I have long suspected, without really forming any cohesive thought on it, that skyscrapers were built with a large amount of cynicism. I thought that as a turntable ladder couldn't reach the top, that a judgement had been made that a) there probably wouldn't be a fire, b) that if there was it would probably be small and those around and above could get out using the fire stairs, c) that if it was bad, firefighters would be able to contain the fire and rescue at least most of the people and d) if they couldn't it was a risk worth taking for the benefits perceived to be bought with the erection of a tall building.
Seeing all the programmes flooding our screens now about 9/11 it seems that the risks involved were just ignored. It was a price worth someone else's life. Consider, in any high-rise fire the action of the fire service on arrival is to get up to the fire, using the stairs and fight it using risers and pumps within the building or carrying up hoses. I would imagine anything above the third floor would start to compromise the abilities of firefighters due to fatigue.
In a programme about people escaping from the 88th floor of the World Trade Centre building we learned that the people had to take 2000 steps to escape. The plane hit the 93rd floor. It is not difficult to imagine a scenario in which a fire would be fairly extensive by the time any serious amount of fire-fighting effort could be deployed on the 93rd floor of a building. (As an aside, it was appalling to also hear that standard procedure in the WTC was that on hearing a fire alarm people should gather in their office and stay put, and to await further instructions. This would ensure any fire had more time to perhaps block escape routes).
Of course in the 9/11 strike the cause was something that was extreme, but is considered in the construction of skyscrapers; aircraft strike. Unfortunately, the scenario they envisage seems centred around older, lighter planes and takes little or no notice of the effects of the ensuring fire, accelerated as it would be with a large amount of aviation fuel. The effect they sought to prevent was catastrophic structural damage.
A large fire generates large amounts of smoke and as we saw in 9/11 there was no ability to use the roof as a rescue point, using helicopters, due to the smoke. So, the conclusion that is forced upon you is that, anyone considering the outcome of a serious fire in a very tall building is, that it is highly likely the people above the fire will die. A kind of practical, architecture induced, disaster planned logic. Probably won't happen, probably won't be that bad, but, well, fingers crossed.
Almost as bad is the fact that it seems the fireman's life is also as disposable as the unfortunate occupants, because the only way to deal with the fire is to send them into the blazing building. Some will say that it is ever the case and yes, firemen do enter buildings searching for trapped people and to attack a blaze internally, but always with a care for their own safety and you never see that as the exclusive method. If the building can be, at all, attacked from outside, it is. Think of the recent properties burned in Croydon during rioting. A platform was used to pour water down onto the fire from above, so clear is the advantage of doing this.
The spectacular and rapid collapse of the buildings at the World Trade Centre are seared into our memories. But buildings collapsing like that are, it seems as rare as those attacked by hijacked airliners, even where an extreme fire is involved. Naturally this has led to conspiracy theories suggesting that the fall of the buildings was too perfect and closely resembled a demolition job. Whilst it is spooky and strange to behold, you have to question the premise of the suggestion that the government did it.
Firstly, the charges would have to have been placed without anyone noticing. The preparation for such an event is extensive, but it is just about possible to believe it could be accomplished. Secondly, to need to collapse the tower you would also have to be responsible for the aircraft attacks. So who did that? People so dedicated to the cause of democracy that they gave their lives? Remote control? The planes had to hit in the right location, so not prematurely setting off the demolition charges and finally, with the level of devastation that you have agreed to cause, why bother to stack the rubble neatly in a compact heap?
Are we to believe that the cunning government plot was exposed by an agent's excessive OCD problem? If the plane didn't knock the building down (which would have been a very messy collapse) then surely blowing the supports in the underground car park would have done (and been easier to conceal), much as Al Qaeda tried to do in 1993?
No, for me the real scandal is that those involved with the design, building and disaster planning for such tall buildings have no real concern for the safety of the occupants of that building. Whilst most things involve compromise, the compromise here is people's lives. There needs to be a serious rethink and some real planning done, to rectify the cynical disregard for life that currently exists in commissioning these buildings. In any war, the most detailed planning goes to pieces with first contact with the enemy. In a disaster there are usually casualties from the unforeseen and the unforeseeable and it will ever be so, but that is unavoidable.
To plan for the safety of others with your fingers crossed and hope in your heart just isn't good enough.
No comments:
Post a Comment