What if the towers stood?

[Class]

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.

[Bell]

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.

[stateofgrace]

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.

[quixotecoyote]

Why? Would it really be that hard to add one more planeload of conspirators to the CT?

[Garb]

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.

I doubt that is the case.


They would assume they work for the government.

[Bell]

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!

You can't win :rolleyes:

[jessicarabbit]

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.

I believe flight 93 crashed as stated.

[W6102LA]

I believe flight 93 crashed as stated.
What's your belief on Fight 77 ?

[jessicarabbit]

What's your belief on Fight 77 ?

It hit the pentagon of course. They couldn't fake that.

[beachnut]

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.

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

[Mince]

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.

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."

[Brainster]

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.

[beachnut]

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.

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

[defaultdotxbe]

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

[gumboot]

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."



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

[jsiv]

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.
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.

[Mince]

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

Aha. See, I did not know that. Thank you.

[LashL]

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.

[Bell]

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.

I believe he was a retired airforce (fighter jet) pilot.

[qarnos]

I believe he was a retired airforce (fighter jet) pilot.

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.

[Bell]

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.

"How convinient that an ex figterpilot was onboard."

Yes, it doesn't matter what happened or not happened, it alsways proves the conspiracy.

[uk_dave]

"How convinient that an ex figterpilot was onboard."

Yes, it doesn't matter what happened or not happened, it alsways proves the conspiracy.

It's like the Naudet documentary.

CT: "So these guys just happen to be making a documentary about a fire crew who just happen to be the first on the scene after the alleged plane hit the tower"

Or, if the Naudet's hadn't got the footage in those first minutes...

CT: "So these guys are supposed to be making a documentary about a fire crew and it just so happens that they didn't get footage of the first alleged plane. How very convenient"

Any event, phrase or action can be spun by the CT'ers into being suspicious

[gumboot]

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.


Dunno about that... it may be one rare thing the movies get right. Certainly landing and take-off are the difficult parts of flying, but the easy bits are mind-numbingly easy.

If you know how to land, most of the conversion becomes a matter knowing what the particular aircraft's stall speed is, gear down speed, flap angle, and so forth.

It was a nice clear day with not much wind. Find a nice big long runway with no crosswind, and I think getting the aircraft on the ground in one piece is very do-able. It wouldn't be a pleasant landing (much of airliner flying precision comes down to passenger comfort) but I think they'd be okay.

The key thing is, if he's a pilot, he understand the concept of stall and flap and approach angle and all of that stuff, which means Approach can talk to him in technical terms, not layman's terms.

Bear in mind, before instrument landing systems were developed the ground-controlled approach or "talk-down" was standard practise in situations in which a visual approach was impossible.

And it really wouldn't surprise me if a similar scenario - an amateur or non-pilot landing an aircraft with the aid of ground controllers - has occured multiple times in the history of aviation.

-Gumboot

[Rob Lister]

I also suspect an ex-fighter jockey could have pulled it off easily with only a little help from the tower.

[AWPrime]

edit

[Panoply_Prefect]

Dunno about that... it may be one rare thing the movies get right. Certainly landing and take-off are the difficult parts of flying, but the easy bits are mind-numbingly easy.

If you know how to land, most of the conversion becomes a matter knowing what the particular aircraft's stall speed is, gear down speed, flap angle, and so forth.

It was a nice clear day with not much wind. Find a nice big long runway with no crosswind, and I think getting the aircraft on the ground in one piece is very do-able. It wouldn't be a pleasant landing (much of airliner flying precision comes down to passenger comfort) but I think they'd be okay.

The key thing is, if he's a pilot, he understand the concept of stall and flap and approach angle and all of that stuff, which means Approach can talk to him in technical terms, not layman's terms.

Bear in mind, before instrument landing systems were developed the ground-controlled approach or "talk-down" was standard practise in situations in which a visual approach was impossible.

And it really wouldn't surprise me if a similar scenario - an amateur or non-pilot landing an aircraft with the aid of ground controllers - has occured multiple times in the history of aviation.

-Gumboot

Im no pilot, but I've actually succefully, however bumpy ("manly" the pilot who guided me said), landed an Airbus professional simulator in the SAS Flight Academy at Arlanda here in Stockholm. So as far as I understand it, it is doable (Taking into account that doing it from the safety of a pilot seat in a however realistic simulator doesnt quite compare to being faced with a life-and-death situation)..

Cheers,
SLOB

[Mancman]

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.

It does depend on how unsettled the lower section of the buildings were, but I think the towers would have had temporary support structures placed in the impact damage holes, and then been dismantled down to a couple of floors below where the fires raged (~90 for WTC1 and ~75 for WTC2), and rebuilt, probably with a few extra floors added for good measure.

Would have been an incredible challenge though. I imagine much of lower Manhattan would have to be closed whilst the work took place over several years.

[Larry Lovage]

I'd have had a go, and all I've run is Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Apparently ignorant towel-headed Muslim terrorists cannot do simple trigonometry, because it's completely impossible to fly an airplane straight into a building. This theory ignores the fact that there's loads of stuff on any airliner that is designed to allow you to do pretty much everything - including set a fixed descent rate, and you just twist a knob to get the plane pointing int he right direction.

I'm afraid I do disagree with the above poster who reckoned that that sort of thing only happened in the movies - it is not beyond the realms of possibility for even an amateur pilot to pull off a successful landing, to the extent at least that not everybody on the plane died. It's just a tragedy that they failed to regain control.

I think the tops of the towers would have to be dismantled,Ironically, by "pulling".

[beachnut]

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.

he would do it, a simple pilot who can really fly

they would talk him down to 20 feet

then they would say pull the throttles back evenly,

squeak, touch down, even the brakes are just like the little airplane, get those toes up there on the top of those rudder pedals and slow the plane down

Ask a pilot, a heavy pilot, oops you did

[boloboffin]

The passengers would never have assumed control of the plane.

They had to overcome the two guys outside. At that point, Jarrah began thrashing the plane around, bouncing the people around the cabin. Still, they began to attack the door. Jarrah is clearly heard assessing their approach, and finally put the plane into a dive so steep and disorienting that no one on earth could have gotten into the cockpit to stop him. From his recorded statements, it appears to have been a part of the contigency plans of the hijackers to do so.

[Alt+F4]

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.

If the attacks had happened an hour later there might have been 10,000 victims. I'm a NYCer and witnessed the second plane strike and the collapse of both towers with my OWN EYES (not on the idiot box) and I agree with you, my first thought was, "this just can't happen".

[Darth Rotor]

I also suspect an ex-fighter jockey could have pulled it off easily with only a little help from the tower.
Check.

I am guessing a rep (senior captain) from the airline company would have walked him through it, step by step, on a secondary freq, leaving tower freq open for other radio traffic. Might not have been pretty, and the landing might have been firm, and he might have run off the over run if he didn't time the thrust reversal and secondary flight controls perfectly, might even have braked so hard he had a wheel fire, but I am guessing the fighter pilot would get it down.

DR

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

"she's built like a steakhouse, but drives like a bistro!"

[roger]

I did it, in a full motion simulator of a helicopter where the guy showing it to me maliciously caused a simulated engine failure. He felt that I probably would have hurt the bird but we would have survived. Autorotations aren't exactly easy, but I did it, with no flight time beyond Microsoft Flight Simulator. ya, I know, it's a random anecdote.