----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 3:29
Subject: RE: [cdn-nucl-l] Fw: reply
to WTC/asbestos inquiry
I suppose you can consider this as "controversial" if you give equal weight
to an official study of the conditions of failure of the WTC buildings
qualified engineers and architects and the blathering of a lawyer for
conservative association of doctors (not the AMA -- too liberal for
AAPS) speaking at a gathering of conservative propagandists of various
stripes. Jerry would seem to be the odd man out in that collection,
perhaps he can characterize that better than I.
A 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.
The WTC fire included both the jet fuel and the in-building combustibles,
plus the effect of the jetliner crashes which compromised the building
protection systems and probably shivered loose much of the spray-on
insulation. The other fires Schlafly cites involved only in-building
combustibles. One of the WTC buildings, WTC 7, I believe, was
high rise to fail due to a building fire, without only a large diesel
tank as a complicating factor.
You might want to read Michael Schermer's column in the current Scientific
American, "Why smart people believe weird things" or just go to the
of the official panel, available at <www.fema.gov>
and read what qualified
observers have to say.
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
These 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; firstname.lastname@example.org
Sent: 8/26/2002 9:12 PM
Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] Fw: reply to WTC/asbestos inquiry
This seems to be a very controversial topic.
Below is additional information from Andrew Schlafly.
August just seemed to be too quiet.
----- Original Message -----
From: Aschlafly@aol.com <mailto:Aschlafly@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 3:46 PM
Subject: reply to WTC/asbestos inquiry
To: Dr. Berol Robinson, Scientific Committee of the International
Association of Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy
Thank for your inquiry about my speech concerning the collapse of the
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,
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.
You may also find this useful, from
"I have to say the collapse of buildings this size is a little bit
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
Neither building came close to collapse, although firefighters were
unable to 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
the first steel structures to use non-asbestos fireproofing, according
to the National Council of Structural Engineers Association.
cdn-nucl-l mailing list