Was Low Occupancy Levels Key In Limiting WTC Fatalities

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Cairenn makes the point that the Towers were constructed safely enough that it facilitated a high evacuation figure. Apparently a form of vindication/endorsement of the safety features and construction.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/sl...-are-inherently-unsafe.1412/page-2#post-38968

However, even NIST acknowledge that:

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_about.cfm

A principal factor limiting the loss of life was that the buildings were one-third to one-half occupied at the time of the attacks. NIST estimated that if the towers had been fully occupied with 20,000occupants each, it would have taken just over 3 hours to evacuate the buildings and about 14,000people might have perished because the stairwell capacity would not have been sufficient to evacuate that many people in the available time. Egress capacity required by current building codes is determined by single floor calculations that are independent of building height and does not consider the time for full building evacuation.
Content from External Source
So what about the safety of other high occupancy buildings?

Were there other forces at work in limiting the death toll?

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/bodycount.html


Minimized Fatalities
Intents of the Perpetrators
The death toll of the September 11th mass murder was large by historical standards of massacres. Yet it would have been much larger if not for a number of characteristics of the attacks which appear planned to minimize the death toll while still carrying out the unprecedented terror of flying jetliners into two of the largest buildings in the world, then demolishing them with people still inside. The characteristics include the selection of flights, the timing of the attacks, the selection of targets, and the positions of the aircraft collisions in each of the three targets.

Also interesting are the far more lethal targets that the perpetrators passed over. Flight 11 flew directly over the Indian Point nuclear power plant, and Flight 175 flew within about two minutes of it. That facility contains three nuclear power stations, one of which was online, and a unit storing 65 operating years' worth of highly radioactive waste. It is surrounded by heavily populated areas. Although the containment domes of the reactors might have survived an impact, the radioactive waste storage facility could easily have been breached by an impact, and damage to systems outside the containment domes could have led to a meltdown.
Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Are you asking why they did not crash into some other building? I think symbolism of the target had something to do with it.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolism_of_terrorism#September_11th
The effectiveness of the World Trade Center towers as a symbol is apparent in the discussion that continues about them today.[18] Many argue they were chosen because the towers represent Western power, wealth, commerce, and materialism.[15][19] Not just the activities they represent, but also their stature, made them a good target. The towers dominated the New York City skyline, making their loss, and the symbolic destruction of American commerce and power, all the more visible.[19] Similarly, the Pentagon was a strategic target because of its symbolism as the branch of the American government which protects the country.[14] The terrorists behind 9/11 sought to undermine these greater themes of American life by attacking the symbols that embody them.[14][15]
Content from External Source
You'd have to weigh various factors when choosing a target. Hitting Indian point would be very tricky to make effective (where exactly would you hit? What effect would it have?). Simply flying into WTC is a guaranteed mayor event.
 

Ron J

Active Member
Cairenn makes the point that the Towers were constructed safely enough that it facilitated a high evacuation figure. Apparently a form of vindication/endorsement of the safety features and construction.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/sl...-are-inherently-unsafe.1412/page-2#post-38968

However, even NIST acknowledge that:

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_about.cfm

A principal factor limiting the loss of life was that the buildings were one-third to one-half occupied at the time of the attacks. NIST estimated that if the towers had been fully occupied with 20,000occupants each, it would have taken just over 3 hours to evacuate the buildings and about 14,000people might have perished because the stairwell capacity would not have been sufficient to evacuate that many people in the available time. Egress capacity required by current building codes is determined by single floor calculations that are independent of building height and does not consider the time for full building evacuation.
Content from External Source
So what about the safety of other high occupancy buildings?

Were there other forces at work in limiting the death toll?

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/bodycount.html


Minimized Fatalities
Intents of the Perpetrators
The death toll of the September 11th mass murder was large by historical standards of massacres. Yet it would have been much larger if not for a number of characteristics of the attacks which appear planned to minimize the death toll while still carrying out the unprecedented terror of flying jetliners into two of the largest buildings in the world, then demolishing them with people still inside. The characteristics include the selection of flights, the timing of the attacks, the selection of targets, and the positions of the aircraft collisions in each of the three targets.

Also interesting are the far more lethal targets that the perpetrators passed over. Flight 11 flew directly over the Indian Point nuclear power plant, and Flight 175 flew within about two minutes of it. That facility contains three nuclear power stations, one of which was online, and a unit storing 65 operating years' worth of highly radioactive waste. It is surrounded by heavily populated areas. Although the containment domes of the reactors might have survived an impact, the radioactive waste storage facility could easily have been breached by an impact, and damage to systems outside the containment domes could have led to a meltdown.
Content from External Source


Supposedly, the desired intent of the 1993 terrorists, was for the the tower that was bombed, to collapse into the other tower, bringing both down. If that was their aim, they were not at all concerned about mitigating the loss of life.

I would guess that all the flights were chosen to depart at a narrow window of time, so that the hijacked planes would arrive at destination relatively close together. It may have been that early morning was more convenient for that purpose.

The Towers were struck high and relatively high, but was that an attempt to mitigate loss of life, or other factors? Hitting high on the Towers made it difficult for rescuers to reach those trapped or to put out the fire.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JRBids

Senior Member.
The flights were chosen because that is the lowest seat occupancy day. The terrorists didn't want a full plane fighting back at them.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
They hit the towers high because it was easier to do. It was early enough that some folks had not gotten to work yet. Midweek mornings and afternoons are when folks tend to schedule things like doctor/dentist visits, and other things that would keep them elsewhere.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
As I recall, there was always a lack of tenants in the buildings, also. It was early, not everyone begins work at 9AM, Windows on the World was not serving lunch. The toll could have been much higher.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
It is another argument for inexperienced pilots. The South tower fell well before the North, as it was hit lower down and the aircraft was travelling faster. If the pilots had been capable of getting both aircraft to hit within a minute or two of each other, at a much lower level... well...
 

MikeC

Closed Account
You are asking whether having fewer people in the buildings (than might have been there under some circumstances) limit the casualties??

Is this a trick question?? :confused:

I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark: Yes, having fewer people in the buildings limited the number of casualties.......
 
Top