Quote:
Originally Posted by washoe
Lol. Yes Bobo i think the costs would be relatively low especially if you value one life at 2-3 million dollars or however high a life in the western world is now valued. Cuepee if I'm ever looking for a tag team partner at the wsop I would ask you first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by washoe
You're actually providing good points. I think you might do this to find a solution. Buildings should be safe, period imo. And it wouldn't cost too much. Think about how much they invest in such building in NY or how much they make. Then I think invest 0.01 of that in a escape tunnel/chute. I actually don't know how much it would cost buy j think it has to be there. How much did an office place, flat or one floor cost in the word trade center? 20 million? 250? 850M? I think for the cost of one floor they could arrange an outside or inside emergency escape option.
Holy **** man, have you seriously not given up on this yet??
You're talking about evacuating thousands of people via a drop of, in some cases, over half a kilometre. Half a ****ing kilometre. How you think that's going to be managed by going out through windows and down a rope or slide is beyond me. How you can think about this for more than a couple of minutes and not abandon it as completely unworkable, is perplexing. The logistics, the huge risk of people dying while engaged in an outside escape attempt, and then the increase in suicides or even accidents or suicide attempts with opening windows are all issues you continue to ignore or hand wave away.
You talk about the cost and what we value a life at. The loss of almost 3,000 people was tragic, but what you ignore is what the actual risk is here. There are thousands of skyscrapers around the world, with millions of people occupying them, every moment of every day. They have inside emergency escape options already, built to withstand most emergencies, but not planes being flown into buildings. So the question is, over the 100+ years of skyscrapers' existence, how many planes have been flown into buildings? Does it make sense to spend millions of dollars in every skyscraper on dubious slide schemes in case a plane will be flown into it?
Talking about inside options makes a lot more sense. And of course, people are:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...15098616310047
But let the outside stuff go, dude. There's a reason that outside escape options aren't used beyond a certain height, and it's not because they don't care or want to spend the money - it's because it just isn't feasible.