Could they have been repaired and re-occupied?
Or unreparable, and just torn down anyway?
Like Sandy Hook, the buildings would have been razed.
The north tower could have been repaired but the South Tower was probably too badly damaged.
Since there was no "pent up demand" for office space, they would have taken the one down and let the other stand.
Is there something wrong with me that I have never wondered this?
OP, your question presumes that the towers would not have suffered as much damage as they actually did, since the damage they actually sustained is what caused them to collapse.
So what you're asking is "if the towers had been damaged less, could they have been repaired or occupied", which is nonsensical and impossible to answer. If they had sustained less damage than required to collapse, we wouldn't know if it were possible to repair or reoccupy them, since the determining factor (the amount of damage sustained) is an abstract by the very nature of the question.
I think what OP is asking is if the towers sustained the impact of the planes but there were no massive fires, could that impact damage have been repaired?
I think what the OP is saying, let's suppose the towers were badly damaged but didn't collapse and the fires were eventually put out. Would it have been possible to repair them?
I'm thinking no, and that their demolition would have been extraordinarily complex, difficult and dangerous. In fact such a project would have been far more disruptive to Lower Manhattan than the actual collapses were.
#6 is correct, because I don't believe the damage they suffered- impact and fire- was what brought them down.
But eventually the buildings would have aged-out and had to be brought down, no? Skyscrapers can't last forever.
[quote]#6 is correct, because I don't believe the damage they suffered- impact and fire- was what brought them down.
It was gravity that killed the beasts.
OP = "truther" idiot
The explosive charges that were placed in both towers in the weeks prior to 9/11 guaranteed the buildings would be completely destroyed. Therefore, there were no alternative scenarios for the buildings after the incident.
"If the twin towers hadn't crumbled"
That's kind of harsh.
R4 is a disinformationist. They would not have collapsed on their own.
They were full of asbestos so, no.
The 41-story Singer building in Lower Manhattan was dismantled in 1968 but its structure was intact when this work was done.
If the twin towers (more than double the height of the Singer building) had remained standing, they would have been damaged and therefore unstable, making dismantling much more complicated.
[quote]The explosive charges that were placed in both towers in the weeks prior to 9/11 guaranteed the buildings would be completely destroyed.
Isn't it amazing that absolutely not one single person saw explosives being carried into the building and installed? And there were plenty of late-night workers in the WTC as well.
They're still standing. That's the true "conspiracy theory".
[quote]Isn't it amazing that absolutely not one single person saw explosives being carried into the building and installed? And there were plenty of late-night workers in the WTC as well.
It is when you can manipulate who comes and goes and when.
Don't take the blog at its word, read the links.
And could they have been turned into insatiable tops?
If the twin towers hadn't crumbled, they would have been sliced up and transported to the Denver Airport.
In their place, FEMA cattle cars would be stacked so high in the trade center that you could actually see surgeons removing kidneys, eyes, and livers from unsuspecting tourists.
You'd think a government that could pull off the faking of 9/11 and the moon landings would be able to open a fucking website.
OP = another complete and total idiot, freely posting his crackpot, tin-foil-hat-worthy ramblings on the DataLounge.
Judge Crater called, he wants you to look into his disappearance.