Locked doors stopped rooftop rescue in WTC towers

They weren't anticipating a much bigger plane with a much larger fuel capacity.

The 707 and 767 are almost identical in size and fuel capacity. Try doing a google search on 707's and 767's and look at the what the wbesites tell you about size, weight, payload, fuel capacity, etc. I think you are getting confused over the 747, which is much larger. But back when the buildings we're being designed, 747's (and C5-a's) didn't exist.

Sure, and everyone knows that smoke is a static thing that never moves into an area that was previously smoke-free. Smoke always stays right where it is.

The smoke was blown in a southeasterly direction for the entire duration of the incident. This took it off much of the roof of Tower 1, but kept it all over Tower 2. At 1350 ft., the winds don't shift nearly as much as closer to the ground.

Gosh, I guess the actual pilot of the helicopter who said he could have landed was just blowing smoke out his arse?

If you can claim with a straight face that, at 8:50 a.m. on 9/11, your first, second or even third thought upon seeing that smoking tower was that SURELY another plane would come along and do the exact same thing very shortly--well, you're the world's biggest liar.

Straw man alert! There is a massive difference between thinking "SURELY" another plane will crash versus simply acknowledging the possibility.

I was responding to remarks made by Uncle Sham and 537 votes after the topic shifted from locked roof doors to "why was everyone in Tower 2 told to stay in their offices?"

And it's just as applicable. That kind of damage to Tower 1 endangered Tower 2 (as evidenced by its eventual collapse), even if no other plane had been involved. It was absurd of the Port Authority (or anyone) to say, "Nothing to see here, return to your desks."

They tried but couldn't do it - they circled the towers in an attempt to land but
the horrible conditions prevented it.

I'm not a pilot of any sort.
Trying to land on the South Tower looked totally impossible.
The North Tower looked maybe possible.

But for locking the doors to the roof (as oppossed to having alarm rigged doors), the
survivors of those who perished on the top floors should SUE the Port Authority/Fire Department.
This was nothing more than a very sad repeat of that historic fire in the garment
district of NYC about a hundred years ago that prompted all kinds of saftey reforms.
One of those reforms was to have UNLOCKED EXITS.

This sad story, even if only a few dozen more souls could have been saved,
must have the philosopher Spinoza smiling with sad irony.

"Could you have imagined TWO suicide bombers flying jumbo jets into the buildings, let alone one? I couldn't have."

Just a fire raging out of control 90 floors up is enough to imagine potential structural failure of the affected areas doncha think? We all can imagine what uncontrolled structural failure might do to a skyscraper and the danger this represents to it's neighboring buildings. In this particular case, we HAD an uncontrolled fire that we KNEW was being fed by jet fuel resulting in excessive temperatures. Knowing this alone, and we did, should have been cause for an immediate and full evacuation of all potentially dangerous areas, including the south tower.

Straw man alert! There is a massive difference between thinking "SURELY" another plane will crash versus simply acknowledging the possibility.

Okay, be honest. Did you even think you MIGHT see another plane hit the second tower that day? Even if your first thought was "terrorism" instead of "accident" (some people right here caught on to that a lot quicker than others that morning), DID IT occur to you that you might--MIGHT, mind you--see the same thing happen less than twenty minutes later? Did it cross your mind for even a nanosecond, before you actually saw it?

Well?

I mean, sure, after witnessing THAT, all sorts of possibilities occurred to me very quickly. I thought they were going to hit the Empire State building, the Chrysler Building, and Citicorp for sure (that building would tumble like a bowling pin, BTW), and then take out all the bridges and blow up the subways. And that was before the Pentagon was hit, so I don't think I'm lacking in the imagination department.

And it's just as applicable. That kind of damage to Tower 1 endangered Tower 2 (as evidenced by its eventual collapse), even if no other plane had been involved. It was absurd of the Port Authority (or anyone) to say, "Nothing to see here, return to your desks."

So now *you're* changing the subject from "roof door shouldn't have been locked/ criminally negligent homicide" to "building should have been evacuated". And you point to the collapse of the building LATER as evidence of how they should have behaved in Tower 2 BEFORE that happened. As has been discussed, the buildings were designed to take a considerable impact from a large airplane and still stand. Everyone who worked in the complex had probably heard that (everyone in the city has probably heard it at some point since 1974). Tons of explosives in the basement didn't bring them down in 1993 either. Security people are not engineers!--why would they suddenly assume the buildings might collapse?

The same situation was occurring at the Marriot hotel, right at the foot of the towers. Management advised the guests to stay inside. They didn't begin evacuating until the first tower collapsed right on top of them (partially collapsing the hotel itself; the next tower finished the job). I believe about 20 lives were lost, two of them hotel employees.

It's easy to say what someone should have done after the fact, but you can only go by what is occurring at the moment, and rely on your common sense, your instincts, and training, . Hotel managers usually aren't structural engineers either. At the moment it was happening, it might have seemed safest to keep everybody inside away from falling debris and bodies, and wait for the fire to go out and the coast to be clear. The greatest danger might have seemed, in the beginning, to be outside. Naturally that was proved wrong, but I don't know that I would have behaved any differently under the same circumstances.

Just a fire raging out of control 90 floors up is enough to imagine potential structural failure of the affected areas doncha think?

Well, let's see. Apparently no one in authority on the scene DID imagine it; or IF they did, they might have thought that the people in Tower 2 might be at greater risk outdoors in the event of Tower 1 collapsing. If there had been just one plane in question (and remember that's all there was at the point in time we're discussing), the collapse of the first tower would not necessarily have meant the collapse of the second--thought it probably would have sustained heavy damage. I believe if only one plane had hit, only one tower would have collapsed. But we'd have to get an engineer in here to determine that.

We all can imagine what uncontrolled structural failure might do to a skyscraper and the danger this represents to it's neighboring buildings.

Again, I don't know that anyone there was imagining "uncontrolled structural failure". They were probably only anticipating a horrible fire, massive loss of life on the upper floors, and the probable eventual demolition of Tower 1, if they were thinking that far down the road.

These people have heard, since the buildings first went up, that they could withstand an impact from a 707 and STILL STAND. Why wouldn't they have believed that? And why wouldn't they also have believed that the fire would go out when there was nothing left of wood, paper, or sheet rock to burn on the upper floors, leaving the basic structure irreparably damaged but intact? That's what might have happened, if it had been a 707 heading to LaGuardia mostly empty.

Also, these guys were inside when it happened (the 22nd floor, according to the WSJ article linked above; try LOOKING UP to the 90th floor of the building next door from there). How were they to even know or assess the real danger of the situation in an area they couldn't see or access? They had no idea what type of plane had hit either tower unless they were watching television when the second plane showed up.

Easy to say what should have been done after the fact (except for the doors to the roof, which should have been unlocked, whether it would have done any good or not on 9/11--roof access is needed for other emergencies than an act of war). I still say it was a tricky call whether to evacuate Tower 2 in the minutes right after Tower 1 was struck. Events later proved it would have been the right thing to do, but I don't think anyone could reasonably have known for sure that it was the BEST thing to do at the time it was happening.

I stand by my statement.

Whatever. I was replying to your post, in context. @@

"Well, let's see. Apparently no one in authority on the scene DID imagine it; or IF they did, they might have thought that the people in Tower 2 might be at greater risk outdoors in the event of Tower 1 collapsing"

I find it implausible to believe that anyone in charge of the evacuation planning for the WTC complex would EVER consider either of the twin towers a safe place to be in the event that one of the two collapsed in a controlled fashion, much less the way it did in fact collapse. Remember that we are dealing with potentialities in this scenario and one of those potentialities is an uncontrolled collapse of one tower knocking down the other.
None of this hinges at all on whether or not a second plane enters the picture.

None of this hinges at all on whether or not a second plane enters the picture.

Sure it does. Before that, there was only a big big fire in the other building, and debris and bodies hurtling down at high speeds. The building was still standing, as advertised. They weren't anticipating a collapse. If they HAD, they would have ordered an evacuation.

After the second plane, both buildings were on fire and Tower 2 was in much more trouble than Tower 1, havng been hit much lower down. That's the reason it would have been the right thing to evacuate immediately. But that would require foreknowledge they didn't have. I'm sure SOME people in the city (architects and engineers) realized at once what was going to happen to the buildings after the planes hit, but I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the guys in the WTC command center did. That's all.

But, I'm sure we'll hear much more about it during the court cases.

"But, I'm sure we'll hear much more about it during the court cases."

Let's pray this doen't get to far out of hand. I've enjoyed the debate. BTW, your watercolors are excellent on your profile page!

Security people are not engineers!--why would they suddenly assume the buildings might collapse?...

Exactly why the point Uncle Sham made earlier in post #15 was valid. After '93, responsible people SHOULD have developed contingency plans so that such decisions would NOT be left in the hands of ignorant security guys and hotel employees once something happened.