Twin Towers did not collapse on September 11th 2001

What would have happened if towers one and two of the World Trade Center did not collapse on 9-11 after being struck by flight 11 and 175, what if all the events of that day took place except the collapse of the towers. If they remained standing and did not collapse at any point what would have taken place? If at 9:59 the South Tower did NOT collapse and at 10:28 the North Tower did NOT collapse WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED?
 
What would have happened if towers one and two of the World Trade Center did not collapse on 9-11 after being struck by flight 11 and 175, what if all the events of that day took place except the collapse of the towers. If they remained standing and did not collapse at any point what would have taken place? If at 9:59 the South Tower did NOT collapse and at 10:28 the North Tower did NOT collapse WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED?

Well, the terrorist attacks would still have been catastrophic, with probably over 1000 dead still and the attack on the Pentagon to take into account. The only difference I can think of is that the psychological impact of the attacks may have been lessend, as well as the economic impact. However, attacks on that scale would still almost certainly have led to the War in Afghanistan.
 
What would have happened if towers one and two of the World Trade Center did not collapse on 9-11 after being struck by flight 11 and 175, what if all the events of that day took place except the collapse of the towers. If they remained standing and did not collapse at any point what would have taken place? If at 9:59 the South Tower did NOT collapse and at 10:28 the North Tower did NOT collapse WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED?

Judging by the topography of the towers, as well as their general construction, the only way that you can stop them from collapsing is to have them either hit in different places or for some very near misses in at least one case.
 
A big block of 9-11 conspiracy theories are based on how an airplane hitting the Twin Towers couldn't have cause a collapse , so they must have been brought down by controlled demolition. Without a collapse, those theories would go away and be replaced by ones saying how the Bush administration must have known and let it happen ala FDR and Pearl Harbor.
 

Cook

Banned
what if all the events of that day took place except the collapse of the towers. If they remained standing and did not collapse at any point what would have taken place?
Every Structural Engineering book ever written would have to be revised.
 
A big block of 9-11 conspiracy theories are based on how an airplane hitting the Twin Towers couldn't have cause a collapse , so they must have been brought down by controlled demolition. Without a collapse, those theories would go away and be replaced by ones saying how the Bush administration must have known and let it happen ala FDR and Pearl Harbor.

I thought most 'conspiracy theories' on this one were that the CIA organised the attack as an excuse to expand the American Empire. Al-Q were funded by the CIA in Afghanistan during the USSR-Afghan war in efforts to combat communism. When the iron curtain fell, the US dumped their Islamic allies.

As to the OP: Maybe the towers survive, but are so structurally damaged that they end up having to be pulled down anyway.
 
The towers would almost certainly have to be demolished as it would be too intensive to repair them.

The decision to repair the towers might not be a matter of pure economics though; I could easily see there being a lot of public pressure to keep the towers standing just to deny the terrorists any credit for destroying them.

As for the conspiracy theories, I'm pretty sure they would just adapt to the new situation; it's not like the crazy conspiracy theories work off much logic to begin with. Instead of the towers being destroyed by a controlled demolition because there's no way the planes could destroy them, there would be talk about how there's no way the towers could have survived being hit by the planes unless the government did something nefarious.
 
Agreed: the mind of the conspiracy theorist can adapt, especially when faced with a new situation. But they're also inflexible. Anyone here read the Popular Mechanics article or book debunking the conspiracy theories? The conspiro-nuts now claim PM is either part of the conspiracy, or got bought off by the conspiracy to debunk the "truth".
 
The decision to repair the towers might not be a matter of pure economics though; I could easily see there being a lot of public pressure to keep the towers standing just to deny the terrorists any credit for destroying them.

Who the heck would pay for such a thing? It will always come down to pure economics where property values are so high.
 
A big block of 9-11 conspiracy theories are based on how an airplane hitting the Twin Towers couldn't have cause a collapse , so they must have been brought down by controlled demolition.

Nothing hit WTC 7 and it came down. :confused: That's the only thing about 9/11 about which I'm confused. The BBC reported WTC 7 came down twenty minutes before it actually came down. The reporter said it had come down while the screen was showing a live feed of the site with WTC 7 in the frame.
 
Every Structural Engineering book ever written would have to be revised.

If you can prevent the tower floors from pancaking they might not have fallen. That requires different connector from the floor to the wall. Something that retains more strength when heated, or an effective insulation covering.


Nothing hit WTC 7 and it came down. :confused: That's the only thing about 9/11 about which I'm confused. The BBC reported WTC 7 came down twenty minutes before it actually came down. The reporter said it had come down while the screen was showing a live feed of the site with WTC 7 in the frame.

Wrong, WTC7 was hit by falling debris and set on fire. The fire was uncontrollable due to lack of water pressure.

In November, 2008, NIST released its final report on the causes of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center.[28] This followed their August 21, 2008 draft report which included a period for public comments.[34] In its investigation, NIST utilized ANSYS to model events leading up to collapse initiation and LS-DYNA models to simulate the global response to the initiating events.[43] NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the twin towers, nor did the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs). But the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor. The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near Column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, Column 79 soon buckled - pulling the East penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the entire building above to fall downward as a single unit. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.[28]
 

Cook

Banned
That requires different connector from the floor to the wall. Something that retains more strength when heated, or an effective insulation covering.
I took that as having been ruled out by all other events being the same.

This thread’s degenerated into a Conspiracy Theory Backdoor anyway.
 
Afaik, the collapse of the towers was due the burning jet fuel softening the structual steel. If thats avoided, the towers sty up.

Maybe the fuel ... sprays sideways instead of into the buildings? Maybe the fuel is dumped first on at least one plane .. last act of the pilot before tne hijackers take control?
 
Maybe the fuel ... sprays sideways instead of into the buildings? Maybe the fuel is dumped first on at least one plane .. last act of the pilot before tne hijackers take control?

Why the **** would the pilot do that? Remember, suicidal attacks using a jet liner was only something out of a Clancy novel until 9/11, so there would have been no reason to endanger the passengers from the pilots pov.


RE: The idea that there would be less conspiracy theories.


Bwahahaaahahahahahaha. Stop it, my sides are hurting from laughing so hard.
 
All I can think of is that if they hadn't fallen down, or only partially collapsed they would have been demolished.
 
Top