Miscellaneous desk
< August 21	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 23 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 22

How many of the 9/11 jumpers are known to have fallen from the South Tower?

Currently Wikipedia states that "most" of them came from the North Tower, so I was wondering how many of them jumped from the South exactly. If anybody knows the answer, could you attach a source? 51.37.31.183 (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know anything "exactly" at this point. The total number of jumpers is entirely guesswork: "Some researchers say more than 200 people most likely fell or jumped to their death. Others say the number is half that, or fewer. None have been officially identified." according to an article in the New York Times from 2004; at that point most of the site had been cleaned up and most of the active investigating had been complete. I doubt any more accurate information has come to light. Analysis of videos seems to show that more did jump from the North than South tower, at least from what can be seen (but given that not all of the towers can be seen in any of the videos, even that's a guess). The answer is we don't know how many jumpers there were, who they were, not one, AFAIK, has ever been positively identified, even The Falling Man, the most well documented, has never been identified; some of the more notable WAGs are noted in the Wikipedia article, but there's no way to know for sure. --Jayron 32 12:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I asked is because apparently the NIST report mentions that only 2 jumpers were spotted falling from the South Tower, but I haven't been able to find that claim anywhere in the PDF document for that particular investigation. 51.37.31.183 (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Not sure on that; to be clear to say that only 2 jumpers were spotted is not the same thing as saying that there were only 2 jumpers. --Jayron 32 17:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Made an account for this) I guess I should probably rephrase my question then. What I'm looking for, really, is just how many are known to have leapt from the South Tower, not how many there actually were. Like I said, I can't find the count of 2 jumpers listed anywhere when scouring through the NIST report, so it would be cool if someone could point me in the right direction. Hmm1994 (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that means this NIST report (302-page PDF). Indeed, the word "jump" occurs only once in the whole report, on page 31, which relates to the North Tower (named WTC 1). But the report also points on on page 37 and again on page 160 that people in the South Tower (WTC 2) were well aware of the crash into WTC 1, and many of them were saved because they started evacuating themselves while they still had elevators that worked. Logically, there would then have been fewer people trapped above the fire zone and therefore fewer would have decided to jump. But as to "how many"... I don't believe anybody was counting, and that's that. --174.95.81.219 (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any mention of two people jumping from WTC 2 from the linked NIST report either but I'd caution against deciding that means it's not there. It's a long report and while there are some sections that are unlikely to contain this, it's a lot of reading if you want to check all that could.

For example, although I skimmed through some sections I did not check all and I could also have missed something when skimming so would personally would definitely not conclude it's not there yet I probably spent about an hour on this. I'd caution against relying on searches for finding this since we really have no way of knowing where it could be or how it may be presented, it may even be in a table or something.

In particular, despite the IP declaring "I don't believe anybody was counting, and that's that"; one of my early finds was in relation to WTC 1 where on page 26 (76 of the PDF) the NIST report says "At 8:52 a.m., the first of at least 111 people was observed falling from the building.". This suggest the NIST tried to do a count for WTC 1 and feel they came up with a minimum.

If I may interject: oops, sorry about that. --174.95.81.219 (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(I did skim through the equivalent WTC 2 section and didn't see anything, with a bit of care so feel it's less likely I missed something but still it could be elsewhere e.g. a comparison between the two although I didn't find the 111 anywhere else.)

I'd also note as a PDF it can have weird formatting things that may make searching difficult, for example, if you try to search for 111 in the PDF you probably won't find that text since it's 1 1 1 in the PDF. (I didn't mention the possibility it would be in an image since I find it very unlikely for this PDF but it might still be possible.)

As an aside, on another point the IP raised, having skimmed through the report I feel I should clarify that unlike with WTC 1, people above the impact zone in WTC 2 may not have been trapped since one staircase was still passable. We know this (I assume) since 18 people who'd been at or above the impact zone at the time of impact did make it out. The report notes it's known whether any of the other 619 believed to be at or above the impact zone at time of impact found this staircase.

I said "may not" since while I don't know if it's explicitly mentioned in the report, it's seems reasonable to conclude that survivors may have been trapped by something else even if the there was a passable staircase. I guess the report does at least hint at this since it mentions we have no way of knowing how many of the 619 might have survived if the building collapse had been delayed or hadn't happened, although that also relates to the fact we have no way of knowing how many had already died or were severely injured enough they couldn't be saved.

With that caveat, I'd note that the estimates are 1355 people were at or above the impact zone at time of impact on WTC 1, and as my earlier numbers indicate 637 for WTC 2 (18 who made it out). The IP is right that a lot of people did evacuate before impact since it started off as 2900 before WTC 1, some may have failed to evacuate because of some confusing messages (an early one suggested people should return to their offices) although this was only about 3 minutes before impact but was while lifts were still working.

Anyway while fewer, WTC 2 still had 45% of the people as WTC 1 so assuming that the estimates are really 2 vs 111, different numbers doesn't seem to s simply account for this. one factor is looking at numbers may be a little simplistic since the WTC 2 was impacted lower down albeit with a more of an angle, so more floors affected but also more floors which may have been out of the zone which became unsurvivable/uninhabitable which for WTC 1 it was 92 to 99. (I.E. More people on WTC 2 might have been in floors where their problem until collapse was simply that they seemed trapped.) I didn't look carefully but I'm not sure that there are any estimates beyond beyond low impact of at or above impact zone and especially for WTC 2, these may be tricky. I also don't know how much we know about whether the staircases which were unpassable downwards were passable upwards and from what floors for each tower. Getting back to an earlier point, you'd also need to consider how many may have died or receive severe enough injuries to prevent it which will relate to what floor they may have been on etc. Again for WTC 2 it's probably more complicated e.g. I don't think this is in the NIST report but our article estimates up to 200 people might have been in the Skylobby most of who were killed and it seems likely this number was high because they were either evacuating or considering it (the NIST report does mention this).

In addition, I'd note beyond the fact that people in WTC 2 may not have been trapped, since WTC 2 collapsed first the was also more time for people in WTC 1 (which was also hit first of course) to make that decision and additional reasons they may have. (E.g. having looked everywhere for an exit and found none; worsening conditions from the heat and smoke; feeling, hearing and possibly seeing effects from the collapse of WTC 2.) BTW, as per our articles, one reason why the NIST likely used fall rather than jump is as noted in our articles in most maybe even all cases, we really have no idea if the people jumped or fell for some other reason. Note that this would apply to all of what I've said since desperation, fatigue etc, will also lead to riskier activities and a greater chance of accidents etc.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's the name for the machine that prints checks?

What's the name for the machine that prints checks, like this one?

https://www.barcodegiant.com/epson/part-a41cg59031.htm?aw&adtype=pla&utm_medium=pla&utm_campaign=Shopping-Point-of-Sale&gclid=Cj0KCQjw0oyYBhDGARIsAMZEuMsaS6dz32XU1H_KfAT38GeRCX06TDKSoQ72CKf01R1mJfPUFh_kJ6MaAjT1EALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

Or this one?

https://www.barcodegiant.com/epson/part-c31ce94061.htm?aw&adtype=pla&utm_medium=pla&utm_campaign=Shopping-Point-of-Sale&gclid=Cj0KCQjw0oyYBhDGARIsAMZEuMsWaP5S2OypoQwhoxloKy8NGKm2iCUswGFBceets7aU2Xylbj4X2bYaAh_sEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

Are check printer, check reader, and receipt printer all valid terms for this machine? Are there any other valid terms for this machine? 68.4.99.100 (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The English term check can refer (at least in the US) to a bank check (an order to pay a specified amount of money to a specified party), or to an invoice, in particular used for a restaurant bill ("Waiter! Can I have the check, please?"). It is not entirely clear which you mean. There is no official notion of a term being "valid"; the point is whether the audience will understand the message as intended. That may depend on the audience (US English? British English? Commonwealth English?). The two example machines have different functions. Please explain in some detail which functions the type of machines has that you wish to name. "Check reader" is not a good match, because most readers do not have printing capabilities. --Lambiam 07:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the machine that prints a receipt after you make a purchase at a store or restaurant. And I'm interested in the American English term(s) for this most of all. 68.4.99.100 (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A common term for this, which will be understood across the Anglosphere, is receipt printer. It is far preferable to the ambiguous term check printer; the Social Security Administration uses a printer to print the checks they mail out, which are not receipts. --Lambiam 20:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the chance that somebody else might find this question while searching for answers on the other kind of check printer, the one that a bank might use is sometimes called a franker. The analog, manual ones for making a check or cashier's check. Does Google often return refdesk questions? I dunno. Temerarius (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Googling for "machine that prints checks" returns this page as the top fourth hit. --Lambiam 02:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Old receipts might have been printed with a daisywheel printer or dot matrix printer or related technologies. These were often printed on cheap, rough-textured, absorbent paper. Modern receipts are done with a thermal printer. These will use smooth paper and can have more complex typography layouts, things like QR codes printed on the receipt. Blythwood (talk) 05:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]