I know you've probably heard these questions before, but I thought I'd put them up for discussion once again.

What do you think would've happened if one tower collapsed but the other survived with damage? Would they have dismantled the tower? Fix it and then rebuild it's twin again?

Let's hear your theories.

I think they would have left the one up, and instead of rebuilding the collapsed tower, they would have made a monument there.
Like a symbol that the spirit is still standing

They would have definitely rebuilt the other tower, no questions asked. I mean, how couldn't they? One tower without a twin would look very odd.

They would have definitely rebuilt the other tower, no questions asked. I mean, how couldn't they? One tower without a twin would look very odd.

I also think that they would have rebuilt, but improved and probably with memorial facilities.

I've been thinking about how weird that would be since 9/11. Everyone in NYC would see a single tower with a giant hole in it.

I think they would have rebuilt 1 or 2 (which ever) had one been destroyed and one survived.

Interesting question. I've often thought that if Tower 1 had survived (it almost did, just one or two things had been different, it would have), what would they have done?

I guess they would have rebuilt tower 2, Silverstein would have had his insurance money, and he would have been obligated to rebuild the lost space, which probably would have inluded a new 3 & 4 WTC. The plaza, and major parts of the underground would have to be rebuilt. The PATH would have been shut down. And Tower 1 might have suffered enough damage to require the complete dismantling of the top 20-30 floors. The WTC would be unoccupiable for the better part of a year, probably longer.

Then again, we could have been screwed anyway. They could have lopped-off the top of 1WTC off and put a skeleton in its place, and a new 2WTC would replicate its mangled twin. At this point, I have so little respect for all the people involved I wouldn't put anything past them.

And collapse or not, well over 1,000 peoploe would still have died.

yeah, the north tower almost survived the attack, unlike its twin, which suffered fatal structural damage when that plane plowed into a corner of it (reports have said that it almost collapsed from the impact, but it still held for an hour). if them lunatics have been stupid enough to slam a plane flying from anywhere west of the mississippi into the north tower, it would've likely survived.

anyways, if that's the case, i believe the building would've been renovated, with its facade altered a wee bit to make it look more modern. stronger stairwells and any safety features the building lacked would've been installed. also, the top of the tower would've been repaired to its original look, but floors 92-106 probably would be closed and turned into a memorial. the window on the world restaurant would reopen due to popular demand, and the broadcasting companies that used the building's antenna would probably return to floors 108-110 also, or probably move below floor 92.

as for the south tower, it would've been rebuilt since there would be a higher public demand for that to be done (the north tower would not look right alone anyways). it would probably be rebuilt as tall as the north tower east of the original footprint with the exterior facade looking like the north tower and with newly implemented safety features. there would still be a floor 110 observation deck and an outdoor observation platform (again due to public demand).

and 7 wtc would've still be alive today (its fatal fire happened after north tower debris punctured diesel fuel tanks in the building). what remained of 3 and 4 wtc would've been dismantled and rebuilt with more modern replacements. 5 and 6 wtc would've probably been renovated (or even rebuilt if they are already badly damaged by south tower debris) to match the new 3 and 4 wtc.

and probably about 50-100 people that perished on that day would still be alive today.

Turing ten stories of the North Tower into a memorial?! Building the South Tower east of the original footprint?!!

I don't think they would have made any drastic changes to the towers-- They would have just rebuilt.

Oh man, I was hoping to go to NY someday and see the WTC in all it's glory.
They just have to rebuild (with some improvements off course) On the other hand an almost exact copy of the old WTC could attract terrorists again. (hopefully the freedom tower doesn't)

On the other hand an almost exact copy of the old WTC could attract terrorists again. (hopefully the freedom tower doesn't)

No. This is the bullshit vicitm's relatives and the LMDC spread. The Pentagon is five stories tall. It was hit. Before the WTC, Al Qaeda targeted the CIA Headquarters near Langley VA, it's less than ten stories tall. It isn't height that those maniacs are after, it's the symbolism.

You could build a one story high museum on the WTC site and if it becomes symbollic they will target it. Put that museum in the middle of nowhere, if it becomes important they will target it. They want to destroy icons and kill as many people as possible. That's it. No more.

No. This is the bullshit vicitm's relatives and the LMDC spread. The Pentagon is five stories tall. It was hit. Before the WTC, Al Qaeda targeted the CIA Headquarters near Langley VA, it's less than ten stories tall. It isn't height that those maniacs are after, it's the symbolism.

You could build a one story high museum on the WTC site and if it becomes symbollic they will target it. Put that museum in the middle of nowhere, if it becomes important they will target it. They want to destroy icons and kill as many people as possible. That's it. No more.

Oh man, I was hoping to go to NY someday and see the WTC in all it's glory.
They just have to rebuild (with some improvements off course) On the other hand an almost exact copy of the old WTC could attract terrorists again. (hopefully the freedom tower doesn't)

The terrorists don't target height so much as they target buildings that mean something. The only way to build a WTC that terrorists won't target is to build a WTC that won't mean anything.

If the Freedom Tower doesn't attract terrorists, that will be because it doesn't mean anything.

I think they would rebuild the other tower almost identical to the collapsed one before it, and then to hide its newness and for representation, connect it to the still-standing tower with twisting metal and glass.

I've re-done the towers in my WTC in the wake of the "Why was the North Tower Taller" discussion, and during assmbly I was reminded of this thread. So I thought a shot of the WTC without Tower 2 would be interesting, but not enough for a new thread. So here it is.

http://img86.exs.cx/img86/7473/wtc0013ot.jpg http://img139.exs.cx/img139/7149/wtc0026yf.jpg

Without a twin to relate to, Tower 1 loses alot I think.

Knowing silverstein He's have the top 40 floors removed and build a couple others beside it :rolleyes:

Without a twin to relate to, Tower 1 loses alot I think.

I kind of like it, there other ones are just one to. What I would like even more is if the towers were following a more uniform style guide. So it looks more business like. A lot of gigantic buildings that all look somewhat the same. A few traditional "brick" buildings that look like a combination of American International, The Trump Building, GE Building, Woolworth Building. And a few "glass" buidlings that look like a combination of One Chase Manhattan Plaza, One Penn Plaza, 1251 Avenue of the Americas, One Liberty Plaza. And a few combinations that look like a combination of the old World Trade Center and Aon Center, Chicago.

savethewtc neither tower would have survived after the attack.
They were both Tube structures where the facade basically carried the entire structural load.The second the airplanes hit compromised the structural integrity of the buildings.I will agree with 7 World Trade on his assertion on the South Tower's collapse before the North tower.The trajectory on how the planes impacted made a huge difference on their destruction and despite of what the WTC expirenced on 9/11
they performed exceptionally well considering the trauma they were exposed to.
The towers fell on their own "footprints".They were simple but a feat of engineering and architecture.
By the way there is a documentary Monday night on tv about "how the towers fell".

savethewtc neither tower would have survived after the attack.
They were both Tube structures where the facade basically carried the entire structural load.The second the airplanes hit compromised the structural integrity of the buildings.I will agree with 7 World Trade on his assertion on the South Tower's collapse before the North tower.The trajectory on how the planes impacted made a huge difference on their destruction and despite of what the WTC expirenced on 9/11
they performed exceptionally well considering the trauma they were exposed to.
The towers fell on their own "footprints".They were simple but a feat of engineering and architecture.
By the way there is a documentary Monday night on tv about "how the towers fell".

I think we can assume that he knows that - the question is what if one tower survived.