Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Above the Impact: A WTC Survivor s Story
Nova ^ | 5/29/02

Posted on 04/29/2002 12:32:14 PM PDT by dead

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-96 last
To: hellinahandcart
My sister-in-law worked in WTC7. It was a harrowing few hours before anybody knew where she was.
51 posted on 04/30/2002 2:13:45 PM PDT by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: hellinahandcart
That picture must have been taken even before the second tower fell. The Winter Garden was destroyed and the WFC heavily damaged after that.
52 posted on 04/30/2002 2:16:42 PM PDT by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion, finnman69, Incorrigible, Fred Mertz, Sir Gawain, Senator Pardek, Gamecock, Lancey Ho
The guy in the following story, Mike McQuade, is actually my first cousin, twice removed, though I’ve only met him two or three times in my life. My father forwarded the story to me months after it was printed.

Survivor helps others before fleeing towers

Home News Tribune 9/14/01
Jonathan Tamari
Mike McQuade had no idea how much danger he was in.

McQuade, a Sayerville resident working on the 91st floor of the World Trade Center's north tower when it was attacked Tuesday, stopped along his way out of the building to help people trapped in elevators, get water for firemen and call his family. He finally left more than an hour after the plane hit, just minutes before the tower collapsed.

"To tell you the truth there was no time when I thought I was going to die. If I had thought that I would have been a mental case," McQuade said. "My biggest fear was leaving someone behind who I could have helped."

McQuade, 35, said many people inside didn't realize how severe the damage was, or that the towers were in danger of crumbling. He passed people who had decided to wait for rescuers and probably didn't escape. Others stopped to rest on landings. McQuade, an electrician, escaped with co-worker Anthony Vangeli.

"God had to be watching me because we both have 3 kids," McQuade said. "When we got out we looked at Tower 2 not there and thought, 'how could it be?' "

McQuade was on the side of the tower opposite the plane's point of impact.

"It sounded like a freight train and the whole building shook. A flame shot down the outside of the building - I didn't know what the hell it was."

The impact had blown the doors off of elevators and created small fires around the floor. McQuade and Vangeli waited for smoke to clear before starting down a flight of stairs.

"People were calm," McQuade said. They didn't know what had caused the impact and fire, and quietly went down stairs.

At the 82nd floor McQuade stopped to join a group helping trapped elevator passengers. The passengers sent the group away, but one man chose to stay behind, McQuade said.

He continued down the stairs, running into people he had met during his two years working on the World Trade Center's electricity. He passed an 87-year-old electrician who had worked at the tower when it was built, McQuade said.

"I'm not sure, but I have a feeling he didn't make it."

On the 52nd floor McQuade and Vangeli figured they were out of danger. They got water and called their families. His boss, who had seen the second plane hit, called McQuade's cellular phone.

"He said, 'Get the hell out of the building, what are you waiting for?' " McQuade said. He didn't take a direct route out, though. On the 44th floor he met a man looking for help and went back up six flights to aid more people stuck in elevators. He took a working elevator down to 44 and met firefighters on the 38th floor.

McQuade and Vangeli got them water and told them about the working elevator.

"It bothers me because I don't think they made it out," he said. When the firefighters told McQuade that a fireball had torn through the lobby, he feared for a co-worker who had gone for coffee minutes before the attack.

"My heart dropped and I said, 'she's dead.' "

At the ninth floor McQuade felt "a big suction and then there was an explosion - it must have been when Tower 2 went down." He overheard firefighters screaming for an evacuation. McQuade passed abandoned fire trucks and ambulances as he left the building. About 10 minutes after he left the tower, it collapsed.

McQuade took a ferry back to Sandy Hook where emergency personnel waited.

"You would think it was after D-Day with everything all covered in smoke, jets flying over; we thought it was a dream," he said. Relatives from all over New Jersey, including his daughters aged 10, 7 and 2, met McQuade at home. He heard from two co-workers who escaped unharmed.

At 7:30 Wednesday morning a phone call woke McQuade. It was the woman who had left for coffee.

"I was overwhelmed. We cried," he said.

53 posted on 04/30/2002 2:32:46 PM PDT by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: all
bttt
54 posted on 04/30/2002 8:11:13 PM PDT by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: dead
A person I went to college with perished in the WTC. Barry McKeon....RIP.
55 posted on 04/30/2002 8:15:36 PM PDT by Fred Mertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: dead
That picture must have been taken even before the second tower fell.

I don't know exactly when it was taken, but I tried to remember where the sun usually is during the day in September (I paint, so I do pay attention to those things) and I'd say it was no earlier than noon or one. The big dust cloud had cleared, for one thing. The sun is still to the east, but just barely, and the shadows on the western side of the building are very short. It has to be later than ten-thirty in the morning.

Also, this picture was HUGE and very detailed so I cut it down before posting it on your thread. If you open it up, you can see that the WFC is pretty badly torn up on the side that faced the towers, and there's a big hole in the roof of the Winter Garden, along with what appears to be white smoke inside. The fire in there may have already been over, or just beginning. I'm not sure of the destruction timeline for the Winter Garden, and I don't even remember hearing anything about it until the following day.

56 posted on 05/01/2002 6:24:38 AM PDT by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: dead
So what are your thoughts on the show? It was very well done but I have to say that it really #@$%ed me up, once again. They were showing footage that I hadn't seen since that day. Like the blond reporter saying "We are here, as close as we can possibly get to the World Trade Towers" and the cameraman panning up JUST as Tower Two started to go.

I have it on tape, and will try to watch it again today. I was at the Marriot for three days in late August for a convention (my last trip to the area), and it's become something of an obsession for me to find that building in the disaster footage, at the point before it was completely destroyed. I saw it three times during the "9/11" documentary. There were these hideously big "bites" taken out of the building after the first tower fell, and when Tower One came down it obliterated everything but about three stories on the souther end. That was where that lovely bar was located.

I don't know why I do this to myself, it just seems important to get the physical layout all set in my mind. It was so disturbing to look at Ground Zero on television and not be able to orient myself visually to something as basic as north and south. It was that unrecognizable.

57 posted on 05/01/2002 6:40:32 AM PDT by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Tuco-bad
Why did a third building; 7 World Trade Center, a 47th story building implode?

Again, huge fires fueled by massive diesel tanks meant for emergency generators led to to the collapse. These tanks were set on fire sometime during the collapses or the plane impacts. The tanks were directly underneath a transfer beam that supported some 40+ stories of structure above it. Much in the same way the building in OKC fell after a key column was blown away, 7 WTC fell after this main transfer beam failed, leading to the collapse of a key major column. When this collapsed, the entire building went. Again, your nominal 2 hours of fireproofing burnt off after 2 hours. Rememeber this building did not collapse until late in the afternoon.

58 posted on 05/01/2002 6:41:59 AM PDT by finnman69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: dead
My uncle's best friend was at a breakfast meeting at Windows on the World that day (he didn't even work in the building). He apparently fled the restaurant right after Tower One was hit. The last anyone heard from him was when he called a relative to say he was all right, and he was on, IIRC, the 87th floor waiting for an elevator down--you have to change from local to express at certain points.

My fiance's second cousin worked on the 101st floor of Tower Two, and also decided to get the hell out right after the first impact. She also called her mother from the 87th floor to say she was all right, and on her way out as soon as she could get on an elevator--and she did get on one. From what I heard later through the family grapevine, the second plane must have hit just before her elevator reached the lobby, because when the elevator doors opened there were burned people in the lobby. Everyone was directed outside somehow, and it took her hours and hours to get home. Her mother didn't know if she was alive or dead until late in the afternoon.

I had met my uncle's friend and this second cousin of my fiance's about two times apiece, so it's not like I knew them well. And they didn't know each other at all. But I have thoughts about them that I can't get rid of, because they were both on the same floor at the same time, waiting for elevators and making calls to let loved ones know they were okay. One made it out to safety and one didn't. I have this scenario in my head that the gentleman, who was a real gentleman, is standing right next to the cousin in the crowd near the elevators, and says something to the extent of "No, you go ahead; ladies first..."

See, I told you this has really messed me up.

59 posted on 05/01/2002 6:57:34 AM PDT by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: dead
I would like to tell the story of another hero. My brother Major Steve Long was at a meeting at the pentagon on sept, 11 he volenteered to be there, which makes me believe in fate, he didnt even work there , when the plane hit he was on the second floor in the front, he survived,the military told us that when the plane hit it knocked them all down and the lights went out they said my brother was so strong and his voice was so loud that his voice lead people out. He stayed to long . His autopsy report says he suvived for a half an hour , can you imagine what he saw that day. He died of carbon monoide poisioning and went down with the wall. It was six long days before we heard his fate. What a hero. He was an airborne Ranger and would have died gladly for his country, he has been first into everything since Grenadade , I finally felt safe with him in D.C. I hope as a nation we never forget.Sorry about the writing as my hands shake as I write this .I miss you Steve everyday is a struggle to get through. God Bless you Pesident Bush
60 posted on 05/01/2002 7:04:54 AM PDT by stevev
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: stevev
God bless your brother, and you.
61 posted on 05/01/2002 7:09:36 AM PDT by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: dead
Good show on NOVA, good balance of human story and engineering.
62 posted on 05/01/2002 7:09:57 AM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69;dead
Again, huge fires fueled by massive diesel tanks meant for emergency generators led to to the collapse. These tanks were set on fire sometime during the collapses or the plane impacts. The tanks were directly underneath a transfer beam that supported some 40+ stories of structure above it. Much in the same way the building in OKC fell after a key column was blown away, 7 WTC fell after this main transfer beam failed, leading to the collapse of a key major column. When this collapsed, the entire building went. Again, your nominal 2 hours of fireproofing burnt off after 2 hours. Rememeber this building did not collapse until late in the afternoon.

Yes - what you state is very plausible.

My thesis is that had other methods of insulating the steel columns been used (i.e., concrete encased steel columns, or wet asbestos), the buildings would have stayed up longer.

Those methods generally would provide 4 hours of protection, less in the case of the WTC bombings because of the inordinate amount of heat.

What happened as reported by the New York Times 4/28/1970 was that the construction companies were ordered to stop using wet asbestos (the were up to the 67th floor at the time with insulation), they immediately found a new technique (they couldn't use the older concrete encased steel beams technique at this point) which was "claimed" was just as good.

BTW - Today's Newsday (New York Long Island newspaper), carried an article about the collapse of the towers and mentions the effectiveness (or lack of), of the fireproofing.

63 posted on 05/01/2002 7:42:42 AM PDT by Tuco-bad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Tuco-bad
I think in the future you may see 4hour rated fireproofing (concrete cladding)applied in a more common fashion although it is very expensive. The new AOL Time Warner building in NYC is in fact cladding key columns with concrete to provide additional steel protection. This additional protection was added after the 9/11 attacks and is above and beyond current fire protection requirements.

I attended a fire safety luncheon yesterday, specifically regarding fire rated glass technology which is improving. Someone asked a question if say 2 hour rated glazing (Very expensive $200/sf and 3 inches thick, it's amazing stuff, actually it's a ceramic. Many new government buildings are using it. It can burn on one side for hours and you can put your hand on the other side which remains cool.) had been used,would it have made a difference in the WTC. The speaker who was there to sell his product said no.

Even if you had a 4 hour rating, I still think both towers would have eventually collapsed as it is impossible to fight a fire that big in that tall a building. Whether or not asbestos was used is a moot question. Perhaps more people might have escaped, but I think the buildings still would have failed. That's why 7 WTC came down. An uncontrolled fire burning for several hours will collapse a steel building. Buildings are simply not designed to withstand fires of that magnitude and modern aircraft impacts.

The authorities should concentrate on keeping from aircraft being used as guided missiles, and improving evacuation routes in buildings. I think you may see new rules calling for better protection of stairwells using solid CMU walls instead of fire rated sheetrock. There will also be more attention paid to the weakest link in steel construction. At the WTC attention is focused on the clips connecting the floor trusses to the perimieter columns, likely the point of failure for most of the trusses. You will also see engineering design focus on redundant structure. 7 WTC and the OKC buildings collapsed after key structural members were destroyed resulting in catostrophic failure. On the other hand the WTC stood up after having gaping holes punched in it because it in fact had redundant structure. What brought down the towers was a combination of fire, damage, and increased stresses as floors failed in the fire, trusses separated from the walls, and perimeter columns eventually buckled under the weight.

64 posted on 05/01/2002 8:08:16 AM PDT by finnman69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Tuco-bad
My thesis is that had other methods of insulating the steel columns been used (i.e., concrete encased steel columns, or wet asbestos), the buildings would have stayed up longer.

Again with the revisionist history!

Your thesis was this:

WTC collapsed because the towers were built "on the cheap".

This is typical of the liberal/luddite, blame “the man”, evil corporation thesis that anti-capitalist statists like yourself always wallow in.

The fact of the matter is that maybe the asbestos insulation (which was prohibited by unnecessary, environmentalist-driven law, not economics) would have helped the buildings stand a little longer. Maybe not. Either way, they still would have fallen in roughly the same time frame.

Despite your thesis, the building were not built “on the cheap”. The just released FEMA report (which is considerably more relevant than a single article in the NYTs from 1970) found no substandard structural problems with the WTC construction, and in many cases the towers surpassed building code requirements.

65 posted on 05/01/2002 8:44:48 AM PDT by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: stevev
I'm so sorry to hear about your brother. His life and death must be a source of great pride for you and your family.

He died a hero.

66 posted on 05/01/2002 8:47:08 AM PDT by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz
A person I went to college with perished in the WTC. Barry McKeon....RIP.

Two former coworkers of mine were killed. I used to work with them at Marsh McLennan on 49th and 6th. After I left, they moved the department to the WTC.

They were Vince Galluci and Nancy Mauro.

I wasn’t in contact with them anymore, but they were both a joy to work with while I knew them.

67 posted on 05/01/2002 8:57:17 AM PDT by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: hellinahandcart
So what are your thoughts on the show?

I taped it, but was unable to watch it last night. I’m going to watch it tonight.

68 posted on 05/01/2002 9:00:05 AM PDT by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: stevev
RIP....Major Steve Long.
69 posted on 05/01/2002 10:00:41 AM PDT by Fred Mertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
I attended a fire safety luncheon yesterday

Thank you for the info - very infomative, you are obviously very knowledgeable.

70 posted on 05/01/2002 10:33:33 AM PDT by Tuco-bad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: dead
Despite your thesis, the building were not built “on the cheap”. The just released FEMA report (which is considerably more relevant than a single article in the NYTs from 1970) found no substandard structural problems with the WTC construction, and in many cases the towers surpassed building code requirements.

In 1970 there were essentially two methods of protecting steel beams from a fire; encasing the steel beam in concrete or the newer, more cost-effective method, asbestos.

When asbestos was banned in 1970, and concrete encased steel beams were not an option, as the WTC were at around the 67th floor; "suddenly" a new method to insulate the steel beams was invented.

Yes the WTC most likely would have eventually imploded, but I believe the towers would have stayed up longer had asbestos been used.

71 posted on 05/01/2002 10:41:19 AM PDT by Tuco-bad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Tuco-bad
When asbestos was banned in 1970, and concrete encased steel beams were not an option, as the WTC were at around the 67th floor; "suddenly" a new method to insulate the steel beams was invented.

That's not the same as being "built on the cheap", which was what you claimed. The builders had fully intended to use asbestos all the way up, and were prevented.

What proof do you have that the alternative fireproofing was "cheaper" than the asbestos they had planned to use in the first place? If it was a "new" process it could very well have been more expensive. Where's your comparative cost analysis for both materials in 1970? Let's see it.

In any case, the fireproofing would have been perfectably adequate for a FIRE. The problem, if you saw the show last night, was that the impact and subsequent explosion blasted the fireproofing right off the steel in the impact zone, so its effectiveness was a moot point. And the other fire-suppression methods failed as well. Everything that could have gone wrong did go wrong. It wasn't just the coating on the steel.

72 posted on 05/01/2002 10:56:26 AM PDT by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: hellinahandcart
That's not the same as being "built on the cheap", which was what you claimed. The builders had fully intended to use asbestos all the way up, and were prevented.

When the builders were prevented from using asbestos, they had three choices:

1. Encase the steel beams in concrete (much too expensive as the buildings were now at the 67th floor level).

2. Stop building above the 67th floor.

3. "Invent" a new method of fireproofing the steel beams.

Choice 3 was made.

What proof do you have that the alternative fireproofing was "cheaper" than the asbestos they had planned to use in the first place? If it was a "new" process it could very well have been more expensive. Where's your comparative cost analysis for both materials in 1970? Let's see it.

The question was not the cost of the alternative fireproofing method, but rather the cost of the above choices 1 or 2.

In any case, the fireproofing would have been perfectably adequate for a FIRE. The problem, if you saw the show last night, was that the impact and subsequent explosion blasted the fireproofing right off the steel in the impact zone, so its effectiveness was a moot point. And the other fire-suppression methods failed as well. Everything that could have gone wrong did go wrong. It wasn't just the coating on the steel.

Fireproofing is expected to protect the steel beams for up to 4 hours, though in the WTC attack the fireproofing might not have performed as well.

However, there are people who believe had asbestos been used for all the floors, that the towers would have stayed up longer, and perhaps have survived.

Suggest you read today's article in Newsday (www.newsday.com) about the collapse of the WTC, as they discuss fireproofing.

73 posted on 05/01/2002 11:53:21 AM PDT by Tuco-bad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Tuco-bad
1. Encase the steel beams in concrete (much too expensive as the buildings were now at the 67th floor level).

That's ridiculous. It wasn't too expensive, it was IMPOSSIBLE. They would have had to take the 67 floors down and start over. You can't suddenly add tons of concrete to the top of the structure, the weight is one of the main factors in the design of any building.

Encasing the beams in concrete would also have affected the stability of the building in terms of the main stress the designers were planning for--the wind. The towers were designed to sway, and anyone who's visited them knows they definitely did. That's so the very tall buildings won't topple over in a hurricane. Make the structure more rigid and you've put it in danger. Again, the building would have had to be completely redesigned from scratch. It would have to be built differently to accomodate the differences in weight and flexibility

Asbestos being banned was out of the Port Authority's control. The fireproofing eventually used was up to code, and you have provided no evidence that its use was a cost-cutting measure, or that it saved them any money at all.

The question was not the cost of the alternative fireproofing method, but rather the cost of the above choices 1 or 2.

I have just shown you that there was no "Choice 1", unless you really think there was a choice to tear down perfectly good buildings at that point and start all over again. In other words, to waste the millions of dollars that had already been spent.

Your claim was that the towers were cheaply built. Stop trying to dance away from what you said, it won't erase your first post from this thread. In fact I'll post it again:

WTC collapsed because the towers were built "on the cheap".
When the construction crews were prohibited from spraying asbestos to insulate the steel columns (see: New York Times, April 28, 1970, p. 83), the towers should have been built to a shorter height, around 70 stories.

Do I have to point out that the "cheapest" solution of all would have been to stop building right where they were when asbestos was banned? Think of the money they could have saved. Yet you said the towers fell because "they were built on the cheap", even though you provided no proof at all to back that up.

You have a strange malfunction in your brain, Tuco.

74 posted on 05/01/2002 12:22:19 PM PDT by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tuco-bad
As for your suggestion to read the Newsday article, I have two suggestions for you:

1. Put in a link to it, for crying out loud, you've been online long enough to know a little basic HTML.

2. Re-read it yourself, because you're wrong again. They don't really "discuss" fireproofing, they merely mention it as one of several factors contributing to a fire hot enough to bring the buildings down--but the cause of that was the planes.

The plane impacts left the damaged areas without protection against fire, the report says. They disabled the sprinkler system; slashed through standpipes that supplied water to fire hoses; dislodged fireproofing and weakened the structural steel lattice.

Now, tell me again in detail why the towers collapsed because they were cheaply built. Don't tell me again about the fireproofing, because the buildings would also have stayed up longer if the sprinkler system hadn't been torn out by the planes. I only want to know about how they cut corners to save money and ended up with cheaply-constructed buildings, because that was your claim. If you can't provide that information, or cannot admit finally that you were wrong, then kindly shut up.

75 posted on 05/01/2002 12:42:33 PM PDT by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: hellinahandcart
That's ridiculous. It wasn't too expensive, it was IMPOSSIBLE. They would have had to take the 67 floors down and start over. You can't suddenly add tons of concrete to the top of the structure, the weight is one of the main factors in the design of any building.

Agreed!

So the choices were stop building at the 67th floor level or "invent" a new fireproofing technique.

76 posted on 05/01/2002 1:22:53 PM PDT by Tuco-bad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: hellinahandcart
. Re-read it yourself, because you're wrong again. They don't really "discuss" fireproofing, they merely mention it as one of several factors contributing to a fire hot enough to bring the buildings down--but the cause of that was the planes.

Yes the cause were the planes - no one is debating that.

"they merely mention it (fireproofing) as one of several factors contributing to a fire hot enough to bring the buildings down" - one of several factors, there you go.

The bottom-line is that once the builders were prevented from fireproofing with asbestos, and since concrete fireproofing was no longer feasible (building was now at 67th floor level), the WTC should have been topped out at the 67th floor level, as there was not another vialble fireproofing technique that could perform to standards.

However to make the WTC project profiable, the towers had to be built over 100 stories.

77 posted on 05/01/2002 1:30:46 PM PDT by Tuco-bad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz
RIP, all of the brave lads and lasses.

Honor Guard, Hand SALUTE!

Bugler, Sound Taps!

78 posted on 05/01/2002 1:31:28 PM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: hellinahandcart
I only want to know about how they cut corners to save money and ended up with cheaply-constructed buildings, because that was your claim. If you can't provide that information, or cannot admit finally that you were wrong, then kindly shut up.

I don’t know how familiar you are with Tuco-bad, but he will never do that.

He has been shown to be woefully wrong many times on this board (under his current name and others), yet he will never admit his errors.

He just plows ahead, lies about his previous statements, changes the subject, attempts to reframe his argument, and obfuscates to the point that you just get bored with engaging him on the point any further.

He’s a Hillary! supporter, as one would likely surmise.

79 posted on 05/01/2002 2:12:48 PM PDT by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Tuco-bad
Agreed!

Then you agree, there was no "choice 1" and you were wrong to say it was ever an option.

80 posted on 05/01/2002 2:39:54 PM PDT by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Tuco-bad
So the choices were stop building at the 67th floor level or "invent" a new fireproofing technique.
Is innovation a bad thing? When you run into difficulty, should you just throw your hands up and say never mind?
The fireproofing they "invented" would have worked fine under any normal circumstances, but guess what, fully fueled jumbo jets intentionally plowing into the buildings at full speed was anything but normal. The buildings were fine, the blame rests with the terrorists.
81 posted on 05/01/2002 2:50:44 PM PDT by Fry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: dead
Thank you for the post - what a touching story.
82 posted on 05/01/2002 2:52:25 PM PDT by Chili Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hellinahandcart
Then you agree, there was no "choice 1" and you were wrong to say it was ever an option.

Yes - it was not a viable option.

I just listed it a choice, just to list all options, even non-viable options.

83 posted on 05/01/2002 2:55:06 PM PDT by Tuco-bad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Tuco-bad
The bottom-line is that once the builders were prevented from fireproofing with asbestos, and since concrete fireproofing was no longer feasible (building was now at 67th floor level), the WTC should have been topped out at the 67th floor level, as there was not another vialble fireproofing technique that could perform to standards.

The bottom line is that you still haven't explained how the builders took the cheap way out by instead continuing to build the additional 43 stories onto each tower. I won't bother to ask where you got the information that the fireproofing was not viable or did not perform to every 1970 standard (which did not include being rammed by a plane, and asbestos was never tested in such a way either, to my knowledge). You are clearly incapable of answering a direct question.

However to make the WTC project profiable, the towers had to be built over 100 stories.

You really don't know much, do you? Those towers were a white elephant for years, and as far as I know they never did reach full occupancy. Saving nearly half the cost of construction by topping them out at 67 floors would have made them almost instantly profitable.

Now, since you refuse to elaborate on the "cheap construction" of the World Trade Center, you're hereby invited again to shut the f#ck up. I won't respond to any more posts from you unless they are a detailed and sourced explanation of the CHEAP CONSTRUCTION of those Towers.

Got it? I sure hope so; an amoeba would have understood the question by now.

84 posted on 05/01/2002 2:58:22 PM PDT by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Fry
Is innovation a bad thing? When you run into difficulty, should you just throw your hands up and say never mind?

Innovation of corse is not a bad thing.

However, in this case a new fireproofing technique was immediately invented which was "claimed" to be as effective as concrete or asbestos.

85 posted on 05/01/2002 3:00:00 PM PDT by Tuco-bad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: dead
bump for later
86 posted on 05/01/2002 3:05:36 PM PDT by iceskater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: hellinahandcart
You really don't know much, do you? Those towers were a white elephant for years, and as far as I know they never did reach full occupancy.

Rockerfeller moved many New York State offices to the WTC when it opened to achieve somewhat-near occupancy, and keep the WTC from being labeled a "white elephant".

Saving nearly half the cost of construction by topping them out at 67 floors would have made them almost instantly profitable.

Not true!

In fact it would have created huge losses for the WTC.

Think land acquisition costs, design costs, overhead costs etc.

87 posted on 05/01/2002 3:10:43 PM PDT by Tuco-bad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Tuco-bad
Nothing in that post about cheap construction, Tukey. So I'm not interested in enlightening you with the WTC tenants' list or anything else. Now STFU.
88 posted on 05/01/2002 3:17:31 PM PDT by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: hellinahandcart
Nothing in that post about cheap construction,

"Cheap" meaning the WTC should have been topped at 67 stories, but was continued so that the project would not be a huge financial failure.

89 posted on 05/01/2002 3:36:28 PM PDT by Tuco-bad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: dead
obfuscates to the point that you just get bored with engaging him on the point any further.

Yeah, I'm there now, dude...what a waste of time.

90 posted on 05/01/2002 3:42:48 PM PDT by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: hellinahandcart
I should have warned you sooner.
91 posted on 05/01/2002 7:03:51 PM PDT by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: all
bttt
92 posted on 05/20/2002 2:12:48 PM PDT by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: stevev
Your brother's story has me in tears. I'm so sorry you lost him. He was a hero.
93 posted on 05/20/2002 2:46:01 PM PDT by texasbluebell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: dead

Anniversary BUMP.


94 posted on 09/11/2012 8:17:18 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

Thanks for the bump. I hadn’t read this since I posted the link. Very powerful.


95 posted on 09/11/2012 5:32:24 PM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: dead

That was one 9-11 story that really stuck with me for some reason.


96 posted on 09/11/2012 8:25:32 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-96 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson