No Top-Floor Rescue Plan
So one of the most surprising things I heard while listening to the Sept. 11 hearing this morning was that at some point before the towers fell, the FDNY top brass determined there was no way to rescue the people above the impact point (of at least one tower.) The stairwells were blocked and the heat was too intense for the NYPD helicopter to get near the roof. Not as though they needed to get to the roof, because the doors to the roof were locked and no people were up there.

Now I'm wondering what the above-impact rescue plan is for any other skyscraper standing today. Sure, they'll modify construction codes for future buildings to better protect the stairwells, but what happens if you're on the observation deck of the Empire State Building or the Sears Tower and something hits 20 floors below?

Or is the risk such a long-shot that the expense outweighs the diminishing risk?

I first started wondering about these things way back when I was covering the City Council in Gilroy, Calif. and the city manager came in with an expensive plan to shore up some bridge over a river. I think they were going to stabilize it for a "100-year flood." And there were questions along the lines of what happens if we get a "150-year flood" -- meaning a whole lot worse. And they discussed how much more expensive it would be and what was the decreasing likelihood that a flood of that magnitude would hit. And then if you consider the 150-year flood, why not the 200-year flood and even more expense? And the council was aware that if they wanted to prepare for a 150-year flood, you'd maybe have to take money from the library budget or delay the purchase of that $100,000 fire engine. As it happened, I think they did indeed get a 100-year flood that winter and the bridge withstood the water eventhough the construction wasn't yet complete.

I've probably mangled some of those exact facts since it happened a decade ago, but I'm bringing it up for those folks who start thinking that no expense should be spared when preparing for an outrageous attack. People sometimes forget that at the time the WTC was built, the architects built it strong enough to withstand a hit from the biggest plane yet built. Things will continue to change as will the risks. And people need to remember that up until the first seconds that the south tower began to fall - in some cases after the building fell - it was still incomprehensible that the buildings could fall.

So my thoughts are yes, that more could be done to enhance emergency communication and make buildings safer, but I think it's a stretch to say it was a "scandal" that New York wasn't more prepared for what happened Sept. 11.
- posted by Amy @ 5/18/2004 01:31:00 PM