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

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


 
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
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

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




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.......
 

Related Articles

Top