It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WTC steel was not protected above the 64th floor

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 01:13 AM
link   
www.npri.org...

the inventor of asbestos based fireproofing, H Levine stated...



In the years afterward, the man who had invented the original wet-asbestos spray fireproofing process, the late Herbert Levine, often voiced a warning.

“If a fire breaks out above the 64th floor, that building will fall down,” he frequently said, according to his lawyer and other professionals who knew him.


This is the man who invented a technique using asbestos to fireproof. 30 years ago he states that a fire would bring down the towers. Enviromental politics may have led to the collapse also, as stated in NIST, since the correct fireproofing was not used above the 64th floor.


and here is the same thing quoted 3 days after 9/11. I usually have to give 2 links for some people.





posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 01:26 AM
link   
I'm sure he would retract his statement today since the towers only burnt for 50 Minutes and 1 hour and 10 minutes or so. I could see and I think the rest of the Truth Seeking (not saying I can speakc for all of us) community could see those buildings collapse if it would have burnt for a long period of time. And the quote isn't even from him, its his lawyer restating things he supposedly said.

Mr. Levine seems to have been a fashion designer. If you can find more information on him though I would be glad to read it.

The only information I can find on Mr Levine before his involvement with this article.

Herbert Levine



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 01:28 AM
link   
That's really nothing. If you were a life insurance sellsman, would you be spouting that "if you don't have this or that, you'd be in trouble"? I mean selling asbestos fireproofing saying that if it didn't have it has no relevance. He's a sellsman.

Do you know how many times Firestone, GAF, Sureseal, etc. call me in one day stating that "if I don't use their waterproofing system" my detail will leak? I'll tell you at least once a day. So, you have to reach further than this to actually mean anything.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 01:35 AM
link   
I don't get why fireproofing is brought up so often when the fires would have been hard-pressed to heat bare steel to 600C. The insulation is just a non-issue. Those sooty fires were probably around 600 or 700 C themselves at most, and guess what? It would have been physically impossible for them to have radiated all that heat directly into the steel columns, and kept doing so until the steel was consistently heated all-around to even 600 C (steel is an excellent heat sink). Not to mention sooty smoke also carries off great amounts of heat, as would all that cool air and concrete slabs. Heat radiates in all directions, not just absorbed into steel.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Fireproofing had ALOT to do with what happened. It was one of 3 components that led to the collpase.

He was not a salesman, he was the inventor of the Levine process which used ASbestos in the fireproofing. The EPA made them stop applying it during construction, and this is a major factor to how the fireproofing was appiled above the 64th floor. There were never any safety tests during the construction. Here he is, 30 years prior, stating that if there was a fire it would collaspe.


Beat on by the same people. Oh well, not a big deal. I guess I will just quit trying to educate with some interesting facts. Peace guys.






[edit on 8-9-2006 by esdad71]



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   
What is not clear is if he is aware that the fireproofing and sprinkler systems were upgraded after the first arson at the WTC.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   
It was because of his original comments, along with others, that made them change install sprinklers, and upgrade fireproofing after the fire. You may want ot take a look at how much they got done though...



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
He was not a salesman, he was the inventor of the Levine process which used ASbestos in the fireproofing. The EPA made them stop applying it during construction, and this is a major factor to how the fireproofing was appiled above the 64th floor. There were never any safety tests during the construction. Here he is, 30 years prior, stating that if there was a fire it would collaspe.


You said it right there....he was the inventor of this product. Which means he would say anything to have them use his product. That's like me inventing a new waterproofing sealant and going around saying that if you don't use it, you are going to get a leak.


Beat on by the same people. Oh well, not a big deal. I guess I will just quit trying to educate with some interesting facts. Peace guys.


Also, I thought there was fireproofing...just not this kind of fireproofing. How could the plane impacts dislodge the fireproofing if there wasn't any? Your thread title is completely wrong and should be changed.

So, no fireproofing but the plane impacts dislodged it?
Keep trying esdad.







[edit on 9/8/2006 by Griff]



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   
I said they were not protected, not that there was no fireproofing. The type of fireproofing that was used is what was disputed and there were never any tests, which would tell me that it is not protected.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
www.npri.org...

the inventor of asbestos based fireproofing, H Levine stated...



In the years afterward, the man who had invented the original wet-asbestos spray fireproofing process, the late Herbert Levine, often voiced a warning.

“If a fire breaks out above the 64th floor, that building will fall down,” he frequently said, according to his lawyer and other professionals who knew him.


This is the man who invented a technique using asbestos to fireproof. 30 years ago he states that a fire would bring down the towers. Enviromental politics may have led to the collapse also, as stated in NIST, since the correct fireproofing was not used above the 64th floor.


and here is the same thing quoted 3 days after 9/11. I usually have to give 2 links for some people.



There was a show on TV last week (history or discovery channel, I forget) about how the towers fell.

They interviewed the chief design engineer of the WTC towers.

He said there was spray on fire insulation on all internal steel structures, but that the jet impacts caused the insulation to be instantly ejected from all steel girders directly affected by the impact. Sort of like taking a stick and dipping it in paint, then slapping the stick against the rim of the bucket--much of the paint will fly off the stick into your face.

As a result, I believe they are now considering requiring an impact-proof fire insulation on new buildings.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
I said they were not protected, not that there was no fireproofing.


The title of this thread is purposely MISLEADING.

The above statement by the author tells you why.

He has an agenda here.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join