Posted on 12/26/2001 12:08:39 PM PST by spald
Engineers and Safety Experts Want Evidence to Guide Future Builders
Asbestos and the WTC Collapse
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They are still pulling bodies from what was once the World Trade Center and people are already using the tragedy to make political points, a process called shoehorning. Among them is Steven Milloy, the "Junkman", who has claimed that "Asbestos Could Have Saved WTC Lives" But there are several problems with his statement (some of these were addressed in a second article, "Asbestos Column Raised Awareness", but this report is also problematic).
1. Claim that worries about asbestos were based on hysteria. This is a favorite claim of Milloy and other "brownlash" authors. But even Milloy notes, in his second report, that deaths related to asbestos have run into the thousands.
2. Claim that asbestos containing insulation would have delayed melting of the steel for up to four hours. Presumably this means that the asbestos based insulation had a four hour test rating. But according to Milloy the replacement also passed the Underwriters Laboratories’ tests. The problem is that the tests would have simulated a normal building fire, not the infernos that happened on September 11. Obviously the higher temperatures would shorten the time before the steel failed.
Note that Milloy does not say that the asbestos insulation would last for four hours, but instead writes "up to four hours". The "up to" acts as a weasel phrase. In the actual test the columns would have lasted for over four hours. Also note a minor nit: the columns did not melt, they lost strength and fail.
3. Appeal to authority. Milloy's main source for the claim that the non-asbestos insulation was inferior is Herbert Levine, the man who invented the process for applying asbestos insulation. Since both types of insulation presumably passed the same tests, it is hard to see what this claim is based on. Levine is quoted as saying that "if a fire breaks out above the 64th floor, that building will fall down." Did he really think that a trash can fire would bring one of these buildings down?
4. Omitted evidence. The four hour rating assume that the insulation is in good condition. But as John Young has pointed out, much of the insulation was probably blasted away by the initial impacts and explosions. The steel itself was also probably damaged.
Comments on the second article.
5. The timing is wrong. Not just because people are still grieve, but because Milloy did not wait for any of the analysis of the collapses that are sure to come out.
6. Inevitability of collapse. It is interesting that many readers criticised Milloy for a claim that he did not make; that asbestos insulation would have prevented the buildings collapsed. People do not read carefully, especially when an emotionally charged subject is involved. It is easy to see how Milloy can get away with a subtle deception like the claim that the asbestos based insulation would last "up to four hours".
7. Asbestos hysteria once again. But Milloy's data, that asbestos related deaths peaked in the late 1990s, simply shows that efforts to reduce dangers from asbestos exposure have been successful.
8. More evidence? Here Milloy introduces hearsay evidence, based on yet more hearsay evidence. Several version's of how much asbestos insulation was used have appeared. For example, in his first article Milloy said that asbestos was used up to the 64th floor. Even if this person's version is correct, Milloy's analysis is junk science of the first order. The events on both towers would have to be the same in order to make a valid comparison. But there is one obvious difference, tower two was struck at a lower level. This means that there was more weight on the most damaged area on that tower. There were also, potentially, more floors on fire above the crash site.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Update (December 7, 2001)
Investigations into the twin towers collapse, including a forum at Columbia University, continue, as reported by Robert Koenig in the November 23, 2001 issue of Science (pages 1646-1647). According to Koenig "Several experts also say the loss of fireproofing-which was stripped of trusses or columns by impacts of chunks of the aircraft during the collisions-may have been an important factor." The experts are also weighing in on why one tower collapsed sooner:
Many investigating engineers believe that the South Tower-which was struck 15 minutes later than the North Tower but fell 29 minutes before its twin-collapsed more more quickly because the two planes slammed into the building at different places. The second crashed off-center and likely damaged more of the interior columns. It also hit lower, meaning that the weakened columns had to support 15 more floors above them.
Related links
NEW Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers by G Charles Clifton. In Clifton's opinion, the collapse of the towers was caused primarily by the collisions, not the resulting fires. He also believes that most of the insulation was removed by the collisions.
World Trade Centre - New York - Some Engineering Aspects from The University of Sydney - Department of Civil Engineering, includes several comments from experts on the WTC collapse
WTC Asbestos Junk Science by John Young
CSICOP Terrorist Attack HoaxWatch
Urban Legends Reference Pages: Rumors of War
Asbestos and the challenger disaster
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Written by Jim Norton
Visit my anti-environmental myths home page.
Visit my practical skepticism page
Two planes smacked into both towers. Period.
Ed Thompson 2002
If they want to investigate something, they should stick to making the response to such a disaster safer and more efficient (ex: providing proper safety equipment in a timely fashion and in sufficient quantities).
Anything else is Clintonoid bull cr@p.
Fuel burns hot, steel melts. Case closed.
Let's make sure it's detailed enough to satisfy the masses. Two large planes carrying tons of fuel, and moving at high speed, smacked into both towers.
Sure, it was predictable, and preventable. From now on, we build skyscrapers with 100 foot thick outer walls made of reinforced concrete. Or, we don't build them at all. Make it a federal law that no building reach over 20 or 30 stories.
Hope to see soon the science magazines give us their techy blow by blow graphics of the collapse, perhaps titled "Inside the WTC".
I was wondering about your link, because FoxNews.com did a story about the lack of asbestos.
Ed Thompson 2002
DING DING DING! It's all about the money!
We should be quirying how to make planes more building friendly. Maybe giant springs on their noses like some railrod cars have. Or airbags around the fuel tanks to keep them from rupturing. Or mandatory automatic building sensors that cause the plane to swerve around any building they detect. Even pig skin seat covers and only serving pork on planes would help.
Buildings have the right of way over airplanes. That's why buildings have red lights on them. Red means stop. All pilots know that.
Instead of seeing how we can make skyscrapers more 'collapse-proof', what about offering us protection at the homeland, e.g. deport illegals, tighten up the borders, term limits for politicians, encourage racial profiling, etc.
Schumer and Clinton want to throw whatever they can at Dubya. Hillary wants to take down the son of Bush Sr.
Rather than come up with a solution, Daschle and Clinton want to find a way to compete in 2004.
That is all they have on their minds. Who is the bigger traitor... John Walker or the DNC?
That and getting the trial lawyers beefed up for the cupcakes.
They performed AS DESIGNED.
The hollow-tube perimeter formed by the lattices, along with the central core anchored very very VERY deep, was designed for the ultimate in vertical stability, especially considering the two towers' close proximity to other structures. Were the twin towers out in the middle of a vast unpeopled expanse, a structural failure allowing them to fall to one side or another would have been no big deal. No matter which way they fell, there wouldn't be anything to hit.
But not so with the WTC site. If you put up not one but two twin 100-story edifices on your own property, you'd better be DARN sure that should a catastrophic structural failure result from even the most remote of circumstances, that the debris would fall largely contained on your own property, minimizing the chances that a falling tower (or two) could directly wipe out nearby buildings.
So, the WTC towers were designed to drop, in case of such a catastrophic failure, right down upon themselves, the central core acting like the spindle on an old LP record changer - guiding each succeeding floor straight down and away from a perhaps even MORE catastrophic scenario where the entire building spins out of control and takes out everything adjacent to it. No. MUCH better to contain the damage to just the structures being designed.
So that's what they did, and it's been written up and posted here on FR before. The towers collapsed straight down because they were designed to do so. And, with the huge effective mechanical moment of the two planes hitting the steel members, I wouldn't look for too much insulation to stick around and join the party. That impact probably blew 95% of whatever insulation was on the beans right into dust - do not pass Go, do not collect $200.
That's it in a nutshell. The impact of the planes pulverized the insulation, the fires melted the steel, and the collapse was perfectly controlled by the buildings' design - straight down the spindle like a giant stack of old Motown records.
Case closed. Except for the omnipresent posturing of the hopelessly off-stage and desperate senators from NY.
Michael
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.