Should High Buildings Like Twin Towers Include in their protection rules to have parachutes in case of emerge?

Question

Reading your answer came out other question!
source_of_lo...
Level 2

i think any solution will have some disadvantages as well,, such buildings are build with automatic system which would flash water or fire fighting powder and you can see these pipes all over the building,, so i think the fire problem is really sort out , but there are still some factors not detected as the capacity and emergency exits and time to evacuate these building before any disaster occur

3 minutes ago

Answer 1

that would make for an interesting idea, but I think whats more important is to revise the building standards and codes, unfortunately that falls almost entirely on engineering and the city. But an good idea nonetheless

Answer 2

Parachutes wouldn't help in a crowded urban area. The chutes couldn't fully open before a novice user hits the ground, or gets tangled up in something. Depending on which state the building is in and how old it is, it's probably covered by a fire sprinkler system already.

The best way to deal with these things is not to have hubristically tall buildings at all. Do the people on the third floor really need to be near the people on the 53rd floor? Is creating an office skyscraper really worth the traffic jam it causes when people are trying to get to work, all at the same place, in the morning?

I'd recommend much smaller buildings, located nearer to residential areas. Go visit the Microsoft campus some time -- lots of two- and three-story buildings in Redmond, with lots of open space in between, rather than one enormous building sticking out of the middle of Seattle. Very parklike.

Answer 3

Notwithstanding the lack of training and the inherent dangers with base jumping (which is essentially what that would be) The practicality of including a parachute for everyone would take up so much space that there would be far less room for the actual building. Not to put it coldly, but the cost/benefit is poor.

Answer 4

Maybe not a parachute, but perhaps ziplines so that the people could evacuate to the floor of a different building.

Answer 5

The threat is not great enough for such measures, that is why they do not have parachutes in airliners. The deaths in the world trade centers were not so much because planes collided with them, but rather because planes were allowed to collide with them.

Answer 6

There is the danger of hitting the side of the building but then that is far better than the alternative. I like your idea!

Answer 7

Parachutes are useless without weeks of training.

Answer 8

not parachutes, these would be more dangerous to untrained people, but something does need to be developed.