New report says Twin Towers did not collapse because of structural flaws

AP | 10/22/02

[KC Burke]

Some building management systems provide a very limited version of what you are suggesting. The problem is that monitoring manpower would be nowhere near properly sized by any economic sense to serve as reationary manpower.

This event is so non-typical of high rise fires and risks as to make its usage as a model lead to wrong conclusions.

The Gee-Whiz nature of the most exteme high rises leave them all more vulnerable to certain risks.

The "extremes" are built to maximize their occupancy percentage and rental premiums -- product differentiation.

[DoughtyOne]

I don't discount the validity of your comments, but on the other hand, I still see some merit to this.  Having five to twenty guys on site in a sixty to one hundred story building doesn't seem that out of line.  Small towns of 25 to 50,000 have firefighters in their employ.  Why shouldn't a building that housed 25 to 50,000 employees have five to twenty guys on site?  Instead of it taking fifteen to thirty minutes to put firemen at the floor of the fire, you'd have ten to twenty guys there within five to ten minutes.  Just the musings of a layman.  Take them for what they're worth.  I don't seek to claim this could have saved the WTC buildings.  It may have contributed to more saved lives.  Who knows.  Thanks for the comments.