Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

If the twin towers hadn't crumbled

Could they have been repaired and re-occupied?

Or unreparable, and just torn down anyway?

by Anonymousreply 2210/28/2013

Like Sandy Hook, the buildings would have been razed.

by Anonymousreply 110/28/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 210/28/2013

Is there something wrong with me that I have never wondered this?

by Anonymousreply 310/28/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 410/28/2013

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?

by Anonymousreply 510/28/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 610/28/2013

[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.

by Anonymousreply 810/28/2013

OP = "truther" idiot

by Anonymousreply 910/28/2013

"If the twin towers hadn't crumbled"

That's kind of harsh.

by Anonymousreply 1110/28/2013

They were full of asbestos so, no.

by Anonymousreply 1310/28/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 1410/28/2013

[all posts by tedious, racist idiot removed.]

by Anonymousreply 1510/28/2013

They're still standing. That's the true "conspiracy theory".

by Anonymousreply 1710/28/2013

And could they have been turned into insatiable tops?

by Anonymousreply 1910/28/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 2010/28/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 2110/28/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 2210/28/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!