WI Bush killed on 9/11?

Yeah, but it wouldn't have stuck.
OTL the US had a blank cheque and started with a down payment on Afghanistan. Logic was pretty obvious and no one really disagreed. So they still had change left.
Then the US decided to spend that change on Iraq. The logic wasn't so obvious, and they hadn't cleaned up Afghanistan yet. You know. Graveyard of Empires? So the goodwill dried up and everything went back to normal.

If Cheney is going to go the OTL but harder, he is going to burn up the good will abroad and at home faster. And the good electors of the US will be looking to get him to pull his head in. Sure, he would still be likely to get two terms if his age and health allow, but the anger generated will prevent him bedding down all those control mechanisms a good fascist needs for long term control.

Honestly after 7 years of devisive Cheney rule it is easy to imagine an interest in an bridge building Obama type candidate and then as everyone gets sick of nothing really changing a "pox on all your houses" candidate. Not different to now, except probably more polarised.
 
The ability of the fire of the ordinary office stuff to weaken the structure of the towers.

Short answer - ask any firefighter (I have one handy in my family :) ) as it's a known hazard. I watched the buildings burn that morning in a room full of experienced engineers of various disciplines and given the extent of the fires none of them were surprised at the result.

Limited comparison, but an example of the effects of an average office burning on structural steel were simulated here (there is a tonne of other information out there as well) :

https://www.steelconstruction.info/Structural_fire_engineering#Cardington_fire_tests

The load bearing capacity gets reduced and there is physical distortion which can affect the loading of undamaged parts of the structure.

The thing is it was not simply fire that collapsed high-rise buildings on 9/11. It was a combination of fire effects on structures already damaged by impacts (either from aircraft or other buildings). The effect of the jet fuel was to simultaneously ignite fires in multiple locations on multiple floors and the building contents did the rest once the fuel had burned off.
 
Short answer - ask any firefighter (I have one handy in my family :) ) as it's a known hazard. I watched the buildings burn that morning in a room full of experienced engineers of various disciplines and given the extent of the fires none of them were surprised at the result.

Limited comparison, but an example of the effects of an average office burning on structural steel were simulated here (there is a tonne of other information out there as well) :

https://www.steelconstruction.info/Structural_fire_engineering#Cardington_fire_tests

The load bearing capacity gets reduced and there is physical distortion which can affect the loading of undamaged parts of the structure.

The thing is it was not simply fire that collapsed high-rise buildings on 9/11. It was a combination of fire effects on structures already damaged by impacts (either from aircraft or other buildings). The effect of the jet fuel was to simultaneously ignite fires in multiple locations on multiple floors and the building contents did the rest once the fuel had burned off.
Hm, that looked like exposed steel though, while I'm pretty sure the twin towers were supported with steel encased in concrete. Still, my point was that without a direct impact, there's going to no chance of bringing down tower 2 via fire.
 
Hm, that looked like exposed steel though, while I'm pretty sure the twin towers were supported with steel encased in concrete. Still, my point was that without a direct impact, there's going to no chance of bringing down tower 2 via fire.
What about debris from AAL11 and Tower 1?
 
I’m saying this as a Republican in all but name:

It is really disturbing that we have to work down to Powell to find a decent man...

I'd love to see a TL on a Powell Administration under these circumstances. Something in the vein of Tom Clancy's "Executive Orders", but a little less... erm... Clancy. :rolleyes:

Now, did Powell strongly believe in the Iraq War, or was he simply being the administration's spokesperson when he made his speech for the UN? Given the post-9/11 paranoia and the popular view of Iraq at the time, I could see an invasion and occupation going ahead even under President Powell.

If it did, I'm imagining a better-managed occupation in which the army is paid to stay in the barracks and gradually re-integrated, and de-Ba'athification consists of rounding up the criminals and letting the middle management stay in place to keep the country running. Plus a plan in place to provide security, secure the country, and rebuild the infrastructure starting Day 1, not the hodgepodge mess of OTL. Add an extra 10-15 BCTs sent in the year following the invasion when it becomes apparent that the occupation won't be a cakewalk, and I think you could see the results of the '07 Surge come 3-4 years (and 61,000 lives*) early. Followed by some military reorganization, I think you could see a much more well-rounded, yet focused, US military along the lines of Burton's New World Order threads.

*Approximate Iraqi deaths for that period, per the Iraqi Body Count

And I was hearing on the radio that same evening that it was Osama who was responsible. I learned several years later that the government had known Al Qaida was going to do something that day. They had no idea what... until it happened, when things became horrifyingly clear.

Do you know where I can get more info about this?

EDIT: Check it out
 
Last edited:
I don't think you understand what fascism is. What Cheney preached and practiced is almost the text book definition of fascism.
Most people do not understand what Fascism is.

Cheney was at worst a Strassian Neocon.


Also ideas for a Cheney Admin? Complete "reorganisation" of the World Order? Bolton as Secretary of State?
 
Hm, that looked like exposed steel though, while I'm pretty sure the twin towers were supported with steel encased in concrete. Still, my point was that without a direct impact, there's going to no chance of bringing down tower 2 via fire.
When tower 1 fell the impact damaged the foundation of tower 2 so it is possible
 
This would probably fuel conspiracy theories that Cheney had some knowledge of the attacks and did not inform Bush in hopes that Bush would be killed so that he could start a war in the middle east.
 
Last edited:
Top