What if the towers had not collapsed?

What if whatever happened to the twin towers wasn't enough to cause them to collapse?

What if on September 11th, the towers were damaged, but remained standing. Later they would either be demolished in a controlled fashion, or be renovated and reopened.

What would be the geopolitical implications of that? Would we still be at war with Iraq and Afghanistan? Would Bin Laden still be public enemy #1? Would conspiracy theorists still believe that the government was responsible for the attack? Would the patriot act still have passed?

For me, if the towers hadn't been brought down, it's not too likely that I would entertain an alternate 9/11 conspiracy. Because remember, the official version is also a conspiracy theory. They have not proven at all that their version is truthful or correct either. Just because they say that's what happened, doesn't mean you have to believe it based on blind faith.


But to answer your questions, if they hadn't knocked the buildings down, everything else still would have went as planned. But they needed mass casualties to strengthen the sympathy from other countries. Killing only a couple/few hundred people from the plane impacts might not have been enough. The shock-and-awe aspect was knocking those buildings down and killing thousands more.


DO YOU HEAR THAT TPTB? You messed up by knocking those buildings down! It was a little overboard and you left too many clues in the form of videos and witnesses!







[edit on 2-5-2010 by _BoneZ_]

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Well said sir.

The only reason we question the events of that day is because it defied our current understanding of physics. However my current understanding is quite low, so maybe I speculate too much but it sure looked unusual to me.

Whatever happened to the twin towers wasn't enough to cause them to collapse...

Are you implying that WTC7 is still collapsing in this scenario though? Because I'd still believe the US government was involved for sure if only WTC7 fell. Either way, I think we'd still be at war with Iraq and Afghanistan, we'd still be looking for Bin Laden, and the Patriot Act would still have been passed.

I don't think there would be as many conspiracy theorists though. The towers collapsing into their own footprints (and just the whole nature of the collapses themselves in almost every aspect) is a pretty strong point of non-official-story-believers.

[edit on 2-5-2010 by sine.nomine]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
For me, if the towers hadn't been brought down, it's not too likely that I would entertain an alternate 9/11 conspiracy.

That doesn't follow logically. The whole premise of 9/11 "Truth" is that the entire operation was that the Bush Administration either planned and executed it or let it happen. To then say that if the two jets crashed into the towers and the towers survived, that you would not entertain it as part of the so-called conspiracy doesn't make much sense.

Because remember, the official version is also a conspiracy theory.

The evidence demonstrates that it is an Al Queda conspiracy.

They have not proven at all that their version is truthful or correct either.

The evidence and investigations demonstrate what happened quite convincingly to the majority of people. That's why the 9/11 Truth Movement has not moved from square one in the 9 years since 9/11. You have nothing to refute that evidence.

Just because they say that's what happened, doesn't mean you have to believe it based on blind faith.

No one accepts the evidence on faith. But we see those who reject evidence on faith.

But to answer your questions, if they hadn't knocked the buildings down, everything else still would have went as planned. But they needed mass casualties to strengthen the sympathy from other countries. Killing only a couple/few hundred people from the plane impacts might not have been enough. The shock-and-awe aspect was knocking those buildings down and killing thousands more.

In actual facts the towers performed as they were intended. They remained standing after the impacts long enough to allow most of those who could to escape. If it weren't for the fires that burned out of control and could not be fought, the towers may well have remained standing. We cannot presume the Arab hijackers or bin Laden knew they would collapse.

To presume, in hindsight, that the attacks would have no similar psychological impact is highly questionable at best.


[edit on 2-5-2010 by jthomas]

Short answer:
Propably yes. Especially Iraq had little to do with 9/11 (And if you remember, they had to make up WMD to justify that one), so the US would be where it is today. Maybe a smaller "coalition of the willing" in Afghanistan.

Originally posted by debunky
Short answer:
Propably yes. Especially Iraq had little to do with 9/11 (And if you remember, they had to make up WMD to justify that one), so the US would be where it is today. Maybe a smaller "coalition of the willing" in Afghanistan.

Good answer, and just for the record, Bin LAden IS NOT listed as the perp of 9/11 and he was NEVER #1 on the FBI's most wanted and sooooooo many people want to know why not.

Even the BBC state that Al Queda never existed and it is a CIA falacy group to creat the terror aspect. The CIA is always up to no good. "Covert Israeli Agency" in my opinion.

Originally posted by scwizard
What if whatever happened to the twin towers wasn't enough to cause them to collapse?

We may know more about the following...

This is a scalable context timeline. It contains events related to the event September 10, 2001: Rumsfeld Announces Defense Department Cannot Track $2.3 Trillion in Transactions. You can narrow or broaden the context of this timeline by adjusting the zoom level. The lower the scale, the more relevant the items on average will be, while the higher the scale, the less relevant the items, on average, will be.

Link

Originally posted by jthomas
To then say that if the two jets crashed into the towers and the towers survived, that you would not entertain it as part of the so-called conspiracy doesn't make much sense.

Alot of things don't make much sense to you, Jthomas. That's why you're still cheer-leading for OS.

What I was trying to say is that if those buildings hadn't been brought down with explosives, as all available evidence suggests, then I would likely be cheer-leading along side you.

Some of this depends on the EPA. The EPA had been bought off (yes it is possible to buy off the EPA) to allow explosives to bring down the towers. In their first ruling they stated that the towers had to be deconstructed manually. This was when New York had found the towers becoming structurally unsound. Yet, when the towers came down through explosives they stayed silent where before they had decried the contaminants. I think that if the towers had stayed up they would have stood by their "manually deconstructed" decision. This would have been a good thing as the news could have lingered long on the deconstruction retelling the attack.

The EPA, the stronghold of Liberalism and Environmentalism, has announced through the attack, that it is for sale. Now any judgment they make that goes to court can now be fought on the premise that someone paid them off for another purpose.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_


What I was trying to say is that if those buildings hadn't been brought down with explosives, as all available evidence suggests, then I would likely be cheer-leading along side you.

Fortunately, I am one who does not think there was anything to "cheer" about 9/11.

It's clear that no evidence for explosives has ever been presented.

Originally posted by jthomas
It's clear that no evidence for explosives has ever been presented.

Just remember, when my documentary comes out later this summer, after watching you will either be in full, blatant denial, or you will come over to the side of truth and justice.

1) If the Towers had not collapsed, the firefighters, after putting out the fires, would have done an arson investigation and reported the real cause of the explosions and subsequent fires. Depending on what would have been discovered by such an investigation, a military attack on the cave dwelling box cutter wielding Muslims may have had to be taken off the table.

2) A non-collapse and subsequent investigation of the towers would have also put the Government and their controlled and disreputable Media in quite a pickle, since they already had pointed a finger at the alleged guilty individuals without doing any investigation into the so-called attacks. This would have opened the door to also questioning the other highly suspicious incidents at the Pentagon and Shanksville.

3) If the Towers had not collapsed, they most likely would have been repaired and the owner of the buildings would have been financially responsible for making the Towers structurally sound, removing asbestos, etc. To specify, the owner would have been responsible for all the necessary renovations unrelated to the so-called attacks. After the collapse, the insurance carriers gladly opened their wallets and payed for everything...and then some. Definitely a first in the insurance industry.



[edit on 2-5-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

What if........ seriously.....what if??? Well they did fall, why talk about what if, if it did happen.....

If the towers had not collapsed...

a) they would have repaired the damage and reopened them to the tenants. We know this would happen becuase the first 9/11 attack in 1993 damaged the basement levels and they repaired the damage and reopened it later.

b) the conspiracy mongers would still insist ithe attack was part of some weird Rube Goldberg scheme to take over the world. We know this would happen because despite the 1993 WTC bombing having failed they still try to get it to appear the gov't was behind it via innuendo and five degrees of separation, Kevin Bacon" games. All you need to do is read their own posts here right on this thread to see they're so much in love with these secret gov't conspiracy stories that they'll never let them go-

"But to answer your questions, if they hadn't knocked the buildings down, everything else still would have went as planned. But they needed mass casualties to strengthen the sympathy from other countries. Killing only a couple/few hundred people from the plane impacts might not have been enough. The shock-and-awe aspect was knocking those buildings down and killing thousands more."

Time and time agaiin, the conspiracy mongers have shown their world is based entirely upon circular logic, misrepresentation, and abject paranoia, so who here thinks that someone genuinely believing the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile and all the eyewitneses saying it was a passenger jet they saw are secret gov't disinformation agents WON'T see it as part of some secret gov't plot or another? Raise your hands.


[edit on 2-5-2010 by GoodOlDave]

Originally posted by Reign02
What if........ seriously.....what if??? Well they did fall, why talk about what if, if it did happen.....

Agreed.

This thread is a pointless waste of mental energy.

The towers collapsed. There is no 'what if...?' to consider.

They would find a way to go to war in the middle east some way. If one plot fails move onto the next one.

reply to post by MemoryShock


All respect, 'MemoryShock', your link is but a piece of diversion used by the so-called "Truth Movement" in their on-going effort.

The so-called "missing trillions" referenced, and pertaining to, the Pentagon's budget (or is it the over-all DEFENSE budget?) has been thoroughly discussed.

The timing, the 'announcement' by Secy. of Defense Rumsfeld coincidentally on 10 September, 2001, has been pointed to, ad infinitum, by 'conspiracy theorists'.

Could any reasonable, logically thinking adult seriously entertain the notion that, given the "foreknowledge" (as has been asserted by oh-so-many "conspiracy advocates") that Runsfeld allegedly had, of the event to occur in JUST THE FOLLOWING DAY, he would have made such a very, very public speech??

It beggars belief, YET....seems some will willfully ignore the disparity of logic.

It remains amazing....

(OH....the so-called "missing trillions"? Long time ago, described and shown to be a mere fact of YEARS of accounting errors, and mismanagements within the beaureacracy that IS the Pentagon 'system'. If I could, I'd find the links....but I trust the dear readers to be cognizant, and able to do the due diligence themselves...).

reply to post by _BoneZ_


What are you calling it?

I am looking forward to it.

Originally posted by MemoryShock

We may know more about the following...

This is a scalable context timeline. It contains events related to the event September 10, 2001: Rumsfeld Announces Defense Department Cannot Track $2.3 Trillion in Transactions. You can narrow or broaden the context of this timeline by adjusting the zoom level. The lower the scale, the more relevant the items on average will be, while the higher the scale, the less relevant the items, on average, will be.

Is there a reason for that paragraph or do you just like to throw stuff against the wall to see what sticks?

That whole $2.3 trillion comment has turned into the Truther's primary weapon of ignorance. It was a reflection and comment by Rumsfeld on archaic and decades-old accounting practices. If you take time to read the complete transcript from that particular Pentagon briefing you would receive accolades and atta-boys for educating yourself on probably one of the most misunderstood elements of this whole thing. Hopefully then you wouldn't go about blindly repeating misunderstood sound bites from 9 year old financial briefings.

[edit on 3-5-2010 by trebor451]