• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

30 years before 9/11, fireproofing expert predicts collapse

1337m4n

Alphanumeric Anonymous Stick Man
1337m4n
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
3,510
From editorial by Steve Milloy...

Herbert Levine, a fireproofing inventor, reportedly said "If a fire breaks out above the 64th floor, [the WTC] will collapse" after his fireproofing was banned due to reports of danger from the asbestos it was based on. Because of this, the Twin Towers were only coated with asbestos fireproofing up to the 64th floor.

He was probably paid of by Jews to say that, though.
 
1337m4n;2746894He was probably paid of by Jews to say that said:
Hello: LEVINE


Some may say that it has French origins, but it's only one letter off from Levin!!!11!!eleventy!!!
Click to expand...
 
The article is factually incorrect. SFRM was applied on every floor of both towers. As a result of the ban on asbestos-based thermal protection, only the north tower (and probably pipes below ground) contained asbestos SFRM, and only through the 38th floor, not the 64th.

The person complaining was the owner of Asbestospray, a company that was no doubt inconvenienced by having to change its name! The non-asbestos SFRM met or exceeded code and passed U.L. tests when properly applied –– although getting it to adhere was an issue for people who were new at applying it at the WTC.
 
Gravy said:
The non-asbestos SFRM met or exceeded code and passed U.L. tests when properly applied –– although getting it to adhere was an issue for people who were new at applying it at the WTC.
Click to expand...

However, whether the non-asbestos SFRM was adhered and stayed adhered during the impact is an important issue. There are engineers who say the non-asbestos SFRM wasn't nearly as good in this regard. If so, then the lack of asbestos SFRM in the upper stories may indeed have played a role. But as in all things, there would have been a trade-off had society continued using asbestos for fire protection. How many would have gotten sick or died from doing that?
 
However, whether the non-asbestos SFRM was adhered and stayed adhered during the impact is an important issue. There are engineers who say the non-asbestos SFRM wasn't nearly as good in this regard.
Click to expand...

Still this is a mute point. Would anyone expect the insulation to say put after an aircraft collision.

I personally believe the towers performed well past their design spec. and saved many lives by doing so.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
The real function of the article was to plant the "fire-melts-steel" meme.
Click to expand...

I think where heading into a whole new realm of historical denial by the troofers. They've cut their teeth on pretending what happened on 9/11 and going with it and denying what happened in "isolated camps" across europe in the early forties, but I predict that in order to maintain their fantasies, they are going to delete more than two thousand years from their history books.

You ever hear of a little thing called the IRON AGE, Ace?
 
I very much doubt that you will find any manufacturer of fire protection to steelwork willing to verify that it will withstand the impact of an aircraft.
 
I should have said the "fire melted steel in the twin towers" meme. That idea came from "experts" such as engineers, quoted in the mainstream press. To this day, many people who have not researched 9/11 will tell you that is what happened.
 
I should have said the "fire melted steel in the twin towers" meme. That idea came from "experts" such as engineers, quoted in the mainstream press.
Click to expand...

I think you need to show me that quote. I know people say it came from the NIST or FEMA but in fact it didn't. I believe it was a truther spin. I could be wrong but I don't believe so.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I should have said the "fire melted steel in the twin towers" meme. That idea came from "experts" such as engineers, quoted in the mainstream press.
Click to expand...
Really? The thought that perhaps the mainstream press, who are not particularly good at reporting scientific or technical stories, got the quotes wrong or are misusing the word melted never occurred to you?

You don't need to melt the steel to get a collapse, all you need to do is weaken it enough so that it no longer can support the weight load it bears.
 
DGM said:
Still this is a mute point. Would anyone expect the insulation to say put after an aircraft collision.
Click to expand...

It's not moot at all. How easily SFRM is dislodged by vibrations and impact from fragments released during the collision is very important. The issue is how wide an area was affected. And NIST conducted tests to see what the collision might do so they clearly didn't really know the answer. By the way, note that in some of those tests the SFRM was still in place but the SFRM adhesive had debonded (allowing gas to get between it and the steel).
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I should have said the "fire melted steel in the twin towers" meme. That idea came from "experts" such as engineers, quoted in the mainstream press. To this day, many people who have not researched 9/11 will tell you that is what happened.
Click to expand...

Then where did all the molten steel in the rubble come from?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I should have said the "fire melted steel in the twin towers" meme. That idea came from "experts" such as engineers, quoted in the mainstream press. To this day, many people who have not researched 9/11 will tell you that is what happened.
Click to expand...

True, even many truthers are STILL saying this. People who are apparently hunting for the Truth can't even truthfully say what happened to the Twin Towers according to the official story.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I should have said the "fire melted steel in the twin towers" meme. That idea came from "experts" such as engineers, quoted in the mainstream press. To this day, many people who have not researched 9/11 will tell you that is what happened.
Click to expand...

I wonder if we have a problem with semantics here. I'm going to ask what may be a stupid question, but I would be obliged if you would answer it.

Mr Baker. When you speak of "melted steel" do you mean liquid steel, or steel that has been heated so that it is possible for the forces involved to distort it?

Thank you

Dave
 
Dave_46 said:
Mr Baker. When you speak of "melted steel" do you mean liquid steel, or steel that has been heated so that it is possible for the forces involved to distort it?
Click to expand...


I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that he's referring to the "liquid steel" referenced by eyewitnesses at ground-zero.
 
The fires did "melt" the steel, it just didnt make it molten, at least, so far as proof has been shown me, not prior to the collapse anyway.

There are some alleged eyewitness reports of "Molten Metal" seen at GZ post collapse. The rare occasion when someone has said "Molten Steel" was there, the person stating it had no expertese to declare what type of METAL they allegedly saw "molten".

TAM:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom