WI: Larger 9/11 death toll?

On average there were around 50,000 people working in the Twin Towers daily plus as many as 200,000 visitors. Since the attacks IOTL took place early in the morning there were only around 18,000 people inside the Towers.

What if the attacks had taken place several hours later leading to a death toll an order of magnitude larger (over 50,000 deaths instead of 2,800)?

Would this have an significant impact or change the events that occurred afterwards?
 
Last edited:
50.000 dead people make things quite unpredictable.
If the magnitude of the death count is clear early (that is within a couple of hours of the first plane striking the towers) and if the 4th plane actually hits the Capitol (for example if it wasn't delayed when taking off as in OTL), then gloves are off.
I see nukes flying...
 
I see nukes flying...

I don't. To be more specific,I can't imagine any course of action the terrorists could have done with the planes on their disposal which would result in a single nuclear explosion anywhere at any time.
 
Here's 3 targets that would at least put nuclear weapons on the table using the 9/11 planes
  • Fort Detrick
  • Three Mile Island
  • CDC
Those would suggest trying to create a biological or nuclear attack, especially since the CDC was known to be the US repository of smallpox.
 
Well, if the attack was on this scale the psychological effect is immeasurable, this is more people than were killed in the Blitz.
 
George Bush's approval rating would be significantly higher and would stay high for significantly longer if 50,000-60,000 people had been killed. Nukes would not be used however and as long as Bush stays president only Afghanistan, Iraq and possibly Libya would be invaded. One of biggest problems is the butterflies, maybe Bush's approval remains high enough that he can avoid loosing control of both houses of congress in 2006.

I doubt the United States would invade Iran, Bush was against invading Iran but Iranians equipping rebels in Iraq in conjunction with the 50,000 death toll could provoke Bush enough to conduct military operations.

Other possibilities is that Islamophobia would be significantly more severe after 911. There would be a fair number of mass shootings directed at muslims or people who appear to be muslim.
 
On average there were around 50,000 people working in the Twin Towers daily plus as many as 200,000 visitors. Since the attacks IOTL took place early in the morning there were only around 18,000 people inside the Towers.

What if the attacks had taken place several hours later leading to a death toll an order of magnitude larger (over 50,000 deaths instead of 2,800)?

Would this have an significant impact or change the events that occurred afterwards?

If they have coordinated for an attack to strike at 11 instead of 9 they will have a bigger impact when it comes to death tolls, but to kill off 50k you need the plane to strike even lower and considering the Manhattan skyline i dont think that is possible.

With over 10k dead Bush will put even more preassure on the Talibans to hand over Bin Ladin "Hey guys, we have these big bombs and if you do not hand him over we will make it 3-0 when it comes to using them"

10k dead also means that the tally is higher than most terrorist attacks combined.

Saddam Hussein might be cooperative leading to Iraq not beeing invaded.
 
If they have coordinated for an attack to strike at 11 instead of 9 they will have a bigger impact when it comes to death tolls, but to kill off 50k you need the plane to strike even lower and considering the Manhattan skyline i dont think that is possible.

With over 10k dead Bush will put even more preassure on the Talibans to hand over Bin Ladin "Hey guys, we have these big bombs and if you do not hand him over we will make it 3-0 when it comes to using them"

10k dead also means that the tally is higher than most terrorist attacks combined.

Saddam Hussein might be cooperative leading to Iraq not beeing invaded.
When the towers were bombed it took authorities four hours to evacuate everyone. During 911 the towers collapsed after around two hours. If the planes had hit lower, later in the day then its possible that tens of thousands of people could have been trapped in the upper areas of the tower and killed.

The third plane also crashed in an area of the pentagon that was relatively deserted, early in the morning where only a small number of people were there.

50K is definitely a possible death tole for an attack that happened later in the day, it could actually be considered slightly low.
 
Saddam Hussein might be cooperative leading to Iraq not beeing invaded.

Saddam was very demented by that point so no I don't think so. You are assuming like Washington was he is/was a rational cognitant actor at that point and not a demented old man getting his blood drained to make supposedly the most holy Qur'an of all time.

Saddam isn't going to change because thousands more die.

Iraq hails attack on US

The entire world - almost - has reacted with horror to the news of Tuesday's terrorist attacks against the United States - the entire world except for Iraq.

As condolences poured in from everywhere - even from Libya and Iran - Iraq rejoiced, saying the terror attacks were a "lesson for all tyrants and oppressors" and the fruit of American crimes. "America burns," read the headline of the country's official al-Iraq newspaper, which declared: "the myth of America was destroyed with the World Trade Center in New York."

Elsewhere in the Gulf, newspapers were unanimous in their condemnation of the attacks, but al-Iraq wrote: "It is the prestige, arrogance and institutions of America that burn." The paper said it would be difficult for the US to find the perpetrators of the attack, since America has made so many enemies. "Thousands if not a million or billion hands were behind these attacks," it said. "Brutal America, suffering from illusions of grandeur, has inflicted humiliation, famine and terrorism on all of the world's countries and today it reaps the fruits of its arrogant and stupid policy," said an official Iraqi statement.

The official statement, read on television Tuesday night, said: "the American cowboys are reaping the fruit of their crimes against humanity. "The statement said the attack was, among others, a result of America's support of Israel. "The destruction of the centres of American power is the destruction of American policy, which has veered from human values to align itself with the Zionist world, to continue to massacre the Palestinian people."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1540216.stm
 
Last edited:
Saddam was very demented by that point so no I don't think so. You are assuming like Washington was he is/was a rational cognitant actor at that point and not a demented old man getting his blood drained to make supposedly the most holy Qur'an of all time.

Saddam isn't going to change because thousands more die.
Well goddamn. Yeah Iraq definitly gets invaded ITTL, possibly even significantly sooner when support is highest. Not sure what the butterflies from this could be, Turkey may possibly allow use of their country for invading Iraq, they almost did in our timeline. This could lead to some butterflies for the invasion, a possibility is that one/both of Saddam Husseins sons get away and join the insurgency. The US could also possibly grab Osama Bin Laden earlier if they have a higher troop commitment for Afghanistan.
 
Top