BS: Escaping from a tall building

Subject: RE: BS: Escaping from a tall building
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 11:36 AM

When we were all taking couterterrorism training after the Nov 79 (thinks like how to keep your car from being forced off the road; how to tell if a roadblock is legit and how to ram it if not...) we were advised the following about jumping out of windows: First floor, jump. Second floor, jump. Third floor - THINK ABOUT IT - look if bushes or something might reduce the damage to broken limbs or something. Fourth floor, don't jump. Nobody ever got 104th floor advice.

Meanwhile, my cousin Greg sent the following kind of non-answer:

When I was in Taiwan after the earthquake in 1999, a lot of 12 to 14 story buildings were damaged. Many the buildings had ropes hanging out the windows down to the ground. In turns out that Taiwan requires certain buildings to have these emergency ropes for egress in fire or earthquake. They were certainly used by occupants. Bungee-ing from a 120' is must different than 1300'.
The problem with very tall buildings is that the windows are completely sealed and not openable. Having windows openable probably presents a bigger safety risk than problems of egress during a fire. There have been ideas of using window-washing gantries for emergency, but they don't have the capacity to take several thousand people to safety. And there is still the problem of how and when to open windows for access.
Fire protection is designed to prevent structural collapse under normal fires (not 80,000 lb of jet fuel like in the WTC) and provide access to stairwells that are supposed to block fire. Despite the intense heat of jet fuel burning, these systems allowed many of thousands of people to evacuate before the towers collapsed. Under non-terrorist situations, the protective systems used for fire work pretty well in tall buildings.
The harder question is how much protection do we want or can afford to build into our environment. Next time it may be canisters of anthranx or dirty radiation. The solution is not technical, in my opinion, but a geopolitical one that must be addressed. The people that do these things simply must be stopped or our society will continue to be at risk. (By Our Society I think he means The Civilized World, not just us'ns.)

Subject: RE: BS: Escaping from a tall building
From: Willie-O
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 11:49 AM

Exactly: it's not a technical question. If there were indeed 50,000 people in the buildings (probably not the case), 90% of them escaped, and it could have been 98% and the number of deaths would have still been unspeakably sickening.

Willie-O
p.s., I've said it before, go ahead and call yourself Americans, we to the north of the U.S. don't mind at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Escaping from a tall building
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 11:55 AM

Note the contrast between the casualties in the six storey Pentagon and the 100 storey plus Twin Towers.

Building high like that is stupid, and is more to do with arrogance than with economics.

Tower of Babel.

Subject: RE: BS: Escaping from a tall building
From: Tiger
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 12:00 PM

I once had to evacuate from the 23rd. floor. It was a real fire alarm, not a drill, but at least there was no fire.

It took well over an hour. The staircase was narrow and the fire doors opened from each floor INTO the stairwell, effectively reducing its width by half. The crowding of people exiting into the stairwell meant I sometimes had to stop for five minutes or more because no one could move.

If there had been a serious fire on a lower level, the doors would have been forced open by people escaping, allowing the smoke and fumes into the stairwell. The pressure and congestion of those escaping would then prevent the doors from closing again, effectively trapping everyone above the fire level.

This was not a large-footprint building - I would guess an average of 50 persons per floor would need to exit. Still, if there HAD been a big fire on a lower level, the smoke and panic would have been awful and I probably couln't have gotten down at all.

RichM is right. Though I seldom go into (or even see) buildings like that any more, I would immediately exit stage left if there were any inkling of danger. I wouldn't wait for instructions, either.

Subject: RE: BS: Escaping from a tall building
From: Ringer
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 12:18 PM

Mrrzy: in England we call the first floor that immediately above the floor you walk onto immediately out of the street, so a jump from the first floor here would be about 15 feet or so. I've an idea that in the USA you call the first floor what we call the ground floor. Makes a big difference if you think about jumping from the third floor!

Subject: RE: BS: Escaping from a tall building
From: Midchuck
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 08:01 PM

There's one proposal for rebuilding the WTC that does make sense.

Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: Escaping from a tall building
From: sophocleese
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 08:14 PM

"Sense" isn't the word that I'd use, but it is a good picture.

Subject: RE: BS: Escaping from a tall building
From: John Hardly
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 08:47 PM

I know mouse and guest were just kidding but if given the choice between nothing and parachutes?

If every third floor had a "launching chamber" with sufficient parachutes (an outdated name--modern ones are considerably more adaptable to base jumping), and a static line to open the chutes for those leaping. You'd only need one openable window every third floor.

Then those who chose to not take this method could take their chances on considerably less congested stairways.

Subject: RE: BS: Escaping from a tall building
From: Burke
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 09:45 PM

I worked in a building that was effectively 2 with a central atrium & bridges every 3 floors. It was @25 floors, I was on the 9th. The evacuation plan was take the stairs to the nearest bridge, cross to the other side, then go down. That's assuming that you know the fire is on your side. When we considered the possibility of a real fire I think most of us decided we'd feel safer going all the way down the stairs & not crossing to the opposite side.

Subject: RE: BS: Escaping from a tall building
From: Kim C
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 01:06 PM

I think perhaps I might just grab me one more cup of coffee before I put my head between my knees and kissed my fiddlebum goodbye... burn to death/die of smoke inhalation, or become a splat on the sidewalk?

Definitely a rock and a hard place.

Subject: RE: BS: Escaping from a tall building
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 01:27 PM

The idea that the buildings have to be rebuilt as high as ever as some kind of gesture of defiance strikes me as wrongheaded.

Subject: RE: BS: Escaping from a tall building
From: M.Ted
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 02:38 PM

I think the WTC will be back, even if you don't like the idea, Kevin--The symbolic value of rebuilding it is too great, and office space in Manhattan is too expensive.

The one thing that no one has mentioned, though, is that each of these horrible catastrophes could have actually happened, exactly as they did, only by accident--WTC is almost literally a stone's through from Newark, and an equipment failure, sudden inclement weather, a sleeping or otherwise impaired pilot, a tower failure, could have sent a volley of aircraft toward the towers. Human malice, rather than human error, got them first--Unfortunately, human pride and human greed are more than likely to give everyone another shot--

Subject: RE: BS: Escaping from a tall building
From: sophocleese
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 02:43 PM

But if they rebuild them, who's going to rent out offices above say the 25th floor? It may prove much more expensive to rebuild now than it was to build in the first place. I suspect that that consideration will decide the issue more than any other.

A friend suggested that they rebuild them to the same height as before, get that skyline looking right again for the movies, but just leave the top fifty floors open as a monument.

Subject: RE: BS: Escaping from a tall building
From: Kim C
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 02:58 PM

I think I like that idea.

Of course, rebuilding on that same spot would be nearly tantamount to building atop a graveyard. And the resulting building could be haunted, for those who believe in such things....

Maybe they could just come up with a hologram instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Escaping from a tall building
From: Grab
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 12:10 PM

My vote is a hang-glider! Have big, wide floor-to-ceiling windows that open like a garage door in an emergency. Of course, the rigging time may make it a little impractical - plus the space required to rig one!

I reckon the static-line chute idea is much more practical. The only problem with that is that chutes have to be repacked at regular intervals to prevent them from becoming too compressed, which takes some time. Doing this for 50,000 chutes would _certainly_ take some money! And up until last week, no-one seriously thought they had to protect against this.

Incidentally, don't forget the legal angle. Many ppl using chutes will damage themselves (broken legs, ankles, arms, skulls, etc from not landing properly). A fair percentage would sue. If you doubt that, consider that ambulance crews and doctors have directions to cut up the seams of clothing, after some were sued by accident survivors for cutting off clothing quickly to provide first-aid. The argument that this was saving the person's life was considered to be irrelevant! :-(

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Escaping from a tall building
From: Kim C
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 12:38 PM

Listen, if it was a choice between a broken leg or certain death... well... I think I'd take my chances with the leg!

Mister and I both agree that instead of rebuilding the towers on that spot, it should be a memorial, with some trees and a monument. It really is a graveyard and should be treated as such.

Of course, the argument could be made that not rebuilding would be giving in to the terrorist philosophy, and perhaps there is some merit to that. But what happened there is so incredibly tragic - to rebuild would somehow be disrespectful, at least in my opinion. (yeah, I know, everybody has one)

Several years ago there was a mass shooting at a McDonald's in California. I believe the restaurant was torn down. Also the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City was not rebuilt, at least not in the same spot.

Anyways, I hope I never am in a situation where I have to worry abour getting out of a tall building.

We have a volunteer in our office, an adult woman with Down syndrome. She asked me the other day if we ever had fire drills in the building, because she had fire drills at her school. No, I said, but you know to take the stairs, right, and not the elevator. And if we can't get to the stairs---- we'll just push Fran's desk through the window and jump. We're only on the 2nd floor and from Fran's window - it's not too awfully high up!

Subject: RE: BS: Escaping from a tall building
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 02:22 PM

Once the rubble is cleared out, it will be some of the most expensive real estate in the world.

Insurance companies have already begun to invoke the "not a coverable loss" argument because of the acts of God/terrorism clauses.

So just who do you suppose would finance rebuilding the towers?

Subject: RE: BS: Escaping from a tall building
From: M.Ted
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 02:48 PM

The insurance money will more than cover the rebuilding--no need to find new backers--KimC, where would you and Mister plant any trees? All of the earth was removed and replaced with concrete and steel when the WTC was built--the building itself extended for about seven stories below the ground level--

Subject: RE: BS: Escaping from a tall building
From: Kim C
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 03:00 PM

Then that means there's a darn big hole just begging to be filled up with dirt. ;-)

A raised bed of some kind might work, if not for big trees, maybe for some bushes or shrubs or flowers.

Subject: RE: BS: Escaping from a tall building
From: Charley Noble
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 10:47 PM

From "Walls and Windows" by Judy Small and pat Humpries:

Oh, may we live to see the day when walls of words and fear
No longer stand between the truth and dreams;
When walls of windows rise into the darkness and we dare
To look into the mirror and see peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Escaping from a tall building
From: Lox
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 11:00 PM

I'm surprised that noone has mentioned the Towering inferno (with Paul Newman).

They managed to slide down lengths of steel cable that were connected to the roofs of surrounding buildings.

A load of these in a lattice over the city streets would make an excellent provision for those needing to escape from above an impassible inferno.

It would also make it much easier to arrange the christmas decorations when december comes around. (Sorry, did I say December? I meant October.)

lox

Subject: RE: BS: Escaping from a tall building
From: Scabby Douglas
Date: 20 Sep 01 - 07:29 AM

Lox: I'm surprised that no-one mentioned that Towering Inferno was, in fact, a movie, and that, even in the movie, the method used failed to rescue all of theose trapped even when there were (if I remember correctly) only 100 or so fictional people trapped.

There are skyscrapers across all of the developed world. They arose out of a desire to show off technological prowess - to say : look what we can do..
now - we should be saying - look what we did.

We built buildings that can trap the occupants. I know that the circumstances surrounding this were exceptional - at one time we could have said *unthinkable* - but now we have to think in those terms always.

We can ignore something that might never happen, but not something that has happened, with drastic terrifying consequences. We may eliminate these terrorists, but I believe that what happened last week just "upped the ante" for events of this type. Hijacking for hostages was one thing. It's been around for over 30 years. We lived with that. Hijacking for usage as missiles has only just begun.

Other comentators have pointed out that it needn't be a plane, or a bomb.
These buildings and many others are now targets.

Steven