Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

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 ( 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
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 ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

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