower Attack' or if the tower collapsed sideways maybe the 'Manhattan Attack', or 'The Wall Street Collapse'.
 
Let me out

Would this speed south sudan succession, say that five time fast?
You could see a backlash of responsible Christian and aminst leaders denounce those who have suppressed them.
 
Would've forced Clinton to have much more of a focus on intelligence/counter-terrorism policy that he actually did in his OTL presidency where he was one of the weakest Presidents on this area.
 
Wasn't Al-Qaeda in Sudan at the time? There could be a Sudan War. Any more thoughts?

Why would the Clinton and the US go immediately after Al-Qaeda in this scenario? The plot was carried out primarily by Ramzi Yousef and his co-conspirators with the funds coming from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed; who, IIRC, hadn't worked with Bin Laden for several years by that point. Hell, no charges issued by the US against Bin Laden even came to the conclusion that he was connected to the attack in any meaningful way. Now if he starts bombing the US after the towers collapse or beginning to act aggressive in any meaningful way...well, then there's gonna be hell to pay, especially if upwards of 50,000 people die (which is fairly likely given the scenario).
 
Different date

I'd be skeptical of carrying out an attack like that in the winter, when the weather is much less predictable. Airport schedules are messier, and even if the east coast is clear, points west may be nasty, leading to flight delays and cancellations. Note that 9/11 was perfect flying weather almost everywhere--conditions very hard to achieve in a winter in the Northeast. Even a brief squall could mess things up.

IMVHO, if you want to do this, do it in a time of better weather.
 
Would've forced Clinton to have much more of a focus on intelligence/counter-terrorism policy that he actually did in his OTL presidency where he was one of the weakest Presidents on this area.

Would he lose the election if he handles the post-crisis environment poorly.
 
I'd be skeptical of carrying out an attack like that in the winter, when the weather is much less predictable. Airport schedules are messier, and even if the east coast is clear, points west may be nasty, leading to flight delays and cancellations. Note that 9/11 was perfect flying weather almost everywhere--conditions very hard to achieve in a winter in the Northeast. Even a brief squall could mess things up.

IMVHO, if you want to do this, do it in a time of better weather.

The implication of the original post is that the truck bombiqng succeeds in causing one tower to collapse into the other one causing both to fail structurally. They won't fall like a tree but will probably impact out to maybe 150 meters. Much heavier loss of life. As I recall both Towers were pretty much fully occupied due to the time of day along with adjecent buildings. If the tower in which the bomb goes off fails quickly there will be no time to evacuate.
 
Would he lose the election if he handles the post-crisis environment poorly.

Probably, OTL he had little interest in intelligence or intelligence reform, plus national security policy was one of his presidency's weakest areas. However, given the timing, it's likely we'd see a Clinton admin with a much greater focus on intel/national security so Clinton pays much more attention - unless he fucks up badly post attack, he'll probably get re-elected
 
Top