I suppose you can consider this as "controversial" if you give equal
to an official study of the conditions of failure of the WTC
qualified engineers and architects and the blathering of a
lawyer for a
conservative association of doctors (not the AMA -- too
liberal for the
AAPS) speaking at a gathering of conservative propagandists
stripes. Jerry would seem to be the odd man out in that
perhaps he can characterize that better than I.
couple of points.
It is not the case that asbestos is a better
insulator than the
alternatives. It is cheaper than the alternatives,
because it can be mined
and they have to be manufactured.
It is not
the case that any part of the WTC towers was left uninsulated.
fire included both the jet fuel and the in-building combustibles,
effect of the jetliner crashes which compromised the building
protection systems and probably shivered loose much of the
insulation. The other fires Schlafly cites involved only
combustibles. One of the WTC buildings, WTC 7, I believe,
was the first
high rise to fail due to a building fire, without only a
large diesel fuel
tank as a complicating factor.
You might want to
read Michael Schermer's column in the current Scientific
smart people believe weird things" or just go to the report
of the official
panel, available at <www.fema.gov
read what qualified
observers have to say.
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved by
management or by the U.S. Department of Energy.
From: Jerry Cuttler
To: cdn-nucl-l (E-mail); Ans-pie; email@example.com
8/26/2002 9:12 PM
Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] Fw: reply to WTC/asbestos
This seems to be a very controversial topic.
additional information from Andrew Schlafly.
August just seemed to be too
----- Original Message -----
> ; AltonJohn@charter.net
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 3:46 PM
Subject: reply to WTC/asbestos
To: Dr. Berol Robinson, Scientific Committee of the
Association of Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy
Thank for your inquiry about my speech concerning the collapse of
World Trade Center towers and its lack of asbestos. (A full copy
speech is available upon request.)
You asked: "I would be
grateful to receive any available references
confirming the fact that,
after the installation of asbestos was halted
at the about the 50th floor
of WTC 1, no substitute thermal protection
was installed in WTC 1 and nor
any in WTC 2; or, on the other hand, that
the substitute was that much
inferior to asbestos."
A ceramic substitute for asbestos was used, but
it was not nearly as
effective in protecting buildings against fire as
asbestos is (almost
The WTC collapsed due a fire that
is considered not as intense as the
fire in the Los Angeles skyscraper
known as the First Interstate Bank
building. That building easily
survived the intense fire. See http://www.hera.org.nz/PDF%20Files/World%20Trade%20Centre.pdf
You may also find this useful, fromhttp://ktla.trb.com/technology/chi-0109150190sep15.story
"I have to say the collapse of buildings this size is a little
surprising," said James Milke, associate professor of the University
Maryland's department of fire protection engineering, referring to
Trade Center towers.
Milke, who is chairman of an industry
committee looking at structural
design for fire conditions, described the
steel's performance as
"disappointing" when compared to that of steel
columns and beams in
other major fires in skyscrapers.
He points to the
nation's two largest previous fires in high-rise
A fire raged
for 19 hours on the 22nd floor of the 38-story Meridian
Bank Building in
Philadelphia in February 1991 and a blaze in May 1988
lasted for 3 1/2
hours in the 62-story First Interstate Bank in Los
building came close to collapse, although firefighters were
tackle them for some time, he says.
"How was the construction there
different from the Trade Center?" Milke
Corley, too, wants
answers to such questions but also cautions against
comparisons, given the
unique nature of the Trade Center collapse.
"Some of the fire protection
may have been compromised as debris from
above fell," said Corley. "This is
something we are looking at."
The buildings' fire protection measures
raise important questions.
When the 1,360-foot-tall towers opened in 1973,
they were thought to be
the first steel structures to use non-asbestos
to the National Council of Structural Engineers