What if the Twin Towers survived 9/11?

Archibald

Banned
On 9/11 were four crashes. Of the four
- the first was caught on video by the Naudet brothers.
- the pentagon crash was seen only by a crappy camera
- and there was noone in Pennsylvania to film the last crash.

So it was obviously Flight 175 that had the more "visual" impact. It is that one that got carved into million of people psyché.
Everybody was looking at the burning first tower when Flight 175 impacted, live on CNN. That was the climax, the most horrific moment of the day (only equalled in horror by the jumpers, perhaps).

Now it happens that Flight 175 nearly collided with a couple of airliners - for example, Midex 7
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=gerald_earwood_1

Had Flight 175 smashed into Midex 7 and not WTC, the visual impact of 9/11 would have been greatly diminished.

Another intriguing question is - what happen to the intact South Tower ? does the (inevitable) collapse of her twin doom it ? or can it be preserved, as a kind of giant middle finger to Al-Quaeda ?
 
I don't think so. After the first two planes hit the towers, and it was confirmed as "not an accident", Congress was immediately evacuated and moved to a safe bunker (I'm not sure where). So was the White House, and several other potential targets.

I don't think anyone (or at least not many people) would have died apart from on the plane, but it would have a powerful symbolic impact to see the Capitol Dome as a pile of smoking rubble.

Additionally, it's also a much harder target to hit, being lower and smaller, and there's always a chance the terrorists could miss, particularly if the passengers choose to rebel later on in the flight than they did OTL.

Cheers,
Ganesha

Cheerio, thanks for the info. True, I didn't think about the fact that the Capitol is a lot smaller.

Does anyone know if there were active AA defences around such key points? It might be quite the symbolic event if the plane was intercepted. I'm pretty sure I remember that the D.C. area was undefended prior to 9/11, though.
 
How? Why wouldn't "Truthers" in such a timeline insist that USA/New World Order/a conspiracy was behind the attack?
Because their main claim is that the towers 'HAD' to be taken down by controlled demolition.

With the Towers still standing that goes out the window and there is still a 'crime scene' that can be investigated ~intact.

Or course, the 'Truthers' will still find something to hang on to.
 
If the towers do not collapse, and especially Tower 7, then the biggest part of their rhetoric is gone. There's no talk about a 'controlled detonation' bringing down the towers because the towers didn't fall.

To be sure, i believe that there is "9/11 truth" BUT, that truth is simply that the commission whitewashed the mistakes of past administrations and the Bush43 administration to protect careers and reputations of incompetent DC insiders.

JUST FOR THE RECORD: (so i don't get accused of being a Truther) In point of fact it was 19 Middle Eastern hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudis and a hell of a lot of burning jet fuel from four airliners that brought on the events of 9/11



I think you'd get Truthers anyway. Behind anything as big as 9/11, even if the Towers don't fall, you'd have conspiracy theorists. Some people will still say the American government was behind the attacks in order to spur an American response; they just won't mention a 'controlled detonation'.
 
One thing I have been thinking about. Why the twin towers? Was it because they were just so big and less change of missing them? There are so many other things in the US, people would have heard about and much more sybolic to the normal Amercian. Sorry to say, alot of those, in the US would not have heard of the Twin Towers. Let alone who are al-Qaeda are, and where Afganistan is. Fly Over country comes to mind. You know what and where they are, if I can think of them so can the 'bad guys'.
 
Cheerio, thanks for the info. True, I didn't think about the fact that the Capitol is a lot smaller.

Does anyone know if there were active AA defences around such key points? It might be quite the symbolic event if the plane was intercepted. I'm pretty sure I remember that the D.C. area was undefended prior to 9/11, though.

I'm not an expert on the defences of the White House or the US Capitol but I remember in Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor he mentioned Marines being stationed with Stinger missiles. Of course in the book, the sheer mass of a 747 proved too much to stop with a couple of stingers. I'm not an expert in AA missiles though, and I remember another novel, by Adrian D'hage, where Stinger's did bring down a 747.

I think DC's best chance at stopping the last plane would be scrambling fighters out of Andrews Air Force Base to shoot the plane down. But they have to know of the other attacks and that they were attacks in time to use this option.
 
True, but the airliners that hit the World Trade Towers were a hell of a lot more dense, going a hell of a lot faster, and carrying a hell of a lot more fuel. Not sure that the different design would have meant much had the Empire State building been hit.

I have read that the towers were designed to take a direct hit from a fully loaded 707. I looked it up awhile ago and the 767 and 757 are very close in weight and fuel capacity. I don't think removing the asbestos that covered the steel beams helped. Also I doubt the designers of the building thought it would be a impact like the one that happened but more of a lost plane trying to avoid the tower.
 
Capitol Dome as a pile of smoking rubble.

that and the majority of americans would probaly congratulate them for doing what everyones thought about at least once

back on topic, if the towers hadnt being knocked over, but were damaged enough, theres a good bet that the towers wouldve beign taken down piece by piece, rebuilt to withstand such attacks and to update alot of its infrastructure and the like, or even replaced with modern versions (which probaly wouldve being more likly), if they couldve afforded it...the towers were privatly owned
 

BlondieBC

Banned
One thing I have been thinking about. Why the twin towers? Was it because they were just so big and less change of missing them? There are so many other things in the US, people would have heard about and much more sybolic to the normal Amercian. Sorry to say, alot of those, in the US would not have heard of the Twin Towers. Let alone who are al-Qaeda are, and where Afganistan is. Fly Over country comes to mind. You know what and where they are, if I can think of them so can the 'bad guys'.

Mainly because it was foreigners choosing the targets. Before 9/11, they were just some very tall, utilitarian buildings. I walked within a few blocks of them and did not even bother looking at them. Go to the top of the Empire state building was a lot more interesting, as it the Chrysler building. The Macy, NY Stock exchange, Waldorf, Statue of Liberty and many other buildings are more iconic.

But to Saudi terrorists, it made sense, so from their perspective. First the name "World Trade Center". You are hitting the core of the American empire. Second, there are lots of Jews in American trade, they are killing powerful Zionist Business leaders. It also helps that they are the tallest building. They are also less protected by other buildings, so easier to hit. From the mindset of a Saudi, it has lots of pluses and not real negatives once you decide to hit NYC - the center of the vast Zionist/American whatever ruling the world.
 
One thing I have been thinking about. Why the twin towers? Was it because they were just so big and less change of missing them? There are so many other things in the US, people would have heard about and much more sybolic to the normal Amercian. Sorry to say, alot of those, in the US would not have heard of the Twin Towers. Let alone who are al-Qaeda are, and where Afganistan is. Fly Over country comes to mind. You know what and where they are, if I can think of them so can the 'bad guys'.

An American friend of mine once made the observation that the Twin Towers were very much a non-American's idea of a "typical" American target. That is, the New York skyline is something that is reproduced all over the place in the world media(including a gazillion Hollywood movies set in New York), thus non-Americans conclude that it and the city it represents must really be close to the heart of all Americans.

On the other hand, to give the attackers some credit for analysis, the towers were a defining symbol of American business, thus forming an unholy alliance with the other two targets, the miliary(Pentagon), and government(Capitol building or White House). As well, hitting New York ensured that a huge chunk of the American intellectual and media elites would feel themselves directly affected by the attack, and would be talking and writing about it with an added urgency.

EDIT: Somewhat cross-posted with Blondie.
 
Last edited:
I remember hearing that Bin laden didn't think the planes were going to make both buildings collapse completely. He thought they were going to cave in up until the point of impact. That would mean the WTC would look like it was in the 1970s, while it was being built, but with fire damage and a bunch of twisted metal at the top of the buildings.

It would take years to rebuild the floors that collapsed, and rain and whatnot would get into them as there would be no roof obviously. However, I think as a sign to America's strong will, they will be rebuilt. The floors immediately below the impact zone would be demolished and construction on the buildings would begin at like the 70-80 somethingth floor. Perhaps they will be made taller too.
 

b12ox

Banned
Mainly because it was foreigners choosing the targets. Before 9/11, they were just some very tall, utilitarian buildings. I walked within a few blocks of them and did not even bother looking at them. Go to the top of the Empire state building was a lot more interesting, as it the Chrysler building. The Macy, NY Stock exchange, Waldorf, Statue of Liberty and many other buildings are more iconic.

But to Saudi terrorists, it made sense, so from their perspective. First the name "World Trade Center". You are hitting the core of the American empire. Second, there are lots of Jews in American trade, they are killing powerful Zionist Business leaders. It also helps that they are the tallest building. They are also less protected by other buildings, so easier to hit. From the mindset of a Saudi, it has lots of pluses and not real negatives once you decide to hit NYC - the center of the vast Zionist/American whatever ruling the world.
Good points. The Capitol was also on the menu if I remember correctly. It was the only structure that can be called iconic. This is the reason mayby why Ground 0 has not been proposed as a building site for a building that would overwhelm the past towers following the princip that a great civilisation is measured by the ability to replace what destroyed with bigger and greater structures.

I think that the possible detonation of the buildings adds fuel to the dispute. It has not been reliably proved that the frame could not withtand the impact, and the speed with which special units. innitially unaware, handled it was really great.
 
I don't see much changing. While the death toll is much lower,it is still a terrorist attack on the United States. There is still wars in Iraq and Afganistan. There is still upgrade in airport security

I wonder about that. Afghanistan almost certainly still happens, but without a successful hit on the White House or Capitol I have my doubts that Iraq can still be justified in the way it was. It would certainly be easy to write a TL in which the reduced visual impact and death toll is enough to make Bush's (very similar to OTL) attempts to push war in Iraq a major defeat for the administration, and quite possibly a major issue in the 2004 election.

Instead of a commemorative park the Towers get rebuilt regardless of the cost, even if they have to be torn down first.

I agree, though there are a few forms it could take. Ultimately though, I think that if one or both buildings survive there will be essentially a blank cheque to rebuild them.


The point of departure would have to be during the design of WTC No. 1 & No. 2 Towers and the WTC No. 7 Tower. In other words, don't build each building like bridges, but have a proper forest of columns on each floor, like the Empire State Building.


It really doesn't have to be that drastic. The building WERE intended to survive a hit from a jetliner, and getting them through it really isn't infeasible. Better fireproofing (remember that what was there did not even meet the specifications originally given for the building - which admittedly may not have been enough), less fuel, etc, etc, could have saved the buildings.

As an aside, there could be some interesting butterflies in terms of emergency preparedness, and who the public heroes of 9/11 are if anyone is rescued off the roof (as would seem to be the only really viable option for general evacuation above the impact with the core damage the buildings sustained). Rooftop rescue isn't completely unheard of, but it certainly isn't common, or even taken that seriously as an option by most fire departments OTL (I know the LAFD has an air unit that trains for it, but thats about all I can think of aside from a couple of entirely ad hoc incidents involving successful rescues).
 

pnyckqx

Banned
I'm not an expert on the defences of the White House or the US Capitol but I remember in Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor he mentioned Marines being stationed with Stinger missiles. Of course in the book, the sheer mass of a 747 proved too much to stop with a couple of stingers. I'm not an expert in AA missiles though, and I remember another novel, by Adrian D'hage, where Stinger's did bring down a 747.

I think DC's best chance at stopping the last plane would be scrambling fighters out of Andrews Air Force Base to shoot the plane down. But they have to know of the other attacks and that they were attacks in time to use this option.
It was US Secret Service that got the stinger off.

Clancy through his characters also explained that. It's actually simple physics. The aircraft was on it's final approach, doesn't need to turn. It is simple momentum. To stop the airliner completely, something that provides an equal but opposite momentum would be needed. The effect of the warhead of a stinger missile would be like expecting to stop a run away loaded semi with big rock or a pistol round. The truck will end up running over you and your pistol. It will just have a hole in whatever you shot at.

Fortunately, Clancy changed the details of nuclear weapon construction in The Sum of All Fears.
 
It was US Secret Service that got the stinger off.

Clancy through his characters also explained that. It's actually simple physics. The aircraft was on it's final approach, doesn't need to turn. It is simple momentum. To stop the airliner completely, something that provides an equal but opposite momentum would be needed. The effect of the warhead of a stinger missile would be like expecting to stop a run away loaded semi with big rock or a pistol round. The truck will end up running over you and your pistol. It will just have a hole in whatever you shot at.

Fortunately, Clancy changed the details of nuclear weapon construction in The Sum of All Fears.

I haven't read the novel, but really its entirely accurate that a stinger isn't going to stop a 747 that already that close to its target. Yes, the aircraft will be destroyed by the missile, but its ballistic trajectory isn't going to be changed, and if its already close enough to fire a stinger (especially if you're talking about an inexperienced operator who isn't actually expecting an attack, as would be the case for the Secret Service in DC) there's a pretty good chance an aircraft that size will already be close enough that it will be on an essentially ballistic trajectory into the target.
 

pnyckqx

Banned
I have read that the towers were designed to take a direct hit from a fully loaded 707. I looked it up awhile ago and the 767 and 757 are very close in weight and fuel capacity. I don't think removing the asbestos that covered the steel beams helped. Also I doubt the designers of the building thought it would be a impact like the one that happened but more of a lost plane trying to avoid the tower.
Not sure that Asbestos would have helped. It isn't the fire per se that is the issue, it is the heat involved. That heat caused the materiel strength of the beams to lessen, making it impossible for them to bear the weight of the structure above them. The accumulation of rubble on subsequent layers becomes greater than the load bearing capacity of the beams at lower levels, and a folding collapse, like what was witnessed is the result.
 

pnyckqx

Banned
I haven't read the novel, but really its entirely accurate that a stinger isn't going to stop a 747 that already that close to its target. Yes, the aircraft will be destroyed by the missile, but its ballistic trajectory isn't going to be changed, and if its already close enough to fire a stinger (especially if you're talking about an inexperienced operator who isn't actually expecting an attack, as would be the case for the Secret Service in DC) there's a pretty good chance an aircraft that size will already be close enough that it will be on an essentially ballistic trajectory into the target.
In the book the stinger scored a hit on one of the engines. The Japanese pilot simply shut down the engine and continued on his path.


 

b12ox

Banned
Not sure that Asbestos would have helped. It isn't the fire per se that is the issue, it is the heat involved. That heat caused the materiel strength of the beams to lessen, making it impossible for them to bear the weight of the structure above them. The accumulation of rubble on subsequent layers becomes greater than the load bearing capacity of the beams at lower levels, and a folding collapse, like what was witnessed is the result.
How many skyscrapers built off similar blueprints and without adequate horizontal insulation belts exist today? How actually can you isolate a steel frame that way?
 
Top