WTC Theory

The plane chasis was made of aluminium. The towers steel support containing majority of iron (something like over 95 percent). If the towers support had not been galvinised or treated there would be iron oxide on the steelsupports ( this maybe to cut costs? very dangerous but possible!!!). The initial heat charge of the blast of the planes fuel tanks caused enough heat to react the aluminium with iron oxide(2Al(s) + Fe2O3(s) ---> Al2O3(l) + 2Fe(l) supports creating a thermite reaction. This reaction is one of the most intense explosive reactions chemically. It brings about enough heat to melt all metals including tungstun! This thermic blast would sheer the structure no doubt, therefore causing the tower to tople.

Link - Here! ()

There was no fire proofing on the steel above the 64th floor. The local "do-gooder" enviro-wackos stopped the use of asbestos fire proofing during construction. Ths stuctural steel was primed and painted. This was a tragety because of ENVIRONMENTAL WACKOS.

Originally posted by DrHoracid
There was no fire proofing on the steel above the 64th floor. The local "do-gooder" enviro-wackos stopped the use of asbestos fire proofing during construction. Ths stuctural steel was primed and painted. This was a tragety because of ENVIRONMENTAL WACKOS.

Actually, I believe it was a tragedy because of suicidal hijackers.

The attack was by Islamo-cowards. It was amplified due to the Enviro-wackos. Thousands of lives were lost due to the lack of fire proofing. FACT.

The lives were lost due to the wacko attackers Dr. I understand what you are trying to say, but without those planes impacting WTC, then the fact that there was no fire proofing above the 64th floor is moot.

[edit on 16-12-2004 by skippytjc]

I can't agree that asbestos should have been used in the WTC due to the cancer causing elements of it...it's just not safe. However, the fire proofing that they did use was NOT adequate and was not tested to be up to code.

Fireproofing on the steel floor supports in the World Trade Center was never tested and might have been too thin to hold up in a fire for the two-hour minimum set by the city building code, federal investigators said Wednesday.

The north tower fell about an hour and 45 minutes after terrorists attacked with the first hijacked jetliner. The south tower collapsed about an hour after it was struck. Nearly 2,800 people were killed.

According to an interim report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which is conducting a two-year probe, documents show builders in 1969 directed contractors to coat the floor supports with a half-inch of fluffy, spray-on fireproofing.

But the investigators are stumped as to how the building's owners, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, decided on that thickness.

www.thestate.com...

[edit on 16-12-2004 by sensfan]

There is no proof anywhere even to this day that asbestos is hazardous. Not one scientist has ever proven a link between any form of cancer and asbestos. The enviro-wackos that stopped the fire proofing should be sued in civil court for the deaths of 2800 persons. It was the Siera Club if I remember. Redford your going down!

Research has shown a clear link between exposure to asbestos and respiratory cancers (cancer of the lungs and mesothelioma) in humans. However, the link between exposure to asbestos and other types of cancers is less clear.

www.atsdr.cdc.gov...

That's good enough for me...no, it's not proof, but if there is a chance it can cause cancer and other ailments, I would prefer it not in a builing I work in. There are other fire proofing methods that are just as good, and might have prevented the towers from collapsing if they had been used properly.

Originally posted by DrHoracid

Fact

There is no proof anywhere even to this day that asbestos is hazardous. Not one scientist has ever proven a link between any form of cancer and asbestos. The enviro-wackos that stopped the fire proofing should be sued in civil court for the deaths of 2800 persons. It was the Siera Club if I remember. Redford your going down!

Mesothelioma Cancer

www.mesothelioma-cancer-treatment.com...

Mesothelioma is caused by inhaling asbestos. When a person breathes in asbestos fibers, they travel to the ends of the small air passages, and lodge in the lining of the lungs. These asbestos fibers interfere with mesothelial cells, in complex ways that doctors do not fully understand. In some cases they fibers cause scarring of the lungs called asbestosis, which is not cancerous. However, these fibers can trigger tumor growth many years after they are inhaled. When swallowed, asbestos fibers can also reach the lining of the abdominal cavity where they play a part in causing a cancer called peritoneal mesothelioma.
A latency period of 20 to 50 years or more between initial exposure and development of mesothelioma exists. While researchers document the average latency period as between 35 and 40 years, they have documented many instances when the period was less than 20 years.
The chances of suffering from mesothelioma rise with the intensity and duration of exposure to asbestos; however, numerous cases of mesothelioma occurred among people with very little occupational exposure or household exposure. Cases exist of people getting mesothelioma 30 or 40 years after a summer job working construction, and housewives or children being exposed from work clothing.
Prior to the mid-1970's, most insulation materials contained asbestos. Many other construction materials also contained asbestos, including, pipe insulation, boiler insulation, fireproofing spray, roof, floor and ceiling tiles, transite siding, and brakes shoes and clutches.
www.mesothelioma-cancer-treatment.com...

[edit on 16/12/2004 by Sauron]

www.freewebs.com...
www.mesothelioma-facts.com...

Just a few more links to support Sensfan's post. Not only the dangers from Cancer, but also Asbestosis, which sounds damned nasty to me. As usual with all these types of situations, where litigation and big business are involved, doctors tend to shy away from making sweeping statements regarding 'proof' of links to cancer. Ill bet that there are doctors who will still say that there is no definitive proof that smoking causes lung cancer, but just as I dont smoke, I dont fancy working or living in an asbestos filled environment !

I didn't check your reaction equation for correctness thoroughly but it seems to make sense on the surface. I applaud the use of actual chemistry in this discussion. Great work! I wish more posters would explain themselves on point rather than diverting to debates on whether asbestos is hazardous....thanks to them for playing our home game...we have some lovely parting gifts....

Well I do apologise for pointing out a flaw in somebodies argument, and backing it up with evidential links. I promise it will never happen again, instead, ill throw in a few unsubstantiated statements like 'well I think it was cos there were hidden explosive devices put there by the govt', that will get more reaction I guess.

I wonder if those almighty asbestos could have played a pivotal roll in saving buildings 3 to 7 on that tragic day.



Especially building 7 with the huge infernal fires that burned in a grand total of two offices!

"in complex ways that doctors do not fully understand." This quote says it all. They are still guessing....................

There are all ready a slew of threads about 9/11, WTC, I�m sure there is one listed in the link below that you can post to rather than starting a new thread with previously covered martial.

AboveTopSecret.com 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Master Index

These asbestos fibers interfere with mesothelial cells, in complex ways that doctors do not fully understand.

Perhaps you should have quoted the whole sentance. They are saying they do interfere, they just dont understand exactly how.

Originally posted by DrHoracid
There was no fire proofing on the steel above the 64th floor. The local "do-gooder" enviro-wackos stopped the use of asbestos fire proofing during construction. Ths stuctural steel was primed and painted. This was a tragety because of ENVIRONMENTAL WACKOS.

Dr. Horacid, after reading a number of your posts, I have come to the conclusion that you are a turd stirrer.

Furthermore, you have no idea what you are talking about.

First of all, the use of asbestos was not banned becuase of environmental concerns. It was banned because of very real and proven human health concerns. Asbestos related diseases still claim many lives today.

Secondly the fact that only portions of the fireproofing contained asbestos does not mean that there were portions of the fuilding that were not fireproofed, it just means that the fireproofing did not contain asbestos.

Originally posted by syntaxer
I wonder if those almighty asbestos could have played a pivotal roll in saving buildings 3 to 7 on that tragic day.

Especially building 7 with the huge infernal fires that burned in a grand total of two offices!

Uh, the whole building was on fire. The building sustained structural damage when the adjacent towers collapsed, the sprinkler system was not funtional due to the collapse of the adjacent towers, the fire burned for 7 hours before the building collapsed.

C'mon, even Steve McQueen wasn't immune to asbestos (all that coolness couldn't save him from asbestos). He died of a hear attack which was sustained while fighting off mesothelioma, which he had been exposed to while racing cars (his fire retardent suits).

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Uh, the whole building was on fire. The building sustained structural damage when the adjacent towers collapsed, the sprinkler system was not funtional due to the collapse of the adjacent towers, the fire burned for 7 hours before the building collapsed.

North and South towers fully erected without collapsing, and hey whatya know, a bunch of smoke rising up from ground. You're right! It must of been those intense fires raging in building 7 when this shot was taken..

Isn't this hard enough facts?
www.americanfreepress.net...

[edit on 16-12-2004 by syntaxer]