9/11 - the jumper doc on Channel 4...

[MinionZombie]

Okay so I watched the doc last night here in the UK about the photo (or series of photos) of one man who jumped from the building. As part of the reaction to it there were people who were saying they'd definately not jump ... now, not to crap all over their opinion or whatever, but I don't swallow that.

How can you say you definately WOULDN'T jump unless you were there - no escape, toxic fumes, intense heat. You either stay and die slowly and painfully or you do it your way and have your final moment falling? I was thinking about it and I got thinking there is something kind of majestic (yet obviously horrifying to the on looker) and perhaps spiritual about taking the fall.

Obviously it's a prickly issue and a tough decision, but I found it interesting that the jumper's story was essentially covered up - they were pushed by the air or something, rather than chose to jump. Personally if I was in that position (not that I could ever properly understand what that would have been like), but I'd say I would have chosen to jump when I knew for certain there was no way out.

So I thought I'd post a poll to see what folk thought on the subject.

[DjfunkmasterG]

I would probably have jumped. I know it may have been a hard decision to make for those whom did it, and I am sure I would have had my thoughts, but essentially in the end I would have done it.

[Burbank]

I wanted to see that, totally forgot it was on.

I'm not sure I what I'd have done in that situation... it's must have took some guts to jump and I don't know if I could have done it.

[p2501]

ive seen people who've died by fire. if it came to it, i'd jump. better to die on my own terms than to suffer like that.

having said that, i would have been ****ing out of that building once plane #1 hit. i find it reprehensible that no one "thought" the towers would colapse once the fires set in.

[axlish]

I didn't vote because it is a situation that I'd definately need to be a part of to know what I'd do. I think that jumping would be a much more serene way to die than to sit there and burn to death. I remember pictures of people holding on to two sides of broken window panes, hanging on to the outside of the building for dear life, until they fell. You'd think that some sort of helicopter could have hovered above the building and dropped some rope down. Something.. anything!

Right now I work on the 6th floor of my building. If I ever worked in a building that tall, on the upper floors, I'd invest in a parachute. Can you imagine that news footage? You'd be on Opra by the end of the week.

[p2501]

high rise rescuse are iffy on their own, but when your involving a fire it's just too dangeous. it's important to remember that during a full systems failure, a helicopter is nothing more than a huge falling hand grenade. so if it were to fail while over an operational scene, you'd now have your initial problem plus the added joy of first responders covered in burning jet fule, and impaled on helicopter bits.

in regards to the enviroment, between building your going to have fast moving air curent that change direction rapidly. the smoke is going to make the upper floor entirely unaccessable. so a direct "lift" is out of the question. once those options are out, the helicopter action is just useless.

basicly anyone in the floors above where the stairs were taken out was ****ed. To me, it's reason 3,487 why we should have responded by hitting taliban strong holds with tactical neutron weapons.

[MinionZombie]

I know what you mean, had I been in the other building and saw a plane hit I'd be straight out of my building - better safe than sorry is what I go by. I'd have probably been thinking - what if the top of that building crumbles and hits the other building? Or something like that - I'd have been straight out of the other building after the first hit.