What if the towers never fell

[MG1962]

I'm just curious what people think would have ultimately happened to the two towers if they had not come down. I'm guessing both building would have been gutted by the fires above their impact points

But below that? Would anything have been salvagable. I know the shock wave from the impact travelled right through the buildings and on the first floor of the South Tower cooking staff where trapped because the main access doors had buckled because of frame twisting.

There is also a lot of footage from the Lobby showing most of the facade had blown off the walls - Again possible evidence of major frame damage


And the second question. Is there any known demolition technique that could have safely dismantled the buildings if engineers had decided the overall damage was to great.

Why am I asking this? Well bin Laden got a lot of mileage over the collapse of the towers. How much more effective would it have been if the guttered skyscrapers dominated the New York skyline for years. Would it be almost like a permanent finger flip to the American people

[R.Mackey]

There would have been no way to rehabilitate the structures, and demolition would have been extremely perilous. Look at what happened to the Deutsche Bank Building, and multiply by a full order of magnitude.

[dropzone]

I long wondered how much trouble it would be to demolish a skyscraper, even one that was intact but elderly. My initial estimate of "a whole bunch of trouble" appears to be accurate.

I once asked that question on another forum. The consensus was that, "The pyramids are still standing after thousands of years. The Twin Towers could also last that long."

I rolled my eyes.

[JamesB]

Well obviously Dick Cheney had to bring down the towers. If he didn't people who have forgotten about the event after a couple of days and we would have never invaded Afghanistan to build an oil pipeline. It was a mandatory part of the plot that involved taking incredible risks to use an experimental explosive called nanothermite to bring down the towers using dozens of cover operatives in an extremely secure office building. They could have done it no other way.

Isn't that obvious?

[Mr.D]

The US would have still invaded Afghanistan.

[Nosi]

What if no airplanes ever crashed into the towers?

[Sam.I.Am]

What if no airplanes ever crashed into the towers?

Then the collapse of WTC 7 would be very suspicious. That was the ultimate goal after all...

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

If the Towers never fell...........

We wouldn't have any Conspiracy Theories about the Towers from the Truth Movement & Truthers. They would have nothing about thermite, thermate, nano & super thermite, what I've just heard nano spheres, or shaped charges & explosives to go on about.

[willhaven]

Whatever would have been accomplished by a collapse conspiracy could have been accomplished by a non-collapse conspiracy.

Still had hundreds of people killed on impact and hundreds leaping to their deaths from the smoke and heat. It would have been quite a spectacle even without the CD scenario which could have easily been exposed and would have not been worth the risk.

[MG1962]

I long wondered how much trouble it would be to demolish a skyscraper, even one that was intact but elderly. My initial estimate of "a whole bunch of trouble" appears to be accurate.

I read an article years ago talking about demolishing pre-stressed concrete skyscrapers. Basically they dont know how to do it. The greatest concern they had was if you tried to cut through the concrete to make it more manageable, you would release the stress and send huge chunks of concrete zinging all over the city scape

[A W Smith]

If the Towers never fell...........

We wouldn't have any Conspiracy Theories about the Towers from the Truth Movement & Truthers. They would have nothing about thermite, thermate, nano & super thermite, what I've just heard nano spheres, or shaped charges & explosives to go on about.

there would be a conspiracy theory that there was foreknowledge because of a clandestine operation to structurally reinforce the towers to prepare for a terrorist attack. That office workers saw German artists removing glass for a crane that only looked like a balcony to haul material up secretly in only fifteen minutes for construction workers to make noises moving things around on supposedly vacant locked out floors. Occurring during a power down witnessed by a employee who never worked there. And a Puerto Rican janitor heard someone using a fifty ton press to punch bolt holes in steel softened by hydrocarbon fires.

[AJM8125]

I suspect the towers would've had to come down.

I imagine the towers had massive electrical failure from blown transformers, burned or completely destroyed elevator cabs and related equipment, massive water damage from ruptured main and sprinkler lines, etc.

It probably make more sense to demolish them than try to save them.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

there would be a conspiracy theory that there was foreknowledge because of a clandestine operation to structurally reinforce the towers to prepare for a terrorist attack. That office workers saw German artists removing glass for a crane that only looked like a balcony to haul material up secretly in only fifteen minutes for construction workers to make noises moving things around on supposedly vacant locked out floors. Occurring during a power down witnessed by a employee who never worked there. And a Puerto Rican janitor heard someone using a fifty ton press to punch bolt holes in steel softened by hydrocarbon fires.

Let me refraise that:

We wouldn't have any Conspiracy Theories about thermite, thermate, nano & super thermite, what I've just heard nano spheres, or shaped charges & explosives to go on about.

[patchbunny]

There would have to be a tremendous amount of strengthening work before you could begin demolishing them. I'd expect a top-down demolition, mirroring the construction process. But man, the risk involved in stabilizing the structure...

Actually, I wonder if once you got past the impact floors if you couldn't have constructed back up and made a new roofline.

[Sam.I.Am]

There would have to be a tremendous amount of strengthening work before you could begin demolishing them. I'd expect a top-down demolition, mirroring the construction process. But man, the risk involved in stabilizing the structure...

Actually, I wonder if once you got past the impact floors if you couldn't have constructed back up and made a new roofline.

Probably not. There was a lot of infrastructure damage and the core was tweaked enough that (it was reported) many of the doors leading into the stairwells were jammed shut.

[Travis]

I believe we covered this once before and it was concluded that A) everyone above the impact point in WTC1 would still have died and that B) the towers would have needed to be demolished and that doing so would have been an engineering feat itself.

[TS-]

What if no airplanes ever crashed into the towers?

A recent thread made me think about exactly this. There seems to be a strange preoccupation with the actual airplane amongst truthers, and not just the video fakery/hologram people. If an actual large weapon- let's say a missile of some sort, which had LESS destructive power than the actual planes hit the towers and they collapsed, I think there would be less wind in the sails of the controlled demolition CTers.

"It got hit by a f:rule10:ing airplane" seems to carry less weight than it should, I assume because they're not recognized as weapons?

[Brattus]

I read an article years ago talking about demolishing pre-stressed concrete skyscrapers. Basically they dont know how to do it. The greatest concern they had was if you tried to cut through the concrete to make it more manageable, you would release the stress and send huge chunks of concrete zinging all over the city scape

uh......They could use spray paint nano thermite.
Yep! That's the ticket!

[Sam.I.Am]

Just about anything can be used as a weapon even though it was not designed for that purpose. All it takes is a little bit of MacGuyveresque imagination and the willingness to go through with it. Look at how many ways prisoners can make their shanks for example.

[fourtoe]

uh......They could use spray paint nano thermite.
Yep! That's the ticket!


Damn. You beat me to it!

Or they could just pull it.

[sylvan8798]

I believe we covered this once before and it was concluded that A) everyone above the impact point in WTC1 would still have died and that B) the towers would have needed to be demolished and that doing so would have been an engineering feat itself.

Having been involved in several cases where users of a building were particularly concerned for the structure of said building, I can safely say that many of the tenants would have flatly refused to return to a place that was creaking and moaning and canting off center with water running down the stairwells the last time they were in it.

And as a structural engineer, I personally would never have felt comfortable that we could safely return them to public use.

Not to mention that giant target painted on the side of it by those terrorists the truthers seem to love so much.

[JAStewart]

I'm sure America would've turned the partially destroyed buildings into a big American flag or something.

[carlitos]

I have wondered about this as I look at buildings in Chicago and New York. We build very tall buildings right next to each other, so what does happen when they age beyond their shelf life? We see infrastructure crumbing from 50 years ago, there will no doubt be more in another 50 years. Interesting engineering task.

[dudalb]

provided that everybody above the impact point still died, I don't think the non collapse of the towers would have made much difference as to the reaction. Most people where in a state of shock even BEFORE the towers went down.

[commandlinegamer]

I have wondered about this as I look at buildings in Chicago and New York. We build very tall buildings right next to each other, so what does happen when they age beyond their shelf life? We see infrastructure crumbing from 50 years ago, there will no doubt be more in another 50 years. Interesting engineering task.

Glasgow, Scotland has demolished a number of high flats in recent years, but they weren't anything like as densely packed. And the town where I live has had a number of small blocks of flats, less than 40 years old, demolished because of the poor quality of the concrete. So does anyone know what the average lifespan of a skyscraper is?

[Zorglub]

I wouldn't have learnt so much about about a lot of technical stuff. And i would be happily unaware of the magnitude of stupid some people can cause.
Both parts extremely useful. Thanks truthers for forcing me to actually learn stuff. I suggest you do the same.

[defaultdotxbe]

I have wondered about this as I look at buildings in Chicago and New York. We build very tall buildings right next to each other, so what does happen when they age beyond their shelf life? We see infrastructure crumbing from 50 years ago, there will no doubt be more in another 50 years. Interesting engineering task.
i think the consensus is if a very tall building had to be taken down it would have to be deconstructed rather than demolished

[Gnu World Order]

Does anyone know what is the tallest building to have ever been explosively demolished?(And don't say WTC 1 &2...)

[fourtoe]

I wouldn't have learnt so much about about a lot of technical stuff. And i would be happily unaware of the magnitude of stupid some people can cause.
Both parts extremely useful. Thanks truthers for forcing me to actually learn stuff. I suggest you do the same.

Yeah I definitely learned a lot about (nano/super)therm*te. That HAS TO come in handy sometime in the near future!

But I did learn a lot of other interesting stuff in all seriousness.

[Sam.I.Am]

I think it was the Hudson Dept. store in Detroit.

[yodaluver28]

The Hudson building is still the tallest building ever imploded and it was "only" 33 stories. 23 above-ground floors with a 6 story mechanical penthouse and 4 basement floors, 2 of them mechanical.

[Travis]

i think the consensus is if a very tall building had to be taken down it would have to be deconstructed rather than demolished

Which is a lot easier said than done. Look at the tallest demolition to date, 130 Liberty St (damaged by the collapse of WTC2) which is only half way done three years after it started with a couple of deaths in the process.

[Grizzly Bear]

So does anyone know what the average lifespan of a skyscraper is?
I don't know much about their typical life spans... but I am aware that tall buildings like the Empire State building needed extensive upgrades to the enclosure systems, because the material which provided the seal between the glass on the windows was deteriorating from decades of wear and tear. I imagine most of the existing skyscrapers could be maintained for several decades providing that they have proper maintainence

[Stellafane]

What if the towers never fell?

Then Truthers would be arguing inside job based on the self-evident fact that real planes would have surely knocked the towers down.

[Travis]

Then Truthers would be arguing inside job based on the self-evident fact that real planes would have surely knocked the towers down.

Sad, but very true.

[stewieg]

Well obviously Dick Cheney had to bring down the towers. If he didn't people who have forgotten about the event after a couple of days and we would have never invaded Afghanistan to build an oil pipeline. It was a mandatory part of the plot that involved taking incredible risks to use an experimental explosive called nanothermite to bring down the towers using dozens of cover operatives in an extremely secure office building. They could have done it no other way.

Isn't that obvious?

It's almost dumbfounding to listen to a truther try and make the argument that the towers needed to come down so as to make the case for war. As if the sight of a plane slamming into a building and people falling to their deaths was not enough.

[CORed]

provided that everybody above the impact point still died, I don't think the non collapse of the towers would have made much difference as to the reaction. Most people where in a state of shock even BEFORE the towers went down.

This is one of many things that make the 9/11 conspiracy theories so ridiculous. Given that Dick Cheney/Israel/NWO/Reptilians/Illuminati went to the trouble to stage the hijackings and the flying of the planes into the WTC towers, what exactly was the point of also using explosives, super-duper-nano-thermite/ate or space beams to demolish the towers? Even if the impact and fires didn't collapse the buildings, they already had a disaster with hundreds or more killed and vivid images of death and destruction to justify their nefarious plans for invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Like everything else the Truthers believe, it just doesn't make sense to both fly planes into the buildings and demolish them.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Can I ask the Truthers something without them getting all hot headed?

WHY WOULD DICK CHENEY WANT TO BRING DOWN THE TOWERS FOR, IF IT'S NOT HIS TOWERS IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Don't you Truthers know that that theory about Dick Cheney doesn't make sense?

I'm calling on the Chewbacca Defense on that theory!

[Paulhoff]

I'm just curious what people think would have ultimately happened to the two towers if they had not come down.
There would be even more Birthers.

Paul

:) :) :)

[NutCracker]

Then there would be a controlled demolition (of some sort), it would be obvious... and it wouldn't be a part of the Truth Movement cult.

It's way more attractive to wander off into fantasyland, where everyone, except you, is dead wrong, than to be right.