A question that struck as I was reading an article this morning.
Are there any estimates of the likely death toll in the World Trade Centre attacks had the towers not collapsed?
In other words, all other damage remains the same but the towers take the strain and do not fall down, how big of a change in the numbers of people killed or survived?
Hard to say, since lots or even all of the people trapped above the impact sites might have died anyway of smoke inhalation, or a steadily rising fire.
Presumably people killed when the towers fell on top of them might have survived. I don’t know how many victims fall into that group, though.
And it would have taken a long time to get to them (not to mention get water to the fire), especially in the north tower because its stairwells and elevator shafts were completely destroyed. One stairwell in the south tower was passable (a very small number of people escaped from above the impact floors), but I don’t know if that would have lasted for long.
That was indeed a related question I had, assuming that the towers don’t fall how would the people in the upper floors have been evacuated and how long would it have taken? Could they have survived up there despite the smoke and flames, maybe on the roof?
How many people were above the damaged floors anyway?
A total of 8965 persons have been indicated being in the towers on the morning of September 11, at 8:47 am.
Got a cite for that? 8965 seems awfully low at the start of an ordinary mid-week workday, considering this cite which says that there were 50,000 people employed in the towers. Granted it wasn’t quite 9AM yet, but I would have thought that quite a bit more than 18% of the workforce would have arrived by 8:47AM.
As I remember, it was a primary election day and the first day of school, so some number of people were late, either because they were voting or taking their children to school.
I think this is pretty much the correct answer. Those above the impacts would have died before the flames could have been put out and smoke cleared. Those below the impacts who did not get out before the towers fell obviously would have lived. I don’t know if we have a good count on how many victims fell into these categories, it would be interesting if there was listing of victims by floor they were associated with.
According to this article, 99% of the people who were below the crash sites survived:
A related question. Suppose you asked for a permit to build a building 1368 feet long with two corridors each leading to a door with no rear or side exits. Would you have gotten the permits? There is something inherently unsafe about these skyscrapers.
In attempting to find a list of casualties by floor, I did find the following report from FEMA, updated last year, which contains the most complete summary of the engineering and physics of the building and its attack and collapse I’ve ever seen:
Maybe. But assuming the fire safety is better in a low-rise suburban office park (and I don’t know that it is), would all the sprawl actually be safer? I suspect I’m safer on the top floor of a skyscraper than I am behind the wheel of a car.
Didn’t the south tower begin evacuating before the second plane hit? My wife’s sister’s BIL was in the south tower, on some very high floor that day although I don’t remember if it was above or just below the second crash site. Anyway, he describes how after the first crash (they thought it was an explosion) they all started making their way down the stairs, and he was still in the stairway near the lower floors when the building shook from the second plane hitting.
I had always assumed that most people in the second tower escaped like he did. But I guess even if everyone followed the evacuation order there wasn’t a ton of time to get a safe distance down if you started very high.
On the contrary, survivors reported being told to stay in the South Tower or if they were already headed out, to go back to their desks.
Safety Engineering 101: Nothing is “safe” or “unsafe.” Some things are more safe; others less safe. For any given hazard.
I agree completely with the sentiment that the same shape of building but set on its side would be required to have more emergency exits.
But without knowing the rest of the difference in fire- and earthquake- and explosion-resistance design we can’t say which is statistically more safe: a skyscraper as built to skyscraper building codes, or a tilt-up warehouse built to tilt-up warehouse building codes.
Lots of people did, which is why there were only 600 people above the crash even though there were more floors involved. According to this article 1400 people left from those floors. There was never an official evacuation, though, and there was actually an announcement telling people that it was safe to stay inside and that there was no reason to evacuate. (I’d imagine that telling people to stay inside where they wouldn’t clog the streets and have burning debris fall on their heads would have looked like the correct decision at the time.)