Can I ask a silly question?

[Teloz]

On this sad anniversary of the terrible events at the World Trade Centre, can I ask why there were no plans in place for just such a terrible situation?

Was it the Titanic Syndrome, thinking nothing so catastrophic could possibly happen?

Surely a few dollars worth of rope on each floor and a short course on abseiling for every employee would have been better than relying on the lifts and stairs. I know nothing about abseiling and haven't a clue how high the buildings were, but would it have been feasible? Even if people had died on the ropes, at least they would have had a chance.

I know I'm naive and I know nothing about high rise buildings, (10 floors is high for me!) but surely there must have been something that could have been pre-planned?

 

[Stella_Omega]

The towers were 110 stories high.

 

[Liar]

The towers were 110 stories high.

This.

Parachutes and base jumping lessons would be the only useable preparation for the upper floors of a terminal sky scraper disaster.

 

[Stella_Omega]

seriously, there are no real preparations anyone could make for those super-tall towers-- I've always worried about being in them, growing up in earthquake country So Cal...

Mostly, the architects, financiers, and tenants just have to place their faith in the sand their heads are in-- and really, it almost always returns that trust. Tower disaters happen, but in miniscule percentages compared to the tower disasters that never happen. Humans are REAL good at faith.

 

[rgraham666]

The place to prevent this disaster lay outside the borders of the U.S. It could have been prevented by accurate intelligence on the activities of Al-Qaeda.

But before 9/11 terrorism didn't register on the radar of most of the people responsible for the safety of the U.S.

 

[bronzeage]

On this sad anniversary of the terrible events at the World Trade Centre, can I ask why there were no plans in place for just such a terrible situation?

Was it the Titanic Syndrome, thinking nothing so catastrophic could possibly happen?

Surely a few dollars worth of rope on each floor and a short course on abseiling for every employee would have been better than relying on the lifts and stairs. I know nothing about abseiling and haven't a clue how high the buildings were, but would it have been feasible? Even if people had died on the ropes, at least they would have had a chance.

I know I'm naive and I know nothing about high rise buildings, (10 floors is high for me!) but surely there must have been something that could have been pre-planned?

Disaster preparedness is an expensive operation. If you consider what the mundane things such as sprinklers, fire escapes and all the related maintenance, its a lot of money. We prepare for the most likely disasters as best we can afford.

I have witnessed the evacuation if New Orleans for hurricanes several times. It has yet to work well. There are not enough resources in the city or the state to get all the people out of harms way in the time given. Even then, every response has its own built in dangers. In the 2005 evacuation for Hurricane Rita, invalid nursing home patients died when their bus caught fire on the highway and they could not be carried out before the oxygen bottles exploded.

The WTC was prepared for the usual kinds of fires that happen in commercial high rise buildings. It was not prepared for thousands of gallons of jet fuel to be poured inside and set ablaze.

There are always obvious solutions after the fact. When a lone gunman shoots people in a school or shopping mall, a lot of people call for loosening gun restrictions, on the idea that more guns would enable someone to return fire.

Your idea about the rope would make a very interesting fire drill.

 

[sr71plt]

On this sad anniversary of the terrible events at the World Trade Centre, can I ask why there were no plans in place for just such a terrible situation?

I worked on this for over twenty years. First, there are plans in place for such things--and such events were choked off for decades before (an)other one (this wasn't the first--not even in those buildings) succeeded.

The answer is that the United States was an wide-open society. There were just too many possibilities/opportunities/possible scenarios available no matter what prevention we threw at it. And, to prevent an atmosphere of fear, there were (and continue to be) loads of plans uncovered and snuffed out. Many more than are being reported.

And with sooooo many possibilities to try to cover, hindsight on knuckleheaded thinking on a few of them is going to be inevitable.

Expectations just outstrip resources and capabilities--on all sorts of things, even in the United States. And Americans had been spoiled and protected from realizing this for far too long. That, perhaps, was the real failing.

But given the choices, I'd still prefer for my society to be open--even more so that we are now in the wake of 9/11, where there are still knuckleheaded decisions being made on what needs to be done in the way of prevention and still tons of gaps resources and capability don't permit us to fill--and I refuse to fear what might be behind ever wall ahead--even though it's quite possible there's someone with a gun there. I just won't live under that cloud of fear.

One of the truisms that Bush the Lesser uttered that is, indeed, a truism is that the attackers only need to be right once, while the defenders need to be right 24/7 and across the board. There just ain't enough resources to print any guarantees on that.

Lastly, what's the "we"? And how do you fit into it? What are you doing other than asking the question?

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

I really don't think anyone could have imagined that two planes would have flown into the towers on that day or any day. And, so I don't think any amount of preparedness would have benefited those trapped inside the building.

It's just one woman's opinion.

 

[sr71plt]

The plane scenario was contemplated--but just imagine how many buildings and how many planes and how many different types of approaches had to be considered. The irony is that, having been targeted before--and having been singled out as a target--it happened at the WTC.

I'll note that the planners weren't all that brilliant. The Pentagon facade they hit wasn't high and had recently been reinforced, nor the office space highly populated. That plane could just as easily--and with as good if not better symbolic and "leader" bodycount return--gone into the Capitol dome.

And, although there was symbolism in hitting the WORLD Trade Center (in which far more than just Americans were killed) was there, al-Qaida would have been cleverer to isolate the target as Americans and thus let some of the other countries with assets in the international trade center off the hook.

As a note of how massive the prevention problem is, at the time I had neighbors declare how happy they were that we lived in remote Charlottesville, Virginia--and I had to point up the hill to Monticello and ask them if they'd looked on the back of a nickel recently (and, indeed, Monticello is high on the list of assumed targets of terrorism). The biggest impact to be had in these isolated attacks is to attack symbols (which both the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were) to debilitate those you are attacking. In this vein, there are symbols in the United States that would affect a far greater percentage of the folks than the ones picked. The Pentagon is high on the priority list of symbolic targets--but the World Trade Center only was because al-Qaida had declared it a target and had attacked there before (and had planned other attacks there that had failed).

 

[Teloz]

...Lastly, what's the "we"? And how do you fit into it? What are you doing other than asking the question?

I'm just asking the question in an effort to understand. I live in the UK where the only really high rise public buildings are in the major cities, and even then, compared to New York, the buildings would hardly be considered tall. Also, as I live in rural Nottinghamshire, I have no experience with living with them, even the UK versions. This is a picture of the tallest building I've ever been in and it isn't a public building, it's flats (apartments) over a shopping mall.

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p167/Teloz/VicCentre.jpg

 

[Katyusha]

Speaking *only* to the failure of the towers and not of national security: the best preparation for this kind of thing *was* the stairs. Ropes from the top to the bottom would have meant many thousands of feet of rope, a lot of climbing equipment and frequent checks to make sure that equipment was always up to par, and climbing and rappelling lessons for everyone employed inside. Even had they done this ONLY for the people on, say, the top 30 floors, we're still talking about companies having to spend an awful lot of money on all of this and for ongoing training as new employees are brought in. And this would have been more inefficient than the stairs, so much so that it wouldn't have made *that* much of a difference, particularly in the south tower which was hit farther down than the north tower was.

The main issue was that the buildings suffered what is known as "atypical trauma," as in, the planes damaged the buildings in a way that's generally not expected. Computer simulations of a Boeing 707 collision with the towers didn't have the plane damaging so many of the perimeter columns, the support core, and the steel struts all at once, with a jet-fuel fire burning on many floors at once. In other words, the impact of the jet dislodged fireproofing materials and damaged the sprinkler systems, and took out too many columns and struts, so the remaining structure actually did not have to soften too much to fail.

In short, skyscrapers, particularly of that height, can be death traps. Have you ever seen "The Towering Inferno?" It's a great depiction of the problems inherent in building, living, and working in skyscrapers, whether corners are cut during construction or not.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Keep the ragheads on a leash when they come to America.

 

[Teloz]

Keep the ragheads on a leash when they come to America.

Thank you JBJ for such an erudite and informative post.

 

[Teloz]

... In short, skyscrapers, particularly of that height, can be death traps. Have you ever seen "The Towering Inferno?" It's a great depiction of the problems inherent in building, living, and working in skyscrapers, whether corners are cut during construction or not.

Thanks Katyusha. I did see The Towering Inferno some years ago and remember feeling chilled by it at the time.

I suppose one answer would be to build "bomb proof" stairwells with fireproof doors and wrap the building around them, but I guess that would add millions to the cost of a building, what value do you put on human life? Would the odds against it happening again, which now must be much higher, make it worth it?

 

[geronimo_appleby]

On this sad anniversary of the terrible events at the World Trade Centre, can I ask why there were no plans in place for just such a terrible situation?

Was it the Titanic Syndrome, thinking nothing so catastrophic could possibly happen?

Surely a few dollars worth of rope on each floor and a short course on abseiling for every employee would have been better than relying on the lifts and stairs. I know nothing about abseiling and haven't a clue how high the buildings were, but would it have been feasible? Even if people had died on the ropes, at least they would have had a chance.

I know I'm naive and I know nothing about high rise buildings, (10 floors is high for me!) but surely there must have been something that could have been pre-planned?

you're taking the piss ... right?

 

[3113]

The WTC towers were, as I recall (could be wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure), prepared for what they thought might happen, which was a small plane accidentally hitting them. Such a thing happened to the Empire State Building, and so they knew it could happen. If it had been a small plane, the preparations in place would have sufficed.

But planning in the event of a large plane being hijacked and aimed at them?

 

[Teloz]

you're taking the piss ... right?

Nope! I am as an innocent babe in my naivety! Honest!

I wouldn't dream of taking the piss in connection to such a terrible event, that would be like an American pissing on the Cenotaph!

 

[geronimo_appleby]

Nope! I am as an innocent babe in my naivety! Honest!

I wouldn't dream of taking the piss in connection to such a terrible event, that would be like an American pissing on the Cenotaph!

now it sounds like you are taking the piss.

 

[sr71plt]

The WTC towers were, as I recall (could be wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure), prepared for what they thought might happen, which was a small plane accidentally hitting them. Such a thing happened to the Empire State Building, and so they knew it could happen. If it had been a small plane, the preparations in place would have sufficed.

But planning in the event of a large plane being hijacked and aimed at them?

Yes, the kicker was that the plane was full of jet fuel--having just taken off. I didn't really see any planning for that.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

the WTC was planned to withstand the impact of a 707, that being the largest commercial plane available when they were built. The planes that hit them were significantly larger and, as katy pointed out, fully fueled. They were perfect flying bombs and no one ever expected that some deranged maniacs would deliberately commit suicide with them. And so we learn . . .

 

[bronzeage]

Keep the ragheads on a leash when they come to America.

You never struck me as a bondageboi, but I guess it takes all kinds.

 

[geronimo_appleby]

the WTC was planned to withstand the impact of a 707, that being the largest commercial plane available when they were built. The planes that hit them were significantly larger and, as katy pointed out, fully fueled. They were perfect flying bombs and no one ever expected that some deranged maniacs would deliberately commit suicide with them. And so we learn . . .

indeed we do learn.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

Thanks Katyusha. I did see The Towering Inferno some years ago and remember feeling chilled by it at the time.

I suppose one answer would be to build "bomb proof" stairwells with fireproof doors and wrap the building around them, but I guess that would add millions to the cost of a building, what value do you put on human life? Would the odds against it happening again, which now must be much higher, make it worth it?

Bomb proof? No. they are built to be fire proof for several hours though. The towers acted exactly as they are designed to act. The hold themselves up for a while as they burn before falling down onto themselves, allowing people inside time to get out.

The problems came when they were hit by planes several sizes bigger than they were designed to be hit by (as VM said above, the largest plane that existed at the time), and when the building security team told office workers to stay where they were initially, acting like it wasn't an emergency that required evacuation.

Mistakes were made. Hopefully the same ones won't be made again.

Also, the building didn't have a sprinkler system. It was designed to not need one. If there had been one it might have saved a few more people. But don't forget that a lot of people died when the first building fell on top of rescue workers and people that they were trying to save. It is debatable just how much sprinklers would have helped when the building probably would have fallen in either scenario.

The thing that gets me most about it all though, is that my Grandfather was on the engineering team that designed the elevator system for the towers, and I never got to see the buildings in person before they came down.

 

[Katyusha]

the WTC was planned to withstand the impact of a 707, that being the largest commercial plane available when they were built. The planes that hit them were significantly larger and, as katy pointed out, fully fueled. They were perfect flying bombs and no one ever expected that some deranged maniacs would deliberately commit suicide with them. And so we learn . . .

The problems came when they were hit by planes several sizes bigger than they were designed to be hit by (as VM said above, the largest plane that existed at the time), and when the building security team told office workers to stay where they were initially, acting like it wasn't an emergency that required evacuation.

Actually, the main problem wasn't the size difference of the planes so much as it was the fact that the towers were designed to withstand the hit of a 707 that was inbound to land, and thus considerably lower on fuel than a plane that had just taken off. Full of fuel and low on fuel is a much bigger difference than the differences 707s and 767s have in size.

Also, the building didn't have a sprinkler system. It was designed to not need one. If there had been one it might have saved a few more people. But don't forget that a lot of people died when the first building fell on top of rescue workers and people that they were trying to save. It is debatable just how much sprinklers would have helped when the building probably would have fallen in either scenario.

Yes it did. By 2001 it had an extensive sprinkler system, as required by law. The problem there was the collisions damaging and destroying pipes on the floors where the main fires were, so the fires raged unchecked instead of drowned by the sprinklers.

 

[amicus]

The place to prevent this disaster lay outside the borders of the U.S. It could have been prevented by accurate intelligence on the activities of Al-Qaeda.

But before 9/11 terrorism didn't register on the radar of most of the people responsible for the safety of the U.S.

~~~

It is seldom I find something to agree with you on, but the intelligence failure did not occur in a vacuum.

There was a previous attack in the basement of one of the Towers, by a known Islamic terrorist cell.

Under President Clinton, both the Military and the Intelligence Community had their funds cut by over twenty-five percent and the USS Cole terror attack was virtually ignored as a wider threat.

What troubles many Americans now is that the same funding cuts are being visited upon the same agencies and the threatened investigations of CIA operatives has had a 'chilling effect' on the entire intelligence community.

I want to commend many posters on this thread for an accurate assessment of the nature of the tragedy. We are not intending to live in walled off, armored castles, so prevention, as Graham said, is the only solution.

Amicus