9/11 20 years on, questions & answers

Did sending firemen into the twin towers result in a net gain or loss of life?

Why didn't they have a net or huge inflatable to give "jumpers" a chance?

Has building design changed as a result?

What is the protocol for military aircraft if a passenger plane is heading for an occupied building?

Was the building dust toxic or only if it contained asbestos?

.

(edited 2 years ago)

Reply 1

Napp

Original post by NJA

Did sending firemen into the twin towers result in a net gain or loss of life?

What do you mean by this?

Why didn't they have a net or huge inflatable to give "jumpers" a chance?

Because a giant net or inflatable thing isnt going to help someone jumping off the top of a skyscraper... in the same way that jumping into water from that height will kill you so will those.

Has building design changed as a result?

If memory serves there were some changes made to the insulation of buildings, given it was the failure of that which led to the collapse of them

What is the protocol for military aircraft if a passenger plane is heading for an occupied building?

Shoot it down. I assume you mean a hijacked or stolen one though? Planes heading towards buildings is a daily occurance given where my airports are but if there is word that a plane has been hijacked and will likely be used as a cruise missile then the air force tends to have orders to blow the plane out of the sky. Hence why you sometimes see videos of planes being escorted by jets to an airport if theres been an incident onboard or such.

Was the building dust toxic or only if it contained asbestos?

I very much doubt it would have been good for anyone breathing it in, powdered concrete in the lungs being bad with or without asbestos

Reply 2

NJA

Original post by Napp

1) What do you mean by this?

2) Because a giant net or inflatable thing isnt going to help someone jumping off the top of a skyscraper... in the same way that jumping into water from that height will kill you so will those.

3) If memory serves there were some changes made to the insulation of buildings, given it was the failure of that which led to the collapse of them

4) Shoot it down. I assume you mean a hijacked or stolen one though? Planes heading towards buildings is a daily occurance given where my airports are but if there is word that a plane has been hijacked and will likely be used as a cruise missile then the air force tends to have orders to blow the plane out of the sky. Hence why you sometimes see videos of planes being escorted by jets to an airport if theres been an incident onboard or such.

5) I very much doubt it would have been good for anyone breathing it in, powdered concrete in the lungs being bad with or without asbestos

1) how many people did they save minus how many of them were lost

2) Water and air have different properties, air, being a gas, gives more on impact. Are you drawing on scientific research for your assertion or just speaking "off the cuff"?

3) Specifics would be nice

4) wing-tipping would be an alternative, though more difficult if Tom Cruiose or Clint Eastwood are not around

5) again off the cuff, have there been any studies / data produced?

Does anyone have any other questions?

Was Building 7 an arranged demolition?

Reply 3

Napp

Original post by NJA

1) how many people did they save minus how many of them were lost

I'm not sure anyone can give you an answer that question, least of all due to the crassness of valueing the firegithers lives in comparison to the office workers.

2) Water and air have different properties, air, being a gas, gives more on impact. Are you drawing on scientific research for your assertion or just speaking "off the cuff"?

Thank you for the primary school science expose, i guess? I'm speaking off the cuff, although it should seem fairly self evident that falling several hundred meters onto a solid(ish) surface, bouncy or not, is not going to be good for you. I would be interested to see if im proved wrong on that count though, but i doubt it.

3) Specifics would be nice

That was a specific answer... you can google them yourself though...

4) wing-tipping would be an alternative, though more difficult if Tom Cruiose or Clint Eastwood are not around

I'm not sure how trying to kill the fighter pilot would help anyone?

5) again off the cuff, have there been any studies / data produced?

Basic biology and science... inhaling large particulate matter is not good for your lungs.. this is extremely basic and a case in point as to why people are advised not to hang around fires of any description as smoke (and thus dust) are toxic.

Was Building 7 an arranged demolition?

The conspiracy theories say yes

Reply 4

NJA

Original post by Napp

1) I'm not sure anyone can give you an answer that question, least of all due to the crassness of valueing the firegithers lives in comparison to the office workers.

Thank you for the primary school science expose, i guess? I'm speaking off the cuff, although it should seem fairly self evident that falling several hundred meters onto a solid(ish) surface, bouncy or not, is not going to be good for you. I would be interested to see if im proved wrong on that count though, but i doubt it.

That was a specific answer... you can google them yourself though...

I'm not sure how trying to kill the fighter pilot would help anyone?

Basic biology and science... inhaling large particulate matter is not good for your lungs.. this is extremely basic and a case in point as to why people are advised not to hang around fires of any description as smoke (and thus dust) are toxic.

The conspiracy theories say yes

1) All lives are valued the same. Watching 9/11: Inside the President's War Room showed how America was unprepared at the top. Some articles today say that lessons still have not been learned, there are many articles on lessons learned.

It is clear that many more first responders were lost due to nature of the response than were saved, indeed after time the response has resulted in more first-responder deaths than the actual attacks.

(edited 2 years ago)

Original post by NJA

1. Well, there were estimates of 14000-19000 people in WTC 1 & 2. 2753 died in WTC site, of which 343 firefighters; 71 law enforcement officers. Whether they evacuated with or without firefighters assistance is undeterminable.

2. It would be a pointless exercise. At 417 meters tall, if you jumped from 3/4 up and weighed 70kg you'd hit the ground at 276km/h.

3. I don't know enough to answer that.

4. I don't know, If it's unresponsive they are authorized to shoot down.

5. Yes, Silicosis kills many every year.

Reply 7

tinygirl96

No controlled demolition is hardly likely to be on a terrorist’s mind.. and I do not believe the conspiracy theories either. There is no way that could have happened.

Original post by tinygirl96

No controlled demolition is hardly likely to be on a terrorist’s mind.. and I do not believe the conspiracy theories either. There is no way that could have happened.

I always found that a particularly odd theory, like how do they think people would have been able to smuggle in the huge among of explosives needed without being noticed? Nevermind flying a plane into the thing would be rather unnecessary at that point.