• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What if the towers stood?

Class

Critical Thinker
C
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
257
I've been wondering for a while what were to happen if the fires in the World Trade Center were able to be extinguished in time to prevent the collapse of both towers? Would it be possible for construction crews to repair the massive structural damage to the towers caused by the jets and fires, or would it require the entire top portion of the towers to be dismantled and reconstructed?

Just asking questions.
 
That was a thought I had on 9/11, obvious before the towers fell. I think the tops of the towers would have to be dismantled, to avert the danger of collapse after all, and maybe after that the whole towers would have to be demolished, since they where to much destroyed. I don't believe it would have been possible to repair the damage.
 
I often wonder the if.

Had the passenger on Flight 93 succeeded and really done it. Taken back this plane, landed and survived to tell their story.

That would be it, for the conspirators.
 
Why? Would it really be that hard to add one more planeload of conspirators to the CT?
 
stateofgrace said:
I often wonder the if.

Had the passenger on Flight 93 succeeded and really done it. Taken back this plane, landed and survived to tell their story.

That would be it, for the conspirators.
Click to expand...

I doubt that is the case.


They would assume they work for the government.
 
[nutter] That is liek totally unconvincable, liek, after the holographic planes / cruise missiles / keebler elves hit teh buildings, they should have collapsed. Teh fact that teh buildings stood, proves it is a conspiracy!!1!!one!!1! [/nutter]

You can't win :rolleyes:
 
Class said:
I've been wondering for a while what were to happen if the fires in the World Trade Center were able to be extinguished in time to prevent the collapse of both towers? Would it be possible for construction crews to repair the massive structural damage to the towers caused by the jets and fires, or would it require the entire top portion of the towers to be dismantled and reconstructed?

Just asking questions.
Click to expand...

Yes, there are examples. There was building in philadelphia

One Meridian Plaza, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, 1991​


Three firefighters died when they became disoriented
and ran out of air while fighting fire in the
high-rise building. The fire started on the twentieth
floor and ran up to the thirtieth floor where a
sprinkler system extinguished the fire. Although
the firefighters did not die from a collapse, this
event is significant in that fire officers feared a catastrophic
collapse due to stress cracks found in
the concrete stair towers and withdrew their firefighters.
There are many lessons learned from this
event. The fatality and fire investigation details
many building construction issues associated with
high-rise firefighting. It​

this building was damaged in the top floors, they decided to take it apart all together

but an option was to rebuild the top, there are more details I can not find them now, but CT sites have the best references for this, just go to one and follow their own sources to find the real story and debunk them easy
 
stateofgrace said:
I often wonder the if.

Had the passenger on Flight 93 succeeded and really done it. Taken back this plane, landed and survived to tell their story.
Click to expand...

Could you imagine the simultaneous joy and horror?

"Great, we've killed the terrorists and re-assumed the aircraft."

"Yeah, now all we have to do is land it."
 
I don't think there is any doubt that the upper portions would have had to be dismantled, which is clearly not an easy job. In the end it might have ended as the CTist's fantasize, with the buildings coming down from controlled demolition, although of course not on that day.

To me, beyond the actual terrorist attacks, the most striking event of that day was the collapse of the South Tower. I had grown up outside of New York and was very familiar with the sight of the twin giants. So the thought that first one and then the other would crumble to the ground was staggering, especially given my initial assumptions about the death toll, which was certainly above 10,000.
 
Brainster said:
I don't think there is any doubt that the upper portions would have had to be dismantled, which is clearly not an easy job. In the end it might have ended as the CTist's fantasize, with the buildings coming down from controlled demolition, although of course not on that day.

To me, beyond the actual terrorist attacks, the most striking event of that day was the collapse of the South Tower. I had grown up outside of New York and was very familiar with the sight of the twin giants. So the thought that first that one and then the other would crumble to the ground was staggering, especially given my initial assumptions about the death toll, which was certainly above 10,000.
Click to expand...

I think they would have dismantled them like the building in Philadelphia because everything is too close and the energy, not to mention the dust would be big problem
 
they would have had to dismantle/rebuild the top sections at the least (depnding on the structural damage to the whole tower they might have to take them compeltely down)

dismantling the top would be a huge undertaking in itself, they wouldnt want to bring much heavy equipment for fear of causing a collapse, they might have to do do it from helicopter

they might have had to take down the entire tower if the structure was compromised all the way down, which seems possible given the amount of twist/sway imparted to the tower by the plane impacts...i beleive there are witness accounts of things flying off shelves and furniture slinding around the floor because the towers were swaying so much

explosive demolition is definately out, the towers were simply to tall to predict how the debris would fall, plus the damage to the top sections would make structural failure even more unpredictable
 
Mince said:
Could you imagine the simultaneous joy and horror?

"Great, we've killed the terrorists and re-assumed the aircraft."

"Yeah, now all we have to do is land it."
Click to expand...



One of the passengers was a pilot.

I am pretty confident, had they captured the cockpit, they would have got to ground safely. Approach would have guided them down the whole way. They woulda made it.

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
One of the passengers was a pilot.

I am pretty confident, had they captured the cockpit, they would have got to ground safely. Approach would have guided them down the whole way. They woulda made it.
Click to expand...
I'm not so confident. I think that only works in the movies.

In the real world, I think the chances of a private pilot (at least that's what he was in the United 93 movie) successfully landing an airliner, even with "help from air traffic control" is slim. Of course, a somewhat controlled crash landing would have been infinitely better than what happened on 9/11 and probably yielded survivors even if the plane was damaged beyond repair.

The horror in this kind of scenario is very real.
 
gumboot said:
One of the passengers was a pilot.

I am pretty confident, had they captured the cockpit, they would have got to ground safely. Approach would have guided them down the whole way. They woulda made it.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

Aha. See, I did not know that. Thank you.
 
I think that, at least, they would have had a pretty good shot at landing safely because there was a passenger on board who was a licenced pilot, and that at the very least, they could have landed in a way that most, if not all, of the passengers would have survived. It may have been bumpy and it may have been a "crash landing", to use the vernacular, but I think they'd have made it if they'd been able to overtake the cockpit from the hijackers.

Sadly, this is all conjecture after the fact, and we'll never know what the outcome would have been had the passengers been able to overtake the hijackers and take control of the cockpit, but since the thread doesn't call for more than opinion, I think it's okay to offer my opinion that they certainly had a good shot at landing mostly intact.

ETA: I didn't read all of the posts before posting. It has already been noted that there was a passenger with pilot training among the passengers. Sorry for the repetition.
 
Last edited:
jsiv said:
I'm not so confident. I think that only works in the movies.

In the real world, I think the chances of a private pilot (at least that's what he was in the United 93 movie) successfully landing an airliner, even with "help from air traffic control" is slim. Of course, a somewhat controlled crash landing would have been infinitely better than what happened on 9/11 and probably yielded survivors even if the plane was damaged beyond repair.

The horror in this kind of scenario is very real.
Click to expand...

I believe he was a retired airforce (fighter jet) pilot.
 
Bell said:
I believe he was a retired airforce (fighter jet) pilot.
Click to expand...

Well, regardless of what his experience, the deniers would still be up in arms.

"Are we supposed to believe that a group of passenger overpowered hijackers armed with box-cutters??? Have you seen those things? Those blades are long and really sharp."

This isn't a joke - I seriously believe this is what their response would have been.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom