OT: Texas Tower #4 Lost off NJ

[RU4Real]

In the mid 50s the USAF began construction of several long-range air surveillance radars off the east coast of the United States. Known as "Texas Towers" due to their resemblance to offshore oil rigs, the stations were positioned up to 100 miles off the coast, thus extending the range of the USAF's "distant early warning" system.

Texas Tower 4 was begun in 1956, in just just under 200' of water roughly 70 miles due east of Toms River, NJ. When it became operational in 1958 it sported an AN/FPS-3 search radar and two AN/FPS-6 height finder radars. TT4 was manned by the 646th Radar Squadron based in Highlands, NJ. Duty personnel were rotated to the offshore site by boat or helicopter.

The design specification for the Texas Towers call for them to be able to withstand 130mph winds and 60' seas - which the USAF quickly realized was marginal with respect to actual conditions in the North Atlantic off the coast of New Jersey. TT4 was severely damaged by Hurricane Donna in 1960 and, on January 15, 1961, a winter nor'easter caused the site to break up, with the loss of all 28 airmen aboard.

The wreckage from the site rises to heights of about 40' above the seabed and is well known to offshore fishermen in the region. The precise location of TT4 is marked by NOAA Buoy 44066.

Pour one out for Texas Tower #4 and the 28 personnel who lost their lives on this day, 62 years ago. Radar station personnel lived dangerous lives during the Cold War - their duty stations were almost always in the shittiest, most dangerous places on the planet and were frequently subject to enemy fire, even during peacetime.

 

[RUinPinehurst]

Nice work.

 

[gmay8]

In the mid 50s the USAF began construction of several long-range air surveillance radars off the east coast of the United States. Known as "Texas Towers" due to their resemblance to offshore oil rigs, the stations were positioned up to 100 miles off the coast, thus extending the range of the USAF's "distant early warning" system.

Texas Tower 4 was begun in 1956, in just just under 200' of water roughly 70 miles due east of Toms River, NJ. When it became operational in 1958 it sported an AN/FPS-3 search radar and two AN/FPS-6 height finder radars. TT4 was manned by the 646th Radar Squadron based in Highlands, NJ. Duty personnel were rotated to the offshore site by boat or helicopter.

The design specification for the Texas Towers call for them to be able to withstand 130mph winds and 60' seas - which the USAF quickly realized was marginal with respect to actual conditions in the North Atlantic off the coast of New Jersey. TT4 was severely damaged by Hurricane Donna in 1960 and, on January 15, 1961, a winter nor'easter caused the site to break up, with the loss of all 28 airmen aboard.

The wreckage from the site rises to heights of about 40' above the seabed and is well known to offshore fishermen in the region. The precise location of TT4 is marked by NOAA Buoy 44066.

Pour one out for Texas Tower #4 and the 28 personnel who lost their lives on this day, 62 years ago. Radar station personnel lived dangerous lives during the Cold War - their duty stations were almost always in the shittiest, most dangerous places on the planet and were frequently subject to enemy fire, even during peacetime.

I’m a NJ native and a huge history buff and I had never heard of Texas towers or this story before. Thanks for sharing.

 

[RU4Real]

I’m a NJ native and a huge history buff and I had never heard of Texas towers or this story before. Thanks for sharing.

Have you ever been to the NJ Maritime Museum? I have not - it's long been on my list of things to do. Apparently they have a complete TT4 display.

 

[cicero grimes]

Thanks for posting.

 

[RUBigFrank]

How does this impact proposed windmills off the Jersey coast?

 

[DJ Spanky]

The design specification for the Texas Towers call for them to be able to withstand 130mph winds and 60' seas - which the USAF quickly realized was marginal with respect to actual conditions in the North Atlantic off the coast of New Jersey.

There was no way for them to bolster the design after they realized this? Were there other North Atlantic Towers that were under threat because of this design?

 

[CERU00]

In the mid 50s the USAF began construction of several long-range air surveillance radars off the east coast of the United States. Known as "Texas Towers" due to their resemblance to offshore oil rigs, the stations were positioned up to 100 miles off the coast, thus extending the range of the USAF's "distant early warning" system.

Texas Tower 4 was begun in 1956, in just just under 200' of water roughly 70 miles due east of Toms River, NJ. When it became operational in 1958 it sported an AN/FPS-3 search radar and two AN/FPS-6 height finder radars. TT4 was manned by the 646th Radar Squadron based in Highlands, NJ. Duty personnel were rotated to the offshore site by boat or helicopter.

The design specification for the Texas Towers call for them to be able to withstand 130mph winds and 60' seas - which the USAF quickly realized was marginal with respect to actual conditions in the North Atlantic off the coast of New Jersey. TT4 was severely damaged by Hurricane Donna in 1960 and, on January 15, 1961, a winter nor'easter caused the site to break up, with the loss of all 28 airmen aboard.

The wreckage from the site rises to heights of about 40' above the seabed and is well known to offshore fishermen in the region. The precise location of TT4 is marked by NOAA Buoy 44066.

Pour one out for Texas Tower #4 and the 28 personnel who lost their lives on this day, 62 years ago. Radar station personnel lived dangerous lives during the Cold War - their duty stations were almost always in the shittiest, most dangerous places on the planet and were frequently subject to enemy fire, even during peacetime.

Wow, love learning about obscure history. Very interesting and worth remembering these men. Fits in with topics covered by The History Guy on youtube.... just looked it up and did cover this event.

 

[RU4Real]

There was no way for them to bolster the design after they realized this? Were there other North Atlantic Towers that were under threat because of this design?

The duty crews at TT4 in 1961 were, in fact, working to strengthen the structure after the damage inflicted by Donna the year before. They ran out of time, which makes the story all the more tragic.

There were two other Texas Towers built at the time (TT2 and TT3). Towers #1 and #5 were never completed, the Air Force having to rethink its strategy following the loss of Tower 4.

The structural integrity of the towers was always a concern. A large radar tower, even on land, is a fairly dynamic thing because of the quite huge antenna rotating on the top deck, which induced a harmonic vibration into the tower structure. On the Texas Towers this harmonic was generally in conflict with wind and wave-induced vibrations and the towers themselves shook so constantly and violently that duty personnel were often seasick.

TT4 suffered greater issues because it was in much deeper water than TT2 and TT3, so its longer legs were more prone to vibration. They tried to correct this with structural bracing, but the steel beams used to brace the structure kept falling off.

 

[29PAS]

Thanks for posting this as I remember it from my childhood days. I spent three yrs in the USAF at radar/control sites but fortunately they were in the middle of nowhere on land, one in Maine and the other, oddly enough for a Rutgers graduate, in New Brunswick, Canada. I may have felt differently when I was young and indestructible, but at my age now, this would not have been a desirable assignment.

 

[T2Kplus20]

How does this impact proposed windmills off the Jersey coast?

This one killed a lot of whales as well!

 

[Knight Shift]

Have you ever been to the NJ Maritime Museum? I have not - it's long been on my list of things to do. Apparently they have a complete TT4 display.

Search Texas in this page:

Museum Displays - New Jersey Maritime Museum

njmaritimemuseum.org

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

This one killed a lot of whales as well!

I doubt that.. but the sonar being used now to penetrate all that sand on the ocean floor to find places they can build windmills is likely killing a bunch of whales and god knows what else right now. It is just so stupid... will never pay off.. wasting taxpayer dollars in the search for "green" energy.

 

[T2Kplus20]

I doubt that.. but the sonar being used now to penetrate all that sand on the ocean floor to find places they can build windmills is likely killing a bunch of whales and god knows what else right now. It is just so stupid... will never pay off.. wasting taxpayer dollars in the search for "green" energy.

+1
Just a waste of money.

 

[RU4Real]

I doubt that.. but the sonar being used now to penetrate all that sand on the ocean floor to find places they can build windmills is likely killing a bunch of whales and god knows what else right now. It is just so stupid... will never pay off.. wasting taxpayer dollars in the search for "green" energy.

This entire post is just wrong.

First, nobody is "trying to penetrate all that sand" on the continental shelf - mostly because it's not sand.

Second, the seabed lithology has been known for many, many years because that area has been very completely analyzed by petroleum exploration interests which have done core samples to determine the age of the shelf.

C) The mapping that's being done is very low-energy surface mapping because windmills, like oil rigs, are quite simply anchored. No complex analysis of the seabed is required.

Five, as has always been the case, once the structures are anchored and in place they become burgeoning marine habitats. Small fish love structure. Big fish love small fish. Offshore structures wind up being highly beneficial to marine life.

 

[RUPete]

I’m a NJ native and a huge history buff and I had never heard of Texas towers or this story before. Thanks for sharing.

Never heard of this either and another reason why this board is great.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

This entire post is just wrong.

First, nobody is "trying to penetrate all that sand" on the continental shelf - mostly because it's not sand.

Second, the seabed lithology has been known for many, many years because that area has been very completely analyzed by petroleum exploration interests which have done core samples to determine the age of the shelf.

C) The mapping that's being done is very low-energy surface mapping because windmills, like oil rigs, are quite simply anchored. No complex analysis of the seabed is required.

Five, as has always been the case, once the structures are anchored and in place they become burgeoning marine habitats. Small fish love structure. Big fish love small fish. Offshore structures wind up being highly beneficial to marine life.

linky

yeah.. it hasn't been proven yet... but sonar is being used and whales are dying in record numbers

 

[LETSGORU91]

This entire post is just wrong.

First, nobody is "trying to penetrate all that sand" on the continental shelf - mostly because it's not sand.

Second, the seabed lithology has been known for many, many years because that area has been very completely analyzed by petroleum exploration interests which have done core samples to determine the age of the shelf.

C) The mapping that's being done is very low-energy surface mapping because windmills, like oil rigs, are quite simply anchored. No complex analysis of the seabed is required.

Five, as has always been the case, once the structures are anchored and in place they become burgeoning marine habitats. Small fish love structure. Big fish love small fish. Offshore structures wind up being highly beneficial to marine life.

You skipped a point. I think it was the delta one.

 

[e5fdny]

In the mid 50s the USAF began construction of several long-range air surveillance radars off the east coast of the United States. Known as "Texas Towers" due to their resemblance to offshore oil rigs, the stations were positioned up to 100 miles off the coast, thus extending the range of the USAF's "distant early warning" system.

Texas Tower 4 was begun in 1956, in just just under 200' of water roughly 70 miles due east of Toms River, NJ. When it became operational in 1958 it sported an AN/FPS-3 search radar and two AN/FPS-6 height finder radars. TT4 was manned by the 646th Radar Squadron based in Highlands, NJ. Duty personnel were rotated to the offshore site by boat or helicopter.

I remember seeing something similar on a much smaller scale in the Hartshorne Woods section of the Highlands when I had cross country practice there in the early 80s.

Had no idea about the one you were talking about. Very interesting.

I wonder if something like this in today's world could be automated or unmanned?

 

[RUfromSoCal?]

 

[RU4Real]

View embedded media

Great video, thanks for posting.

@e5fdny - As to whether such stations would be automated in the future - while there are no operational Texas Towers and many of the most remote radar outposts have been decommissioned, the majority of former CONUS FPS-27 sites were turned over to the FAA when they were decomm'd by the USAF and those sites are still in service, all of them remotely operated ARSR-4 units.

 

[e5fdny]

Great video, thanks for posting.

@e5fdny - As to whether such stations would be automated in the future - while there are no operational Texas Towers and many of the most remote radar outposts have been decommissioned, the majority of former CONUS FPS-27 sites were turned over to the FAA when they were decomm'd by the USAF and those sites are still in service, all of them remotely operated ARSR-4 units.

That was a tough detail.

 

[RU4Real]

That was a tough detail.

They were all tough details.

I'm pretty sure I spoke with you about this at some point, but for the sake of everyone else on the thread it's very much worth noting that had the DoD / USAF not made the decision to shut down the CONUS surveillance sites, had they not decommissioned the FPS-27 radars and turned the sites over to the FAA to be recommissioned with ARSR-4 radars, the events of 9/11 would not have happened.

On that day, the hijackers' mission profile was very specific. Once they gained access to the cockpits of the 4 hijacked passenger jets their very first action was to turn off the transponders. This had the effect of immediately "disappearing" the jets from the FAA's ATC network.

Perhaps contrary to popular belief, the FAA radar systems do not rely on radar, as such. Coupled with each radar antenna is what's called a Mode S Interrogator, which sends an encoded query that is replied to by the onboard aircraft transponders. This allows the ground displays ("radar scopes") in control centers to display targets as digital signals showing position, airspeed and altitude, all of which is sent by the aircraft to the Mode S interrogator. If an aircraft turns off its transponder this effectively disappears the target from FAA scopes.

FAA ARSR systems *can* display what's known as "raw search data", i.e. the targets returned from the radar itself, as opposed to the Mode S interrogators. But FAA air traffic controllers, particularly those working in Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs) are not trained to interpret raw search data.

On 9/11, when the hijacked jets shut down their transponders, the FAA lost the ability, in a practical sense, to determine the location of the aircraft. The Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) was engaged, but those personnel weren't as well trained in tracking aircraft in raw search mode as their USAF 303x2 predecessors and that, combined with a regularly scheduled and ongoing exercise as well as a touch of "fog of war", rendered them ineffective.

If the CONUS radars had not all been decommissioned and turned over to the FAA (in 1995 / 1996) then there would have been active duty USAF personnel at their stations on the morning of 9/11, fully trained and practiced in the location and tracking of unidentified aircraft. They would have located the hijacked airliners within minutes and been able to direct intercept aircraft to those locations - this was very much the real world function of the Aircraft Control & Warning Radar Specialist (303x2, in USAF job code jargon) prior to the decommissioning of the function. In fact, one of the operational functions of all of the USAF radar sites, as part of their integration into the overall ATC system, was to immediately detect targets in US airspace that did not have a functional transponder and immediately relay that data to the corresponding ATC sector. In other words, in the pre-1995 world, as soon as those jets shut down their transponders the USAF would have detected the event, initiated tracking on the aircraft, notified the FAA and additionally notified the nearest intercept station (generally a USAF Air National Guard base flying F-16s).

Had the posture of the DoD not changed in the mid-90s, had we not adopted a "the Cold War is over and Russia is our friend" policy and had we not dismantled the machinery of air defense, that day would have looked very, very different.

 

[DJ Spanky]

That was a tough detail.

Doncha love how they tried to scapegoat 3 officers? Especially since they knew they had a problem and were planning on decommissioning it.

 

[29PAS]

They were all tough details.

I'm pretty sure I spoke with you about this at some point, but for the sake of everyone else on the thread it's very much worth noting that had the DoD / USAF not made the decision to shut down the CONUS surveillance sites, had they not decommissioned the FPS-27 radars and turned the sites over to the FAA to be recommissioned with ARSR-4 radars, the events of 9/11 would not have happened.

On that day, the hijackers' mission profile was very specific. Once they gained access to the cockpits of the 4 hijacked passenger jets their very first action was to turn off the transponders. This had the effect of immediately "disappearing" the jets from the FAA's ATC network.

Perhaps contrary to popular belief, the FAA radar systems do not rely on radar, as such. Coupled with each radar antenna is what's called a Mode S Interrogator, which sends an encoded query that is replied to by the onboard aircraft transponders. This allows the ground displays ("radar scopes") in control centers to display targets as digital signals showing position, airspeed and altitude, all of which is sent by the aircraft to the Mode S interrogator. If an aircraft turns off its transponder this effectively disappears the target from FAA scopes.

FAA ARSR systems *can* display what's known as "raw search data", i.e. the targets returned from the radar itself, as opposed to the Mode S interrogators. But FAA air traffic controllers, particularly those working in Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs) are not trained to interpret raw search data.

On 9/11, when the hijacked jets shut down their transponders, the FAA lost the ability, in a practical sense, to determine the location of the aircraft. The Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) was engaged, but those personnel weren't as well trained in tracking aircraft in raw search mode as their USAF 303x2 predecessors and that, combined with a regularly scheduled and ongoing exercise as well as a touch of "fog of war", rendered them ineffective.

If the CONUS radars had not all been decommissioned and turned over to the FAA (in 1995 / 1996) then there would have been active duty USAF personnel at their stations on the morning of 9/11, fully trained and practiced in the location and tracking of unidentified aircraft. They would have located the hijacked airliners within minutes and been able to direct intercept aircraft to those locations - this was very much the real world function of the Aircraft Control & Warning Radar Specialist (303x2, in USAF job code jargon) prior to the decommissioning of the function. In fact, one of the operational functions of all of the USAF radar sites, as part of their integration into the overall ATC system, was to immediately detect targets in US airspace that did not have a functional transponder and immediately relay that data to the corresponding ATC sector. In other words, in the pre-1995 world, as soon as those jets shut down their transponders the USAF would have detected the event, initiated tracking on the aircraft, notified the FAA and additionally notified the nearest intercept station (generally a USAF Air National Guard base flying F-16s).

Had the posture of the DoD not changed in the mid-90s, had we not adopted a "the Cold War is over and Russia is our friend" policy and had we not dismantled the machinery of air defense, that day would have looked very, very different.

Great explanation. From a former AFSC 1744E.

 

[robcac26]

They were all tough details.

I'm pretty sure I spoke with you about this at some point, but for the sake of everyone else on the thread it's very much worth noting that had the DoD / USAF not made the decision to shut down the CONUS surveillance sites, had they not decommissioned the FPS-27 radars and turned the sites over to the FAA to be recommissioned with ARSR-4 radars, the events of 9/11 would not have happened.

On that day, the hijackers' mission profile was very specific. Once they gained access to the cockpits of the 4 hijacked passenger jets their very first action was to turn off the transponders. This had the effect of immediately "disappearing" the jets from the FAA's ATC network.

Perhaps contrary to popular belief, the FAA radar systems do not rely on radar, as such. Coupled with each radar antenna is what's called a Mode S Interrogator, which sends an encoded query that is replied to by the onboard aircraft transponders. This allows the ground displays ("radar scopes") in control centers to display targets as digital signals showing position, airspeed and altitude, all of which is sent by the aircraft to the Mode S interrogator. If an aircraft turns off its transponder this effectively disappears the target from FAA scopes.

FAA ARSR systems *can* display what's known as "raw search data", i.e. the targets returned from the radar itself, as opposed to the Mode S interrogators. But FAA air traffic controllers, particularly those working in Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs) are not trained to interpret raw search data.

On 9/11, when the hijacked jets shut down their transponders, the FAA lost the ability, in a practical sense, to determine the location of the aircraft. The Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) was engaged, but those personnel weren't as well trained in tracking aircraft in raw search mode as their USAF 303x2 predecessors and that, combined with a regularly scheduled and ongoing exercise as well as a touch of "fog of war", rendered them ineffective.

If the CONUS radars had not all been decommissioned and turned over to the FAA (in 1995 / 1996) then there would have been active duty USAF personnel at their stations on the morning of 9/11, fully trained and practiced in the location and tracking of unidentified aircraft. They would have located the hijacked airliners within minutes and been able to direct intercept aircraft to those locations - this was very much the real world function of the Aircraft Control & Warning Radar Specialist (303x2, in USAF job code jargon) prior to the decommissioning of the function. In fact, one of the operational functions of all of the USAF radar sites, as part of their integration into the overall ATC system, was to immediately detect targets in US airspace that did not have a functional transponder and immediately relay that data to the corresponding ATC sector. In other words, in the pre-1995 world, as soon as those jets shut down their transponders the USAF would have detected the event, initiated tracking on the aircraft, notified the FAA and additionally notified the nearest intercept station (generally a USAF Air National Guard base flying F-16s).

Had the posture of the DoD not changed in the mid-90s, had we not adopted a "the Cold War is over and Russia is our friend" policy and had we not dismantled the machinery of air defense, that day would have looked very, very different.

Forgive my ignorance, but what would they have done if they knew where the planes were? Would they have shot them down even though they were loaded with Americans? It would have saved many lives, but even if they knew where the planes were, they didn't know their intention was to crash them into thousands of people. Not trying to sound like a smartass, I'm legitimately asking what would have happened because I know nothing about this stuff, and unlike some on here, I don't pretend to be an expert on stuff I know nothing about.

 

[RU4Real]

Forgive my ignorance, but what would they have done if they knew where the planes were? Would they have shot them down even though they were loaded with Americans? It would have saved many lives, but even if they knew where the planes were, they didn't know their intention was to crash them into thousands of people. Not trying to sound like a smartass, I'm legitimately asking what would have happened because I know nothing about this stuff, and unlike some on here, I don't pretend to be an expert on stuff I know nothing about.

There are a number of things that could have happened. The plane that hit the north tower was headed directly for Manhattan once it broke planned course. There could have been as much as 20 minutes warning to evacuate all the tall buildings in Manhattan, at the very least.

And yes, given the opportunity - and had we been on a different readiness footing - they would have been shot down. Part of the reason that wasn't an option was that coincidental with the policy and operational changes that dispensed with the radar stations, ANG aircraft were no longer kept "Ready 5" with live ammo.

Infamous, by now, is the story of the 2 F-16s tasked with defending DC from the 4th aircraft, the one that ultimately crashed in PA. Those planes were unarmed, as well. The two pilots had planned to ram the tail of the jetliner, and if they survived the impact, eject.

 

[robcac26]

There are a number of things that could have happened. The plane that hit the north tower was headed directly for Manhattan once it broke planned course. There could have been as much as 20 minutes warning to evacuate all the tall buildings in Manhattan, at the very least.

And yes, given the opportunity - and had we been on a different readiness footing - they would have been shot down. Part of the reason that wasn't an option was that coincidental with the policy and operational changes that dispensed with the radar stations, ANG aircraft were no longer kept "Ready 5" with live ammo.

Infamous, by now, is the story of the 2 F-16s tasked with defending DC from the 4th aircraft, the one that ultimately crashed in PA. Those planes were unarmed, as well. The two pilots had planned to ram the tail of the jetliner, and if they survived the impact, eject.

Interesting, it's like the old train switch moral dilemma. Who would have been the one to ultimately make the call to shoot the planes down? In retrospect it seems like an easy call to make but without knowing what the hijackers' plan was, I'm sure having our Air Force shoot down planes filled with American citizens would have been highly controversial.

 

[mildone]

There are a number of things that could have happened. The plane that hit the north tower was headed directly for Manhattan once it broke planned course. There could have been as much as 20 minutes warning to evacuate all the tall buildings in Manhattan, at the very least.

And yes, given the opportunity - and had we been on a different readiness footing - they would have been shot down. Part of the reason that wasn't an option was that coincidental with the policy and operational changes that dispensed with the radar stations, ANG aircraft were no longer kept "Ready 5" with live ammo.

Infamous, by now, is the story of the 2 F-16s tasked with defending DC from the 4th aircraft, the one that ultimately crashed in PA. Those planes were unarmed, as well. The two pilots had planned to ram the tail of the jetliner, and if they survived the impact, eject.

For sure, even if they couldn't decide to shoot down the first plane, they could've shot down the second that hit the WTC. I forget the exact chronology, but they could also have shot down the others that had disabled their transponders.

 

[RU4Real]

Interesting, it's like the old train switch moral dilemma. Who would have been the one to ultimately make the call to shoot the planes down? In retrospect it seems like an easy call to make but without knowing what the hijackers' plan was, I'm sure having our Air Force shoot down planes filled with American citizens would have been highly controversial.

Shooting down a civilian airliner is a POTUS decision. Dubya had, in fact, issued such an order but by the time it was operationalized the day's events had more or less come to a close.

Exploring the historical metaverse, so to speak, is a fascinating exercise. What would have happened, long term, if certain events had played out differently?

It's easy to say that having 1980s air defenses in place would have disrupted 9/11. And it's likely true. But what then? Since the 9/11 hijacking plan would not have survived the al Qaeda equivalent of a red team review, bin Laden would have to have come up with another plan to attack the United States. What would it have been? Would it have been something smaller in scale than the 9/11 attacks, perhaps a bombing of some sort? Or, given more time to plan and marshal resources, could he have come up with something even more devastating?

 

[mildone]

Shooting down a civilian airliner is a POTUS decision. Dubya had, in fact, issued such an order but by the time it was operationalized the day's events had more or less come to a close.

Exploring the historical metaverse, so to speak, is a fascinating exercise. What would have happened, long term, if certain events had played out differently?

It's easy to say that having 1980s air defenses in place would have disrupted 9/11. And it's likely true. But what then? Since the 9/11 hijacking plan would not have survived the al Qaeda equivalent of a red team review, bin Laden would have to have come up with another plan to attack the United States. What would it have been? Would it have been something smaller in scale than the 9/11 attacks, perhaps a bombing of some sort? Or, given more time to plan and marshal resources, could he have come up with something even more devastating?

I would speculate that, even had the attack been fully disrupted, perhaps with the US military shooting down 3-4 planes, the same intense US intelligence effort to ascertain the origins of the attack would have taken place. After all, all those passengers would have died, which would have been horrific all on it's own.

I think W would have been rightfully every bit as furious as if the attacks had succeeded (on the theory that there's a limit to furiousness and he would've reached it having had to order the killing of the passengers). And if it was determined that the targets were the WTC and Pentagon, the level of anger, and fear, that propelled subsequent events would almost certainly have still been extremely high and long-lasting.

Given all that, I think it likely that history would have proceeded along a very similar path to what actually happened in terms of Afghanistan, the hunt for Bin Laden, etc. Perhaps we wouldn't have invaded Iraq.

The one factor that might've resulted in a reduced response would be that the WTC would still be there. And it's hard to overstate the impact of the videos of the planes flying into into the WTC, people leaping to their deaths, and the eventual collapse of the towers, on the national psyche. Like many Americans, those scenes trigger a range of intense emotion in me, including anger that I suspect will be with me until I die.

Ultimately it's all hypothetical and thus impossible to say w/any certainly. For sure, the politics surrounding the subsequent events related to the attack would've been very different.