Thanks for the votes. I'd be interested to know from who voted to have taken them down, was it because you never liked them in the first place?
9/11 Happened But The Towers Never Collapsed.......
G
I often wondered what would have happened in that case. Would have the fireman managed to put out the fires and save the people above the impact zone in the North Tower?
Probably not because it would have taken them time to maneuver without the lifts or stairwells in place having been destroyed. It could have taken days.
So then what? The complex would have been closed until at least 2004? But by then many businesses would have relocated. Nearly 30 years of getting fully leased would have been literally wiped out.
I assume the top of the North Tower would be covered in scaffolding for years. As would part of the upper floors of the South Tower. Well at least the impact areas would be covered up. But the burn marks on the facade will still be for all too see.
But what of Windows On The World? How could they have reopened it let alone lease above the 90th floor of the North Tower. Perhaps it would have been simply a shrine and left empty as a mark of respect.
Same with the part of the South Tower affected. Left empty.
Perhaps WOTW would have moved to the South Tower? But it would have looked so sad to look at the empty North Tower from the outside observation deck of the South Tower....
How would they have approached strengthening the Towers? Made the upper floors as strong as the maintenance floors? Perhaps the drastic approach of no office space at all above the second sky lobby which is around the 78th floor?
Thinking about this makes it all sound impossible. So would they have decided to take them down completely? How depressing would have that looked and made New Yorkers feel? Every week or so one floor less....
I'll be interested to hear everyone's thoughts and ideas on this!
Probably not because it would have taken them time to maneuver without the lifts or stairwells in place having been destroyed. It could have taken days.
So then what? The complex would have been closed until at least 2004? But by then many businesses would have relocated. Nearly 30 years of getting fully leased would have been literally wiped out.
I assume the top of the North Tower would be covered in scaffolding for years. As would part of the upper floors of the South Tower. Well at least the impact areas would be covered up. But the burn marks on the facade will still be for all too see.
But what of Windows On The World? How could they have reopened it let alone lease above the 90th floor of the North Tower. Perhaps it would have been simply a shrine and left empty as a mark of respect.
Same with the part of the South Tower affected. Left empty.
Perhaps WOTW would have moved to the South Tower? But it would have looked so sad to look at the empty North Tower from the outside observation deck of the South Tower....
How would they have approached strengthening the Towers? Made the upper floors as strong as the maintenance floors? Perhaps the drastic approach of no office space at all above the second sky lobby which is around the 78th floor?
Thinking about this makes it all sound impossible. So would they have decided to take them down completely? How depressing would have that looked and made New Yorkers feel? Every week or so one floor less....
I'll be interested to hear everyone's thoughts and ideas on this!
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
No, I just think that's what would have been necessary safety wise.Thanks for the votes. I'd be interested to know from who voted to have taken them down, was it because you never liked them in the first place?
It almost certainly would have been a demolish and rebuild scenario- for safety reasons. I'd like to think the Twins would have been rebuilt if that were the case, but there probably would have been another redevelopment scheme to give the campus a 21st century reboot.
That would be the case since they were unmistakable NYC and American icons. :check:It almost certainly would have been a demolish and rebuild scenario- for safety reasons. I'd like to think the Twins would have been rebuilt if that were the case, but there probably would have been another redevelopment scheme to give the campus a 21st century reboot.
Maybe they would have widened the windows and remove several tridents
to make way for them. Would have made the tridents even more massive.
As massive as that of One WTC at the base too.
Also a lot more green would have been added. 21st century technologies ingrained.
This is basically what the Twin Towers II plan envisioned that is also
endorsed by President Trump, before he was a presidential candidate of
course. Nobody knows about his exact stance today. We will see.
He has not visited Ground Zero as of today yet as POTUS or not.
They must break it down till the B level, lots of damage on Plaza level.
I honestly feel like the towers coming down was a better result than them not coming down. It took them 8 months to clean up the mess on ground zero, it would have taken them years to figure out what to do had the towers not collapsed.
G
I don't agree with that comment not fully anyway. Obviously it would be the biggest undertaking of what to do but so did building the site in the first place so they would have worked it out.I honestly feel like the towers coming down was a better result than them not coming down. It took them 8 months to clean up the mess on ground zero, it would have taken them years to figure out what to do had the towers not collapsed.
I'm not an engineer, but from logical point of view, if towers never collapsed, after extinguishing fires and cleaning all the mess inside, estimation of towers stability and cost of repairs would be made, and after that repairs could go in two ways, either it would be possible to repair towers from inside, somehow rebuild destroyed walls, floors, and columns or if not possible, cut and dismantle portion of the buildings above impact zone and rebuild them again from below the impact zone. It would probably take years and cost of that kind of partial rebuilding would be enormous. If towers never collapsed, I don't believe anyone would think about demolishing or dismantling them completely. They would be repaired no matter what.
I hardly think so. The collapse of the twins caused catosphrophic damage to the site and nearby buildings right in the heart of America's financial capital forcing many of them to be abandoned for weeks or outright condemned. It also covered the heart of America's most important financial center in a toxic cloud of dust that caused many additional lives to be lost while forcing thousands of businesses to shut down and many residents out of their locations. Not to mention the billions of dollars in clean up costs to nearby buildings.I honestly feel like the towers coming down was a better result than them not coming down. It took them 8 months to clean up the mess on ground zero, it would have taken them years to figure out what to do had the towers not collapsed.
I think the twins not collapsing but simply dismantling and rebuilding stronger versions of them would have been a far better alternative than what really happened that day. The rest of the complex was relativity fine until the collapse of the towers anyway so that all probably could have been salvaged as well.
One thing would be for sure if the towers didn't collapse: They would still have been weakened by the planes and fires, to the point that major structural renovation would be required either way. Both towers would at least have had to be disassembled down to the impact zone, and rebuilt from there on up. One would still have had the chaotic evacuation fresh in mind, requiring the rebuilt towers to have wider staircases and better fire insulation. It would have been ruinously expensive, but the government might have chipped in with some financial support to foot the bill (and we'd have the same amount of 9/11 conspiracies as before, they'd just focus on entirely different aspects of the story).
Before the rebuilding, though, a lot of work would have to be done. How would a plane-crash-and-fire-weakened WTC complex stood against strong winds? Would there have been a risk of collapse in the weeks or months after 9/11? The towers would definitely have to be temporarily reinforced, after weeks of inspections to ensure it was not dangerous to go near the site (and with large parts of lower Manhattan closed off just in case it was). Enormous bracing supports would have to be constructed, a process that would take months on its own, even if nothing went wrong before they could be completed. Then the complex would have been a construction site for years, although that part of the story has been true anyway.
Sad as it may be, it might have been cheaper and safer in the long term that the towers collapsed, instead of standing there as ruined husks threatening to fall down in bad weather. The loss of life was absolutely tragic, and so was the loss of the buildings, but from a rebuilding standpoint it's easier to deal with a pile of debris than two unsteady towers with the constant threat of suddenly turning into piles of debris.
Before the rebuilding, though, a lot of work would have to be done. How would a plane-crash-and-fire-weakened WTC complex stood against strong winds? Would there have been a risk of collapse in the weeks or months after 9/11? The towers would definitely have to be temporarily reinforced, after weeks of inspections to ensure it was not dangerous to go near the site (and with large parts of lower Manhattan closed off just in case it was). Enormous bracing supports would have to be constructed, a process that would take months on its own, even if nothing went wrong before they could be completed. Then the complex would have been a construction site for years, although that part of the story has been true anyway.
Sad as it may be, it might have been cheaper and safer in the long term that the towers collapsed, instead of standing there as ruined husks threatening to fall down in bad weather. The loss of life was absolutely tragic, and so was the loss of the buildings, but from a rebuilding standpoint it's easier to deal with a pile of debris than two unsteady towers with the constant threat of suddenly turning into piles of debris.
^^ This is exactly why i think that the collapse of the twins was better and easier to deal with than if they didnt collapse. Not collapsing also doesnt mean that they wouldnt have to dismantle them anyway.
Nah, I still think them not collapsing would have been the better alternative in the long run in terms of human life and damage to Lower Manhattan.Sad as it may be, it might have been cheaper and safer in the long term that the towers collapsed, instead of standing there as ruined husks threatening to fall down in bad weather. The loss of life was absolutely tragic, and so was the loss of the buildings, but from a rebuilding standpoint it's easier to deal with a pile of debris than two unsteady towers with the constant threat of suddenly turning into piles of debris.
In this hypothetical situation, the twins were able to withstand the intense heat of the fires which would eventually be put out somehow. The way I see it, if they could have survived the force of the plane impacts and the raging fires (which likely would have gone on for days/weeks), there's no reason to believe they couldn't hold up long enough to start tearing them down as well.
They would of course have to be completely dismantled somehow down to the lobbies which would admittedly be very complicated and expensive, not to mention take quite a bit of time. Although, even though in reality the clean up of the site was only 8 months, construction didn't resume there until 2006, nearly 5 years later. It's safe to assume that by 2006 in this scenario, the towers would have been completely demolished and newer stronger ones would have been going up in their place had they not gone ahead and demolished the rest of the site as well (which up until the collapse of the twins was relativity fine).
Regardless of the cost and complications, you're still saving a lot of lives and damage to nearby buildings in this scenario while allowing the majority of the Financial District to remain open for business as opposed to being evacuated for weeks in some cases. You even get a sense of pride out of it by having them withstand all that damage, not to mention avoiding that massive cloud of toxic dust that enveloped the financial heart of America and cost many additional lives while causing damage to dozens of nearby buildings and countless businesses.
^^ For instance, given the possibility that the towers stoll could,collapse, I think the subways underneatn the complex wouldnt be operable, i think the WFC would remain empty for a long time, same for 1 liberty plaza and deutsche bank. A lot would be kept closed in the not collapsed scenario. The huge benefit in thag scenario might be that they didnt have to clean as much dust up. I also doubt the number of casulties would be significantly lower. Everybody above impact zone would die anyway. Only a few more would had survived that were still under the impact zone, while the twins collapsed.
My God, if the towers didn't didn't collapse, what they would find on the plaza...
Something I'm curious about would be if the deconstruction process went on well into the 2010's. How would the damaged and charred twin towers have fared during Hurricane Sandy? Lower Manhattan would have certainly been closed off due to concern of the buildings collapsing.
It took me a while to understand what you are saying. Yes, better not think about it.My God, if the towers didn't didn't collapse, what they would find on the plaza...
I imagine if they survived, the deconstruction process would have been done long before the 12 year mark of 9/11.Something I'm curious about would be if the deconstruction process went on well into the 2010's. How would the damaged and charred twin towers have fared during Hurricane Sandy? Lower Manhattan would have certainly been closed off due to concern of the buildings collapsing.
I believe that what you said is the most realistic of what would have had happened after 9-11 if the towers hadn’t collapsed, but if it was a smaller plane like commuter plane instead of an airliner.One thing would be for sure if the towers didn't collapse: They would still have been weakened by the planes and fires, to the point that major structural renovation would be required either way. Both towers would at least have had to be disassembled down to the impact zone, and rebuilt from there on up. One would still have had the chaotic evacuation fresh in mind, requiring the rebuilt towers to have wider staircases and better fire insulation. It would have been ruinously expensive, but the government might have chipped in with some financial support to foot the bill (and we'd have the same amount of 9/11 conspiracies as before, they'd just focus on entirely different aspects of the story).
Before the rebuilding, though, a lot of work would have to be done. How would a plane-crash-and-fire-weakened WTC complex stood against strong winds? Would there have been a risk of collapse in the weeks or months after 9/11? The towers would definitely have to be temporarily reinforced, after weeks of inspections to ensure it was not dangerous to go near the site (and with large parts of lower Manhattan closed off just in case it was). Enormous bracing supports would have to be constructed, a process that would take months on its own, even if nothing went wrong before they could be completed. Then the complex would have been a construction site for years, although that part of the story has been true anyway.
Sad as it may be, it might have been cheaper and safer in the long term that the towers collapsed, instead of standing there as ruined husks threatening to fall down in bad weather. The loss of life was absolutely tragic, and so was the loss of the buildings, but from a rebuilding standpoint it's easier to deal with a pile of debris than two unsteady towers with the constant threat of suddenly turning into piles of debris.
Because the fires would have still been devastating, especially in the north tower since the standpipes would have still gotten destroyed.
And even if none of them got destroyed the fires would still have spread.
But l personally believe that only a Cessna would have saved the buildings from not being dismantled at all. Floors would maybe still collapse, and there would still be dozens dead, but the towers would still be intact enough to not deem it structurally unstable.
It would still take at least a few months to build a makeshift elevator on the exterior of the buildings to take out and hoist up new floor columns and trusses, and a full year to finally open the buildings again to the public.
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
SkyscraperCity Forum
A forum community dedicated to skyscrapers, towers, highrises, construction, and city planning enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about structures, styles, reviews, scale, transportation, skylines, architecture, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Katarzyna DJ
7540 Replies
calatravavx
2630 Replies
Srdjan Adamovic
1887 Replies
Recommended Communities
Join now to ask and comment!
