The Falling Man(esquire.com)
esquire.com
The Falling Man
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a48031/the-falling-man-tom-junod/
84 comments
As a culture, we really have a misguided attitude about suicide, stemming largely from the insidious just-world fallacy. It's a comfort to many of us in this fucked-up world, to think that maybe it's not as unfair as it seems. As persistent as that warped logic is, it doesn't withstand suicide. We don't want to imagine we could ever face a truly intolerable situation, so instead we imagine a world that doesn't allow such, and we damn those whose deaths would contradict us.
I don't see how it works. Just world certainly does not contradict suicide. A lot of suicide is driven by either mental or physical suffering, and nobody who in not 5 year old doubts that suffering exists in the world, and a lot of it. We certainly hope it won't happen to us, but I don't think anybody denies that it does happen around us.
So while I agree that american culture has misguided attitude on suicide, I don't think your explanation works.
So while I agree that american culture has misguided attitude on suicide, I don't think your explanation works.
You seem to be using a novel meaning for the term "just-world fallacy": the assumption that suffering is deserved is the whole point.
Well, "deserved" is very nebulous - I'm not sure there can be any fact, including suicide, that can disprove that particular instance of suffering is "deserved". You can always build a logic that this person has done something - in this life, in past life, in spiritual realm, in thoughts, whatever - that made them "deserve" whatever suffering there is. It's not a verifyiable thing as such, and thus it can't be really disproven by empirical fact. It's a question of faith, which doesn't deal with empirical facts by definition. I don't see how suicide changes anything there.
The world is as Just as we make it.
Cynicism is a cancer.
We damn those who gave up on trying after having been given the greatest gift that can be received.
The point is life - more, better, higher, more beautiful, more intelligent, more creative. Anything that gets in the way of the unfoldment of life in the universe will be deemed bad.
Cynicism is a cancer.
We damn those who gave up on trying after having been given the greatest gift that can be received.
The point is life - more, better, higher, more beautiful, more intelligent, more creative. Anything that gets in the way of the unfoldment of life in the universe will be deemed bad.
"The world is as Just as we make it." - There are limits to this. There are forces far powerful than we like to admit. Systems man made. Systems that are that of nature. With all our might we can bend some of them, but sometimes we can't. Along with things that are full of happiness there are those that fall into depression, poverty, sadness, loss, regret, and suicide. Sometimes we are victims to circumstance.
The man that fell from that tower that day didn't want his world to be what it was on that sad day. He didn't give up as you put it. To me he is brave.
The man that fell from that tower that day didn't want his world to be what it was on that sad day. He didn't give up as you put it. To me he is brave.
99% of misery is caused by humans.
Most people who commit suicide are not objectively in situations of extreme difficulty. Many wealthy, successful people commit prison. Surely, negative conditions are correlated with suicide, but it's not the driver. It's a psychological/spiritual issue.
Most people who commit suicide are not objectively in situations of extreme difficulty. Many wealthy, successful people commit prison. Surely, negative conditions are correlated with suicide, but it's not the driver. It's a psychological/spiritual issue.
The man was not committing suicide, he was murdered.
He was doomed to die no matter what. He was doomed due to the deliberate and malevoloent actions of others.
He either chose, or was unable to overcome psychological impulses, to act in a way that he took his own life.
I'm looking at a definition of suicide that includes the word "voluntary", which could well be contested given the extreme threat and lack of alternative here. At the same time, I do not personally see all suicide as unwarranted, wrong, or sinful (though there are cases in which I'd strongly prefer people didn't kill themselves).
The Falling Man, and the many others who similarly lept from the Twin Towers, and those who similarly take their lives in the face of desperate circumstances are what they are. In many cases the label "suicide" fits. I don't find it dishonourable.
But causality and life are complicated, words express ideas, and ideas are our own mental models. If you trace events back to original causes you find numerous complications at ascribing simple terms and unambiguous labels to them. Sometimes the ambiguity is greater, sometimes lesser.
Describing these particular deaths as both murder and suicide strikes me as defensible.
He either chose, or was unable to overcome psychological impulses, to act in a way that he took his own life.
I'm looking at a definition of suicide that includes the word "voluntary", which could well be contested given the extreme threat and lack of alternative here. At the same time, I do not personally see all suicide as unwarranted, wrong, or sinful (though there are cases in which I'd strongly prefer people didn't kill themselves).
The Falling Man, and the many others who similarly lept from the Twin Towers, and those who similarly take their lives in the face of desperate circumstances are what they are. In many cases the label "suicide" fits. I don't find it dishonourable.
But causality and life are complicated, words express ideas, and ideas are our own mental models. If you trace events back to original causes you find numerous complications at ascribing simple terms and unambiguous labels to them. Sometimes the ambiguity is greater, sometimes lesser.
Describing these particular deaths as both murder and suicide strikes me as defensible.
I obviously understand the nuanced issue regarding the fact that he technically took his own life.
But given that is death was absolutely imminent within a few minutes, I really don't think this is a case of 'suicide' in any of the remotely classical scenarios.
It's not 'suicide' in any reasonable sense of the term.
But given that is death was absolutely imminent within a few minutes, I really don't think this is a case of 'suicide' in any of the remotely classical scenarios.
It's not 'suicide' in any reasonable sense of the term.
I never said he was committing suicide, I said he was a victim of circumstance. Even if he did intentionally jump, it wasn't a bad thing our society makes it out to be. We will never know either way.
So why the collective censorship?
There is no such censoring of "murder" news.
There is no such censoring of "murder" news.
Precisely. Thanks for summarising it so succinctly and truthfully.
> As a culture, we really have a misguided attitude about suicide
A lot of it is religious. It is considered a great sin in popular religions. Even though many don't follow religion it left this ingrained idea in the culture.
Also perhaps is seen as shameful. Part of the desire to censor the images was probably not purely to respect the victims, but also to hide the act, because it is shameful ("don't show this to the children" type thing)
The reason it is shameful is that it is seen as the most radical act of "giving up". And that doesn't jive with the "you can overcome anything with hard work" culture.
You can read this in how people talked about it -- "they were forced out" instead of "they decided to jump". Both are correct at some level. But first seems more appropriate in our culture.
One other level, perhaps even unconsciously we understand there is a possibility of contagion. It has happened and actually has been observed (someone in a high school does, and then usually a string of suicided might follow, the more talk and media coverage the more suicides follow etc). Maybe at some point in that past that fear of contagion got codified as a taboo...
A lot of it is religious. It is considered a great sin in popular religions. Even though many don't follow religion it left this ingrained idea in the culture.
Also perhaps is seen as shameful. Part of the desire to censor the images was probably not purely to respect the victims, but also to hide the act, because it is shameful ("don't show this to the children" type thing)
The reason it is shameful is that it is seen as the most radical act of "giving up". And that doesn't jive with the "you can overcome anything with hard work" culture.
You can read this in how people talked about it -- "they were forced out" instead of "they decided to jump". Both are correct at some level. But first seems more appropriate in our culture.
One other level, perhaps even unconsciously we understand there is a possibility of contagion. It has happened and actually has been observed (someone in a high school does, and then usually a string of suicided might follow, the more talk and media coverage the more suicides follow etc). Maybe at some point in that past that fear of contagion got codified as a taboo...
A lot of it is religious. It is considered a great sin in popular religions.
Well partially, but there is also that in ancient times it was considered that you would be depriving the emperor/king/state of his rightful property (or hers obv).
Infact in North Korea today if you commit suicide your family will be sent to a slave labour camp for that same reason.
Well partially, but there is also that in ancient times it was considered that you would be depriving the emperor/king/state of his rightful property (or hers obv).
Infact in North Korea today if you commit suicide your family will be sent to a slave labour camp for that same reason.
I think that the just world fallacy is an enormous contributor to the existence of religion in the first place.
I was under the impression most religions don't believe the world is just or fair and that it is people's jobs to attempt to make it more so.
The religions I've endured attempt to tiptoe the line. They admit to life's unfairness, but they still pretend that by praying in the right way or donating to the right televangelist one can make it a little more "fair" for oneself. Also there's the whole heaven thing, which has been a great distraction from the ills of this world since its invention. Really, 'sullyj3 has it exactly right.
[deleted]
The Falling Man has a name.
Though not officially identified, it is thought to be Jonathan Briley. A lot of people were killed that day. This is just one story. [0] You can view a documentary about this image here ~ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3gbxJ4xUDE (1hr 11m)
RIP Jonathan.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Falling_Man
Though not officially identified, it is thought to be Jonathan Briley. A lot of people were killed that day. This is just one story. [0] You can view a documentary about this image here ~ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3gbxJ4xUDE (1hr 11m)
RIP Jonathan.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Falling_Man
The source for that Wikipedia article – and the documentary you linked – is an earlier (2003) version of the same linked article by Tom Junod.
Jonathan Briley is discussed in the article. While likely, it's not certain.
Jonathan Briley is discussed in the article. While likely, it's not certain.
Which Wikipedia makes pretty clear.
> The subject of the image, whose identity remains uncertain,...
> The subject of the image, whose identity remains uncertain,...
"The subject of the image, whose identity remains uncertain,..."
The uncertainty, if memory serves me from viewing the above documentary, is at the request of the family for religious reasons.
The uncertainty, if memory serves me from viewing the above documentary, is at the request of the family for religious reasons.
[deleted]
Perhaps "depersonalization" can explain the state some of these people were in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depersonalization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depersonalization
How can the same link be submitted twice?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12467708
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12467708
I've allways found it odd that a culture that so values personal freedom: "the right to choose what to do with your life" so activity denies the right to choose how to end it.
It doesn't really though. You have no choice on whether to participate in the market economy, and forming labor unions is restricted. Compared to other developed countries, work hours are long, minimum wage low and holidays short. If you don't work, even if the only work available is horrible and degrading, society thinks it's okay to deny you healthcare and starve you to death. This isn't a necessity, but a moral norm we have, that people who don't work should be punished, by death if necessary.
It's interesting that so many pro-market people claim to be individualists, because the view that the market should dictate everyone's life is as collectivist as it gets.
It's interesting that so many pro-market people claim to be individualists, because the view that the market should dictate everyone's life is as collectivist as it gets.
> You have no choice on whether to participate in the market economy
> society thinks it's okay to deny you healthcare and starve you to death.
You seem to be saying that it's a problem if society makes you participate in the free market, but it's not a problem when you have to participate in an unfree market instead of a free market.
(And of course it's worth mentioning that even the USA, capitalist enemy #1, has Medicare and doesn't let people starve.)
> the view that the market should dictate everyone's life is as collectivist as it gets.
Well, your life is either going to be defined by a system where people trade goods and services in an ad hoc manner uncontrolled by a government, or in a planned manner explicitly controlled by a government (possibly in negotiation with a strong labor union).
One of these is more individualistic. It's not the one where people work real hard to get a job (one of the few), keep the same job for all 40 years of their working life, aggressively lobby against people choosing to pay custom to the disruptive competition which employs immigrants (and protest it by burning tires in the streets), et cetera. We could argue many things saying that system is superior but individualism isn't one of them.
> society thinks it's okay to deny you healthcare and starve you to death.
You seem to be saying that it's a problem if society makes you participate in the free market, but it's not a problem when you have to participate in an unfree market instead of a free market.
(And of course it's worth mentioning that even the USA, capitalist enemy #1, has Medicare and doesn't let people starve.)
> the view that the market should dictate everyone's life is as collectivist as it gets.
Well, your life is either going to be defined by a system where people trade goods and services in an ad hoc manner uncontrolled by a government, or in a planned manner explicitly controlled by a government (possibly in negotiation with a strong labor union).
One of these is more individualistic. It's not the one where people work real hard to get a job (one of the few), keep the same job for all 40 years of their working life, aggressively lobby against people choosing to pay custom to the disruptive competition which employs immigrants (and protest it by burning tires in the streets), et cetera. We could argue many things saying that system is superior but individualism isn't one of them.
What country do you live in?
"society thinks it's okay to deny you healthcare and starve you to death"
This makes no sense.
Society does not 'deny' you almost anything.
That someone cannot or choses not to buy something is not 'denial'.
"because the view that the market should dictate "
???? The market does not dictate anything. The 'market' is just the sum totality of 'individual choices'.
This makes no sense.
Society does not 'deny' you almost anything.
That someone cannot or choses not to buy something is not 'denial'.
"because the view that the market should dictate "
???? The market does not dictate anything. The 'market' is just the sum totality of 'individual choices'.
I'm not making a moral or ideological statement, in fact, I'm trying to pull the ideology out of it.
It was wonderful living in a certain world, once.
See also the backlash against the athlete protesting during the national anthem.
What this has to do with freedom? He was free to express his point of view, others were free do disagree with him and tell him they don't like his point of view - or, on the contrary, like it a lot. I think it worked exactly as it should be.
Pay no attention to the hypocrisy behind the ideological curtain!
A former colleague was there and witnessed this. He struggles with it for a variety of reasons, including that he would have been inside a few minutes later.
The way he put it, which says it all for me, was that the jumpers were a sort of testimony to the fact there was no way out and no hope for the people trapped up there.
There's lots of cultural stigma to suicide, and one of the reasons for that is there is always reason to hope. The poor souls up there ran out of reasons.
The way he put it, which says it all for me, was that the jumpers were a sort of testimony to the fact there was no way out and no hope for the people trapped up there.
There's lots of cultural stigma to suicide, and one of the reasons for that is there is always reason to hope. The poor souls up there ran out of reasons.
The thing that sticks with me beyond anything else was that there was so much horror that day, it couldn't be kept off TV. I grew up with the understanding that you simply don't see death live on TV.
Everyone was just gobsmacked and the usual bullshit storymaking aspect of TV coverage didn't happen. I remember all of the volunteers, doctors, nurses, etc heading to one of the hospitals to help triage a flood of injuries -- but nobody came.
I was 150 miles away in Albany. When the state government and banks dismissed employees, people were literally running in a daze to go home. I stood on the corner of the busiest street downtown waiting for my wife to pick me up -- everyone scurried off and the streets were utterly empty and silent at lunchtime. It was literally just me and an art installation statue of a guy reading a newspaper. The silence was eerie and bizarre.
I was 150 miles away in Albany. When the state government and banks dismissed employees, people were literally running in a daze to go home. I stood on the corner of the busiest street downtown waiting for my wife to pick me up -- everyone scurried off and the streets were utterly empty and silent at lunchtime. It was literally just me and an art installation statue of a guy reading a newspaper. The silence was eerie and bizarre.
One very morbid question I have is were some of the jumpers actually pushed? Some of the pictures you see people crowding to the few available edges, a crush of bodies trying to breath. Wouldn't some of the people on the edges have been pushed by those further inside?
It's possible. In this video you can see 8+ people jumping within a couple of seconds of each other from approximately the same place: https://youtu.be/b9QN3AkydYY?t=344
Or perhaps unintentionally knocked off and people crammed the edge. There is no way to know.
Why were there no parachutes? It would at least have given them a chance.
Because there were fire stairs.
The WTC (like all modern high-rises in the developed world) had a pretty impressive set of firefighting and evacuation infrastructure, procedures, and personnel. This training video goes through it pretty well [0].
- Smoke detectors and pull stations everywhere to ensure any fire is detected and responded to quickly (i.e. before it gets out of hand). There was a fire station across the street.
- A huge console for responding firefighters to see the location of alarm conditions, make building or floor-wide announcements, and even have two-way conversations with intercom stations on particular floors.
- Sprinklers and redundant power for the pumps that run them.
- Fans to push smoke out of the building and supply clean air to evacuation routes.
- Fire stairs, kept closed under positive pressure to keep smoke out, kept unobstructed by regular patrols, encased in material that wouldn't burn through for hours.
- A network of piping and wall-mounted hoses easily fed from the dedicated fire-truck parking.
- Fire drills, designated authorities for the evacuation of each floor, security personnel trained to watch over the fire alarm equipment.
It's not like the WTC wasn't prepared to evacuate in a fire. It's just that nobody anticipated all that infrastructure (pipes, stairwells, etc) getting sheared through by an airplane.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28laYNm5YNw
The WTC (like all modern high-rises in the developed world) had a pretty impressive set of firefighting and evacuation infrastructure, procedures, and personnel. This training video goes through it pretty well [0].
- Smoke detectors and pull stations everywhere to ensure any fire is detected and responded to quickly (i.e. before it gets out of hand). There was a fire station across the street.
- A huge console for responding firefighters to see the location of alarm conditions, make building or floor-wide announcements, and even have two-way conversations with intercom stations on particular floors.
- Sprinklers and redundant power for the pumps that run them.
- Fans to push smoke out of the building and supply clean air to evacuation routes.
- Fire stairs, kept closed under positive pressure to keep smoke out, kept unobstructed by regular patrols, encased in material that wouldn't burn through for hours.
- A network of piping and wall-mounted hoses easily fed from the dedicated fire-truck parking.
- Fire drills, designated authorities for the evacuation of each floor, security personnel trained to watch over the fire alarm equipment.
It's not like the WTC wasn't prepared to evacuate in a fire. It's just that nobody anticipated all that infrastructure (pipes, stairwells, etc) getting sheared through by an airplane.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28laYNm5YNw
Fire stairs, like, a single column of stairs, or, multiple columns? If they were placed near each corner, some of them should have survived until collapse.
Impact by planes had been imagined prior to the crashes, but I don't know if it had been by the designers. Considering these were very tall structures, it seems likely someone would have at least briefly imagined it.
Impact by planes had been imagined prior to the crashes, but I don't know if it had been by the designers. Considering these were very tall structures, it seems likely someone would have at least briefly imagined it.
There were 3 stairwells in each building. Here's an excerpt from this fascinating wikipedia page[1] about one of the only four people to make it out from above the impact in the South tower:
"The airliner that struck the North Tower struck it perpendicular to the north face. The impact severed all the elevators and all three stairwells. The airliner that struck the South Tower struck at an angle, severing two stairwells, but it left Stairway A, the one they were using, more or less intact."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Clark_(September_11_surv...
"The airliner that struck the North Tower struck it perpendicular to the north face. The impact severed all the elevators and all three stairwells. The airliner that struck the South Tower struck at an angle, severing two stairwells, but it left Stairway A, the one they were using, more or less intact."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Clark_(September_11_surv...
At some point you have to make an ethical decision -- what is the best allocation of society's resources? It would be expensive to outfit all tall buildings with parachutes in the exceedingly unlikely event that they would be useful -- and that's before you factor in the low probability that they would successfully save people with little to no training in normal parachuting, much less BASE jumping, a sport which often kills trained participants jumping under far more favorable conditions.
You might as well ask why people who work in tall buildings don't take parachutes to work themselves. The answer is obvious, and I hope it's equally obvious why buildings don't do this.
On a related note: having to send your shoes through the x-ray machine in an airport security line is almost as bad of an idea. :/
You might as well ask why people who work in tall buildings don't take parachutes to work themselves. The answer is obvious, and I hope it's equally obvious why buildings don't do this.
On a related note: having to send your shoes through the x-ray machine in an airport security line is almost as bad of an idea. :/
You would only have needed to outfit the tallest buildings being built.
Do you know how many individual paratroopers have jumped out of planes? There is no way the cost is prohibitive.
Parachuting is one of the last ways I'd want to go down, but, why wouldn't I want one if my only choice were to splat or char?
Do you know how many individual paratroopers have jumped out of planes? There is no way the cost is prohibitive.
Parachuting is one of the last ways I'd want to go down, but, why wouldn't I want one if my only choice were to splat or char?
> why wouldn't I want one if my only choice were to splat or char?
That isn't your only choice because the scenario is exceedingly unlikely to happen.
If safety is your thing, you'd be much better off spending the several thousand dollars on doctors visits, healthier food, gym memberships, and/or public transit throughout the year.
That isn't your only choice because the scenario is exceedingly unlikely to happen.
If safety is your thing, you'd be much better off spending the several thousand dollars on doctors visits, healthier food, gym memberships, and/or public transit throughout the year.
if
It's unlikely a seatbelt will save my life, but every car I go in has multiple.
The original argument presented here is equivalent to arguing it's too expensive and useless to carry enough lifeboat capacity for everyone on a ship after the Titanic sunk. It's extremely unlikely that I'll ever impact an iceberg.
It's unlikely a seatbelt will save my life, but every car I go in has multiple.
The original argument presented here is equivalent to arguing it's too expensive and useless to carry enough lifeboat capacity for everyone on a ship after the Titanic sunk. It's extremely unlikely that I'll ever impact an iceberg.
How many times do you practice putting on your seatbelt, and how long does it take to put it on? For me, I put on my seatbelt every time I enter a car, and it takes me seconds.
I've never put on a parachute or practiced deploying one.
Lifeboats are not just for iceberg collisions. There are many reasons for a boat to sink that don't involve a collision.
I've never put on a parachute or practiced deploying one.
Lifeboats are not just for iceberg collisions. There are many reasons for a boat to sink that don't involve a collision.
Practically no one had put on a seat belt before they were introduced either. The cost of parachutes and placards to describe their proper usage is absolutely trivial in consideration of the budget of any building from which parachutes could actually be deployed.
Buildings don't just collapse from airplane collisions; fires, bombs, earthquakes, structural failure, hostile takeover, and more could all be scenarios where you might only survive if you have a chute.
Buildings don't just collapse from airplane collisions; fires, bombs, earthquakes, structural failure, hostile takeover, and more could all be scenarios where you might only survive if you have a chute.
How many people have died in building collapses over the last 50 years? Alternatively, how many people have died in car crashes? Large boats getting sunk? Lightning strikes?
Obviously these are rhetorical questions: it is far, far more likely to be hit by lightning than to die in a building collapse.
If you truly believe this risk is worth mitigating I would put my money/time where my mouth is and not depend on some building supervisor to keep enough parachutes around and keep them in good condition. Instead you should get some training*, buy a BASE jumping parachute and take it with you when you go above 60m. As you say, they are relatively inexpensive.
[1] Note: be careful -- you are much more likely to be killed in your training than you are to need to use it.
Obviously these are rhetorical questions: it is far, far more likely to be hit by lightning than to die in a building collapse.
If you truly believe this risk is worth mitigating I would put my money/time where my mouth is and not depend on some building supervisor to keep enough parachutes around and keep them in good condition. Instead you should get some training*, buy a BASE jumping parachute and take it with you when you go above 60m. As you say, they are relatively inexpensive.
[1] Note: be careful -- you are much more likely to be killed in your training than you are to need to use it.
It's far more cost efficient to just avoid entering such areas.
That's about the first sensible thing I've seen you say in this thread.
Yes: it's far more cost effective to avoid the risk altogether than attempt to mitigate the exceptionally unlikely event of a very-tall-building collapse or fire, particularly through use of, say, parachutes (into an urban landscape with many landing hazards and few readily accessible landing zones).
On the other hand, that decision also means foregoing opportunities, including the income potential of working for a firm in or near a dense downtown with such tall office towers in it. A cost you might be willing to accept.
Risks and costs can be balanced, though the cases in which people make decisions which are both fully informed and rational strike me as relatively rare.
Yes: it's far more cost effective to avoid the risk altogether than attempt to mitigate the exceptionally unlikely event of a very-tall-building collapse or fire, particularly through use of, say, parachutes (into an urban landscape with many landing hazards and few readily accessible landing zones).
On the other hand, that decision also means foregoing opportunities, including the income potential of working for a firm in or near a dense downtown with such tall office towers in it. A cost you might be willing to accept.
Risks and costs can be balanced, though the cases in which people make decisions which are both fully informed and rational strike me as relatively rare.
The supply of highly suspended office space is quite limited and I'd guess that almost none of the highest paid workers work in one. If the cost of a few dozen parachutes is deemed too expensive to hold in reserve for emergencies then I have to seriously doubt that such a space could have much real-increase on income. At best, I'd expect the ownership to collect much of the increase in rent as the small supply is fought for.
I'm sorry, would you care to answer the question of how many times you've put on a seatbelt versus how many times you've BASE jumped? For me, that ratio is whatever 50000 divided by zero is.
Cost of installation is by no means the only factor or cost in making a safety feature. In another comment, you appeal to the many number of paratroopers who have jumped out of planes as prof that it can be cost-effectively, as if the cost of a paratrooper's jump could be reduced to the cost of a parachute.
Cost of installation is by no means the only factor or cost in making a safety feature. In another comment, you appeal to the many number of paratroopers who have jumped out of planes as prof that it can be cost-effectively, as if the cost of a paratrooper's jump could be reduced to the cost of a parachute.
I don't 'practice' (that is, with no intention of immediate utility) putting seat belts on. On the occasions I do put them on, it takes some small number of seconds to put on, depending on how complicated the system is and how accessible the various parts are.
Even if it took someone several minutes to strap on a backpack-like device, it would likely save lives in many scenarios.
As to my appeal to the cost of paratroopers' parachutes, that was in direct response to a very specific claim in the post I responded it to:
>It would be expensive to outfit all tall buildings with parachutes
Even if it took someone several minutes to strap on a backpack-like device, it would likely save lives in many scenarios.
As to my appeal to the cost of paratroopers' parachutes, that was in direct response to a very specific claim in the post I responded it to:
>It would be expensive to outfit all tall buildings with parachutes
It's far more likely that you'll need your seatbelt in a car or a life boat on a ship than a parachute in a high-rise office.
I was surprised to see there's some people with the same idea:
http://www.sosparachute.com/en/site/sos
And an ABC News story asked the same question two months after 9/11:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=126613&page=1
http://www.sosparachute.com/en/site/sos
And an ABC News story asked the same question two months after 9/11:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=126613&page=1
30 meters doesn't seem all that useful. What is that - 9 floors? I guess it'd be better than nothing, but have there been a lot of preventable deaths in 10 story building fires where this would have saved them?
It says "for heights of 30 meters and up," though. Unless I'm not understanding. I'm certainly no parachute expert.
[deleted]
Or tons of helicopters trying to save those stranded on the roof?
Seriously NYC doesn't have any police/rescue helicopters?
Seriously NYC doesn't have any police/rescue helicopters?
" and there were no plans for helicopter rescues from the roof, as the NYPD deemed it too unsafe to attempt due to dense clouds of smoke and rooftop antennas."
If you're referring the 9/11 situation, this is the reason why it wasn't attempted - from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Clark_(September_11_surv...
That said, I suspect that had they known the towers were going to go down within 2 hours, there might have been some different decisions made. But that's just hindsight. :/
If you're referring the 9/11 situation, this is the reason why it wasn't attempted - from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Clark_(September_11_surv...
That said, I suspect that had they known the towers were going to go down within 2 hours, there might have been some different decisions made. But that's just hindsight. :/
Right it has been so long that I forgot it was a surprise that the towers collapsed that day. I remembered it a as being obvious, which it is in hindsight.
I'm guessing the tremendous amount of smoke and all the obstructions on the roof would have made this impractical. The situation wouldn't have been aided by helicopters falling on to rescuers below.
[deleted]
“The so-called ‘psychotically depressed’ person who tries to kill herself doesn’t do so out of quote ‘hopelessness’ or any abstract conviction that life’s assets and debits do not square. And surely not because death seems suddenly appealing. The person in whom Its invisible agony reaches a certain unendurable level will kill herself the same way a trapped person will eventually jump from the window of a burning high-rise. Make no mistake about people who leap from burning windows. Their terror of falling from a great height is still just as great as it would be for you or me standing speculatively at the same window just checking out the view; i.e. the fear of falling remains a constant. The variable here is the other terror, the fire’s flames: when the flames get close enough, falling to death becomes the slightly less terrible of two terrors. It’s not desiring the fall; it’s terror of the flames. And yet nobody down on the sidewalk, looking up and yelling ‘Don’t!’ and ‘Hang on!’, can understand the jump. Not really. You’d have to have personally been trapped and felt flames to really understand a terror way beyond falling.”
- David Foster Wallace
- David Foster Wallace
It's surprising that people would criticise those who jumped. Wow.
A focus on the idealised view of the jumper ("they would never have killed themselves!") blocks people from feeling the sheer terror and pain the jumper must have felt. The focus on some abstract concept like "suicide is bad, m'kay" rather than right-here-and-now burning flames and the terrifying strangle of unbreathable smoke.
The fact that so many jumped despite all our fears of heights and certain death, is proof of a greater horror in those floors. Society skews our perspective so we focus on the trivial, punishing those whose family members were lost, rather than learning something about the situation those poor people must have been in and empathising with their families.
A focus on the idealised view of the jumper ("they would never have killed themselves!") blocks people from feeling the sheer terror and pain the jumper must have felt. The focus on some abstract concept like "suicide is bad, m'kay" rather than right-here-and-now burning flames and the terrifying strangle of unbreathable smoke.
The fact that so many jumped despite all our fears of heights and certain death, is proof of a greater horror in those floors. Society skews our perspective so we focus on the trivial, punishing those whose family members were lost, rather than learning something about the situation those poor people must have been in and empathising with their families.
My little brother is a fire fighter. He tells me it's involuntary. At a certain point the heat and smoke get so intense that you can't do anything but jump. He's seen his trained collegues do it.
I wonder why most business buildings don't have some sort of mechanism on the outside that allows people to climb off? That would have save many many lives.
You mean a fire escape? Most buildings do, but some are internal.
Nothing like that would have helped in the wtc.
Nothing like that would have helped in the wtc.
Parachutes next to a window with a hammer. Would have helped some, but of course you could not store enough for everyone. And whilst training may usually be necessary, shoulder and leg straps aren't that hard to work out and a bright coloured mini chute thrown to engage the main chute would be feasible. And of course the perils of crashing into the building etc are still there but for the sort of situations we are talking about you would be almost certainly dead if yiu didn't jump.
Good luck. BASE jump without many, many practice parachute jumps before means almost sure dead.
Also, parachutes need to folded and unfolded from time time.
As I said these are for the situation where you are dead if you don't.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=skyscraper+evacuation+systems&t=ft...
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/425276/the-best-way-to-ev...
https://www.chamberofcommerce.com/herndon-va/33439780-skyscr...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_evacuation
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_escape
https://sourceable.net/tablet/single/?name=high-rise-fires-r...
http://emergency.cornell.edu/building-evacuation/
In short: there are systems, and they work, to varying extents, for existing structures. Very tall supertowers are a particular challenge, as every internal safety system competes for space with other interior uses, and external evacuation systems are difficult to specify and design. Many possible systems would have been compromised, internally or externally, on the twin towers, from the same extraordinary threats as were compromising the structure itself: gross physical damge to the structure, which closed off internal stairwells, and a raging, jet-fuel-fed inferno, which was weakening steel structural beams, and which would have compromised numerous possible esternal escape structures based on natural or synthetic fiber rope or tube systems.
Aerial evacuation was similarly hampered both by smoke and by lack of rooftop access (doors to the WTC roofs were locked against internal use).
The most effective protection was simply not to be in the towers when they fell. The decision of some survivors to leave WTC1 after witnessing WTC2's strike was key, and the in-building announcements to not evacuate contributed directly to the death toll. The inhabitants of WTC2 above the impact zone were doomed in all but the most optimistic scenarios, which is troubling -- the situation bears some resemblance to the disaster on the RMS Titanic in 1914, for which I strongly recommend the 1954 film A Night to Remember.
It's worth remembering that the daytime occupancy of the WTC complex could exceed 50,000, and estimates are that 17,400 people were in the towers at the time of the attacks. Over 84% of the occupants managed to escape successfully (the death total of 2,753 includes both the hijackers themselves and occupants of the two flights which struck the towers). That's a grim success under the circumstances.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/425276/the-best-way-to-ev...
https://www.chamberofcommerce.com/herndon-va/33439780-skyscr...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_evacuation
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_escape
https://sourceable.net/tablet/single/?name=high-rise-fires-r...
http://emergency.cornell.edu/building-evacuation/
In short: there are systems, and they work, to varying extents, for existing structures. Very tall supertowers are a particular challenge, as every internal safety system competes for space with other interior uses, and external evacuation systems are difficult to specify and design. Many possible systems would have been compromised, internally or externally, on the twin towers, from the same extraordinary threats as were compromising the structure itself: gross physical damge to the structure, which closed off internal stairwells, and a raging, jet-fuel-fed inferno, which was weakening steel structural beams, and which would have compromised numerous possible esternal escape structures based on natural or synthetic fiber rope or tube systems.
Aerial evacuation was similarly hampered both by smoke and by lack of rooftop access (doors to the WTC roofs were locked against internal use).
The most effective protection was simply not to be in the towers when they fell. The decision of some survivors to leave WTC1 after witnessing WTC2's strike was key, and the in-building announcements to not evacuate contributed directly to the death toll. The inhabitants of WTC2 above the impact zone were doomed in all but the most optimistic scenarios, which is troubling -- the situation bears some resemblance to the disaster on the RMS Titanic in 1914, for which I strongly recommend the 1954 film A Night to Remember.
It's worth remembering that the daytime occupancy of the WTC complex could exceed 50,000, and estimates are that 17,400 people were in the towers at the time of the attacks. Over 84% of the occupants managed to escape successfully (the death total of 2,753 includes both the hijackers themselves and occupants of the two flights which struck the towers). That's a grim success under the circumstances.
I meant some sort of structure around the windows (which apparently most buildings don't have) that would allow you to put your legs on, and climb off. Parachutes is inviable IMO, there would have to be thousands of them.
I don't claim to be able to understand the pain of people who lost a family member, but I think the response may have to do with cultural programming where the suicide is always bad, no matter what. That makes person who committed it bad too, and nobody wants the last action of a beloved person to be that they become bad. I think in this regard, as in many other things that seemed good idea, US culture goes overboard and pushes too hard, adding to the suffering of the surviving family instead of easing it.
I think it's different in cultures where suicide is an acceptable (and sometimes even lauded) action in some circumstances.
I think it's different in cultures where suicide is an acceptable (and sometimes even lauded) action in some circumstances.
I agree that it's cultural programming, but it seems to focus on one aspect (suicide) far too much where in other contexts killing yourself is fine.
Soldier jumping on a grenade to save buddies: fine. Here the 'suicide' is accepted because there's a greater principle.
But the greater threat in a burning building is all the pain before certain death, rather than no pain before certain death. I don't even consider it suicide, just the only option to escape the pain that happens to also end in death.
Soldier jumping on a grenade to save buddies: fine. Here the 'suicide' is accepted because there's a greater principle.
But the greater threat in a burning building is all the pain before certain death, rather than no pain before certain death. I don't even consider it suicide, just the only option to escape the pain that happens to also end in death.
I too find the criticism strange.
At that point, you basically get to pick from being burned alive or hitting the pavement with the third option being burned and falling off the building anyway being the likely outcome. You might be that one in a million that survives the fall, its happened before. Heck, given rawfan's comment[1], they might not have had a choice anyway.
Its not suicide. They didn't want to die that day. Its choosing which way you are going to be murdered.
1) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12473220
At that point, you basically get to pick from being burned alive or hitting the pavement with the third option being burned and falling off the building anyway being the likely outcome. You might be that one in a million that survives the fall, its happened before. Heck, given rawfan's comment[1], they might not have had a choice anyway.
Its not suicide. They didn't want to die that day. Its choosing which way you are going to be murdered.
1) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12473220
I'm not sure if it is mentioned in the article, but perhaps one of the soothing parts is that most of these people probably didn't even know what really happened that day.