How many lifts will it take to evacuate 3000 people at once?What happens when 3000 people are on a slide at the same time?What happens when everyone tries to get on the rail at once?When 3000 people all get to the bottom at the same time there is going to be a bit of a problem, regardless of the means they used to get there.There were more than 3000 people in the twin towers.

Add to that the idea that nothing is truely bomb-proof. That's the nature of an arms race. If you build a better wall they will build a better battering ram.

Its fireproof alright. Is it gasproof (you know what type of gas I mean). Again, how safe will it be against biological warfare - virus dumps, bacteria etc - is it sterlile? As long as it is built and maintained by the weakest security link in any system (humans) its crackable, penetrable, defeatable and most sadly useless. Case scenario - Terrorist stage mock attack on main building, evacuation commences on the tube disengaging all security - Terrorist enter the tube and execute the plan to completion. Piece of cake!

Hyenuf

These 3000 people will not gather on one floor to go down.They have their own exits on each floor.

These 3000 people were scattered in all the floors not one.

These 3000 people have 3 different options to choose not one. They will take the one which is first available and I'm sure, if they had this mechanism installed, the causalties would have been minimal.

Tell me, how many alternatives they had?

As far as bomb a is concerned

In a case of a terrorist attack from ground you can not really expect an extremely big and powerfull bomb. Or can you?

As far as war is concerned, it will still give a relatively more promised protectection than nothing.

Why

First of all I have not mentioned anywhere that this would help against biological or chemical attack. There is hardly any viable solution to that. If you have one I would like to know.

This is purely a safty or life saving measure under traditional threats, man made or natural. Threats which can cause fall of the structures.

Regarding this drama of mock attack and then entering the tube, the answer is that I have neither advocated any budget cuts in security detection at the outset nor have I advised the police or other security agencies to go on vacation or seek voluntary retirement.Their offices will still be open and they will still be doing their jobs.

Naresh

You still have not or choose not to appreciate just how vunerable any safety procedure is as long as it is 'human' monitored. So of course, the police and other law enforcement parties will be there BUT so will the bad guys, who can just as easily pose as the good guys. Remember, we were talking about another '911' unless I misread your post. So don't try to suggest that this system will only be useful in case the building collapses. Caused by what? Bomb? Architectural error? Be clear. In the pandemonium, who is asking for identity papers or the like? Big ships have lifeboats for such calamities, maybe it's time highrise (skycrappers) monsters begin having parachutes! You and I have never worked in a fire dept. or a similar establishment, so we may never know how complicated EACH job is. But this I know, every disaster is unique and requires unique input. The best one can do is prepare in the best way possible, like having a fully charged cellphone(many could not make that very important last call!), faith in others and yourself, sensible building standards (to MINIMIzE destruction), independent security systems (so called survey-on-survey) or simply people-who-watch-those-who-watch you. Save the money for the tube construction to equip disaster measures (like special trucks, mobile clinics, air purifiers, personell, etc etc. I will not dismiss your idea but I think better use of the huge construction could actually be used for preventive or post disaster facilities.

Whywhywainot, you seem to be making some unreasonable criticisms. There were no bad guys posing as police on 9-11. Terrorists don't favor "Mission Impossible" style operations. They follow the KISS priciple. Sure, no safty system is foolproof, but the point of this idea is to simply provide a faster means of evacuating a skyscraper than running down staircases.

Having said that, this idea is probably unworkable as a matter of engineering. There isn't enough room in a large building to put in all those lifts. The designers of the Twin Towers had to get pretty creative to get enough elevators in the building as it was. If you want to design a faster evacuation system, you should try to find a way to make it utilize the existing elevator shafts and/or stairways.

Agreed that lifts consume a lot of built up space, therefore, I have suggested better way of using stirway as well. The only little additional space is required to put the railings. Taking the seriousness of the matter in consideration I think, this sacrifice will proove its worth on the D-day.

I have also tried to suggest to use the lifts mechanically.

I think, the lost ground area owing to widened tube bottom will be regained on its height. So, the total utility space of the building is not effected. And the tapering idea of the tube is suggested to accomodate the higher number of evacuees on the descending floors. This will not only give relief to people spiraling down on the rails but also provide widened area for the crowd to clear.

Dwane

Thanks for your comment. Naresh is the only one who trully knows and can 'see' this tube baby in his mind. It may be workable, if all the loopholes are thought through. Who knows he may come up with even a smarter tube after reading these 'unreasonable' criticism you cite. All criticism must serve a purpose, if only to be critical! Back to the issue at hand, terrorists don't have ANY code of conduct whether KISS or mission impossible or otherwise. Believe me. They do what works. How do you know that there were no police and/or firefithters imposters? There is always more than meets the eye. I would encourage Naresh to continue with his concept of evacuation, or even this tube, but using totally different ideas. Like why evacuate in the first place. Make it a standing bunker. reinforce it. make it gas detectant, fire resistant, extinguishing ANYTHING to reduce death. People care to be alive not evacuated. I support the idea of an indestructible bunker with cubicles instead of open rooms so, that even if terrorist were to explode anything, it would not kill many people. Just a thought.

Whywhywainot, thank you for replying. The reason I said your criticism was unreasonable was because you said "As long as it is built and maintained by the weakest security link in any system (humans) its crackable, penetrable, defeatable and most sadly useless." To declare any defeatable system "useless" is unreasonable. Any safety system is defeatable, that doesn't mean it's useless and we shouldn't bother to have it.

I don't know for a fact that there were no terrorists posing as police or firefighters on 9-11, but there was no evidence that there was. Given the design of the attack and the nature of the terrorists that did it, it's very unlikely that there were. If there were any, they were of little consequence to the outcome.

There are countless situations that would require evacuating a building. It makes sense for any large building to have an efficient evacuation plan.

It is not feasible to build skyscrapers like bunkers. It is challenging enough just to design them to support their own weight and tolerate normal stesses. Bear in mind that the Pentagon was designed to be a virtual bunker, and look how much damage it suffered.

you've put a lot of thought into this and i think it's a good suggestion. definitely worth looking into.

put a spiral shaped water slide in the middle. everybody can just jump in. but buildings don't collapse like that in real life. this was a special case. building 7 telescoped down just like the other 2 buildings and it wasn't even hit by a plane.

indignation sequence activating. critical thought suspended. initiate two minute hate.