Posted on 04/29/2002 12:32:14 PM PDT by dead
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.
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.
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.
He died a hero.
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.
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.
Thank you for the info - very infomative, you are obviously very knowledgeable.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Agreed!
So the choices were stop building at the 67th floor level or "invent" a new fireproofing technique.
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.
Honor Guard, Hand SALUTE!
Bugler, Sound Taps!
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.
Then you agree, there was no "choice 1" and you were wrong to say it was ever an option.
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.