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

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
. 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: 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 ]

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