Here's an article on Why it's smart to disobey officials in emergencies

A good read. Had my wife read this article, too.

-- Craig

Very interesting.

Things won't always work this way, of course. The authorities may just tell you what, not why. Since you don't know why, you might attempt to evacuate right into more trouble. But I think in general, it's safe to make a more conservative decision than the authorities. For example, building security says "stay put". Well, of course they do, not only is the information incomplete and slow to arrive, but they have tenants who'll be upset if all their employees are told to leave without a really good reason. Me? I'll take the chance... I'd rather feel silly on the ground than die in the building.

It is fascinating, isn't it? Brings up the question of whether survival is science, art, or instinct. It is probably a tricky combination of all three.

-- Craig

I tend to agree with that.

Frankly I think the guy is giving poor advice. I can think of many scenarios where ignoring or disobeying the authorities will get you killed. Evacuation in the path of a hurricane or a wildfire comes to mind. I love his recommendation to rely on "multichannel networks of advice, information, and mutual aid." Like who? My drinking buddies? Grandma's sewing circle? The internet? Judging by the amount of hysteria the 'Net is the last place I want to turn for for calm, rational instruction.

Carefully weighing what the authorities are saying is one thing. Doing the opposite or ignoring them based on a freak occurance like 9-11 is another thing entirely.

Regards, Vince

True, but then... which authorities?

I mean, ideally, there would only be one source of official information, but often there are multiple sources, all claiming to be official. Not all of them are of the same quality.

Take hurricanes... You have (at least):

• local Radio announcer
• local TV announcer
• Televised press conference interviewing various local, state and federal "authorities". This is an endless parade of city officials, police, fire, etc.
• National Hurricane Center people

Information from this many sources can be inconsistent. It can also arrive at different times.

I'm not a Ham radio person, but I did use my scanner to listen in on the ham traffic between the various shelters and the main coordinating person. I knew when shelters filled up / had a roof blow off. I had this information well before it made it back out the official distribution channels.

Another explanation for this effect could be the way most command networks are set up. Most common are tree structures... one guy at the top, a few executives, some middle managers and a lot of workers. Commands flow down, but information (usually) flows up. You may not be able to get the "big picture" yourself, since that requires information from multiple sources. But you often have as good (or better) access to information about your immediate situation, since you're right there, where it's being collected and pushed up the tree.

Ultimately, you're responsible for your own safety. Compare what you get from official sources with what you see and hear, and then place your bet. :-(

<<Compare what you get from official sources with what you see and hear, and then place your bet.>>

That makes perfect sense.

Regards, Vince

For one thing, the author fails to mention WHY people are told not to use the elevators in the event of a fire. An elevator shaft is one big column of air - in a fire, it is very likely to turn into a gigantic blow torch. In fact, there were reports following the disaster that "molten steel" had been found at the base of several of the elevator shafts. I suspect the person who described this meant that they found steel that had melted (and then cooled) rather than that it was still in a molten state weeks after the tragedy, as some conspiracy websites maintained. This doesn't surprise me, as the intensity of the fire, shooting up a vertical empty tube, fed with a boundless supply of air from below, would very likely have produced a flame hot enough to melt the steel cables and other stuff inside an elevator shaft.

Laurence Gonzales ("Deep Survival") argued that "rule followers" are less likely to survive than "rule breakers", but I suspect he meant that survivors don't follow rules blindly. Sometimes, people follow rules long after they've forgotten why the rule was implemented in the first place.

We should be carefull our own subtle egos don't come into play. A polished Altoid tin doesn't render some elevated consciousness to ignore the polished badge of Old Bald Guys peers, for example. You can sit over the wing by an emergency exit, wear nomex, pass on the $1 bottle of rum and coke and still perish while some polyester clad Elvis impersonator in the toilet survives. 'Authorities' work by consensus and past experience. It's good to be proactive and assess threats and options. Completely dismissing 'authorities' in a disaster is subtly blaming them for creating it.

Haveing now finished a tad more than 1/2 of the report - I would not say that the conclusion was "disobey authorities" it's more a classic case of "the knowledge problem" (look it up!)

The people ON THE SCENE usually (often) have MORE information than the "authorities", and you should assess ALL sources of information, and make your own decisions (BTW when people say you 'net' of information - they are NOT saying 'internet' - but the "network of all your information sources)

For instance, they were point out that there were people BELOW the impact points who called 911, and were told to stay in place, dispite the fact that they were see smoke on their OWN floor - the people who reported this were folks who didn't listen, and left anyway. Let's face it - how would a 911 operator know the situation on your floor? Because you tell them. They are then going to use either SOP or their judgement to tell you what to do - they are only ONE level above you in the "offical" downward info chain, and you have a lot more local information

What was REALLY interesting was the number of lives saved by folks in WTC2 (the building hit second) taking the elevators BEFORE the building got hit - aka saying "I'm getting out of dodge - and there is no fire in MY building - I'm taking the elevators" - another "interesting" point was that the floors with the skylobby floors were a BAD place to be - the fuel/blast that came down the elevators caused a real problem - doors blowing out - flame out the elevator shafts etc. It's a LONG read.

The MOST important conclusion - training/teaching individuals to take care of themselves aka "empowering them" is probably the best survial thing we can do - or to quote someone turn us into "a pack, not a herd"

Agreed. I would never completely dismiss 'authorities' in a disaster. I might view them a bit dimly if they seemed to be ill-informed or panicky. Nor would I pass on the $1 rum and coke -- perish the thought! Nor would I dismiss the Elvis impersonator. Making a living as such surely encourages the development of survival reflexes (polyester notwithstanding).

-- Craig

No arguments here, but we were taught that as youngsters. I was, anyway. Both in elementary school and in the cub scouts.

-- Craig