WI: The Twin Towers Remained Standing After 9/11?

I don't know much about engineering but I don't think they could be saved to two a plane coming though them with jetfuel. Would the other two planes still be hijacked?
 

SsgtC

Banned
The only way they're still standing is if the planes don't hit or at most clip them with a wingtip and then crash elsewhere. Once the planes hit and the fuel began to burn, the towers were coming down. The steel supports would have been too weakened to hold the building up after that.
 
The only way they're still standing is if the planes don't hit or at most clip them with a wingtip and then crash elsewhere. Once the planes hit and the fuel began to burn, the towers were coming down. The steel supports would have been too weakened to hold the building up after that.
Or maybe the plane(s) make impact closer to the top of the buildings, so that the rest of the structure remains intact?
 
I cannot urge people enough to read "102 Minutes"
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/09/books/review/102-minutes-inside-the-towers.html

Once the planes hit, nothing could save the people above in the impact floors in Tower One from death from smoke inhalation as the impact wiped out all of the evacuation stairs. The casualties in Tower Two would have been far lower if an evacuation had begun right away after Tower One was hit (a lot of people were urged to return to work).

Several floors, an acre each in size, were completely engulfed in flames.

So basically the planes have to not hit the buildings
 

Greenville

Banned
Rescuers eventually make it to the top of the towers and are able to put the fires out after several days. Only about 800 people would'be been killed in the attacks overall without the collapse. There is a chance rescue of the top floors could be done by helicopter as well. The buildings may not be demolished, but heavily retrofitted. Billions will be spent on the repair process which will take several years. A memorial is installed in renovated parts of the building later on.
 

SsgtC

Banned
No. Because part of the problem is that burning debris and fuel from the planes dropped down the elevator shafts. Plus, once the top few floors started to collapse, the floors below them lacked the strength to support the weight on their own.

Or maybe the plane(s) make impact closer to the top of the buildings, so that the rest of the structure remains intact?
 
The only way they're still standing is if the planes don't hit or at most clip them with a wingtip and then crash elsewhere. Once the planes hit and the fuel began to burn, the towers were coming down. The steel supports would have been too weakened to hold the building up after that.
Not nesserally. I remember watching a documentary on why the towers collapsed on PBS years ago (so long ago I can't remember all the details). In it, they said that for cost reasons, just before construction there was a more or less last minute change with the kind of flame retardant used on the steal beams in the floor or something like that. The original plan called for something that was more expensive then what was actually used. The documentary said that had they stuck to the original plan, the towers would have had a better chance of remaining standing long enough for the fire to be put out. If you want to create a timeline where the towers survive the attack, I think the point of departure from our timeline would have to be before construction started.
 
Not nesserally. I remember watching a documentary on why the towers collapsed on PBS years ago (so long ago I can't remember all the details). In it, they said that for cost reasons, just before construction there was a more or less last minute change with the kind of flame retardant used on the steal beams in the floor or something like that. The original plan called for something that was more expensive then what was actually used. The documentary said that had they stuck to the original plan, the towers would have had a better chance of remaining standing long enough for the fire to be put out. If you want to create a timeline where the towers survive the attack, I think the point of departure from our timeline would have to be before construction started.

So the way to save the Twin Towers is to make it so that jet fuel can't melt steel beams?

The towers are going to be utterly gutted by the fire and other damage, though. But with hundreds dead in the terrorist attack, I think a lot of Americans would agree the towers should be repaired.
 
So the way to save the Twin Towers is to make it so that jet fuel can't melt steel beams?

The towers are going to be utterly gutted by the fire and other damage, though. But with hundreds dead in the terrorist attack, I think a lot of Americans would agree the towers should be repaired.

Not melt. Steel losing strength because of fire.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Here's the thing, the beans don't have to melt. The fire in the towers was burning hot enough that the beams were weakened by it. They lost just enough strength that they were no longer capable of supporting the building.

So the way to save the Twin Towers is to make it so that jet fuel can't melt steel beams?

The towers are going to be utterly gutted by the fire and other damage, though. But with hundreds dead in the terrorist attack, I think a lot of Americans would agree the towers should be repaired.
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
Rescuers eventually make it to the top of the towers and are able to put the fires out after several days. Only about 800 people would'be been killed in the attacks overall without the collapse. There is a chance rescue of the top floors could be done by helicopter as well. The buildings may not be demolished, but heavily retrofitted. Billions will be spent on the repair process which will take several years. A memorial is installed in renovated parts of the building later on.

Helicopter rescue is for the silver screen not real life.
Smoke.
Access to the roof.
No landing pad.
Helicopter weight restrictions.
That mast atop tower one.
No training in how to do it.
 
Even if the towers somehow survived the day, they would be damaged beyond repair. Survivor accounts (including people I know personally) hint that the buildings' structural integrity was completely compromised and it was only a matter of time.
 
Could they really have put the fires out, even if they have days before the buildings collapse? Look at the Grenfell Tower fire recently, and that was a single building a fraction of the size these two buildings are. There will still be hundreds of people killed in the towers, and dozens after the initial impact due to the fires caused.
 
Makes no difference in the response. It's still a mass casualty attack (people on the planes and upper floors). Only difference is we don't lose the first responders.
 
Makes no difference in the response. It's still a mass casualty attack (people on the planes and upper floors). Only difference is we don't lose the first responders.

But can the fires in the World Trade Center be put out before the buildings collapse? Most of the FDNY is responding to it, and it's pretty much the biggest disaster in their history. If we use the above post how we get the structural integrity stronger, the emergency responders have longer to put out the fire and get everyone out.
 
Well, looking at the events, I'd say that if the Towers remained standing somehow, they'd be seen as proud act of American defiance against Islamic Terrorism. The towers would be even more famous as a result, and security would increase around them. If they're damaged, then... they'd probably not be removed and left with the scars or at least sort of cleaned up as a monument to Freedom and Democracy. Or at least that's how they'd see it.
 
Even if 1 and 2 WTC do not collapse in the hours or days after the 9/11 attacks they'd be damaged to such an extent that they'll have to be demolished. When I was watching the North Tower on fire, mere minutes before the second plane hit the South Tower, thus becoming apparent that this was in fact a terrorist attack, my primary thoughts were: How the hell are they going to tear it down without damaging the buildings around, especially since any deconstruction would inevitably further compromise the already weakened structural integrity of it. Regardless, the Twin Towers would disappear from the New York Skyline.
 
Well, looking at the events, I'd say that if the Towers remained standing somehow, they'd be seen as proud act of American defiance against Islamic Terrorism. The towers would be even more famous as a result, and security would increase around them. If they're damaged, then... they'd probably not be removed and left with the scars or at least sort of cleaned up as a monument to Freedom and Democracy. Or at least that's how they'd see it.

As someone else mentioned a while back in a similar thread, it would be perhaps an even greater success than OTL of the terrorist attacks if they didn't destroy the towers, but wrecked them so bad they made us tear them down ourselves. What propaganda it would be for the terrorists and other extremists in the Middle East.

And you can't leave the WTC with the scars of plane impacts. You'll get a nice monument out front regarding the people who lost their lives in the attack, and a reconstruction.

Politically, killing 800-1000 people in a terrorist attack will cause basically the same effect as in OTL regarding 9/11.
 
Top