World Trade Center destroyed in 1993 attack

[clintonforever]

Suppose the 1993 attack on the WTC had the result Rasmi Yousef wanted...both towers collapse.

All the sudden Bill Clinton just a month into his presidency is forced into a war on terror.....

What does he do?

 

[Orville_third]

There's no need to go to a war...
However, a nationwide/global manhunt and draconian increases in surveillance measures would result (Much like 1995 and 2001). This could potentially result in a bigger Republican backlash in 1994.

 

[BlackWave]

The 9/11 attacks will be butterflied away, obviously, and maybe the war on terror and the Iraq war will either be postponed, come earlier, or not happen altogether. If the fanatics perform more attacks, then we'll have post 9/11 mentality earlier, obviously.

 

[mattep74]

Suppose the 1993 attack on the WTC had the result Rasmi Yousef wanted...both towers collapse.

All the sudden Bill Clinton just a month into his presidency is forced into a war on terror.....

What does he do?

If both collapse then there will not be 3k deaths, there will be tens of thousands of deaths

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

Where ever Osama is will either give him up or be invaded.

Iraq is still likely. You still have the same process.

Saddam is on our list and suddenly America's level of tolerance is reduced below the level that was previously safe for him.

 

[boredatwork]

Where ever Osama is will either give him up or be invaded.

Iraq is still likely. You still have the same process.

Saddam is on our list and suddenly America's level of tolerance is reduced below the level that was previously safe for him.

After all, it was the Clinton/Gore administration that made removing Saddam national policy.

Bush merely went ahead & executed on that.

Tens of thousands of deaths in NYC will lead to security restrictions & levels of retaliation that would likely make the patriot act and Afghan/Iraq invasions seem pretty tame by comparison.

I certainly wouldn't want to live in that sort of world.

 

[Ibn Warraq]

The plotters would have had to be much, much more professional(remember one of their guys was caught trying to get his security deposit for the rental van back) and a lot more explosives.

 

[David S Poepoe]

If both towers collapsed it would represent more the greatest feat of shoddy construction. It would be far more reasonable to consider that one or both towers would be condemned and then demolished.

 

[Mark E.]

What kind of explosive is used to take down the towers from a parking garage level? The OTL collapse required a jet plane full of fuel that created fires hot enough to weaken the structural steel. To take the towers down from the 1993 attack point you would need either:

1. Multiple, professionally set charges, the placement of which could not be hidden.

2. A nuke.

 

[Dave]

The towers, to the best of my knowledge, could not be destroyed by a ground level blast. You could, however, kill everyone in the towers at a given time by releasing something into the ventilation system. Sarin?

 

[Orville_third]

They did consider putting toxic gas in with the bomb. It didn't go ahead...and wouldn't have worked anyway.

However, if they had parked the van closer to the foundation, it would have brought one tower down.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050316140649/http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069653/

Even with the bomb being a small one, it still sent smoke up to floor 93 of the towers.

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

They did consider putting toxic gas in with the bomb. It didn't go ahead...and wouldn't have worked anyway.

However, if they had parked the van closer to the foundation, it would have brought one tower down.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050316140649/http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069653/

Even with the bomb being a small one, it still sent smoke up to floor 93 of the towers.

One tower collapsing could be bad enough. My understanding is that the timing of the 9-11 attacks were bad, thus the "low" number of dead.

If one tower falling gives far more death than 9-11 than we have the trauma the OP was looking for.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

There's no need to go to a war...
However, a nationwide/global manhunt and draconian increases in surveillance measures would result (Much like 1995 and 2001). This could potentially result in a bigger Republican backlash in 1994.

The thing you're probably referring to in 1995 was the wiretaps. Those, IIRC, still required and depended on warrants to be carried out contrary to the conspiracy paranoia about it.

After all, it was the Clinton/Gore administration that made removing Saddam national policy.

I doubt Clinton would invade a nation with no connection to such an event in reality, and with little reason to suspect Iraq and without anything really pointing to Iraq.